Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 22, 2011 19:25:12 GMT -5
At the end of January 969, immediately after the death of Tsar Petar, the four sons of the Komitadji Nikola-David, Moysey, Aron and Samuil-began an uprising against Bulgarian authorities. Taking advantage of a Russian invasion by Prince Svyatoslav which preoccupied the Byzantines and Bulgarians, they quickly succeeded in overwhelming all opposition in the region. The young Komitadjis, whose territory was far distant from the Russo-Byzantine conflict, remained neutral despite attempts by both sides to sway them. In the summer of 971 near the Danube River, Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimisces delivered a decisive blow to Svyatoslav, and incorporated the Bulgarian empire into Byzantium following the victory. For two years the Macedonian state of the four brothers had been independent of Byzantium. With the Tzimisces' victory over Svyatoslav and the extension of Byzantine borders as far as Dalmatia, the Macedonian state could be subordinated to the supreme authority of Constantinople in 971, and Bulgaria and Serbia were transformed into Byzantine provinces. By 976, the Komitopulis made several attempts to gain international recognition; there is record of a visit paid by two of them to the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto I in 973, with the intention of contacting European rulers gathered in Otto's capital at Kwedlinburg. In January 976, immediately after the death of Tzimisces, the komitopulis rose in revolt: some historians consider this to be a second, new uprising by the four brothers, while others argue that it was a continuation of their first uprising of 969. "The first date, the year 969," writes Styepan Antolyak, "marks the beginning of the formation of a state core in Macedonia under the leadership of the komitopulis, who, after their liberation from the authority of the Bulgarian church began to extend [the borders of] their still small state in the shadow of nominal Byzantine supremacy. The year 976 marked the beginning of strong development of the state community, the borders of which soon extended from the Black Sea to the middle part of the Adriatic and to the Sava, Drava and Danube Rivers." In the newly-established state, completely independent of Byzantium, the brothers ruled jointly. This joint rule lasted for a very short time: "Of the four brothers, David was soon killed in the area between Prespa and Kostur by some Vlach travelers, while Moysey was slain by a stone thrown from the ramparts during the siege of Serres. According to the records, Aron, either because he supported the Romaeans or because he sought to grasp power for himself, was killed together with his family by his brother Samuil. Only [his son] Ivan was saved by Radomir Roman, Samuil's son. Thus, Samuil became the sole ruler of Bulgaria: a militant man who was never at peace." Such were the circumstances in which the life of the new empire began. The ambitions of Samuil, called "a brilliant commander" even by Byzantine chroniclers, lay in the west: he attacked Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Thessaly, Greece and Peloponnesus. By the 10th century, he succeeded in incorporating the entire territory of Macedonia (without Thessaloniki), most of the former Bulgarian Empire, part of Greece, a large part of Albania, Dioclea, Serbia, Bosnia and a part of Dalmatia within his Macedonian Empire. At the close of the 9th century, Pope Gregory V heralded and blessed Samuil as a king, and the empire of the youngest son of the Komitadji Nikola acquired international recognition and character. It is very important to note which church recognized Samuil. Some Bulgarian historians have asserted that Samuil's empire was a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire-recognized by Constantinople and the Orthodox Church. But Samuil's empire was recognized by the Catholic Roman Curia. In addition, Samuil represented a new imperial dynasty, the empire was founded on a new state and legal basis, with new twin capitals at Prespa and Ohrid, and with a precisely defined core centered around Macedonia and the Macedonian Slavs as the fundamental element of the new empire. All of this points to the fact that Samuil's empire was not merely a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire recently shattered by Byzantium, but a new political entity which emerged independently. The first capital of Samuil was Prespa, later transferred to Ohrid. At that time, the latter was a strongly fortified town and well-suited to forestall Byzantine reconquest. In Ohrid Samuil built imperial palaces and a church to be the seat of the Macedonian church. It is also significant to note that, throughout the existence of the Macedonian Empire, the capital was situated within Macedonia-a confirmation of the essentially Macedonian character of this medieval Balkan state. As recorded in Byzantine chronicles, Basil II, the new Byzantine emperor, invaded Macedonia almost "every year" and gradually succeeded in capturing and destroying a number of strongholds. The fall of Durres and of the fortified towns on the other side of the Maritsa River and the submission of Greater and Lesser Preslav, Pliska, Veria, Servia, Voden, Vidin, Edirne and Skopje considerably eroded Samuil's power. The decisive battle between Samuil and Basil II took place at the foot of Mt. Belasitsa on July 29, 1014. "The emperor had given up hope that he would be able to pass, when Nicephorus Sciphianus, appointed by him as strategist of Philippopolis, bade him stay there and assault the barriers [before the battle of Belasitsa Samuil had blocked the road where Basil II sought to enter Macedonia by barriers and trenches], while he would attempt a rescue action. And he took his soldiers and, unexpectedly, with shouts and great noise, appeared on the hill behind their backs. Frightened by the unexpected appearance of enemy soldiers, the army [of Samuil] started to run away. The emperor pulled down the barriers and began to chase them. Many of them were killed, and even more were taken captive. Samuil narrowly escaped death with the help of his son, who bravely fought against the attackers. He put his father on a horse and took him to the fortress called Prilep. The emperor blinded captives-about 15,000 of them, they say-and ordering afterwards that every hundred of them be led by a one-eyed soldier, he sent them thus to Samuil. The latter was so shaken by the sight of them walking in rows of equal numbers that he felt sick. Everything went black in front of his eyes and he fell on the ground. Those present, who tried hard to restore his breathing with water and herbs, succeeded to bring him back to consciousness for a few minutes. When he revived he asked for cold water; however, when he began to drink, he suffered a heart attack and two days later he died." This is the 12th century account of the Byzantine historian Skylitzes about the defeat of Samuil by Basil II. There is no definite proof where Samuil died-in Prilep, as claimed by Skylitzes, or in Prespa, as stated by Michael Attaliot. But the date of Samuil's death is placed at October 6, 1014. The death of Samuil did not mean disintegration of his empire. His successor to the throne was his son Gavril Radomir, who continued the war with Byzantium and raided as far as Constantinople. The Byzantines intrigued to achieve what they could not win on the battlefield: they persuaded Ivan Vladislav, the son of Aron-alive only thanks to Gavril Radomir's intervention with Samuil-to kill Radomir. Promised "gold and silver to his heart's content" and even Samuil's empire, Vladislav agreed and in August or September 1015, Gavril Radomir was killed by Ivan Vladislav while hunting near the town of Ostrovo. Regardless of the fact that he took an oath of loyalty to Basil II, Ivan Vladislav continued to fight Constantinople. But after a series of dramatic battles, devastating campaigns and acts of treason throughout Samuil's empire, the last faithful commanders of Samuil, Ivec and Nikolica, were defeated in the summer of 1018 and Ohrid taken. Basil II could now boast that he had crushed and conquered Samuil's state. The territory of Macedonia was divided into a number of administrative regions, called themes. Consequently, the chances for Macedonians to unite and renew the uprising were reduced to the absolute minimum.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 22, 2011 19:28:38 GMT -5
Tsar Samuel: Bulgarian or Macedonian?
Todd B. Krause
An issue that frequently arises in connection with the LRC's lesson series Old Church Slavonic Online is the national or cultural or other affiliation of the famous Tsar Samuel (or Samuil, or somewhat more faithfully Samoilŭ). In the context of the lesson series, Samuel is mentioned as author of a particular inscription that provides the oldest dated text in the Old Church Slavonic language. To be clear: that is the only reason for Samuel's mention in the lesson series, which concerns itself primarily with the language of a particular region and time.
Nevertheless, the series editors have on numerous occasions been reminded by readers that Samuil's status as a prominant early figure in Bulgarian and Macedonian history is a great source of either pride or animosity. We would like to state flatly that the Linguistics Research Center does not espouse any particular viewpoint re: Samuil's association with any modern or historically recent political entity.
There are several themes that recur in email that our readers send us, and in the spirit of furthering modern understanding of historical cultures it is worth addressing some of these themes in light of modern scholarship.
Samuil's ethnic origin: The perennial question is whether Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian. The simple fact is that it is difficult to answer this question, because what those terms mean now is not necessarily what they would have meant to Samuil. Moreover, one of the few primary sources in any way contemporary with Samuil, written by Asolik, states that Samuil was in fact Armenian. As Adontz (1938) points out, the name of Samuil's mother, Ripsime, is peculiar to a specific region in Armenia, and his father's name Nicolas is found in numerous regions at that time, among them Armenia. Thus an Armenian origin for Samuil is certainly a credible, though perhaps not the only, reading of the evidence presented to date.
Samuil's cultural self-identification: As many point out, what we in the modern era think about Samuil's cultural affiliation is moot if we know what he thought of himself. Unfortunately, that's not easy to determine. Though Samuil and later members of his family used, in reference to their cultural affiliation, terms we might now render as "Bulgarian," given the political climate and power struggles of his time it is quite difficult to ascertain to what degree this term truly specified a traditional culture, or to what degree it might rather have specified a political entity defining the empire. It is quite possible that "Bulgarian" meant to Samuil something similar to what "Roman" likely meant to Charlemagne, who neither lived in nor hailed from Rome.
General import: The above points hopefully provide an inkling of the grave difficulties that surround the interpretation of the small amount of information we have concerning Samuil. Certainly there is room for continued refinement in our understanding. But we would do well to keep in mind points raised by Aleksandar Panev:
"The differences in the various historical accounts of Samuel, who ruled a short-lived kingdom centered in Prespa and Ohrid from 976 to 1014, reflect recent nationalistic controversies and scholarly discourses that have emerged in the scholarly literature of modern Macedonia and Bulgaria. The dispute focuses on Samuel's ethnic affiliation and the alleged nationality of his subjects. On one hand, scholars from the Republic of Macedonia tend to emphasize the cultural, social, and even linguistic distinctiveness of Samuel's kingdom. On the other, Bulgarian scholars emphasize the fact that Samuel used the Bulgarian name for himself and his kingdom and the beginnings of his career in southwestern Macedonia are rarely mentioned. Both approaches clearly aim to support present-day nationalistic claims and agendas. The Macedonians need this approach in order to demonstrate that they have long been a separate nationality with their own language and history; the Bulgarian interpretation, on the other hand, supports the claim that Macedonians are essentially Bulgarians by ethnic origin, as well as by cultural and linguistic characteristics. Both approaches are anachronistic. It is indeed difficult to speak about the national consciousness of a short-lived medieval ruler and his subjects and to discuss his impact on national development at a time when the majority of the population was illiterate and boundaries were fluid. Moreover, the only primary source that discusses the ethnic affiliation of Samuel asserts that he was an Armenian by origin. Bulgarian and Macedonian ethnic groups only began to acquire national consciousness in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Only during the past century and a half have Southeastern European Slavs gradually begun to assert their nationality and unify around several urban centers. Thus, the national affiliation of Samuel can neither be determined nor could it be relevant to today's situation in the region." (Panev, 2005)
References Books Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages. Routledge, 1993.
Richard Frucht, ed., Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture. ABC-CLIO, 2005.
Horace G. Lunt, Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Walter de Gruyter, 2001.
Alexander M. Schenker, The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology. Yale University Press, 1995.
Articles Nicolas Adontz, "Samuel l'Arménien, Roi des Bulgares," Académie Royale de Belgique, 1938.
Aleksandar Panev, "Macedonia," in Frucht 2005 (above).
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 22, 2011 19:31:53 GMT -5
the guy looks Bulgarian to me.
|
|
|
Post by Moe Lester on Sept 22, 2011 19:47:28 GMT -5
Looks like a typical Southern European to me.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 22, 2011 20:05:45 GMT -5
the fact is, he was the ruler of the bulgarian empire. not macedonian.
in fact his enemy was a byzantine ruler called "basil the macedonian" and "basil the bulgar-slayer".
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 22, 2011 20:13:29 GMT -5
the fact is, he was the ruler of the bulgarian empire. not macedonian. in fact his enemy was a byzantine ruler called "basil the macedonian" and "basil the bulgar-slayer". "..."Bulgarian" meant to Samuil something similar to what "Roman" likely meant to Charlemagne, who neither lived in nor hailed from Rome."
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 22, 2011 21:22:08 GMT -5
what is that a quote?
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 22, 2011 21:54:00 GMT -5
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 23, 2011 2:53:34 GMT -5
By the 10th century, he succeeded in incorporating the entire territory of Macedonia (without Thessaloniki), most of the former Bulgarian Empire, part of Greece, a large part of Albania, Dioclea, Serbia, Bosnia and a part of Dalmatia within his Macedonian Empire. lol, sure, now we need the photoshop to provide the trivial technicalities to "illustrate" the situation, just like the ones the tatars love to make... ajde samo napred makedonijo !!
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 23, 2011 4:32:48 GMT -5
that article isn't valid, it's most recent source is from 35' lol!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 23, 2011 10:40:41 GMT -5
chento, accept it: Samuel was a Bulgarian zar. Your first zar is Kiro Gligorov
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
Post by elemag on Sept 23, 2011 10:54:32 GMT -5
With absolute certaintly that is the biggest lie I have read in quite a long time. No need to read the article any further. Samuil was never, I repeat, never engaged in any war against any Bulgarians. I wonder what kind of mind could come up with such idiocy. Even further, he proclaimed himself аs Tsar only after the last Tsar of the Krum dinasty died and there were no other rightful candidates for the throne. Chento, shame on you for this article. You seem to be a man without any honor.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 23, 2011 14:53:22 GMT -5
Samuil = bulgarian goce delcev = bulgarian krste misirkov = bulgarian
and so on, and so on
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 24, 2011 3:49:27 GMT -5
miletic = bulgarian pejcinovic = bulgarian etc....
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 24, 2011 3:54:13 GMT -5
Krivo bro, Bulgos have not been stealing only Srbijanski history but Crno Gorksi as well: their only book in the period from 1200 to 1800 ...was written by a montenegrin (Bozidar ) and printed in venice. Later, their books were printed in Kragujevac.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 24, 2011 5:03:07 GMT -5
^wow. and yet the bulgars love to brag how they "created" our writing system.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 24, 2011 6:47:13 GMT -5
^wow. and yet the bulgars love to brag how they "created" our writing system. their whole concept of propaganda (same as with the albinos, the boslims, etc...) relies on one sole assumption : "that the target audience will never ever visit the said places, or otherwise get in touch with the said cultures" in other words, the aforementioned propagandas are targeted against total outsiders, usually citizens of big remote empires who would buy anything their gvmts serve them.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 24, 2011 8:37:11 GMT -5
Kliment (a Bulgarian) indeed created the alphabeth you use today, Krivo. The non latin one.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 24, 2011 9:09:33 GMT -5
^^^ which coincides 90% with the greek alphabet, which coincides 90% with the old hebrew alphabet, which...
anyway, fact is, modern bulgaria is a concept born by serbs.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 24, 2011 10:29:17 GMT -5
rather serbian culture is a straight copy of the Bulgarian one. We are used to seeing the Serbs doing what we did with 4-5 centuries delay
|
|