Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

Originally Posted by Voltron

That was the point of me joining this forum John. To see the other side's POV

And you're already insulting people.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Voltron

OK TM you may find the number questionable but does that really negate the essence of the story ? Its probably unrealistic for Vlad Tepesh to impale defeated soldiers into a forrest of human beings but does that mean it didnt happen ? I understand your point of view though and why you would consider it false.

But the essence of the story changes considerably when you see that the so-called "blinding" of all these soldiers never happened the way Skylitzes penned it. The Battle of Kleidon is where Basil II would get the nickname "Bulgar-Slayer" centuries later due to the myth of these East Romans and their exaggerations. Sorry I know you want to play make believe but one day you have to grow up. How about you actually read the first page again and stop taking this topic off-topic because of its content and how it hurts your modern claims to BS:


page 387









page 2

[Voltron]

TM, your making it sound like I get a kick out of this. I dont have a problem with you or Macedonians. Again, I read it all and it seems as if there is a dispute of the numbers and how that is impossible due to the sheer damage 15000 blindings would of been. I read the first page and its says that Skylitzes was confused. But it didnt say how or why he was confused. Can you shed light on this ? Again it was a very interesting read and I have to admit it does make sense. The medevil ages did have its moments of exaggeration and hyperbole. Not to mention that the reference to Bulgar Slayer was made later. I understand that.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Voltron

OK TM you may find the number questionable but does that really negate the essence of the story ? Its probably unrealistic for Vlad Tepesh to impale defeated soldiers into a forrest of human beings but does that mean it didnt happen ? I understand your point of view though and why you would consider it false.

Yes, the events are usually written in exaggerated way in medieval times but it doesn't mean that these events didn't happen at all.

Also Vlad the impaler was really impaling people. It`s a fact. He mostly impaled Turks, probably 100s or maybe 1000s but he was mad and i think he also impaled his own family members and his fellow people if i`m not mistaken. Then the Sultan in Istanbul gone mad because of this and he sent an army of 10.000+ soldiers to kill him and give it an end to his reign and thats how he died and his head has been taken to the Istanbul as a proof of his death.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Voltron

TM, your making it sound like I get a kick out of this. I dont have a problem with you or Macedonians. Again, I read it all and it seems as if there is a dispute of the numbers and how that is impossible due to the sheer damage 15000 blindings would of been. I read the first page and its says that Skylitzes was confused. But it didnt say how or why he was confused. Can you shed light on this ? Again it was a very interesting read and I have to admit it does make sense. The medevil ages did have its moments of exaggeration and hyperbole. Not to mention that the reference to Bulgar Slayer was made later. I understand that.

Stephenson writes in the source provided that Skylitzes uses the word phasi, 'they say', and Stephenson goes on to explain that the story was under scrutiny then considering Skylitzes "the copyist" had no firsthand accounts available about the exaggerations of this battle. The numbers "14,000-15,000" are the exaggeration. Was it a small garrison as Stephenson says? Most likely. Skylitzes more than likely altered an already altered tale and used Herodotus as inspiration and melded sequences of what transpired at Thermopylae for his fictional accounts at Belasica/Kleidon.

[TrueMacedonian]

BUmp. Another good topic.

[George S.]

Good to hear that samuel was macedonian & not bulgarian.A lot of people say from different countries try to missapropriate him ,just because his rule encompassed bulgaria doesn't mean he is bulgarian.Also they'll try & put a slant for one reason or another to say that he is bulgarian.The problem is they try & write our history for us instead of us writing our own history.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is an older post from a discussion between TM and Bratot, more relevant on this thread given the information concerning the so-called Bitola 'inscription'.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...lympics&page=4

If we accept that assumption than those scholars should explain why the Bulgarian Chan Crume (802-814) have tittled himself 2 times as „De Cruma rege Macedonie“ and „Cruma rex Macedonie“.

On the other hand the other Bulgarian Tzar Ivan Alexandar have tittled himself as: Sanctus Johannes Alexander Macedo (Macedonian S.A.), meaning Ivan Alexander the Macedonian.

The both of them were not even close to being Macedonians, but should we make claims on them using the Bulgarian propaganda logic?

Prof. Lunt:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

The historian and paleographer Vladimir Moshin published the text (in Makedonski jazik, 1966), with a bold series of conjectures and emendations arguing that the inscription included reference to Samuel's defeat in 1014 and had been set up by Ivan Vladislav, Samuel's nephew (ruled 1015-1018). The Zaimovs confidently ”restore„ most of the text, including dates, and proceed to take their wish thoughts as incontrovertible proof of a number of historical events otherwise unknown.

Unfortunately there is no even remotely reliable set of criteria for dating early South Slavic Cyrillic, and epigraphic material is sparse and extremely controversial. I must respectfully disagree with Moshin's estimate that this text fits in the early eleventh century. Zaimov's paleographic and linguistic arguments are inaccurate and naive.

One basic point: Moshin clearly records the fact that the date he confidently reconstructs as 6522 (1014) has been worn away (”datata e izlizhana„; p.39 in Slovenska pismenost, ed P.Ilievski, Ohrid, 1966).
Indeed it does not show up in any published photographs (note that Zaimov's plate 2 has been doctored in an unspecified manner, and plate 3 is frankly drawing), nor is it found in a latex mold made by Professor Ihor Sevchenko of Dumbarton Oaks.
Assuming that this spot does contain a date, one can grant the 6 and the final 2, and a vertical line with a partial crosspiece that could be F(500) but looks much more like ps (700), and is followed by a space wide enough even for M (40). If one then conjectures the numbers as 6742, the date would be 1234. This fits beautifully with the ortography and language, and identifies Ivan as Asen II, who gained power over Macedonia in 1230. Yet it also demolished the inctricate historical explanations elaborated by the Zaimovs and generally diminishes the light that this inscription allegedly throws on an obscure period of Macedonian and Bulgarian history. The crucial questions remains open.

Horace G Lunt
Harvard University
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Lunt )







According to Igor Schevchenko
( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/wo...5sevcenko.html ):

"The little of this numeral can be seen on unretouched photograph might indeed be part of the cyrillic letter f (=500); but, as Horace G Lunt has pointed out, it might be also part of the cyrilic letter ps(=700), in which case the Bitolja inscription would seem to be of the thirteen century." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)

R. Mathiesen (emeritus, Brown University http://brown.edu/web/directory/academicsdepts.shtml):

"Lunt informs me that Sevchensko's photogrpaphs exclude the possibility of the numeral being an f (=500), but not being a ps (=700), amd may even exclude the possibility of the numeral being part of date. The date may then have stood at the beggining of line 12." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21,1)

His conclusion:

"As long as its true age remains in doubt, the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance of cyrillic palaegraphy which it will have as the work of two stonecutters--whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)



So we have three significant figures pointing out on the inacurate date and they have no Macedonian background to have an personal interest in this situation which is not the same for the Bulgarian side.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The lists are from wikipedia so not sure of their complete accuracy.

Bishoprics (diocese) under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia, mentioned in 1019:

Bishopric of Ochrid
Bishopric of Kostur
Bishopric of Strumica
Bishopric of Pelagonia, seat at Bitola
Bishopric of Velbazhd
Bishopric of Ras, seat at Stari Ras, formed by 878 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Prizren, formed in 10th century (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Niš, formed by 343 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Braničevo, formed by 878 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Vidin,
Bishopric of Sredets,
Bishopric of Drastar, including the Theme of Paristrion (Moesia Inferior)
Bishopric of Servia, formed in 5th century (as of 1882 part of Ecumenical Patriarchate)



Bishops and Archbishops of Justiniana Priima and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia:

Justiniana Prima Bishops, 535 - 602
Saint Clement of Ohrid, Sveti Kliment Ohridski, 893-916
Philip, Filip, 997
John I of Debar, Jovan I, 1018-1037
Leo, Lav, 1037-1056
Theodulus I, Teodul I, 1056-1065
John II Lampinus, Jovan II Lampinos, 1065-1078
John III, Jovan III, 1078-1079
Theophylact, Teofilakt, 1084 1107
Leo II Mung, Lav Mung, 1108 1120
Michael Maximus, Mihail Maksim, 1120
John IV Komnenos, Jovan IV Komnin, 1143-1160 (resurrected the title of Archbishop of Justiniana Prima in 1143)
Constantine I, Konstantin I, 1160
Јоhn V Kamateros, Јovan V Kamatir, 1183-1216
Demetrios Chomatianos, Dimitar Homatijan, 1216-1234
Joannicius, Joanikij
Sergius, Sergej
Constantine II Kavasilas, Konstantin II Kavasila, 1255-1259, 1260-1282
Jacob Proarchius, Jakov Proarhij, 1275-1285
Hadrian, Adrijan
Gennadius, Genadij
Macarius, Makarij
Anthimus Metochites, Antim Metohit, 1341-1346
Nicholas I, Nikolaj I, 1346
Gregory II, ,Grigorij II, 1364/65
Matthew, Matej, 1408
Nicodemus, Nikodim, 1452
Dositheos I, Dositej I
Dorotheos, Dorotej, 1466 (expatriated to Istanbul in 1466 along with his administration due to support provided to George Kastriot - Skenderbeg)
Mark Xylokaravis, Marko Ksilokaraf, 1466
Nicholas II, Nikolaj II
Zacharius, Zaharij, 1486
Prochorus, Prohor, 1528-1550
Simeon, 1550-1557
Nicanor, Nikanor, 1557-1565
Paisius, Pajsij, 1565
Parthenius I, Partenij I
Sophronius, Sofronij, 1567-1572
Gabriel, Gavril, 1572-1588
Theodulus II, Teodul II, 1588-1590
Gregory III, Grigorij III, 1590-1593
Joachim, Joakim, 1593-1596
Athanasius I, Atanasij I, 1596-1598
Varlaam, 1598-1598
Nectarius I, Nektarij I, 1598-1613
Metrophanes, Mitrofan, 1614-1616
Nectarius II, Nektarij II, 1616-1624
Porphyrius Palaiologos, Porfirij Paleolog, 1624-1627
George, Georgij, 1627-1628
Joasaph, Georgij, 1628-1629
Abraham Mesaps, Avramij Mesaps, 1629-1637
Meletius I, Meletij I, 1637-1643
Chariton, Hariton, 1643-1650
Daniel, Daniel, 1650-1652
Dionysius I, Dionisij I, 1652-1653
Athanasius II, Atanasij II, 1653
Paphnutius, Pafnutij
Ignatius I, Ignatij I, 1660-1663
Arsenius I, Arsenij I, 1663-1663
Zosimus, Zosim, 1663-1670
Panaretus 1671 1673
Nectarius III, Nektarij III, 1673-1676
Ignatius II, Ignatij II, 1676-1676
Teophanes, Teofan, 1676-1676
Meletius II, Meletij II, 1676-1677
Parthenius II, Partenij II, 1677-1683
Gregory IV, Grigorij IV, 1683-1688
Germanus, German, 1688-1691
Gregory V, Grigorij V, 1691-1693
Ignatius III, Ignatij III, 1693-1703, 1695-1706
Zosimus II, Zosim II, 1695-1707, 1699-1708
Raphael, Rafail, 1699-1702
Germanus II, German II, 1702-1702
Dionysius II, Dionisij II, 1706-1709, 1706-1714
Methodius I, Metodijus I, 1708-1708
Philotheus, Filotej, 1714-1718
Joasaph II, Joasaf II, 1719-1745
Joseph, Josif, 1746-1752
Dionysius III, Dionisij III, 1752-1756
Methodius II, Metodijus II, 1757-1758
Cyril, Kiril, 1759-1762
Jeremy, Ieremija, 1763-1763
Ananias, Ananij, 1763-1763
Arsenius II, Arsenij II, 1763-1767

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2541070

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

page 61

Here is another perspective on the Macedonian Empire under Samuel, by George Ostrogorski (History of the Byzantine State).

After the death of John Tzimisces, a revolt broke out in the Macedonian region, led by the provincial governor of Macedonia. The rising took on serious proportions and became a war of liberation, which spread over the whole of Macedonia and sought to remove the greater part of the Balkans from Byzantine rule.

Samuel became the founder of a powerful Empire, which had its centre first at Prespa and later at Ochrida. Little by little he gathered under his sway the whole Macedonian region except Thessalonica, the old Bulgar territory between the Danube and the Balkan range, Thessaly, Epirus, part of Albania including Dyrrachium, and finally Rascia and Dioclea.

Politically and ecclesiastically, the new empire was the direct descendant of the empire of Symeon and Peter, and was regarded by Samuel and the Byzantines alike as being simply the Bulgarian Empire. For apart from Byzantium, only Bulgaria at that time possessed a tradition of empire with a patriarchate of its own. Samuel was entirely committed to these traditions. But in reality his Macedonian kingdom was essentially different from the former kingdom of the Bulgars. In composition and character, it represented a new and distinctive phenomenon. The balance had shifted towards the west and south, and Macedonia, a peripheral region in the old Bulgarian kingdom, was its real centre.

For Basil II, the struggle with Samuel became his chief task and the annihilation of Samuel's empire his life's ambition. He seems to have sought the support of other Balkan rulers against the powerful Macedonian Empire, and to have made an alliance with the prince John Vladimir of Dioclea.