Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Carlin]

"Even if the sun would have come down, I would have never thought that the Moesian arrows were stronger than the Avzonian (Ausonian) spears. ... And when you, Phaethon, descend to the earth with your gold-shining chariot, tell the great soul of the Caesar: The Danube took the crown of Rome. The arrows of the Moesians broke the spears of the Avzonians."
— John Geometres on the Battle of the Gates of Trajan

The Battle of the Gates of Trajan was a battle between Byzantine-Ausonian and Bulgarian-Moesian forces in the year 986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ates_of_Trajan



The Joint Expert Committee from Bulgaria and Macedonia will decide by the end of November whose historical hero is Tsar Samuel. The ruler is one of the historical personalities that the two nations are arguing about.

For the end of November, the third meeting between the experts of both countries is scheduled. They need to make a full review of history textbooks in Bulgaria and Macedonia. The other topic on which experts direct their efforts is to identify the events and personalities of the common history of the two countries that both nations can celebrate together.

URL:
https://www.dnes.bg/obshtestvo/2018/...-samuil.391661

[maco2envy]

The Joint Expert Committee from Bulgaria and Macedonia will decide by the end of November whose historical hero is Tsar Samuel. The ruler is one of the historical personalities that the two nations are arguing about.

For the end of November, the third meeting between the experts of both countries is scheduled. They need to make a full review of history textbooks in Bulgaria and Macedonia. The other topic on which experts direct their efforts is to identify the events and personalities of the common history of the two countries that both nations can celebrate together.

This is just stupid. Neither nation nor state existed 1000 years ago, how can these morons even negotiate such a thing? Not to mention the fact that this specific era in Byzantine historiography has arguably the greatest lack of primary sources. Although, it is undeniable that the heart of Samuels empire was in Macedonia until its dying breath. Seriously, what more can I expect from these Balkan crapholes?

[maco2envy]

Would Bulgaria want to claim St Clement next? Even though there is not one single (old) fresco of St Clement found in Bulgaria:

[maco2envy]

While on topic, here is what is generally accepted to be the unofficial emblem of Tsar Samuel:



The duel peacock emblem is derived from a shroud which was found within Samuels grave, located in Mala Prespa:

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Originally Posted by maco2envy

While on topic, here is what is generally accepted to be the unofficial emblem of Tsar Samuel:



The duel peacock emblem is derived from a shroud which was found within Samuels grave, located in Mala Prespa:

Interesting, I had never seen this

[Carlin]

URL:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=IcK...linded&f=false

[Stevce]

Originally Posted by maco2envy

Would Bulgaria want to claim St Clement next? Even though there is not one single (old) fresco of St Clement found in Bulgaria:

Where is this from? could you provide a link thanks.

[VMRO]

According to Elena Kostić and Georgios Velenis from University of Solun, the Bitola inscription is not from Samuels era as the letters do not correspond to the place of inscribed dating.


Source: Texts Inscriptions Images p.117

[VMRO]

The text on the Bitola Inscription was mistook to be talking about Ivan Vladislav hence the dating was thought to have been 1015-1018, however it is now believe it might be from 1202/3 from Ivan I also known as Kalojan's reign.

The dating corresponds with the same year Kalojan annexed a chunk of the western Balkans.


Source: Proceedings of the Byzantine Studies. p.128

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is some more information relative to the supposed dating of this inscription which was posted earlier on this thread and elsewhere.

"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

"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)

Igor Schevchenko, Harvard University

"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)

R. Mathiesen, Brown University

Paul Stephenson, University of Wisconsin and Dumbarton Oaks