Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Soldier of Macedon]

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]

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

Good source TM, thanks.

[TrueMacedonian]

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

[makedonin]

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

Here is something from the summary:

In chapter five, Stephenson explores how the contemporary authors referred to Basil. An extensive survey of the Byzantine sources reveal that instead of Voulgaroktonos, Basil was generally referred to as porphyrogennetos or "born in the purple" to show he was the reigning emperor. 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 the mystery is revealed in why Basil transforms from porphyrogennetos into the Voulgaroktonos. As one might suspect it has more to do with political changes, particularly in the ways that Bulgars were viewed in the twelfth century, rather than any particular historical activities. 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: http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/...nson_basil.htm

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]

See more here: http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/sho...?t=2076&page=2

[TrueMacedonian]

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

[TrueMacedonian]

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]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

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?

I have often wondered about this same question.

[Bratot]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

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?

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]

Bratot (The Brother)

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

YouTube - The First "Macedonian" Church In Canada

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