Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Bratot]

Samuel tsar of Macedonia
died Oct. 6, 1014, Prilep, Macedonia

tsar of Western Bulgaria, or Macedonia, from 980; his realm was successor to the First Bulgarian empire.

Ruling originally in Macedonia, Samuel then conquered independent Serbia and further extended his power into northern Bulgaria, Albania, and northern Greece. He established his capital at Ochrida (now Ohrid, Macedonia) and revived the Bulgarian patriarchate. In the 980s he defeated the Byzantine emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus near Sofia, but from 997 the intermittent struggle with the Byzantines went against him. Finally, on July 29, 1014, Basil overwhelmed Samuel in the Battle of Belasitsa. At Basil’s order, the Bulgarian prisoners (said to number 15,000) were blinded and returned to Samuel, who fainted from shock and soon died. He was succeeded by his son Gavril (murdered in 1015) and a nephew Ivan (killed in battle in 1018), after which Bulgaria became a Byzantine province.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520801/Samuel



Грешката е исправена!!!


П.С. Check this out

http://www.vmro.bg/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=337

[Risto the Great]

Western Bulgaria?
Bulgarian patriarchate?

SoM ..... yoohoo ;-)

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

Western Bulgaria?
Bulgarian patriarchate?

SoM ..... yoohoo ;-)

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate, the Bulgarian label a mere remnant from the time of the Bulgarian Empire, which was also further reinforced by the establishment of the East Roman theme known as the 'Bulgaria Theme', which, oddly enough, included modern Macedonian and Serbian territory, but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.

[TerraNova]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate, the Bulgarian label a mere remnant from the time of the Bulgarian Empire, which was also further reinforced by the establishment of the East Roman theme known as the 'Bulgaria Theme', which, oddly enough, included modern Macedonian and Serbian territory, but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.

Britannica is rather clear.
ALL the sources i m aware of ,call Samuel,his army,his people and his state Bulgarian.

[Daskalot]

I see that you accept Britannica in that particular case, what about this one then on the ethnic composition of Greece;
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/2008/...edonians-2008/

[Soldier of Macedon]

ALL the sources i m aware of ,call Samuel,his army,his people and his state Bulgarian.

And the explanation of why is given above. Could you by any chance show where any state, army and people are collectively called "Hellenic" during the same period? I'm all ears.

Nice link Daskale.
http://macedoniantruth.org/wp-conten...008-small1.jpg

Britannica is rather clear.

Indeed. My, my, one wonders how many of today's modern Greeks are actually descended from native Greek-speaking populations in what constitutes modern Greece (today). Well, I guess the first Greek constitution answers most of that.

[TerraNova]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

And the explanation of why is given above. Could you by any chance show where any state, army and people are collectively called "Hellenic" during the same period? I'm all ears.

Even there are plenty examples of the use of the term Ellinas,instead of Romios (Ioannis Vatatzes,Choniatis,Anna Comnena,etc)
i don't denounce the term Romios-it is used until now..meaning the same.
Romios and Ellinas are the same.
Do you think Bulgarian and Macedonian are the same too?

Nice link Daskale.
http://macedoniantruth.org/wp-conten...008-small1.jpg

Nice...but doesn't support your delusions

Well, I guess the first Greek constitution answers most of that.

I guess firstGreekConstitution needs a surgery to be removed from your head.
Its like a tumor.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Even there are plenty examples of the use of the term Ellinas,instead of Romios (Ioannis Vatatzes,Choniatis,Anna Comnena,etc)

None of these people were commoners or even regular folk, they were educated and/or royalty. And their content is not at all substantial with regard to a collective and common 'Hellenic' identity shared by any sort of masses, of course, please exhibit the relevant texts if you think otherwise.

i don't denounce the term Romios-it is used until now..meaning the same.

Yes you do, and no it isn't.

Romios and Ellinas are the same.

Have you had your medicine? East Roman priests cursed the 'Hellenic' name as heresy and devil worshipping, the East Romans historically despised the names of 'Greek' and 'Hellene'. Do you really need me to show you some more examples of the differences between Romans and Hellenes or would you like to quit while you are still stumbling to the floor?

Do you think Bulgarian and Macedonian are the same too?

I think the relevance is equal of both the 'Roman' and 'Bulgarian' names where it concerns their use by the Macedonians during various stages in history. After the dust settles, the same people are there regardless of the names used due to belonging in a state or adherence to a religious group, the same people, the Macedonians.

Nice...but doesn't support your delusions

There is only one person that has delusions here mate, the same one who claims that Romans and Hellenes are the same.

I guess firstGreekConstitution needs a surgery to be removed from your head.
Its like a tumor.

I think each time reference is made to it you receive pains in your head on par with a tumor, which prompts an impulsive reaction on par with a moron.

[Bratot]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

If by western Bulgaria they are referring to the former (and recently acquired) periphery territories of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the land and core territory of Samuel's Empire was in Macedonia, and not Bulgaria, which is located in upper Thrace bordering the Danube.

Bulgarian Patriarchate? Lol. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was finished, over, no more. Samuel established the Ohrid Patriarchate,

but not modern (or medieval for that matter) Bulgarian territory.

Such emphasis some people like to misleadingly place on these name games, while closing their eyes to some obvious points of truth such as the language, letters, people and geography of Samuel's state, which, were all the same as the people who live there today.

Exactly the point you mentioned, to understand the terms which were applied back than, we shouldn't lead ourself from the present point of view.

And I absolutelly agree with you about establishment od Ohrid Patriarchate by Samoul, anyway the creation of themes:






And this is much more earlier than Samoul's reign, we can find all kind of misleading conclusions if we are not aware of the meaning that those terms had back than.

[TerraNova]

Why you think this region was called Theme of Bulgaria ?