Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by 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.

To play Devil's Advocate the East Romans had the child-soldier system in place before the Ottoman's. And the Ottoman's weren't too quick on actively converting Christians so they can get a tax break. The point of ruling over a people is to exploit them as much as possible.

[Akzion]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

To play Devil's Advocate the East Romans had the child-soldier system in place before the Ottoman's.

How do you mean???

[Voltron]

I havnt heard anything like that either TM. You have any reference to that ?

[TrueMacedonian]

page 167

[George S.]

The bulgarians thought that they can just grab the whole of macedonia & even the greeks eweren't happy with their share.But one thing is clear they did not take into account of the macedonian people's wishes.To this day there is nothing but denial.If there were no macedonians how do you explain the *000,000 plus population in pirrin macedonia.Why don't we just deny they exist.How about the length the bulgarians went to suppress the macedonian identity.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

page 387









page 2

Anyways back to the original topic and its purpose. The myth of the Battle of Kleidon should be exposed for what it is not just for general history but also because it has transformed fiction to historical truth in Macedonian historiography. If we are to be better than our neighbors then we ought to offer our version of history without the accompanied exagerrations of medieval historians who weren't even alive when writing about certain times in the past.
Historical myths like these have been fuel for our neighbors who believe they have transcended space and time and are the original peoples that once lived in their land. Just like how Ion Dragoumis, the grk propagandist whose family originated from Albania, made the claim that the "Greek" Basil II the "bulgar-slayer" blinded all of these "Bulgarians", as the historical source (Skylitzes) calls them, used this mythistorical "fact" by politicizing a time in history for modern propaganda purposes.

Bulgarians are no better as Tim Pilbrow explains:










Are the Bulgarians that much different than their grk counterparts? Not at all. This is why these myths must be exposed. Myths like the grks are the "Byzantines" and the "1st Bulgarian Empire", which included Tsar Samoil, continued to the "2nd Bulgarian Empire" terminologies are misleading, and often margianalize a complex period in history to make a simpler, user-friendly version for a continuos historical timeline. This chronological pipe-dream becomes part of the bigger invention of certain questionable origins and hocus pocus historiography geared to create a false past to compliment a deluded present.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Many made the wrong assumption, based on the lies spread by the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian states. The mere fact that these three 'gained' (and I use that term very loosely for the sake of simplification) independence before Macedonia is one of the main reasons why they were allowed to get away with such manipulative propaganda.

.. Today the bulgarians AND the greeks generally believe that the slavs in macedonia are bulgarians...

Actually, Greek chauvinists believe they are 'Greek Slavs', while their Bulgar and Serb equivalents conjure myths about the Macedonians belonging to their own respective nations. Stupidity unsurpassed. The only thing the morons can fully agree on is that Macedonia shouldn't belong to the Macedonians.

and the reasons are the existing historical documents and their interpretation.

There are several historical documents, and interpretation is most important. While we start from the standpoint that Macedonians do exist and have a history, our detractors deny our historical existence completely, despite the mass of evidence proving otherwise.

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.

He may have been referred to as a 'Bulgarian' king by some writers, it means no more than Greek and Slavic-speaking peoples being referred to as 'Romans', and neither of them were truly Romans, ie; Latin-speaking.

I don't mind macedonian state.

The origin and core of Samuel's domains were in Macedonia, his capital was there, his church too, and therefore the majority of his citizens. It was a Macedonian state that expanded and assumed the name of its predecessor in the region, similar to East Rome and the Holy Roman Empire assuming the name of the Romans themselves, after the original Roman Empire disappeared.

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.

All of geographical Macedonia (as defined in the 19th century) is claimed because it is historically Macedonian; that is not a denial of the existence of other peoples in Macedonia, for example, I have no issue with a Greek minority along the coast, a Vlach minority in the south, etc, but Macedonia should have been united as one entity, and its people should have been able to interact with each other in this compact geographical unit, as they have done, for centuries prior. To suggest that Macedonia has underwent population movements, and disregard the same possibility for the regions surrounding (including Bulgaria), is rather silly and ill-informed.

Genetically are macedonians different from the bulgarians and the serbs?

If that's the case, why not have the Bulgarians call themselves Macedonians also, and drop the Turkic label?

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.

You're not entirely correct. After the fall of Samuel's empire a new district was established on the territory of Macedonia, the core of his former domains, and also included much of today's Serbia. It was called the 'Bulgaria Theme', due to the previously set precedent which referred to his domains as 'Bulgaria'. The regions in both today's and historical Bulgaria (in Moesia) were not included in this theme, instead forming part of another theme called 'Paraistrion'. So, unless someone claims that every single Bulgar moved from Moesia to Macedonia in the 11th century AD, this clearly proves that the 'Bulgarian' name in Macedonia was political and never ethnic. According to some writers Macedonians were 'Bulgarians' - but that is because they belonged to the Bulgarian Empire, to Samuel's empire which was labelled as its predecessor, to a theme established by East Rome - not because they were 'Bulgarians' in an ethnic, linguistic or cultural sense. I would argue that in some cases it is reasonable to suggest that East Rome did more to perpetuate the 'Bulgarian' name than the so-called Bulgars in Moesia themselves.

I am sure you guys have as much in common with Alexander as the bulgarians with the ancient bulgars.

I think it's a lot more than that. To begin with, Macedonia was the home of the ancient Macedonians, there were 100,000's of them, you can't compare that to (at the most) 50,000 horsemen from Asia.

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?

Why do you keep making reference to Alexander and not the ancient Macedonians as a whole? What sort of studies are you talking about? I can tell you for a fact that the Macedonians of today have more cultural, linguistic and genetical similarities with the ancient Macedonians than they do with Bulgars from the Volga and further east from where they originated. So do today's Bulgarians for that matter, despite the fantasies about Khan Asparuh.

[Voltron]

Actually, Greek chauvinists believe they are 'Greek Slavs', while their Bulgar and Serb equivalents conjure myths about the Macedonians belonging to their own respective nations. Stupidity unsurpassed. The only thing the morons can fully agree on is that Macedonia shouldn't belong to the Macedonians.

I hope you dont mind I respond to your dialogue you have with Dimitar.
I read your response and wanted to ask some things I read.
Since we can say that language may not be the answer to all, how can we say that they werent indeed Greeks that spoke Macedonian ?
Why is that not a possiblity ? How can we also disregard the Bulgarians in the region ? No doubt the Macedonians as well. Its all relative in the area we live in.

The origin and core of Samuel's domains were in Macedonia, his capital was there, his church too, and therefore the majority of his citizens. It was a Macedonian state that expanded and assumed the name of its predecessor in the region, similar to East Rome and the Holy Roman Empire assuming the name of the Romans themselves, after the original Roman Empire disappeared.

It may have been a Macedonian state, but from what I know Tsar Samuil identified himself as a Bulgarian. Pls correct me if im wrong.

All of geographical Macedonia (as defined in the 19th century) is claimed because it is historically Macedonian; that is not a denial of the existence of other peoples in Macedonia, for example, I have no issue with a Greek minority along the coast, a Vlach minority in the south, etc, but Macedonia should have been united as one entity, and its people should have been able to interact with each other in this compact geographical unit, as they have done, for centuries prior. To suggest that Macedonia has underwent population movements, and disregard the same possibility for the regions surrounding (including Bulgaria), is rather silly and ill-informed.

How is Macedonia historically Macedonian ? There has been so many movements in the Balkans its hard to tell what was historically what and when. Anybody can pick a certain timeline in history and use it to reinforce their position. Speaking of Vlachs, I hear them mentioned so many times but does anybody know that is a blanket term ? Many people learned Latin during the Roman Empire. Vlachs have been assimilated to each respective country they live in. They have as much right as the next Greek or Macedonian to declare that region as theirs. Probably even more so.

You're not entirely correct. After the fall of Samuel's empire a new district was established on the territory of Macedonia, the core of his former domains, and also included much of today's Serbia. It was called the 'Bulgaria Theme', due to the previously set precedent which referred to his domains as 'Bulgaria'. The regions in both today's and historical Bulgaria (in Moesia) were not included in this theme, instead forming part of another theme called 'Paraistrion'. So, unless someone claims that every single Bulgar moved from Moesia to Macedonia in the 11th century AD, this clearly proves that the 'Bulgarian' name in Macedonia was political and never ethnic. According to some writers Macedonians were 'Bulgarians' - but that is because they belonged to the Bulgarian Empire, to Samuel's empire which was labelled as its predecessor, to a theme established by East Rome - not because they were 'Bulgarians' in an ethnic, linguistic or cultural sense. I would argue that in some cases it is reasonable to suggest that East Rome did more to perpetuate the 'Bulgarian' name than the so-called Bulgars in Moesia themselves.

So according to this, there was never any Bulgarians ? How does one go about to differentiate ? I agree with you that many of their subjects werent Bulgarian. But how do we know who thought of themselves what at the time ? I dont think nationalities during that era held any weight at all. We are trying to use today's method of thinking to a completely different era with different identifying factors.

Why do you keep making reference to Alexander and not the ancient Macedonians as a whole? What sort of studies are you talking about? I can tell you for a fact that the Macedonians of today have more cultural, linguistic and genetical similarities with the ancient Macedonians than they do with Bulgars from the Volga and further east from where they originated. So do today's Bulgarians for that matter, despite the fantasies about Khan Asparuh.

Bulgarians today are just as indeginous as the modern day Greek and Macedonian. Bulgarians are more Thracian and Slav than Bulgar. Bulgar could also have been Iranic and not Turkic.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

Anyways back to the original topic and its purpose. The myth of the Battle of Kleidon should be exposed for what it is not just for general history but also because it has transformed fiction to historical truth in Macedonian historiography. If we are to be better than our neighbors then we ought to offer our version of history without the accompanied exagerrations of medieval historians who weren't even alive when writing about certain times in the past.
Historical myths like these have been fuel for our neighbors who believe they have transcended space and time and are the original peoples that once lived in their land. Just like how Ion Dragoumis, the grk propagandist whose family originated from Albania, made the claim that the "Greek" Basil II the "bulgar-slayer" blinded all of these "Bulgarians", as the historical source (Skylitzes) calls them, used this mythistorical "fact" by politicizing a time in history for modern propaganda purposes.

Bulgarians are no better as Tim Pilbrow explains:

Are the Bulgarians that much different than their grk counterparts? Not at all. This is why these myths must be exposed. Myths like the grks are the "Byzantines" and the "1st Bulgarian Empire", which included Tsar Samoil, continued to the "2nd Bulgarian Empire" terminologies are misleading, and often margianalize a complex period in history to make a simpler, user-friendly version for a continuos historical timeline. This chronological pipe-dream becomes part of the bigger invention of certain questionable origins and hocus pocus historiography geared to create a false past to compliment a deluded present.

Another person's myth can be another's fact. History can be up to each person's interpretation. Posting an opinon from those authors does not negate anything. Although I may not agree, I did find it an interesting read.

[Daskalot]

Originally Posted by Voltron

I hope you dont mind I respond to your dialogue you have with Dimitar.
I read your response and wanted to ask some things I read.
Since we can say that language may not be the answer to all, how can we say that they werent indeed Greeks that spoke Macedonian ?
Why is that not a possiblity ? How can we also disregard the Bulgarians in the region ? No doubt the Macedonians as well. Its all relative in the area we live in.



It may have been a Macedonian state, but from what I know Tsar Samuil identified himself as a Bulgarian. Pls correct me if im wrong.



How is Macedonia historically Macedonian ? There has been so many movements in the Balkans its hard to tell what was historically what and when. Anybody can pick a certain timeline in history and use it to reinforce their position. Speaking of Vlachs, I hear them mentioned so many times but does anybody know that is a blanket term ? Many people learned Latin during the Roman Empire. Vlachs have been assimilated to each respective country they live in. They have as much right as the next Greek or Macedonian to declare that region as theirs. Probably even more so.



So according to this, there was never any Bulgarians ? How does one go about to differentiate ? I agree with you that many of their subjects werent Bulgarian. But how do we know who thought of themselves what at the time ? I dont think nationalities during that era held any weight at all. We are trying to use today's method of thinking to a completely different era with different identifying factors.



Bulgarians today are just as indeginous as the modern day Greek and Macedonian. Bulgarians are more Thracian and Slav than Bulgar. Bulgar could also have been Iranic and not Turkic.

Considering all of what you posted above would you be so kind and tell me why Macedonia and Macedonians are to be considered to be Greek according to the general concensus amongst modern Greeks?