Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Big Bad Sven]

I could never understand why Bulgarian slavs were/are so proud that they were conquered and defeated by the Asiatic proto-bulgars, lived as second class citizens in the first Bulgarian empire to the proto-bulgars, yet started to call themselves “Bulgarians”.

It would be the same as if the Chinese in Hong Kong started calling themselves Englishman, or the enslaved black people in French colonies calling themselves as Frenchmen.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Big Bad Sven

I could never understand why Bulgarian slavs were/are so proud that they were conquered and defeated by the Asiatic proto-bulgars, lived as second class citizens in the first Bulgarian empire to the proto-bulgars, yet started to call themselves “Bulgarians”.

It would be the same as if the Chinese in Hong Kong started calling themselves Englishman, or the enslaved black people in French colonies calling themselves as Frenchmen.

Simple question to answer; Because it was the Bulgars who gave them first consciousness and power to form their own state by defeating eastern Romans. The others like Thracians, Vlachs, Slavic speaking people wasn't able to do that on their own cuz they were sedentary peasants who had no power to defy their Roman rulers. Like a wrote above, Bulgars was steppe people and their warfare skills was superior comparing to Romans. As you know, Romans was crushing German tribes too, `till Attila`s Huns comes and then steppe people crushed Romans but then Roman rulers adopted to this situation and found a better weapon then steppe people`s composite bow, the religion. Then they converted people to christianity and assimilated them to convert them as Romans.

Also, in 2nd Bulgar kingdom, the first king was a descendant of 1st Bulgar kingdom`s monarchy. And today`s slavic speaking Bulgarians are still using this name cuz it gives them historical right to have a state here. For example, if they would try the change their name to, e.g. "Slavothracia", then no one would give a fck about them and then they would have same "level" of historical right to exist here as Yugoslavia. I think you can understand what i meant.

They just don't like the fact that early Bulgars being Turks but they are living with it by thinking that they are supposedly some IE speaking Iranians.

I also wrote about it here;

Originally Posted by Onur

People had same concerns as us 1000+ years ago. Vlachs and Cuman Turks along with the monarchy of 1st Bulgar kingdom used same name "Bulgar" when they formed 2nd Bulgar kingdom simply to have a historical base. Bulgar name probably continued to be used by these people to have a historical right for their own state on that particular territory. So, thats also why they didn't use any other name like Thracians cuz Thracians never formed their own state but Bulgars did that

[Akzion]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

According to bulgarian sourse during the "siege of Varna in 1201" led by Kaloyan (second bulgarian kingdom), he ordered the whole Byzantine population of the city to be buried alive. "He wanted revenge for Samuil's 14,000 blinded soldiers and called himself Romanoktonos (Roman-slayer) as Basil II was called Bulgaroktonos (Bulgarian-slayer)".

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

I would love to see this Bulgarian source.

Originally Posted by DimitarP

Hi there, the refference is : Canev, Bǎlgarski hroniki, p. 314-315
I've no idea where you can find this book.. in a bulgarian library i suppose, then you would have to see where did the author got such information from.
I read the above statement in wikipedia and this is the correspponding refference..

All sources of his time are Roman (Latin or Greek). It is mentioned in many of them that he called himself Romaioktonos (Roman-Slayer) and that Romans called him in a derogatory way Skyloyianni (Dog-John) instead of Kaloyianni (Good-John). A certain reference I can find available is: Annales (Hroniki Syggraphi) by George Akropolites (23, 16-19) see page 1017

http://www.veritatis-societas.org/10..._1220),_GM.pdf

[DimitarP]

As a matter of fact: "The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians. From the data obtained in the present work, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances and confirmed by correspondence analysis..."

This quotation comes from the conclusion paragraph of a genetic study done in Spain in 2002. It's a comparison of bulgarian and chuvash genes. .. ?chuvash language is turkic, does this make them more related to ancient bolgars/bulgars since one of the 5 hordes settled there?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

[Onur]

I am sure that so called central European relatives of Bulgars(Chuvash) are Hungarians, maybe some Austrians since some Hungarians gone there in medieval times and some Romanians since there are about two million Hungarian speaking minority in Romania. You know, early Bulgars are also related with early Hungarians. Both came to Europe from Eurasian section and their ruling monarchies was also distant cousins. Also, both Bulgars and Hungarians used Turkic runic script before they adopted Cyrillic and Latin script accordingly.

Their so called mediterranean relatives should be Turks and maybe some modern Greeks.

Also, that difference between Bulgars and danube Bulgarians are quite normal cuz you have been separated from them 1200 years ago and already like i said b4, current Bulgarians are not much related with real Bulgars. We, the Anatolian Turks also separated from them 1000 years ago but i am sure that if you do selective DNA tests for specific people in both Bulgaria and Turkey, you can find people with similar genes.

Originally Posted by DimitarP

As a matter of fact: "The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians.

horde
1550s, from W. Turkic (cf. Tatar urda "horde," Turkish ordu "camp, army"), to English via Polish, French, or Spanish. The initial -h- seems to have been attached in Polish.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horde

[George S.]

Onur no wonder the bulgarians & the greek governments are working in overdrive today the bulgarians say the mavedonians are bulgarian & the greeks say they are macedonian.What a joke how can one country belong to 4 other countries.Easy when you are hungry for land you can pretend it's your by concocting a lot of BS propaganda.

[DimitarP]

Yeah, noone asked the population to which nationality it believed to belong. There was no macedonian state at the time so everyone asumed it's up for grabs - talking about the balkan wars... Today the bulgarians AND the greeks generally believe that the slavs in macedonia are bulgarians... and the reasons are the existing historical documents and their interpretation. Such as the article that TM has presented at the start of the discussion and the fact that Samoil has been called bulgarian king... May be modern historians know better than that. I don't mind macedonian state.

Can anyone explain to me something. I am not entirely sure why the macedonians in the republic of Macedonia claim that all geographical parts of the geographical macedonia should be a state with that name, provided that the population has been moved and assimilated by a number of rullers and peoples over few thousand years. Genetically are macedonians different from the bulgarians and the serbs? (i have seen studies that talk about difference with the greeks)

From what I have read so far: the reason for the bulgarians to call their country bulgaria is because of inaccurate historical reference to the bulgar kingdoms on one hand, and on the other - accurate reference to the ethnos which has remained after 1000+ years as a mixture of peoples (predominantly slav) who lived in the bulgar kingdom under the rule of the bulgars.

The macedonians on the other hand have ?accurate reference to Alexande the Great and are an ethnos which is the same or different from Alexander's. I am sure you guys have as much in common with Alexander as the bulgarians with the ancient bulgars. The genetic studies that I have seen show very big similarity between us and our neighbours. Are there any genetic or cultural studies that show that some of us are related to Alexander while others aren't? Either culturally, linguistically or genetically?

[julie]

Dimitar = "why the macedonians in the republic of Macedonia claim that all geographical parts of the geographical macedonia should be a state with that name provided that the population has been moved and assimilated by a number of rullers and peoples over few thousand years."

The partitioning of Macedonia happened during the Balkan Wars, in the time of my grandparents , it was not thousands of years ago.
If Bulgaria continues to be inhabited with large minority groups, then you would be ok am sure if it gets divided up. Renamed, hellenized, turkiscised and all. Then less than 100 years later, my grandchildren can ask your grandchildren what is the buig deal and to give it all a rest.
Do you understand my example?

[Onur]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

There was no macedonian state at the time so everyone asumed it's up for grabs - talking about the balkan wars...

None of Balkan states have more legitimacy than others. All are equal. Don't forget that about ~30 years b4 Balkan wars, there was no Bulgaria either. Current Bulgaria was a part of European Turkey b4 1878 since 14th century. Thats 500 years. So, we can say that current Bulgaria was a part of Turkey more than ever it was Bulgaria throughout history. So, just because Russians created Bulgaria ~30 years b4 Balkan wars, it still doesn't make much difference with Macedonia.

Can anyone explain to me something. I am not entirely sure why the macedonians in the republic of Macedonia claim that all geographical parts of the geographical macedonia should be a state with that name, provided that the population has been moved and assimilated by a number of rullers and peoples over few thousand years. Genetically are macedonians different from the bulgarians and the serbs? (i have seen studies that talk about difference with the greeks)

Logically speaking, they probably claim that for the same reason you claim all geographical parts of Bulgaria as Bulgaria. Am i wrong?

The population has been moved and assimilated over 1000 years? As for the Ottoman era, there is no single evidence of whole assimilation against people`s will. Some people has been assimilated b4 Ottoman era by Byzantines but strict assimilation processes has started after late 19th century with the advance of widespread education.

Also, there was even more population movements in current Bulgaria. Read this thread;

The War of 1877-78
The 1877 Russian invasion of Ottoman Europe led to the flight of 515,000 and the deaths of 288,000 Bulgarian Muslims, nearly all Turks. Only 46% of the Bulgarian Muslims remained. In exchange, 187,000 Bulgarians from what remained in Ottoman Europe went to Bulgaria.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=5042

Close to one million Tatar Turks came to Bulgaria after 1860s cuz Russians expelled them from Crimea and then ~515.000 has been expelled from Bulgaria and 288.000 died in 1877. So, don't think that Bulgaria always had demographics similar to present day. Therefore, none of Balkan states are different than others on that issue too.

You cant get any point with genetics either cuz everyone as genetically close to each other in same degree. So, none of Balkan people are strictly distinct from others by wide margin. Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, all these are neighbors, so it`s normal that they would be genetically closer to each other. You know, there was no borders in Balkans `till 19th century.

[Voltron]

There was no Turkey either back then. It was a multiethnic empire just like Byzantium.
As for the Ottoman Empire to say there wasnt any forced assimilation is misleading. When you tax a group just because of their religion or when you take away children to become footsoldiers then I can hardly see that as assimilation with the people's endorsement.