Macedonian Truth Forum   

Go Back   Macedonian Truth Forum > Macedonian Truth Forum > Macedonian History

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-16-2009, 03:10 AM   #31
Soldier of Macedon
Senior Member
 
Soldier of Macedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Macedonian Outpost
Posts: 13,660
Soldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

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.
__________________
In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
Soldier of Macedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 03:31 AM   #32
Risto the Great
Senior Member
 
Risto the Great's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Macedonian Colony of Australia
Posts: 15,640
Risto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond reputeRisto the Great has a reputation beyond repute
Default

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

Good source TM, thanks.
__________________
Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."

Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com
Risto the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 04:07 PM   #33
TrueMacedonian
Senior Member
 
TrueMacedonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,809
TrueMacedonian will become famous soon enough
Default

The simple sentence Stephenson wrote; "The practice of claiming the title Emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, had no ethnic siginificance" is pure gold.
__________________
Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!
TrueMacedonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 11:32 AM   #34
makedonin
Senior Member
 
makedonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,668
makedonin is on a distinguished road
Default

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

Here is something from the summary:

Quote:
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.
__________________
To enquire after the impression behind an idea is the way to remove disputes concerning nature and reality.
makedonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 12:22 PM   #35
makedonin
Senior Member
 
makedonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,668
makedonin is on a distinguished road
Default

See more here: http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/sho...?t=2076&page=2
__________________
To enquire after the impression behind an idea is the way to remove disputes concerning nature and reality.

Last edited by makedonin; 11-02-2009 at 12:27 PM.
makedonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 04:39 PM   #36
TrueMacedonian
Senior Member
 
TrueMacedonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,809
TrueMacedonian will become famous soon enough
Default

Here's something else from Stephenson - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=1869
__________________
Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!
TrueMacedonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 12:19 AM   #37
TrueMacedonian
Senior Member
 
TrueMacedonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,809
TrueMacedonian will become famous soon enough
Default Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before and during 1767?

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?
__________________
Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!
TrueMacedonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 12:36 AM   #38
Pelister
Senior Member
 
Pelister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,742
Pelister is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
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.
Pelister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 06:51 AM   #39
Bratot
Senior Member
 
Bratot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,855
Bratot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
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!
__________________
The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot
Bratot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 08:33 AM   #40
Prolet
Senior Member
 
Prolet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,241
Prolet is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Prolet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
battle of belasica, blindings, bloodlines, macedonia, myth, ohrid archbishopric, ohrid patriarchate, samoil samuel basilii, samuil, tsar samoil


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump