Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[maco2envy]

Good observation, it's probably fabricated like the other inscription.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Anyone ever notice how the Bitola inscription refers to the army of Basil II as "Greek". Odd as the term doesn't seem to have been very common at the time.

[maco2envy]

A really good podcast on Samuel and Basil II:

https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2017/10/27/episode-156-the-half-blind-leading-the-blind/

Goes over theories concerning the number of prisoners blinded and Basil II's captive policies. All rather surprising.

[Carlin]

''Greek'' and ''Greeks'' in the Works of Theophylact of Ohrid Written During his Stay in Macedonia, BY Grigori Simeonov

URL:

http://www.academia.edu/18135486/Greek_and_Greeks_in_the_Works_of_Theophylact_of_Ohrid_Written_During_his_Stay_in_Macedonia

[Liberator of Makedonija]

This is strange, considering we have documents from the 1500s and 1600s that speak of a Macedonian ethnicity and consciousnesses. But I guess historians have overlooked those documents.

Modern Romantic Nationalism is indeed a recent construction. Its roots date back to the late 18th century but it didn't really florish until the late 19th and early 20th centuries in most parts of the world. Any references to an ethnic identity prior to the late 18th century is likely an example of an earlier non-romantic form of Nationalism. I suppose you could call it 'Proto-Nationalism'

[Amphipolis]

...in Samuel's State ...

Hmmm... so this is how they call it now in local conferences.

[Carlin]

Vlach Military Units in the Byzantine Army, in Samuel's State and Byzantium: History, Legend, Tradition, Heritage. Proceedings оf the International Symposium "Days of Justinian I" (Skopje, 17-18 October, 2014), Edited by Mitko B. Panov, Skopje, 2015, 47-55

URL:

http://www.academia.edu/18072996/Vlach_Military_Units_in_the_Byzantine_Army_in_Samuels_State_and_Byzantium_History_Legend_Tradition_Heritage._Proceedings_%D0%BEf_the_International_Symposium_Days_of_Justinian_I_Skopje_17-18_October_2014_Edited_by_Mitko_B._Panov_Skopje_2015_47-55

[Amphipolis]

The picture of the skeleton when first found and a drawing (by Moutsopoulos) that recreates Samuel's face.

[Philosopher]

Bulgarian and Macedonian ethnic groups only began to acquire national consciousness in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Only during the past century and a half have Southeastern European Slavs gradually begun to assert their nationality and unify around several urban centers. Thus, the national affiliation of Samuel can neither be determined nor could it be relevant to today's situation in the region.

This is strange, considering we have documents from the 1500s and 1600s that speak of a Macedonian ethnicity and consciousnesses. But I guess historians have overlooked those documents.

[Amphipolis]

Here are the remains of Samuel in the Byzantine Museum of Thessaloniki, presented to the Bulgarian President about a month ago.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I am more inclined towards Tsar Samoil, what do people think about Basil II?

Why are you more inclined towards Samoil? Personally, I find good things about both of them, and perhaps some not so good things (depending on how one looks at it).

[lavce pelagonski]

I am more inclined towards Tsar Samoil, what do people think about Basil II?

Самуиловото царство - YouTube

[makedonche]

Krivan
In short, more people telling us who we are or who we were! When are we going to start telling them who we are and stop waiting for them to determine our status?

[Krivan]

An University of Texas LRC blog post on Samuil.

An issue that frequently arises in connection with the LRC's lesson series Old Church Slavonic Online is the national or cultural or other affiliation of the famous Tsar Samuel (or Samuil, or somewhat more faithfully Samoilŭ). In the context of the lesson series, Samuel is mentioned as author of a particular inscription that provides the oldest dated text in the Old Church Slavonic language. To be clear: that is the only reason for Samuel's mention in the lesson series, which concerns itself primarily with the language of a particular region and time.

Nevertheless, the series editors have on numerous occasions been reminded by readers that Samuil's status as a prominant early figure in Bulgarian and Macedonian history is a great source of either pride or animosity. We would like to state flatly that the Linguistics Research Center does not espouse any particular viewpoint re: Samuil's association with any modern or historically recent political entity.

There are several themes that recur in email that our readers send us, and in the spirit of furthering modern understanding of historical cultures it is worth addressing some of these themes in light of modern scholarship.

Samuil's ethnic origin: The perennial question is whether Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian. The simple fact is that it is difficult to answer this question, because what those terms mean now is not necessarily what they would have meant to Samuil. Moreover, one of the few primary sources in any way contemporary with Samuil, written by Asolik, states that Samuil was in fact Armenian. As Adontz (1938) points out, the name of Samuil's mother, Ripsime, is peculiar to a specific region in Armenia, and his father's name Nicolas is found in numerous regions at that time, among them Armenia. Thus an Armenian origin for Samuil is certainly a credible, though perhaps not the only, reading of the evidence presented to date.

Samuil's cultural self-identification: As many point out, what we in the modern era think about Samuil's cultural affiliation is moot if we know what he thought of himself. Unfortunately, that's not easy to determine. Though Samuil and later members of his family used, in reference to their cultural affiliation, terms we might now render as "Bulgarian," given the political climate and power struggles of his time it is quite difficult to ascertain to what degree this term truly specified a traditional culture, or to what degree it might rather have specified a political entity defining the empire. It is quite possible that "Bulgarian" meant to Samuil something similar to what "Roman" likely meant to Charlemagne, who neither lived in nor hailed from Rome.

General import: The above points hopefully provide an inkling of the grave difficulties that surround the interpretation of the small amount of information we have concerning Samuil. Certainly there is room for continued refinement in our understanding. But we would do well to keep in mind points raised by Aleksandar Panev:

"The differences in the various historical accounts of Samuel, who ruled a short-lived kingdom centered in Prespa and Ohrid from 976 to 1014, reflect recent nationalistic controversies and scholarly discourses that have emerged in the scholarly literature of modern Macedonia and Bulgaria. The dispute focuses on Samuel's ethnic affiliation and the alleged nationality of his subjects. On one hand, scholars from the Republic of Macedonia tend to emphasize the cultural, social, and even linguistic distinctiveness of Samuel's kingdom. On the other, Bulgarian scholars emphasize the fact that Samuel used the Bulgarian name for himself and his kingdom and the beginnings of his career in southwestern Macedonia are rarely mentioned. Both approaches clearly aim to support present-day nationalistic claims and agendas. The Macedonians need this approach in order to demonstrate that they have long been a separate nationality with their own language and history; the Bulgarian interpretation, on the other hand, supports the claim that Macedonians are essentially Bulgarians by ethnic origin, as well as by cultural and linguistic characteristics. Both approaches are anachronistic. It is indeed difficult to speak about the national consciousness of a short-lived medieval ruler and his subjects and to discuss his impact on national development at a time when the majority of the population was illiterate and boundaries were fluid. Moreover, the only primary source that discusses the ethnic affiliation of Samuel asserts that he was an Armenian by origin. Bulgarian and Macedonian ethnic groups only began to acquire national consciousness in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Only during the past century and a half have Southeastern European Slavs gradually begun to assert their nationality and unify around several urban centers. Thus, the national affiliation of Samuel can neither be determined nor could it be relevant to today's situation in the region." (Panev, 2005)

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/blog/samuel.html

[Soldier of Macedon]

Below is a picture of a certified museum terracota copy of a ceramic cup with the 16-ray Ancient Macedonian sun, dated the 3rd century BC and excavated in the Ohrid fortress of Samuel. It is currently in the hands of the 'Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments and the National Museum of Ohrid'. Given the place where it was recovered, it is likely that such items from antiquity were used in a decorative if not practical manner in the capital of Samuel's state in Macedonia.



Here is another item from Samuel's fortress.



The below picture is of a flag depicting Alexander that was created in the 10th century and is currently found in the W�rzburg museum (Bavaria). Earlier in this thread there is an article which suggests that it may have been an Easter gift by Samuel and Aaron to Western Roman Emperor Otto III. Samuel visited the emperor in Quedlinburg during 973 seeking recognition for his state. It would be good to confirm how the museum came by this flag.