Macedonian Truth Forum

Macedonian Truth Forum (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/index.php)
-   Macedonian History (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=879)

Bratot 12-19-2008 08:54 PM

“Britannica“ : Samuel- MACEDONIAN Tsar!
 
[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Blue"]Samuel tsar of Macedonia [/COLOR][/SIZE]
died Oct. 6, 1014, Prilep, Macedonia

tsar of Western Bulgaria, or Macedonia, from 980; his realm was successor to the First Bulgarian empire.

Ruling originally in Macedonia, Samuel then conquered independent Serbia and further extended his power into northern Bulgaria, Albania, and northern Greece. He established his capital at Ochrida (now Ohrid, Macedonia) and revived the Bulgarian patriarchate. In the 980s he defeated the Byzantine emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus near Sofia, but from 997 the intermittent struggle with the Byzantines went against him. Finally, on July 29, 1014, Basil overwhelmed Samuel in the Battle of Belasitsa. At Basil’s order, the Bulgarian prisoners (said to number 15,000) were blinded and returned to Samuel, who fainted from shock and soon died. He was succeeded by his son Gavril (murdered in 1015) and a nephew Ivan (killed in battle in 1018), after which Bulgaria became a Byzantine province.

[url]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520801/Samuel[/url]



Грешката е исправена!!!


П.С. Check this out :p

[url]http://www.vmro.bg/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=337[/url]

Risto the Great 12-19-2008 10:02 PM

Western Bulgaria?
Bulgarian patriarchate?

SoM ..... yoohoo ;-)

Soldier of Macedon 12-20-2008 02:50 AM

[QUOTE=Risto the Great;6366]Western Bulgaria?
Bulgarian patriarchate?

SoM ..... yoohoo ;-)[/QUOTE]
:)

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate, the Bulgarian label a mere remnant from the time of the Bulgarian Empire, which was also further reinforced by the establishment of the East Roman theme known as the 'Bulgaria Theme', which, oddly enough, included modern Macedonian and Serbian territory, but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.

TerraNova 12-20-2008 04:29 AM

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;6368]:)

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate, the Bulgarian label a mere remnant from the time of the Bulgarian Empire, which was also further reinforced by the establishment of the East Roman theme known as the 'Bulgaria Theme', which, oddly enough, included modern Macedonian and Serbian territory, but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.[/QUOTE]

Britannica is rather clear.
ALL the sources i m aware of ,call Samuel,his army,his people and his state Bulgarian.

Daskalot 12-20-2008 04:47 AM

I see that you accept Britannica in that particular case, what about this one then on the ethnic composition of Greece;
[URL="http://www.macedoniantruth.org/2008/10/18/encyclopedia-britannica-the-real-ethnic-composition-of-greece-includes-macedonians-2008/"]http://www.macedoniantruth.org/2008/10/18/encyclopedia-britannica-the-real-ethnic-composition-of-greece-includes-macedonians-2008/[/URL]

Soldier of Macedon 12-20-2008 05:10 AM

[QUOTE]ALL the sources i m aware of ,call Samuel,his army,his people and his state Bulgarian.[/QUOTE]
And the explanation of why is given above. Could you by any chance show where any state, army and people are collectively called "Hellenic" during the same period? I'm all ears.

Nice link Daskale.
[url]http://macedoniantruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/britannica_greece_2008-small1.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE]Britannica is rather clear.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. My, my, one wonders how many of today's modern Greeks are actually descended from native Greek-speaking populations in what constitutes modern Greece (today). Well, I guess the first Greek constitution answers most of that.

TerraNova 12-20-2008 06:11 AM

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;6375]And the explanation of why is given above. Could you by any chance show where any state, army and people are collectively called "Hellenic" during the same period? I'm all ears.
[/quote]
Even there are plenty examples of the use of the term Ellinas,instead of Romios (Ioannis Vatatzes,Choniatis,Anna Comnena,etc)
i don't denounce the term Romios-it is used until now..meaning the same.
Romios and Ellinas are the same.
Do you think Bulgarian and Macedonian are the same too?


[quote]
Nice link Daskale.
[url]http://macedoniantruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/britannica_greece_2008-small1.jpg[/url]
[/quote]
Nice...but doesn't support your delusions :)

[quote]
Well, I guess the first Greek constitution answers most of that.[/QUOTE]

I guess firstGreekConstitution needs a surgery to be removed from your head.
Its like a tumor.

Soldier of Macedon 12-20-2008 07:23 AM

[QUOTE]Even there are plenty examples of the use of the term Ellinas,instead of Romios (Ioannis Vatatzes,Choniatis,Anna Comnena,etc)[/QUOTE]
None of these people were commoners or even regular folk, they were educated and/or royalty. And their content is not at all substantial with regard to a collective and common 'Hellenic' identity shared by any sort of masses, of course, please exhibit the relevant texts if you think otherwise.
[QUOTE]i don't denounce the term Romios-it is used until now..meaning the same.[/QUOTE]
Yes you do, and no it isn't.
[QUOTE]Romios and Ellinas are the same.[/QUOTE]
Have you had your medicine? East Roman priests cursed the 'Hellenic' name as heresy and devil worshipping, the East Romans historically despised the names of 'Greek' and 'Hellene'. Do you really need me to show you some more examples of the differences between Romans and Hellenes or would you like to quit while you are still stumbling to the floor?
[QUOTE]Do you think Bulgarian and Macedonian are the same too?[/QUOTE]
I think the relevance is equal of both the 'Roman' and 'Bulgarian' names where it concerns their use by the Macedonians during various stages in history. After the dust settles, the same people are there regardless of the names used due to belonging in a state or adherence to a religious group, the same people, the Macedonians.
[QUOTE]Nice...but doesn't support your delusions[/QUOTE]
There is only one person that has delusions here mate, the same one who claims that Romans and Hellenes are the same.
[QUOTE]I guess firstGreekConstitution needs a surgery to be removed from your head.
Its like a tumor.[/QUOTE]
I think each time reference is made to it you receive pains in your head on par with a tumor, which prompts an impulsive reaction on par with a moron.

Bratot 12-20-2008 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;6368]:)

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate,[QUOTE] the Bulgarian label a mere remnant from the time of the Bulgarian Empire, which was also further reinforced by the establishment of the East Roman theme known as the 'Bulgaria Theme', which, oddly enough, included modern Macedonian and Serbian territory,[/QUOTE] but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.[/QUOTE]



Exactly the point you mentioned, to understand the terms which were applied back than, we shouldn't lead ourself from the present point of view.

And I absolutelly agree with you about establishment od Ohrid Patriarchate by Samoul, anyway the creation of themes:

[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/miskoni_album/creationofthemes.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/miskoni_album/creationofthemesBIGMAP.jpg[/IMG]


And this is much more earlier than Samoul's reign, we can find all kind of misleading conclusions if we are not aware of the meaning that those terms had back than.

TerraNova 12-20-2008 03:40 PM

Why you think this region was called Theme of Bulgaria ?

Svoliani 12-20-2008 05:49 PM

'He defeated the Byzantine emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus '

Just so you know Bulgaroctonus translates to Bulgar Slayer , hence the name Basil the Bulgar Slayer not Basil the Macedonian Slayer.

Quoting encyclopedias will get you nowhere and showing maps from 610AD will get you nowhere as well cause i see a place called Thessalonica, is this the city you call Solun today??

makedonin 12-20-2008 06:46 PM

[QUOTE=TerraNova;6401]Why you think this region was called Theme of Bulgaria ?[/QUOTE]
If theme Bulgaria was called so cause of the reason you think it was or you alude, than what about Theme Paistrion?

The Modern Bulgarians should be called Paistrians,Macedonians and Thracians, which they are not cause they inhabit the Theritories of these Themes.

The Area of Seres was Theme Strymon, where are this Strimonians of yours???
Where are those Nikoponians from Theme Nikopolis???

In Theme of Bulgaria also the Lerin i.e. Florina Region was included, which you now so proudly pronounce as pure Greek!

And the Theme Tessalonika was where till south Tessaly, where are this Tessalnonians you claim them now Greeks!

[B]Byzantine Themes were that what they were, [U]Administrative Regions which had [COLOR="Red"]nothing to do with Ethnic Groups.[/COLOR][/U][/B]

[url]http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Byzantine_Macedonia_1045CE.svg&filetimestamp=20080404050014[/url]


Basil was called Macedonian, cause he was from Theme Macedonia, and he was Bulgaroknotos cause Samuil was ruling almost the whole of the Territory of Byzantine Theme Bulgaria.

Daskalot 12-20-2008 06:58 PM

Bulgarian and Servian or Voulgaroi and Servi are most likely names of the classes which the people belonged to, the Servi were Serfs to the Romeoi(Romans, which were citizens), the Voulgaroi or Vulgars were the common people(ie peasants).

TerraNova 12-21-2008 03:54 AM

[QUOTE=makedonin;6412]If theme Bulgaria was called so cause of the reason you think it was or you alude, than what about Theme Paistrion?

[/quote]

Para+Istrion =Beside Istros(=Danube) river.
Its a Geographical term.

[quote]
The Area of Seres was Theme Strymon, where are this Strimonians of yours???
Where are those Nikoponians from Theme Nikopolis???
[/quote]
Geographical terms too. Strymon(=Struma) river. Nicopolis town.


[quote]
[B]Byzantine Themes were that what they were, [U]Administrative Regions which had [COLOR="Red"]nothing to do with Ethnic Groups.[/COLOR][/U][/B]
[/quote]
I didnt claim anything like that.[B]
But you stile don't have a reason ...an explanation.[/B]

[quote]
Basil was called Macedonian, cause he was from Theme Macedonia, and he was Bulgaroknotos cause Samuil was ruling almost the whole of the Territory of Byzantine Theme Bulgaria.[/QUOTE]
1st Basil the Macedonian(i) was NOT Basil Bulgaroktonos.(ii).

2nd[B].Byzantine Theme of Bulgaria was created AFTER the conquest of Samuel's state.[/B]
It WASN'T there before.

Soldier of Macedon 12-21-2008 04:08 AM

[QUOTE]Para+Istrion =Beside Istros(=Danube) river.
Its a Geographical term.


Geographical terms too. Strymon(=Struma) river. Nicopolis town.[/QUOTE]
Bulgaria was also a geographical term at the time, just like Paraistrion.

Bratot 01-05-2009 03:03 PM

Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia
 
I would like to ask about more information on this subject, is anyone able to add something more on this?


---

Охридска архиепископија или Охридска патријаршија?
Според д-р Петар Поповски, кој многу години се занимава со историјата на Македонската православна црква, дилеми нема: [B]Охридската архиепископија била крената на ниво на патријаршија во 999 година со благослов на тогашниот папа Гргур Петти и така опстојувала сe до 1767 година, кога турскиот султан со декрет иреде го спречил нејзиното самостојно дејствување[/B]. Според некои познавачи на работите, фактот што тој чин го направил султанот како [B][U]иноверен[/U] владетел во Македонија, оди во прилог на тезата дека, всушност, Охридската архиепископија никогаш и не била укината. [/B]Податоците за подигањето на Охридската архиепископија на ниво на патријаршија, кој во последниот број на †Македонско времееи ги реактуализира Поповски, за Македонската православна црква не се спорни, но таа не располага со релевантни податоци за тој период од постоењето на Црквата на овие простори.
За нас тие се добредојдени, вели митрополитот преспанско-пелагониски г. Петар и додава: †Нам ни се познати податоците од документите за период на Охридската архиепископија, зашто нејзините челници се потпишувале како архиепископи, а не како патријарси. Меѓутоа, доколку постојат пишани документи, тоа ќе биде одлична можност за поширока расправа.[B] Според мои сознанија, патријаршискиот степен Ј бил укинат со распадот на Самуиловата држава во 1018 година, кога Василиј Велики ја деградирал Охридската патријаршија и ја спушта на степен на архиепископија, оставајќи Ј го автокефалниот статус. [/B]Така, во тоа време постоеле само две автокефални цркви - Охридската архиепископија и Цариградската патријаршија. За нас е од особено значење податокот дека првиот архиепископ на Охридската архиепископија во тоа време, во периодот од 1018 до 1037 година бил Јован Дебарскиии.
Според сознанијата на д-р Поповски, презентирани во †Македонско времееи, царот Самуил во неколку наврати се обраќал до папата да ја именува Охридската архиепископија како патријаршија.[COLOR="Blue"][B] Во 999 година, папата Гргур Петти, кој заради старост не можел да дојде и лично да го донесе светото папско миро, како свој претставник го испратил надбискупот, кој со специјално канонско послание, потврдено со папскиот потпис ја подигнал Охридската архиепископија на ниво на патријаршија. Тогаш, Охридската црква веќе и формално-правно станала патријаршија[/B][/COLOR]. Со дипломата, папата Гргур Петти му ја испратил и златната царска круна, а Охридската црква, по Цариградската, станала втора црква на Балканскиот Полуостров со статус на патријаршија, со таа разлика, како што објаснува Поповски, [B]што Цариградската станала патријаршија само по државна линија, а не и според евангелските правила и канони кои обврзувале унапредувањето да го изврши некој повисок духовен авторитет, од црква основана од апостол, што не било случај со неа.[/B]Во 999 година во патријаршиската Соборна црква во Охрид, пишува †Македонско времееи, била одржана свечена литургија, на која во присуство на болјарите и на високиот црковен клир, [B]со папско миро Самуил бил крунисан за цар, а архиепископијата Прима Јустинијана била прогласена за патријаршија.[/B] Но, за нас е посебно значење делот за територијалните аспирации на тогашната српска и бугарска држава кои како крајна цел го имале намалувањето на влијанието на Охридската црква врз црковниот живот во тие земји, ама и во земјите на Дакија, Малорусија, Украина и Русија. Многу подоцна, отцепувањето на српските епархии од Охрид и потврдувањето на автокефалноста на Српската црква од страна на никејскиот патријарх Емануел, предизвикало остра реакција кај тогашниот поглавар на Охридската црква, Димитрие Хоиматијан, тврди д-р Поповски.
Тој жестоко се спротивставил и од патријархот Емануел побарал веднаш да го повлече своето решение, предупредувајќи го дека извршил антиканонски акт.[B] Патријархот Хоматијан, кој по потекло бил Грк, бил револтиран од овој чин и во договор со Охридскиот патријаршиски синод, преку скопскиот епископ Јован, му испратил протестно писмо на новопроизведениот српски архиепископ Сава, со кое го предупредува дека ќе го отстрани од Црквата ако не се покае. Конкретно, [COLOR="blue"]во писмото пишувало дека Охридската патријаршија претставува мајка-црква[/COLOR].[/B] Каков бил повратниот одговор не е познато, меѓутоа, во време на српскиот крал Стеван Радослав (1228-1242), Српската црква ги возобновила односите со Охридската патријаршија, бидејќи ја сметала за своја мајка-водителка. Интересен е податокот дека српскиот цар Душан во време на своето владеење не посегнал по автокефалноста на Охридската црква, ниту пак по нејзините права и привилегии зашто ја сметал за продолжение на Јустинијана Прима. Нејзините права и привилегии тој дури и ги потврдил во познатиот Душанов законик, а ниту еден акт на српската црква во тоа време не смеел да биде потпишан од српскиот архиепископ, додека не бил ставен печатот на Охридската архиепископија.

На потег се историчарите, чиј придонес би бил особено важен во периодот кога Соборот на СПЦ се обидува на територијата на Македонија да инсталира своја паралелна црква. Но, податоците кои ги презентира д-р Петар Поповски за нас се важни и заради фактот што првпат се објавува и листа на поглаварите на православната Македонска црква.

[url]http://217.16.70.245/?pBroj=1809&stID=38434&pR=3[/url]



Само надополнување:

Во втората половина на X век, за време на владеењето на цар Самоил, врз нивната црковно-образовна активност била основана автокефалната Црква - Охридска Патријархија. По паѓањето на Самуиловото Царство, Охридската Патријархија била сведена на степен на Архиепископија и како таква постоела осум века, сč до 1767 година по Христос кога била укината од страна на Турскиот султан Мустафа III, а нејзините епархии биле присоединети кон Цариградската Патријархија.

[url]http://www.wcdarc-ohrid.org/Default.aspx?id=40[/url]


After obtaining the Pope's blessing, Samuel promoted the Macedonian Church to the rank of a patriarchate. Ohrid then became the ecclesiastical and czaristic centre of the Macedonian State and grew into a true medieval metropolis.

[url]http://www.ohrid.org.mk/eng/istorija/samuil.htm[/url]



I'll appreciate your help, thanks.

M.

Bratot 01-05-2009 03:08 PM

Some additional info I found, not directly related to my question thread but clearly underlining the close Vatikan relations.

Metropolitan Theodosius (Teodosij) Gologanov deals with the history of the unlawful abolishment of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in 1767 and demands its restoration in union with the Roman Catholic Church

-------------
Theodosius, the metropolitan of Skopje, to Pope Leo XIII

4th December 1891

To the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII Rome

I, the undersigned Metropolitan of Skopje, Theodosius, by Gods Mercy head of the Skopje eparchy, am submitting this request both in my name and in the name of the whole Orthodox flock of Macedonia, with which we are begging His Holiness [B]to accept us under the wing of the Roman Catholic Church[/B], after he has restored the ancient Archbishopric of Ohrid, unlawfully abolished by Sutlan Mustapha III in 1767, and put it in canonical unity with the Roman Catholic Church. [B]Our desire springs from the historical right of the Orthodox Macedonian people to be freed from the jurisdiction of foreign Churches [/B]- the Bulgarian Exarchate and Constantinople Patriarchate - and be united in its own Orthodox Church, acquiring all the characteristic features of a people who have a right to independent spiritual and cultural life and education.

Your Holiness, please have in mind the specific traits of the Orthodox religion, which the Orthodox people will never renounce; they are: independence as regards faith, the church services and the priests' attire.

I recommend myself to Your prayers and humbly bow to You, Your brother in Jesus Christ, who prays for You,

4th December 1891 Skopje

Theodosius, Metropolitan of Skopje

Soldier of Macedon 01-06-2009 07:03 AM

The Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia reached the level of Patriarchate briefly during the reign of Samuel's Empire, after which it was demoted in rank to an Archbishopric by Basil (II) the Macedonian Emperor of East Rome.

It retained special rights and autonomy, and Basil even selected a Macedonian called Jovan from Debar to be the first Archbishop. Unfortunately, for a period afterwards all subsequent bishops were Greek-speakers, although, this never discouraged the local Macedonians from considering it their mother church. In reality, its degree of freedom could be interpreted as being of 'Patriarch' status as it was virtually independent and nearly always supported by much of the population in the Macedonian region during times of revolt and statehood, some outstanding instances being that of Tsar Samuel, King Marko and Metropolitan Theodosius.

The freedom of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia and its willingness to stand behind local rulers, as did the population from the Macedonian region, demonstrates the importance of this institution for us as Macedonians.

Bratot 01-06-2009 07:16 AM

Can we find some articles about this, noted somewhere?

Soldier of Macedon 01-06-2009 07:46 AM

You just read a little one;)

If you like I can follow up some sources and show you where I draw my information.

Bratot 01-06-2009 08:02 AM

Yes, of course.

Thats why I started this thread, be kind and share all info you have. :)

Daskalot 01-06-2009 11:37 AM

Bratot here are all the letters I have found from Teodosij of Skopje
[URL="http://www.macedoniantruth.org/2008/03/06/teodosij-renewal-of-the-archbishopric-of-ohrid-1891/"]http://www.macedoniantruth.org/2008/03/06/teodosij-renewal-of-the-archbishopric-of-ohrid-1891/[/URL]

TrueMacedonian 01-15-2009 11:05 PM

Macedonians Are Not Bulgars!!!
 
[url]http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/50566[/url]

[B]Macedonians are not Bulgars[/B]
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
January 29, 2008

In the deliberately confused political landscape of the Central Balkans, historical truth, moral standards, ideological clarity, and political resoluteness are necessary for all if peace, progress and prosperity are truly sought after.

The fabricated nationalistic falsehood, diffused in various Balkan countries by entrapped chauvinistic parties, associations and organizations, has far reaching consequences that the various propagandists cannot even imagine; this is the reason they stick to their historical falsehood that will finally be detrimental to them as well. Few have perceived so far the real end of the nationalisms incited in most of the Balkan states by the Anglo-French colonial establishments since the early 19th century; even fewer can see clearly the impending dangers due to the chauvinistic rekindling perpetrated again by the Anglo-French diplomats and advisors since 1991.

One of the worst lies diffused among various Balkan peoples is the assumption that the Modern Macedonians are Bulgarians; the argument is mostly linguistic and has to do with the apparent vicinity between the Macedonian and the Bulgarian languages.

It would be parallel to the hypothesis that the Portuguese are Spaniards, because Portuguese and Castillan Spanish have great similarities. Indeed, before 500 years the Galician language of NW Spain (gallego) and Portuguese were one and the same Iberian language (named gallego – portugues); they diverged in more recent eras. However, as no nationalistic feelings were involved in this case, not a single Spaniard ever denied the authenticity of the Portuguese nation and language. Unfortunately, the same did not happen in the case of the Macedonians.

I am delighted to have gone through an excellent essay composed by two great Macedonian scholars and intellectuals, Aleksandar Donski and Risto Stefov, that focuses precisely on this subject; indeed, the Macedonians have nothing to do with the Bulgars, and even most Bulgarians are not Bulgars – to repeat here the subtitle of this excellent analysis. Before publishing here integrally the pertinent contribution that completely clarifies the issue, I will present a brief biographical sketch of the two intellectuals.

Alexander Donski was born in 1960 in Štip, Republic of Macedonia; he is a Macedonian historian, writer and translator. He is known for his work about Macedonian history in which he argues for ethnic continuity between modern Slav Macedonians and the ancient population of Macedon, as well as for an ancient and fundamental ethnic distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Donski[/url]).

Risto Stefov, was born in 1953 in the village Oshchima, Lerin / Florina Region, in Macedonian Greece. As his family immigrated to Canada in 1966, Risto completed his secondary education in Canada (Westview Centennial Secondary School) and in 1978 got his Bachelor in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto. Risto was recruited by the Village Association Benefit Society Oshchima (formed in 1907) where he served for many years on the board of directors and was later voted President, a title which he holds to this day. In the early 1990´s, he joined the newly formed Lerin Region Macedonian Cultural Association of Ontario where he served on the board of directors for two terms as treasurer and just recently completed his second term as President.

[B]Macedonians are not Bulgars[/B]

(Even most Bulgarians are not Bulgars)

By Aleksandar Donski and Risto Stefov

January 24, 2008

It is high time the truth be known that Bulgarians know very little about their own history. It is a well known fact that Bulgarian propaganda has influenced many Macedonians to believe that they are Bulgarian but the facts show differently.

Let us begin by asking some questions like: "Who were the Bulgars of History?", "How do these historic Bulgars relate to the modern Bulgarians?" and "Could these Bulgars be the ancestors of the modern Macedonians?"

Before answering the above questions we need to make a couple of points:

(1) According to mainstream history to which most of the world subscribes today, the Slavs arrived in the Balkans around the 5th and 6th centuries AD while the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans about a century and a half later.

(2) Also according to mainstream history, the Bulgars were Oriental people who had names like Kubrat, Omurtag, Telec, Toktu, Pagan, Cok, etc., and spoke an Asiatic language.

A common argument Bulgarians make today is that Tsar Samoil´s kingdom was "Bulgarian" and that Macedonian historiographers are attempting to hide this from the world. Is this true?

According to mainstream history Tsar Samoil ruled a vast region that encompassed today´s Bulgaria , Macedonia , Greece , Albania , Montenegro , Serbia , Bosnia and even Croatia . But if we are to believe the Bulgarians that Samoil´s kingdom was Bulgarian then we must also believe that there were no Macedonians, Greeks, Albanians, Montenegrins, Serbians, Bosnians or Croatians in Samoil´s kingdom and that all these people were actually "Bulgarians"!

The truth is that Tsar Samoil´s kingdom was a multi-ethnic kingdom and the same can be said about his army. Clearly Macedonia was the center of Samoil´s kingdom where he had his capitals but he recruited his soldiers from the various ethnic groups living in his vast kingdom.

So, the Bulgarian argument that Samoil´s kingdom was Bulgarian is clearly false.

How then do we account for some Byzantine authors calling Samoil´s army ´Bulgar´?"

There are historic documents that show that Byzantine authors did use the word "Bulgars" to refer to Samoil´s soldiers. These however were not ethnic references. These were more like references to a certain "class" of people.

When the "Bulgars" arrived in the Balkans around the 7th century AD, their behaviour seemed unusual and barbaric. They were described by some as wild and highly uncivilized barbaric people who ate raw meat and buried their prisoners alive. In the eyes of the more cultivated Byzantines, besides being barbaric, these "Bulgars" seemed "uneducated", "primitive" and "dirty". With time the word "Bulgar" too became associated with "uneducated", "primitive" and "dirty".

Even today in modern Greek the word "bulgar" means "primitive". The French too define "Bulgar poetry" as the poetry of "common people". In some Macedonian dialects the verb "se izbugari" means "to have become rotten".

Therefore it would appear that some Byzantine authors called Samoil´s soldiers "Bulgars" not because they were ethnic Bulgarians but because they looked poor, dirty and seemed uneducated and primitive like the real Bulgars.

Assuming that during Tsar Samoil´s reign Macedonians were actually "Bulgars" as the modern Bulgarians would have us believe, then "Who were the historical Bulgars from whom they descended?"

Mainstream history tells us that the first Bulgars arrived in the Balkans around the 7th century AD and established their first State in the northeastern part of present day Bulgaria in 681 AD. If we are to believe that, and we have no reason not to, then who lived in Macedonia before the arrival of the Bulgars?

Those who subscribe to the "Slav migration theory" would say it was the Slavs who lived in Macedonia and had lived there for at least one and a half centuries before the arrival of the Bulgars.


Those who believe that the Macedonians descended from the ancient Macedonians, would say Macedonians lived in Macedonia at least a thousand years before the arrival of the Bulgars.

History also tells us that the "Bulgars" never settled in Macedonia . They may have looted and pillaged Macedonia but they never settled there. In fact when the Bulgars conducted campaigns in Macedonia they conducted them against the Macedonians.

Byzantine author Leonnis Diakonis in his book "History" wrote: "In September, Simeon the Bulgarian, advanced with his army against Constantinople . He robbed Thrace and Macedonia where he devastated and ruined everything." This testimony is taken from a Bulgarian history book (GIBI).

Nicholaos Mystikos also offers testimony about Bulgarian Middle Age terror in Macedonia : "ruined homes, burned churches and monasteries, raped virgins and tortured priests..."

There are many such testimonies of Bulgarian atrocities committed in Macedonia . Why would the Bulgars do that to themselves if Macedonians were truly Bulgarian?

If we are to assume, as some Bulgarians have done, that the Macedonians have descended from the Bulgars, then we need to have some basis for "when" the Macedonians became "Bulgars"; what century, what year and what month on which to make our assumptions? Obviously such information does not exist because the Macedonians are not and never where Bulgars!

Again then why are such claims still made? From what we know from history the Bulgars did invade Macedonia a couple of times for short periods of time during the Middle Ages. Unfortunately this act alone does not qualify as a valid reason for Macedonians to have become Bulgars. This is like saying because of Hitler´s occupation of France for four years, the French people are now ethnic Germans.

The most obvious reason of course for Macedonians and others to be claiming to be Bulgars then is the same reason as Macedonians claimed to be Turks, Greeks, Serbians, etc., later and that is because by doing so they had something to gain.

Even today, after Yugoslavia ´s disintegration we have some 200 self declared Yugoslavs living in Macedonia . Why? Especially since Yugoslavia no longer exists? These people declared themselves Yugoslavs because they obviously had some personal connection to Yugoslavia and not necessarily because they were "ethnic Yugoslavs". Similarly some Macedonians during the Middle Ages declared themselves Bulgars because they had something to gain.

Another point to make is that there were no declared Yugoslavians in Macedonia before Yugoslavia came to exist just as there were no declared Bulgarians in Macedonia before the Bulgars invaded and briefly occupied parts of Macedonia in the 9th century.

Unlike Bulgaria or Yugoslavia however, the names Macedonia and Macedonian have never disappeared since ancient times.

In conclusion, claims made by Bulgarians that Bulgars exist in Macedonia (like those of Yugoslavs existing in Macedonia ) are a result of some social or economic factor and not necessarily because they are "ethnic Bulgars". Even today Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians so that they can get Bulgarian passports and be able to work in the European Union. Obviously, this is a reflection of economic factors rather than of ethnic ones.

It is often said: "Macedonians, Bulgarians, they are the same people, after all they speak the same Bulgarian language; right?"

Statements such as the above are more a reflection of modern day Bulgarian propaganda than they are a reflection of historical reality.

We have shown above that the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans during the 7th century AD and that they were an Oriental group that spoke an Asiatic language. Today´s Bulgarians however, are a predominantly Caucasian group of people who speak a Slavic language. We have also shown above that when the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans they found people living there, speaking a Slavic language.

So, given the above statements we can conclude that the Macedonians are not Bulgarians and they do not speak the Bulgar language. However, given that the historic Bulgars were Orientals and spoke an Asiatic language and the modern Bulgarians are predominantly Caucasian and speak a Slavic language, we can also see that there is an inconsistency in the Bulgarian model which postulates that the modern Bulgarians are the descendants of the historic Bulgars.

If we were to ask any modern Bulgarian today about who his or her ancestors were, he or she would say they were khan Kubrat and khan Asparuh (whose name in Bulgarian means "swift horse"). But, as we can see Kubrat and Asparuh were Orientals! Also the title "khan" is a well-known Mongolian title. So then, how is it possible that Caucasians have descended from Orientals?

We also know from history that the Bulgars were a very small group in comparison to those they found in the Balkans. It is conceivable then to assume that the small oriental group of people who spoke an Asiatic language was assimilated by the larger group of Caucasian people who lived on those lands and spoke a Slavic language.

So, the next question that begs to be asked is: "Who were these Caucasians from whom the modern Bulgarians descended?"

The truth is that today´s modern Bulgarians, to a large extent are the descendants of a small mix of "historic Bulgars" with a heaping large mix of historic Thracians, Slavs, Antes, Ancient Macedonians, Vlachs and other people who lived in the regions of modern day Bulgaria.

According to the renowned Bulgarian historian Dimitar Angelov, more that 100,000 Caucasian Thracians lived in Bulgaria in the beginning of the Middle Ages. There is no historic event to show that these people moved or vanished so it is conceivable that the small Oriental Turko-Mongo Bulgar tribe melted among the great ancient Thracian tribes producing the modern Bulgarian nation.

Professor Angelov also mentioned that many Thracian cultural elements such as customs and people´s names still do exist in Bulgaria to this day.

Why then do modern Bulgarians, the vast majority of whom are Caucasians, still claim to be the descendants of the Khans who in fact were Orientals?

The answer to this question lies in the 19th century when the Bulgarian people began their struggle to liberate themselves from the Turks. At that time most Bulgarian revolutionaries were educated in Russia which instilled in them that they were the descendants of the fierce fighting Khans. As true as that may be, Russia failed to instill in them that the modern Bulgarians are also the descendants of the mighty ancient Thracians, a descent which they partly share with the Macedonians.

So there is some truth to the rumors that Macedonians and Bulgarians are the same people, or should we say similar people, since both partly descended from the ancient Thracians and they both speak dialects of languages that have Thracian words.

Should our readers require more information or clarification on any of the above subjects, please feel free to write to us at [email][email protected][/email] (Aleksandar Donski, author of the book Ethno-genetic differences between Bulgarians and Macedonians), or [email][email protected][/email] (Risto Stefov, author of the book History of the Macedonian People from Ancient Times to the Present).

TrueMacedonian 01-15-2009 11:08 PM

Who is this Dr. Muhammad?

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Orientalist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 52, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek nationalism, supported Martin Bernal´s Black Athena, and rejected the Greco-Romano-centric version of History. He pleaded for the European History by J. B. Duroselle, and defended the rights of the Turkish, Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian, Arvanitic, Latin Catholic, and Jewish minorities of Greece.

Born Christian Orthodox, he adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al Arabi. Greek citizen of Turkish origin, Prof. Megalommatis studied and/or worked in Turkey, Greece, France, England, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Russia, and carried out research trips throughout the Middle East, Northeastern Africa and Central Asia. His career extended from Research & Education, Journalism, Publications, Photography, and Translation to Website Development, Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales & Brokerage. He traveled in more than 80 countries in 5 continents.

He defends the Human and Civil Rights of Yazidis, Aramaeans, Turkmen, Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Berbers, Afars, Anuak, Furis (Darfur), Bejas, Balochs, Tibetans, and their Right to National Independence, demands international recognition for Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria, calls for National Unity in Somalia, and denounces Islamic Terrorism.

Freedom and National Independence for Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica, Euskadi (Bask Land), and (illegally French) Polynesia!

Soldier of Macedon 02-20-2009 10:32 AM

Tsar Samoil - Czar Samuel
 
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil%27s_Inscription[/url]

[QUOTE]The tombstone of Samuil's parents is currently stored at the Archaeological Museum in Sofia, Bulgaria. [B][U]It was transported there from the village German, near lake Prespa in Macedonia in 1916.[/U][/B] The dimensions of the tombstone are within the ranges: 130-125/67-52/10-7 cm.[/QUOTE]

[B][U]BULGARIAN THIEVES.[/U][/B] I wonder what else they stole while they occupied Macedonia during WWI.


Here is the inscription of the tombstone in question:

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8220/samuilinscriptionmn1.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/222/samuilsinscription.jpg/][IMG]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3394/samuilsinscription.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

You will notice that the Tsar called himself [B]SAMOIL[/B] in the inscription.

Dimko-piperkata 02-20-2009 02:33 PM

[B]BULGARIAN FALSIFICATION OF MACEDONIAN HISTORY[/B]

[U]THE STONE INSCRIPTIONS CASE[/U]

1. This is the fabricated stone inscription by "Tsar Samuil" found in Voden (Edessa), Greece.
[IMG]http://g.imagehost.org/0258/VODEN2.jpg[/IMG]

2. This is the stone inscription by Ivan Vladislav found in Bitola, Macedonia.
[IMG]http://g.imagehost.org/0575/BITOLIA.gif[/IMG]

[B]THE TEXT
1. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the fake stone in Voden:[/B]
1. V samodurjavnia grad Voden Az Samuil, veren v Hrista
2. Car na Bulgarite i Romeite, ot boga izpraten samodurjec
3. na vsichki strani ot Rashka do Makedonia, Tesalia
4. i Gurcia , vnuk na staria Shishman, koito beshe Han na
5. jitelite na Turnovo, postroih tozi molitven dom, za da
sushtestvuva v vechnostta. Osnovite biaha polojeni v epohata
na Ieremia, koito beshe pruv hristianin ot Melnik.
6. Postroen be (tozi hram) za grehovete i spasenieto na bulgarite
7. ot prokletia Satana, koito proizhojda ot Konstantinopol.
8. Tozi hram be zavurshen prez 14-tata godina ot caruvaneto mi
s pomoshtta na sveshtennika Gavril, koito e duhoven pastirna jitelite na Muglen.
9. Napisano prez godina 6497 ot suzdavaneto na sveta (989 g.)5-ti Indiktion.
[B]
Rough translation into English:[/B]

In the city of Voden, I Samuil, faithul to Christ, Emperor of the Bulgars and Romans, Godsent emperor of all lands from Raska to Macedonia, Thessaly and Greece, nephew of the old Shishman who was Khan of the inhabitants of Trnovo, built this prayer home, to exist forever. The foundation were laid in the epoch of Jeremiah, who was the first hristian in Melnik. This tample was built for the sins and saving of the Bulgars from damned Satan, who comes from Constantinople. This tample was finished during the 14th year of my rule with the help of monk Gavril, who is the spiritial shepherd of the inhabitants of Meglen. Written during year 6497 from the foundation of the world (989 A.D), 5th Indiction.

[B]
2. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the stone in Bitola:[/B]

"Prez godina 6523 (1015-1016) ot sutvorenieto na sveta obnovi se tazi krepost, zidana i pravena ot Ioan, samodurjec bulgarski, s pomoshtta i s molitvite na presvetata vladichica nasha Bogorodica i chrez zastupnichestvoto na dvanadesette i na vurhovnite apostoli. Tazi krepost be napravena za ubejishte i za spasenie i za jivota na bulgarite. Zapochnata beshe krepostta Bitolia prez mesec oktomvri v 20-i den, a se zavurshi v mesec... kraia. Tozi samodurjec beshe bulgarin po rod, vnuk na Nikola i na Ripsimia blagovernite, sin na Aaron, koito e brat na Samuil, caria samodurjaven, i koiito dvamata razbiha v
Shtipon (Ihtiman) gruckata voiska na car Vasilii, kudeto be vzeto zlato... , a tozi v... car razbit bide ot car Vasilii v godina 6522 (1014) ot sutvorenieto na sveta v Kliuch i pochina v kraia na liatoto."

[B]Rough translation into English:[/B]

During the year 6523 (1015-1016) from the beggining of the world this fortress is being renewed, built and made by Ioan, Bulgarian autocrator, with the help and prayers of our Virgin Mary and through the representation of the twelve and supreme apostles. This fortress was made as haven and deliverance of the lives of the Bulgarians. The fortress Bitolia was started during the month of October 20th and was completed in the month of... ending. This autocrator was Bulgarian by birth, nephew of Nikola and Ripsimia, son of Aaron, who is brother to Samuil, the tsar autocrator, with whom they smashed in Shtipon (Ihtiman) the Greek army of tsar Vasili, where they took gold..., and this tsar was destroyed by tsar Vasili in the year of 6522 (1014) from the beginning of the world in Kliuch and died at the end of the summer

[B]3. The Story[/B]

During September 1997 a Greek national with "Bulgarian identity" from Voden named Stoidis
appeared in Sofia at the National Historical Museum and declared to the Director Bozidar
Dimitrov that he has in his possession a stone inscription found in Voden (Edessa) during
the reconstruction of a local church. The Director declared the inscription a fake made
by Bulgarian nationalists in the 19th Century. Apparently the whole story was published
in the Bulgarian daily Kontinent on "02.10.1997."


The "Bitola inscription" was discovered during the demolition of a mosque in Bitola during the
1950's and so far nobody doubted its veracity. Considering the Voden case the Bitola stone
has to be viewed in new light. Chances that it was written by the same authors are indeed very
high. We have also to ask about other products from the same authors as well as regard
the whole Bulgarian historiography concerning Macedonia with great suspicion.

Soldier of Macedon 07-10-2009 10:24 AM

Here is something interesting from the Wiki page of Samuel.

[QUOTE]There is also another version about Samuel's origin. The 11th-century historian Stepanos Asoghik wrote that Samuel had only one brother, stating they were both Armenians from the district of Derjan, an Armenian land incorporated into the Byzantine Empire. They were sent to fight the Bulgarians in Macedonia but ended up joining them.[129] This version is supported by the historian Nicholas Adontz, who analyzed the events and facts of the century and concluded that Samuel had only one brother, David.[130] Asoghik's version is also supported by the historian Jordan Ivanov;[131] furthermore, according to Samuel's Inscription, he had only one brother called David.

[B]The Arab historian Yahya claims that the son of Samuel, Gavril, was assassinated by the leader of the Bulgarians, son of Aaron, because [U]Aaron belonged to the race that reigned over Bulgaria. Asoghik and Yahya clearly distinguish the race of Samuel from the one of Aaron or the race of the Cometopuli from the royal race[/U]. [/B]According to them, Moses and Aaron are not from the family of the Cometopuli. David and Samuel were of Armenian origin and Moses and Aaron were Armenian on their mother's side.[132]

Samuel's grave was found in 1965 by Greek professor Nikolaos Moutsopoulos in the Church of St Achillios on the eponymous island in Lake Prespa. Samuel had built the church for the relics of the saint of the same name.[133] What is thought to have been the coat of arms of the House of Cometopuli[134], two perched parrots, was embroidered on his funeral garment.[/QUOTE]
So the Arab writer Yahya, who has been extensively cited by Bulgars on the internet, actually distinguishes the race that Samuel belonged to from the ruling race of Bulgars.


[QUOTE]The sarkophaguses of Bulgarian Tsars Samuil, Gavril Radomir and Ivan Vladislav in Agios Achilios, Greece.
[URL=http://img55.imageshack.us/i/sarkofazitenasamuilgavr.jpg/][IMG]http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7025/sarkofazitenasamuilgavr.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

His remains are kept in a secret location in Greece, but according to a recent agreement, [B]they may be [U]returned[/U] to Bulgaria[/B] and buried in the SS. Forty Martyrs Church in Veliko Tarnovo, to rest with the remains of emperors Kaloyan and Michael Shishman.[135]

Samuel's face was reconstructed to restore the appearance of the 70-year-old Bulgarian ruler. According to the reconstruction, he was a sharp-faced man, bald-headed, with a white beard and moustache.[136]
[URL=http://img193.imageshack.us/i/samuilofbolgariareconst.jpg/][IMG]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6568/samuilofbolgariareconst.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]
How exactly are they 'returning' it to Bulgaria when Bulgaria never had ownership of him in the first place? Samuel's fortresses, capital, church and army were from historically Macedonian territories. Historically 'Bulgar' territories were conquered by Samuel after the first Bulgarian Empire was anihilated by Kievan Rus and finally East Rome.

TrueMacedonian 09-15-2009 05:14 PM

Samoil and Basil II (tell me what you all think of this)
 
[IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/truemacedonian/Miscellanius%20Mak%20Stuff/stephenson.png[/IMG]
page 61
[IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/truemacedonian/Miscellanius%20Mak%20Stuff/stephenson61.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/truemacedonian/Miscellanius%20Mak%20Stuff/stephenson62.png[/IMG]

What are your opinions on this?

George S. 09-15-2009 09:10 PM

My opinion is that he was Macedonian through & through.Just because he included Bulgaria etc & was declared a bulgarian doesn't make him one.I say for one that he is macedonian especially of where he is born.

Magedon 09-16-2009 01:36 AM

As Germans cud be and were emperors of the Roman empire so Macedonians were emperors of both the Bulgarian and Eastern Roman aka Byzant empire.

Soldier of Macedon 09-16-2009 03:10 AM

Samuel wasn't an ethnic Bulgar of the Turkic type, no medieval writer ever made such a claim that I am aware of. Too many of Samuel's actions go against the bogus theory that he was an "ethnic Bulgar", whatever that was supposed to mean during that period. This is what is certain:

1) The core territory of his state, that eventually became an empire, was Macedonia proper, including places like Ohrid, Bitola, Prilep, Skopje, etc. Not Nesebar, Pliska, Pleven or other places that formed the first Bulgarian state.

2) His capitals were in Prespa-Ohrid, and he never relocated them east towards the territory of the first Bulgarian state, even though he gradually absorbed that region into his empire.

3) His core religious institutions were in Prespa-Ohrid, again, he never relocated them east towards the territory of the first Bulgarian state, even though he gradually absorbed that region into his empire.


Any sentimentality towards the "ethnic Bulgars" should have been reflected in such actions, it never was.

Risto the Great 09-16-2009 03:31 AM

"Emperor of the Bulgarians" had as much significance as the first "Emperor of Greece". Nothing to do with ethnicity.

Good source TM, thanks.

TrueMacedonian 09-16-2009 04:07 PM

The simple sentence Stephenson wrote; "The practice of claiming the title Emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, had no ethnic siginificance" is pure gold.

makedonin 11-02-2009 11:32 AM

There is nice book for you to read, called [B]The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer[/B].

Here is something from the summary:

[QUOTE] In chapter five, Stephenson explores how the contemporary authors referred to Basil. [B]An extensive survey of the Byzantine sources reveal [U]that instead of Voulgaroktonos[/U], Basil was generally referred to [U]as porphyrogennetos or "born in the purple"[/U] to show he was the reigning emperor. [/B]Otherwise he was referred to as "the younger" or "the second". Thus Basil was known to the chroniclers and others as Basil II. This trend continued in the literature well beyond the life of Basil. Stephenson also reveals that this was well known even to biographers in the seventeenth century.

It is not until chapter six that [B]the mystery is revealed in [U]why Basil transforms from porphyrogennetos into the Voulgaroktonos.[/U] As one might suspect [U]it has more to do with political changes, particularly in the ways that Bulgars were viewed in the twelfth century[/U], rather than any particular historical activities.[/B] However, Basil image would decline again in later centuries, particularly with the rise of the Turks and a decline in the threat from the Bulgars.


Source: [url]http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Stephenson_basil.htm[/url]

[/QUOTE]

Very interesting book.

I don't really need to see Samuil as Macedonian King. He may as well have been of mixed stock, Macedonian and Armenian. Some suggest he is was of Vlach descent.
Who cares.

BUT, to view him as Bulgarian is simply wrong.

The Capital of his Empire was shifted to Ohrid, which is not traditional for the Bulgarian Kings. His territories accompanied large Territories of which are known as non Bulgarian lands, such as Macedonia, Thessaly or Serbia and Bosnia.

Cause of the Territories his Empire subdued, his Empire was certainly multy ethnic as was the Byzantine.

That only tells us, that Medieval Kingdoms can't be seen through 19-20 Century nationalistic terms.

makedonin 11-02-2009 12:22 PM

See more here: [url]http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2076&page=2[/url]

TrueMacedonian 11-02-2009 04:39 PM

Here's something else from Stephenson - [url]http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1869[/url]

TrueMacedonian 11-20-2009 12:19 AM

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before and during 1767?
 
My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?

Pelister 11-20-2009 12:36 AM

[QUOTE=TrueMacedonian;27404]My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?[/QUOTE]

I have often wondered about this same question.

Bratot 11-20-2009 06:51 AM

[QUOTE=TrueMacedonian;27404]My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?[/QUOTE]


NO!

If there was, then the Bulgarian church would be based on our Ohrid archbishopric/patriachate.

But since there is no such connection nor it could be possible something like that, the Bulgarian church is formed by the SULTAN with a FERMAN - a turkish decree.

As such, it clearly points out that Bulgarian church is not legal - canonical or w/e you want to name it.

If the Bulgarians got only one evidence they would already claimed such thing, but clearly they CAN NOT!

Prolet 11-20-2009 08:33 AM

Bratot (The Brother)

Is it true that the first Macedonian Church in Canada was actually Bulgarian??

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KLXZHHcQyk]YouTube - The First "Macedonian" Church In Canada[/url]

I know for a fact that before the Ottoman Empire, we lead all the Orthodox Churches from Ohrid not CariGrad.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Macedonian Truth Organisation