Macedonian Tsar Stefan Dusan

[Bratot]

http://www.mn.mk/aktuelno/882-Makedonskiot-Car-dusan---kako-trn-vo-oko

Во Скопје во 1349 Стефан Душан издава свој Законик, кој, за жал, во оригинал не е зачуван, зачуван, меѓутоа зачувани се десетина преписи и од таму добиваме информации за оваа историска личност.
Душановиот законик започнува со зборовите "Законик на пречесниот и христољубивиот македонски цар Стефан, владетел српски, бугарски, унгарско-влашки, далматиниски, арбанашки, и на многу други региони и земји".

Вака гласат загрепскиот (Хрватска), раваничкиот (Србија), софискиот (Бугарија) препис на Душановиот законик. Душановиот законик со Стефан Душан како македонски цар ќе се најде и во книгата на Љ. Стојановиќ: (Lj. Stojanovic, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi. Knj. III, Beograd 1905, p. 41 (nbr.4949).)




(Code of) the honorable and Christ-loving Macedonian Tsar Stefan, Serbian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Dalmation, Arbanasian, Hungarian Wallachian and indipendent ruler of many other regions and lands...
Lj. Stojanovic, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi. Knj. III, Beograd 1905, p. 41 (nbr.4949).


Дури и познатата Едит Дурхам во своето дело "Висока Албанија", прво издание, отпечатено во далечната 1909 година зборува за Македонците, каде што го цитира Душановиот законик "Законик на Цар Душан Македонски, автократ на Србија, Бугарија, Унгарија, Влашка,..” (Edith Durham, "High Albania" First published in 1909, page 294. In London Edward Arnold Publishers to the India Office 1909).




Како што можеме да видиме, Цар Душан се прогласил за македонски цар, но не затоа што бил Македонец, туку за некој да се прогласи за цар, император во средновековието морало да ја земе круната на некое царство кое веќе претходно постоело. А кое би било тоа царство ако не Самуиловото!
Знаејќи уште и дека Косара, ќерката на Самоил се омажила за дукљанскиот кнез Јован Владимир, кој беше заробеник на Самоиловиот царски дворец. Сепак, на негова среќа, благодарение на љубовта на Косара, тој е помилуван и станува зет на Самоил,но и дел од фамилијата.

Има ли поголем доказ со кој ќе се оспори тврдењето на некои бугарски историчари дека цар Самоиловата држава била бугарска?

Според средновековните закони, царската круна можел да ја добие само од патријарх. Кога царот Душан завладеал со целата територија на Македонија во неговата држава се нашле две автокефални архиепископии Охридската и Пеќката. Набргу Душан решил да се прогласи за цар. Затоа било потребно Пеќката архиепископија да биде прогласена за патријаршија. Во ова бил помогнат и од Охридскиот архиепископ и од Трновскиот патријарх. Дошле и двата свети синоди како и трновскиот патријарх, и двајцата го прогласиле Јоаникиј II за патријарх, за потоа тројцата црковни великодостојници да го крунисаат Душан за цар. Учеството на Македонскиот поглавар - Охридскиот архиепископ се сметало како замена на цариградскиот патријарх, кој откажал да учествува на крунисувањето. Сите промени во српската држава и црква станувале со учество и благослов на Македонскиот архиепископ. Дали и во овој случај треба да замижиме кога истата таа македонска црква денеска е негирана?

Овој историски податок, во 19 век и сметал на тогашната српска интелегенција, која била во зародиш, па затоа и има бројни фалсификати на српските средновековни документи во нивното преобјавување во 19 век. Франц Миклошич, кој заедно со Вук Караџиќ во светот за прв пат објавуваа документи од средновековната српска историја, во монументалното дело “Monumenta Serbica“, титулацијата на Цар Душан од софискиот и раваничкиот запис е пренесена како: „Стефан во Христа Бога верен цар грчки“ (F. Miklošič, Monumenta Serbica, str 154). Но, во спомантите преписи на Душановиот Законик, јасно стои "Стефан во Христа Бога верен цар македонски“. Од таму иде и нашиот сомнеж, дека секаде каде што е спомнато македонското име, српските историчари и преобјавувачи на српски средновековни документи од 19-от век, зборот “македонски“ го заменувале со “грчки“ или “ромејски“.

На ова да го надоврземе и историскиот факт за Цар Душан објавен во најстарата историја за јужнословенските народи “Historia Turcica“ (1502 година) од дубровчанецот Феликс Петанчиќ, кој бил минијатурист и управник на Будимскиот скрипториум, а пред се одличен дипломат на дворот на Матија Корвин и Владислав Втори. Во “Historia Turcica“ стои дека Цар Душан е цар на Македонците и Рашканите т.е. оригинално “Macedonum Rasianorum Caesar“ (Historia Turcica (1502), Municipal Library in Nuremebrg, 31.2). Феликс Петанчиќ (1455-1517) се смета за еден од најдобрите турколози на сите времиња.

За жал, Цар Душан во нашите учебници по историја е претставен како цар на Србите и Грците, т.е. онака како што пропагандата на нашите соседи ни ја сервира нашата историја уште од 19 век.
Понатаму, кралот Волкашин (таткото на Крали Марко) и неговиот брат Углеша во Синодиконот на бугарскиот цар Борил (Boril's Synodicon) од 14 век, е претставен како македонски крал.

Не знам која е причината што во нашите учебници по историја овој факт се премолчува и нашите деца учат дека сегашниве Македонци се чисти Словени, па почнале да се нарекуваат Македонци дури во 19-от век, т.е. ние сме нова нација која ете како Словени сме блиски до Србите и Бугарите, па можеме да се претопиме во нивните нации. Досега не сум видел друга нација, освен македонската, самата да се негира себеси и покрај историските пишани документи и факти за нејзиното постоење.

Помошен линк: http://www.dusanov-zakonik.co.yu/



Maybe someone would like to translate this text into proper English?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I will roughlly translate the important parts in quoted sentences and then my comments.

As we can see, King Dusan proclaimed himself to be a Macedonian king, not because he was Macedonian however, but instead, for someone to proclaim himself as emperor in medieval times they had to take the crown of an empire that already existed. And that kingdom would be Samuel's.

At the time, Samuel's empire was not referred to in an official capacity as Macedonian, so I am not sure how convincing the above suggestion is. I would say that, given after the initial title of 'Macedonian Tsar' it goes on to speak about 'Serbian, Bulgarian, etc..........and independent ruler of many other regions and lands', it is more a geographic designation. This was due to the fact that his gains in Macedonia resulted in a kingdom becoming an empire, with a new central capital to rule the Balkans, which was Skopje - The same capital of the former 'Bulgaria Theme' that was established by the East Roman's after Samuel's defeat, which ironically included both Macedonia and Serbia as the main components of the then geographic entity. I think there would be more of a case for the city of Skopje having some sort of continuity as a central hub region that was well placed to rule the Balkans during this period. Keep this in mind, Skopje was the reason why Dusan identified himself as a Macedonian in the relevant code, which means the city was most certainly considered Macedonian during and prior to these events, and Dusan did include the Macedonian Coat of Arms in his larger imperial Coat of Arms. These are all important facts that are related to each other.

When the Emperor Dusan began to rule the whole territory of Macedonia he found two autocephalous Archbishopric's of Ohrid and Pech. Dusan soon decided to declare himself an emperor. He therefore required the Pech Archdiocese to be declared a Patriarchate.

True, except I am not sure how 'autocephalous' Pech was, it was still under the virtual patronage of Ohrid, or still severely influenced by it.

This was with the help of the Archbishop's of Ohrid and Trnovo...............The participation of the Macedonian head - Ohrid Archbishop was considered as a substitute for the Patriarch of Constantinople, who refused to attend the coronation.

That sounds very likely, but I cannot confirm because I haven't researched the matter of Pech's rise to a Patriarchate.

Any changes in the Serbian state and church came with the participation and blessing of the Macedonian Archbishop. Should we close our eyes to this case matter when the same Macedonian Church is denied today?

If Pech was promoted to a Patriarchate of its own, it would be unlikely that it would be submitting to the Archbishopric of Ohrid, even if the latter is practically the father of the former. In addition to this, it must not be forgotten that when the Serbian Empire split up in basically two havles, the Serbian north and the Macedonian south, the Patriarchate of Pech supported the Serbian side and Dusan's descendants, while the Archbishopric of Ohrid supported the Macedonian side and the family of King Marko. A striking fact, despite today's glorification in Serbia of King Marko being a 'Serbian king', like Samuel, his state, capital, church and people were in Macedonia, furthermore, as far as I am aware, King Marko is nowhere present in church icons next to Serbian saints, only Macedonian saints (or saint) like St Clement of Ohrid.

......there are many forgeries of Serbian medieval documents in their outing during the 19th century. Franz Miklošič, who together with Vuk Karadzic for the first time published documents of medieval Serbian history, the monumental work "Monumenta Serbica" - the title of emperor Dusan in Sofia and the Ravanichki record is transmitted as 'Stefan faithful in Christ God, emperor of Greeks'. (F. Miklošič, Monumenta Serbica, str 154). But the transcript of the earlier cited Dusan Code's clearly state 'Stefan faithful in Christ God, Macedonian Emperor.

That is an interesting point. Clearly, the Macedonians could not have falsified the documents where Stefan is recorded as a Macedonian Emperor.

Hence our suspicion that wherever the Macedonian name was mentioned, Serbian historians and publishers of Serbian medieval documents of the 19th century, the word "Macedonian" is replaced with "Greek" or "Romaic"......

Possible, any other examples of such acts though?

.......historic event relating to the Emperor Dusan is the publishing of the oldest history of the South Slavic peoples "Historia Turcica" (1502) by the Dubrovnik Felix Petancic, who was a miniaturist and manager of the Budim scriptorum, and above all an excellent diplomat at the court of Matija Korvin and Vladislav II. In "Historia Turcica" it is stated that King Dusan was king of the Macedonians and Rashkans - original 'Macedonum Rasianorum Caesar' (Historia Turcica 1502), Municipal Library in Nuremebrg, 31.2). Felix Petancic (1455-1517) is considered one of the best Turkologists of of all time.

Now this is interesting. Anybody read anything about the above work, "Historia Turcica" or the author Felix Petancic (Petanchich)?

King Volkasin (father of King Marko) and his brother Uglesa in the Synod of the Bulgarian Emperor Boril (Boril's Synodicon) from the 14th century, is presented as a Macedonian king.

Again, very interesting. Can this be verified?

Thanks for posting this Bratot.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Looks like the Macedonian church had influence over the Serbian one even during Turkish times.

http://www.kosovo.net/epatrijarsija.html

After the Turkish conquest of the Serbian state the activity in the Patriarchate of Pec died away for some time, partly because the Ohrid Archbishopric took over the administration of what had been the Serbian Church territory earlier. The restoration of the church organisation of the Serbs in 1557 gave a new lease of life to the monastery, and the Patriarchate became the centre of the Serbian Church again.

And these 'holy men' of the SOC have the audacity today to deny our church, and furthermore, claim it as "their's"!!

[Wanderer]

Does this Dusan has any connection with the royal Serbian family,from which is the mother of Costantine Palaiologos,last emperor of Costantinople?

[Bratot]

I will roughlly translate the important parts in quoted sentences and then my comments.


At the time, Samuel's empire was not referred to in an official capacity as Macedonian, so I am not sure how convincing the above suggestion is. I would say that, given after the initial title of 'Macedonian Tsar' it goes on to speak about 'Serbian, Bulgarian, etc..........and independent ruler of many other regions and lands', it is more a geographic designation. This was due to the fact that his gains in Macedonia resulted in a kingdom becoming an empire, with a new central capital to rule the Balkans, which was Skopje - The same capital of the former 'Bulgaria Theme' that was established by the East Roman's after Samuel's defeat, which ironically included both Macedonia and Serbia as the main components of the then geographic entity. I think there would be more of a case for the city of Skopje having some sort of continuity as a central hub region that was well placed to rule the Balkans during this period. Keep this in mind, Skopje was the reason why Dusan identified himself as a Macedonian in the relevant code, which means the city was most certainly considered Macedonian during and prior to these events, and Dusan did include the Macedonian Coat of Arms in his larger imperial Coat of Arms. These are all important facts that are related to each other.

I was suggested to look in the Vatican list of crowned kings/tsars.
That's very important because I was told that the first Tsar of Bulgaria was Saxoncoburgotski.

That mean's very clear, that Samoil was not a Bulgarian king. He got a title from the Pope of Rome, before the separation of the both churches on East and West.

In his time Ohrid was a Patriarchate.


And I'm not so convinced in what you said about missing evidence to say that Samoil was indeed a Macedonian Tsar.

If we know that the Greeks exhavated his tomb and gave the body to the Bulgarians.

Another important thing is the Greeko-Serbian allience and propaganda, so it's very possible some parts of the whole picture are hiden from us.

Kosara, the daughter of Samoil got married for the Serbian duke from Dukla, Zeta. By that he entered Samoil's family.
The serbian claim that because of her and the Kotromanici family from Bosnia, who were in family relations with Stefan Dusan, gave him the right to proclaim himself for Macedonian Tsar.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Stephen-Kotromanic

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/sie/8729/%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%9C%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%A7%D0%98

And that should be noted, he himself declared as a Macedonian Tsar, ruler of the serbians,bulgarians, greeks, arvanites etc.

True, except I am not sure how 'autocephalous' Pech was, it was still under the virtual patronage of Ohrid, or still severely influenced by it.

That sounds very likely, but I cannot confirm because I haven't researched the matter of Pech's rise to a Patriarchate.

If Pech was promoted to a Patriarchate of its own, it would be unlikely that it would be submitting to the Archbishopric of Ohrid, even if the latter is practically the father of the former. In addition to this, it must not be forgotten that when the Serbian Empire split up in basically two havles, the Serbian north and the Macedonian south, the Patriarchate of Pech supported the Serbian side and Dusan's descendants, while the Archbishopric of Ohrid supported the Macedonian side and the family of King Marko. A striking fact, despite today's glorification in Serbia of King Marko being a 'Serbian king', like Samuel, his state, capital, church and people were in Macedonia, furthermore, as far as I am aware, King Marko is nowhere present in church icons next to Serbian saints, only Macedonian saints (or saint) like St Clement of Ohrid.

That is an interesting point. Clearly, the Macedonians could not have falsified the documents where Stefan is recorded as a Macedonian Emperor.

http://www.svpetaripavle.org/new/history/s8.html

Possible, any other examples of such acts though?

Божидар Вуковић рођен је у племићкој породици, 1460. године у Ђурићима код Подгорице. Претпоставља се да је био високи државни чиновник – логотет, односно главни писар и руководилац Државне канцеларије на двору Ивана Црнојевића на Цетињу. Божидар Вуковић казује 1519. г. за себе, да је отачаством из Подгорице "у пределима маћедонским", а после тако исто говоре за себе и неки писари из херцеговачке Завале, из Мораче, па и из Сарајева.
Вук Караџић је тврдио "да су се Маћедонија српски звале све земље народа нашега", док је Руварац мислио, да је то означавање ствар сујете, "хотећи да се праве важни и да своје порекло доводе из тако важних историјских места, као што је била Филипа и Александра Великога Маћедонија".

Према Владимиру Ћоровићу тумачење је, међутим, много простије. Назив Маћедоније за све српске земље проширио се од оног времена, кад је Охридска црква обухватила под својом влашћу све те области.

Now this is interesting. Anybody read anything about the above work, "Historia Turcica" or the author Felix Petancic (Petanchich)?

Again, very interesting. Can this be verified?

Thanks for posting this Bratot.

Stefan, car Makedonaca i Rašana" (Stephanus Macedonum Rasianorum caesar) Historia Turcica (Turska istorija) čuva u jednom raskošnom kodeksu Gradske biblioteke u Nirnbergu, za koji je sada nesumnjivo utvrđeno da predstavlja Petančićev autograf

The first Croatian Latinist who wrote on Turkish affairs was Felix Petantius (1445-1517) of Dubrovnik. From 1487 to 1490, he was in charge of the calligraphists and miniaturists working at the court of King Matthias Corvinus in Buda, who died in 1490. Matthias's successor Ladislas II sent Felix on diplomatic missions to Dubrovnik, Spain, France, Constantinople and the island of Rhodes. Historia Turcica, is held at the Municipal Library in Nuremberg (pressmark Ms Solger 31.2°). It was written in Buda and was beautifully illuminated in the miniaturists' workshop of Matthias Corvinus at the end of 1501.

http://www.hic.hr/books/latinists/01latin.htm

Vukashin, who proclaimed himself king of Macedonia (Karajich, Danichich, Stoyan Novakovich, &c. See also on the language Dr F. Mikiosichs Vergleichende Lautlehre der slav. Sprachen; Section II.: Serbisch und Chorvatisch (Vienna, 1879), and his Wortbildungslehre der slav. Sprachen (Vienna, 1876); W. Vondrak Vergleichende slavische Grammatik (Gottingen, 1906 and 1908)

We will work to provide scans from the sources. To be more convincing right.

[Bratot]

The Byzantine name "Bulgarian" was applied to those Slavs already christianized, but in the half of the XII Century, Anna Comnene describing the Slav territories wrote: "On either side of its slopes dwell many very wealthy tribes, the Dacians and the Thracians on the northern side, and on the southern, more Thracians and the Macedonians".

986 From the History of Leo the Deacon: "...since they (Byzants) robbed the region of the Macedonians (Samuil Army) mercilessly, destroying all adults.". Leonis Diaconi Historiae, Paris 1864, p. 311


1027 year: Annales Barenses, MGH SS, V, 53, where they are described as forming part of Constantine VIII's expedition to Sicily: ‘ ... descendit in Italiam cum exercitu magno, i.e. Russorum, Guandalorum, Turcorum, Burgarorum, Vlachorum, Macedonum, aliarumque ut caperet Siciliam.'

[Bratot]

Annales Lupi Protospatharii
1027. Despotus Nicus in Italiam descendit cum ingentibus copiis Russorum, Wandalorum, Turcarum, Bulgarorum, Brunchorum, Polonorum, Macedonum, aliarumque nationum, ad Siciliam capiendam.

https://www.quipo.it/archita/Sheherazade/Arabi/lupo.html

[Soldier of Macedon]

And I'm not so convinced in what you said about missing evidence to say that Samoil was indeed a Macedonian Tsar.

Not sure what you are trying to say here Bratot. Did I mention missing evidence that says Samuel was a Macedonian Tsar?

Kosara, the daughter of Samoil got married for the Serbian duke from Dukla, Zeta. By that he entered Samoil's family.
The serbian claim that because of her and the Kotromanici family from Bosnia, who were in family relations with Stefan Dusan, gave him the right to proclaim himself for Macedonian Tsar.

I don't agree with that. Dusan became known as a Macedonian Tsar when he brought Macedonia under his control, there are a couple of centuries that separate Samuel from Dusan so looking for a strong Macedonian connection through family is weak at best when looking for the reason why Dusan identified as he did in the codes.

[Soldier of Macedon]

986 From the History of Leo the Deacon: "...since they (Byzants) robbed the region of the Macedonians (Samuil Army) mercilessly, destroying all adults.". Leonis Diaconi Historiae, Paris 1864, p. 311

Are you sure that's who they meant? I haven't read it in a while, I will need to look at this source again.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Does this Dusan has any connection with the royal Serbian family,from which is the mother of Costantine Palaiologos,last emperor of Costantinople?

Wanderer, it is the same Dusan. In his imperial codes, he referred to himself as a Macedonian Tsar.

Please note that we are not trying to claim him as a Macedonian per se (in the ethnic sense), if your line of questions is going to lead down that path. As a Greek I think you should take interest in the fact that Skopje became capital of Dusan's empire and the place of his corronation, hence the title of Macedonian Tsar. This would mean that Skopje was considered Macedonian territory even during the 14th century. What is your opinion on this?

[Bratot]

Not sure what you are trying to say here Bratot. Did I mention missing evidence that says Samuel was a Macedonian Tsar?

Sometimes the opposite opinion is valuable, I appreaciate yours. But why the quoted sentence wouldn't be convincing for you SoM?

I don't agree with that. Dusan became known as a Macedonian Tsar when he brought Macedonia under his control, there are a couple of centuries that separate Samuel from Dusan so looking for a strong Macedonian connection through family is weak at best when looking for the reason why Dusan identified as he did in the codes.

Still it's a possibility to claim connection like that.
You are aware of the importance that Macedonia had during Dusans rule. Maybe that isn't just innocent connection, but something more.

Anyway this is missing part in our history, no one have treated this seriously enough.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Sometimes the opposite opinion is valuable, I appreaciate yours. But why the quoted sentence wouldn't be convincing for you SoM?

I appreciate yours too Bratot, you know this. I take it you are referring to the following:

.......for someone to proclaim himself as emperor in medieval times they had to take the crown of an empire that already existed. And that kingdom would be Samuel's.

To which I responded with:

At the time, Samuel's empire was not referred to in an official capacity as Macedonian, so I am not sure how convincing the above suggestion is. I would say that, given after the initial title of 'Macedonian Tsar' it goes on to speak about 'Serbian, Bulgarian, etc..........and independent ruler of many other regions and lands', it is more a geographic designation. This was due to the fact that his gains in Macedonia resulted in a kingdom becoming an empire, with a new central capital to rule the Balkans, which was Skopje...........

I am not denying that what you posted may have been the case, I just don't find it as convincing as the suggestion I put forth (geographic reference). The example you mention is not unheard of, but I think it would be more relevant in Samuel's case and how he took the role of the former Bulgarian Empire before him, which resulted in the attachment of the 'Bulgarian' name to his empire as it was the only one in existence in the Balkans (apart from East Rome) prior to his. As I mentioned earlier, Samuel's empire was not known as Macedonian in an official capacity (that is not to say that the locals and others didn't know it as such, but officially, this seems to be the case), so if Dusan was assuming a former crown in the region it would have been known as 'Bulgarian' due to the reasons outlined earlier. The fact that Kosara was married to a Montenegrin prince does not have much bearing on the issue in my opinion, but then again, I haven't looked into the family lineage to see how related were the offspring of Kosara and John to Stefan Dusan. What is the relation?

You are aware of the importance that Macedonia had during Dusans rule. Maybe that isn't just innocent connection, but something more.

I am very aware of how significant Macedonia was for Dusan, like I said earlier, without Macedonian territory, Serbia remains a kingdom and not an empire, the same applies for Bulgaria during Boris' time, only a kingdom - it is only after Macedonia is absorbed within his borders does it become an empire. Macedonia has always been the centre of the Balkans and a territory that others aspired to acquire, I remember reading a quote from some writer a while back, where he says, "he who control the valleys of the river Vardar will be master of the Balkans", I agree totally.

[Pelister]

Not sure what you are trying to say here Bratot. Did I mention missing evidence that says Samuel was a Macedonian Tsar?


I don't agree with that. Dusan became known as a Macedonian Tsar when he brought Macedonia under his control, there are a couple of centuries that separate Samuel from Dusan so looking for a strong Macedonian connection through family is weak at best when looking for the reason why Dusan identified as he did in the codes.

Two centuries is a long time in this part of the world at that time.

[makedonin]

I find this part of Misirkov interesting and related to Dushan:

Македонцкото жител'ство не се односуало со мрзн'а кон србите. Ушче од времето на паг'аiн'ето на Самуилоото царство, македонците не iеднаш праиiа силни востааiн'а против Византиiа, многу по силни од бугарцкото во време на браiк'а Асановци, но не можаа да се ослободат, зашчо каi ниф сет друзи географцките прилики каi бугарите друзи. За да се ослободат бугарите во горна Бугариiа, шчо се оддел'уат од долна со Балканите, доста iет да се избиiат византиiцките гарнизони во неiа и да се фатат од ниф дервентите, за да не пропушк'аат ноа византиiцка воiска. А во Македониiа работите сет сосем инакви. Тука немат таков зид, коi шчо да бранит востаачите, као Балканчте во Бугариiа. Тука имаме многу високи планини, коiи имаат разен праец и образуваат котловини, одделени една од друга. Планините затруднуваат соiединеi'н'ето на сите македонци за обшча борба со неприiател'от, а пак олеснуваат работата на византиiците, зашчо, со разместуаiн'е во ниф гарнизони, они можат да држат македонците во послушаiн'е. Осем тоа на Византиiа поможуваа да држит македонците во послушаiн'е и шосетата или друмишчата, шчо сет напраени за воени требности ушче од римiаните и iа пресечуваат Македониiа од исток на запад, т. е. од Белото море кон Сиiн'ото и од iуг кон север краi Вардар, т. е. од Белото море кон Дунаот. При ваквиiа географцки прилики, iасно iет, оти македонците не можаа да се ослободат од Византиiа и готои беа да бидат соiузници на секоi неприiател', шчо ке воiуат со Византиiа. Таков соiузник до Х век беа бугарите, а от XIII в. беа србите.

Македонците станаа соiузници на србите, и со тоа се ослободиiа од византиiците. Они се присоiединиiа кон Србиiа, но тоа присоiединуаiн'е не беше насил'ническо, а на осноа на догоор мег'у македонците големци и србцките кралеи. Тоа беше резултат на iеден компромис мег'у првите и вторите, компромис згоден и за iедните и за друзите. Македониiа под србцките кралеи, особено под Душана имаше полна самостоiност во натрешните работи, и то таква, со каква не се ползуаше ни iеден друг дел од големата империiа на Душана. Тоа се видит от титулите, шчо и носеа македонцките големци и од влиiаiн'ето нивно на имперцките работи. Тоа се видит и од големата приврзаност на македонците кон царцкиот трон. За да се убедит чоек во тоа нешчо, доста iет да прегледат историiата на Немаiничиата држаа од времето на цар Душана до смртта на Волкашина, особено периодот на распадаiн'ето на Душаноата империiа. Од овде ке се убедит чоек оти центрот и наi големата рол'а во таiа империiа принадлежеше на Македониiа. От секаде от перифериiата на Душаноата империiа по негоата смрт отпаг'аат областите iедна по iедна. Македониiа крепит Урошеиiот престол и македонцкиiот големец крал' Волкашин iет главниiот советник и десна рака на Уроша. Сите го мрзат Волкашина за негоага рол' и влиiаiн'е на Уроша, но царот му веруат, македонцките големци: 70 кралеи и банои, по народните песни, му веруваат и му даат 70,000 воiска, со ниф да умрит на Марица за царот и „србцкото име".

70,000 души воiска от 70 кралеи и банои! Како се
велеше таiа воiска? Чиiе име носеше и коi му гу кладе? Сите се велеа „срби", но во ниф имаше толку срби, колку во воiската на цар Симеона имаше Бугари — монголи; па ми се чинит да и имаше и по малу. Значит во XIV век македонците официално носеа името срби, коiе немаше зашчо да го презираат и да се срдат на него.. Во тоа име они не наог'аа нишчо лошо.

Србите беа главната воена сила против византиiците. Нашите предедовци беа нивни соiузници. Византнiците велеа сите своiи противници, т. е., и србите, и нас срби. Малу по малу они не прекрстиiа од бугари на срби. Истото се поддржа од признаiн'ето суверенитетот на Душнаа во Македониiа и од рол'ата на нашите големци во негоата држаа. Ниiе станафме за надворешниiот свет срби, после истапифме како србцки подаiници и наi после зафати името србин да, означуат македонец, не грк, не влаф и не арнаутин.

Једно нешчо не сочува србцкото име во Македониiа;
тоа iет караi'н'ето мег'у крал' Марко и кнез Лазар. Последниiот истапи као противник на турците со името србин и со тоа турците врзаа со пон'атиiето србин и Србиiа денешното крал'ство и негоите жители. Марко и негоите подаiници во очите на турците не можеа да бидат срби, зашчо не се противиiа и не покажаа таква воинственост против ниф, каква покажаа кнез Лазар и негоите поданици.

И така до идеiн'ето на турците каi нас ниiе три пати бефме прекрстени: 1, славени, 2, бугари, 3, срби.

http://www.misirkov.org/sostauala.htm

Sorry for not providing translation at this point, but will when I find some time.

[TrueMacedonian]

According to scholar George White;

Dushans self-designation demonstrates that he saw himself and his state in imperialist terms, not nationalists ones.