ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 24, 2011 21:52:30 GMT -5
Lol. Eaaaasy does it. The "Slavic State of Samuil" was known by either of two names; The First Bulgarian Empire, or the Western Bulgarian Empire (this name is less common). The key term here being 'Bulgarian'. It was not known as simply a Slavic state, nor was it known as a Macedonian state. In fact, at that time, the Byzantine 'Theme of Macedonia' was located in present day Bulgaria. The map is accurate, and if you're wondering why they named it as such, I'd suggest you go out and find some neutral sources to read. The people of Tsar Samuil were known as Bulgarians, hence why Emperor Basil II obtained the title of Bulgaroktonos (ie. Bulgar-slayer). You know, like I told you, I believe that ethnic Macedonians exist today because there are people who genuinely identify as such. However, if those people fail to admit that their state and ethnicity are among the newest ones in Europe.. then I gotta tell ya, it makes it more difficult for people like me to actually respect your chosen ethnic identity. Oh, and in your list you forgot to add Macedonia's inclusion in the First Bulgarian Empire, the Second Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 24, 2011 22:05:41 GMT -5
First Bulgarian Empire, the Second Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
I did not include them as there was no province/state/theme of Macedonia in these empires. Macedonian territory was just included as part of these states.
As for Samuel, well I concede that his title was Bulgarian Tsar. This is because he filled the empty throne left by the heirs of the Bulgarian throne. He was not of Bulgarian royal lineage, and was in fact half Armenian - from this mothers side. His state was centered in Macedonia, and ruled from our territory. This is what is important to modern Macedonians. I guess, Macedonian-Bulgaria would also be an appropriate description for his state.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 24, 2011 22:24:46 GMT -5
From Britannica; 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. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520801/Samuel
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 24, 2011 22:42:02 GMT -5
His mother was Armenian, yes. But as I've already mentioned, this doesn't make him any less Bulgarian. He was a self identified Bulgarian, simple as that.
On a similar note, the majority of ethnic Macedonians today have self identified as ethnic Bulgarians not long ago. However, this doesn't make these ethnic Macedonians any less Macedonian, does it?
Lol. Your logic is faulty. If we were to go by it, then the Serbian Empire must have been Macedonian as well since it was ruled from your territory.
Seriously bro, get a grip of yourself. You ain't gonna get respect like that.
How about we call it like it was recorded. Don't try to re-write history, it was already written and verified by a multitude of scholars and historians. There never was any mention of a Macedonian state or a Macedonian people at that time. The term 'Macedonia' was only used as a geographic reference.
Your ethnicity exists and it came into existence in the 20th century. That's that. If you're going to build on it, do so on a fair ground. Otherwise, like I said, it ain't gonna get you respect.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 24, 2011 22:49:45 GMT -5
Found this through your link little buddy.. For the purposes of this article the term Macedonia, unless otherwise specified, is used to refer to the geographic region bounded on the east by the lower Nestos River and the western slopes of the Rhodope Mountains; on the north by the Siroka, Skopska Crna Gora, an Sar mountains; on the west by the Korab range and by Lakes Ohrid and Prespa; on the southwest by the Pindus Mountains; and on the south by the valley of the Aliakmon River, which reaches the Gulf of Salonika near Mount Olympus. The term Macedonia is used to refer to that portion of the region contained in Greece, and the Republic of Macedonia is used to refer to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1515349/Macedonia-the-provenance-of-the-name
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 24, 2011 22:50:57 GMT -5
Oh, and the title of your article is simply "Samuel".. NOT 'Samuel tsar of Macedonia'. LOL Btw, if you use the synonym for Macedonia as illustrated by your quote above (ie. Western Bulgaria), I think that might resolve the name issues with Greece. I support the name Republic of Macedonia as well, but I must say, there's something about 'Republic of Western Bulgaria' that just sounds appropriate.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 24, 2011 23:09:04 GMT -5
"...the powerful, but short-lived empire of Tsar Samuil (969– 1018) centered in Macedonia under a largely domestic ruling elite. This ‘‘Macedonian kingdom,’’ as the great Byzantologist Ostrogorsky refers to it, ‘‘was essentially different from the former kingdom of the Bulgars. In composition and character, it represented a new and distinctive phenomenon. The balance had shifted toward the west and south, and Macedonia, a peripheral region in the old Bulgarian kingdom, was its real center.’’ However, for reasons of political and ecclesiastical legitimacy, crucial in the Middle Ages, Samuil and the Byzantines thought it part of the Bulgarian empire, and so it carried the Bulgarian name."
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 24, 2011 23:26:28 GMT -5
Btw, if you use the synonym for Macedonia as illustrated by your quote above (ie. Western Bulgaria), I think that might resolve the name issues with Greece. I support the name Republic of Macedonia as well, but I must say, there's something about 'Republic of Western Bulgaria' that just sounds appropriate.
Yes, I'm sure you and the greeks would love this. I find it interesting that in recent times bulgars and greeks have really warmed up to each other. This is essentially because of us. Their respective propagandas are compatible when it comes to Macedonia, and the hope of R. Macedonia joining Bulgaria gets them all wet. Well the bad news is that this isn't going to happen. R. Macedonia is a reality and we are a factor you have to deal with now. Pirin and Aegean Macedonia is what we want and this is what we work towards. We will use your tactics, and when the time is right, will allie with an appropriate power to achieve our aims. Izvini brate, but what goes around, comes around...
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 25, 2011 0:16:13 GMT -5
The quote above, you obtained from this article here media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Macedonia_and_the_Macedonians_Andrew_Rossos_19.pdfThe article was written by Andrew Rossos, who is a professor at the University of Toronto. Coincidentally, that's where I've studied. I've heard of this dude, and could hardly say that he deserves a Ph. D. Furthermore, our dear Andrew Rossos was born in Aegean Macedonia. As far as I know, he associates himself with the Macedonian ethnicity. This alone discredits the credibility of this source. Now, regarding Ostrogorsky himself, I'd say that if you want to get closer to the truth he's not the place to start. You can read more about him if you'd like, but the quote above is more than enough considering that at that time the political regime in Yugoslavia was putting in significant effort toward the creation of a new "unique" Macedonian ethnicity. At that time this agenda was also backed by Russia as well. Sorry friend, but you're gonna have to try your BS elsewhere. This sort of crap might fool the average person off the street, but I've told you before.. all is written, all is recorded. All we need to do is read and educate ourselves with all sources possible. That's the only way to get closer to the truth. Context is also very important, and we must keep things in perspective just so that we know that we've done our due diligence. So like I said, let's avoid all the BS "sources" and try to focus on neutral ones.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 25, 2011 0:25:44 GMT -5
What we want is an accurate depiction of history, as it has been recorded by neutral sources.
I can respect the fact that you've had a relative who fought and died for the IMRO. I can respect the fact that your grandfather fought against Tito and Yugoslavia's policies. But that's as far as it goes.
Izvini brate, but your views are a disgrace to your dead relative's memory.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 25, 2011 1:05:55 GMT -5
What we want is an accurate depiction of history, as it has been recorded by neutral sources. I can respect the fact that you've had a relative who fought and died for the IMRO. I can respect the fact that your grandfather fought against Tito and Yugoslavia's policies. But that's as far as it goes. Izvini brate, but your views are a disgrace to your dead relative's memory. My relatives fought for an independent Macedonia and the Macedonian people. Not for the Bulgarian nation or people. Again, this is what separates a Macedonian patriot from a Bulgarian patriot. Forget the ethnicity for a moment, and focus on the state and nation you support. Fair enough if you are a Bulgarian, with roots from R. Bulgaria, but if you have roots from Macedonia, then you need to pick a side, because ultimately we are on different sides -> Greater Bulgaria or Independent Macedonia. The two are not compatible. My relatives supported the latter.
|
|
|
Post by balkanac on Aug 25, 2011 2:57:19 GMT -5
We all gotta represent for our countries here but Croatia would fall into that category of retaining its name from its original kingdom. Only Croatia and Bulgaria as far as I know. I'm not Bulgarian btw. And I said Bulgaria because when it created a kingdom in the Balkans, it mixed it with slavs and became Slavic. And to this day, they still remain slavic, that's why I believe Bulgaria is the oldest country in the Balkans that still exists today.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 25, 2011 8:44:00 GMT -5
Macedonian patriots of the IMRO have identified with the Bulgarian ethnic identity, and the Macedonian regional identity.
They all fought for an independent Macedonia, with the assumption that it would one day join a 'Balkan Federation' of which Bulgaria would be a part of.
The various generations of IMRO fighters had different thoughts on the subject, however, they were all aware of the the Bulgarian identity and to them the establishment of an independent Macedonia did not mean secession from the Bulgarian identity.
To them, a 'Macedonian' was any person of any ethnic background who was from the geographic region of Macedonia, be they ethnic Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Armenians etc.
Macedonian patriotic organizations only started to identify with an ethnic Macedonian identity until much later in the game.
You need to better acquaint yourself with the history of the IMRO and all Macedo-Bulgarian patriots that are celebrated in both Macedonia and Bulgaria today.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 25, 2011 9:30:41 GMT -5
Obviously everything depends on what is meant by 'oldest country'.
In terms of modern political entities in the Balkans, Greece is clearly the 'oldest country' in the Balkans given its birth as a sovereign state in the early 19th century. In terms of a recognisable people, again Greeks are the oldest in the region with a continued recorded existence harking back to Mycenae and beyond.
However, prior to the independence of Greece less than a couple of centuries ago there was never a unitary Greek state per se despite very numerous sovereign entities through the ages that were 'Greek'.
As far as current states in the Balkans who are clearly derivatives of earlier political entities proceeding the modern nation state, Bulgaria can easily lay claim to this (culturally, geographically, linguistically, biologically ... but of-course not politically).
Ancient Macedonia was certainly a 'state' and therefore a 'country' although the same could be said of practically all of its contemporaries ... and it was certainly not the earliest in this regard. A lot of you here seem to have decided it is 'the oldest country' because of some connection in your heads between ancient Macedonia and the FYROM which pretends to take its name. The FYROM is neither a derivative - cultural, linguistic, geographical, biological - of the ancient kingdom nor indeed is it even ... Macedonia. In fact it is one of the newest states of the region and its people (former self-identifying Bulgarians) the newest ethnic group of the Balkans.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 25, 2011 9:35:09 GMT -5
BigBlackBeast is a heavy name, putting forward some heavy words.
Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Aug 25, 2011 9:48:51 GMT -5
Well, I still say it's Greece and I want a Greek husband.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 25, 2011 18:35:52 GMT -5
Obviously everything depends on what is meant by 'oldest country'. In terms of modern political entities in the Balkans, Greece is clearly the 'oldest country' in the Balkans given its birth as a sovereign state in the early 19th century. In terms of a recognisable people, again Greeks are the oldest in the region with a continued recorded existence harking back to Mycenae and beyond. However, prior to the independence of Greece less than a couple of centuries ago there was never a unitary Greek state per se despite very numerous sovereign entities through the ages that were 'Greek'. As far as current states in the Balkans who are clearly derivatives of earlier political entities proceeding the modern nation state, Bulgaria can easily lay claim to this (culturally, geographically, linguistically, biologically ... but of-course not politically). Ancient Macedonia was certainly a 'state' and therefore a 'country' although the same could be said of practically all of its contemporaries ... and it was certainly not the earliest in this regard. A lot of you here seem to have decided it is 'the oldest country' because of some connection in your heads between ancient Macedonia and the FYROM which pretends to take its name. The FYROM is neither a derivative - cultural, linguistic, geographical, biological - of the ancient kingdom nor indeed is it even ... Macedonia. In fact it is one of the newest states of the region and its people (former self-identifying Bulgarians) the newest ethnic group of the Balkans. Yes, but we have ancient Macedonian blood flowing in our veins which links us to our ancient Macedonian ancestors
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 25, 2011 18:37:36 GMT -5
Macedonian patriots of the IMRO have identified with the Bulgarian ethnic identity, and the Macedonian regional identity. They all fought for an independent Macedonia, with the assumption that it would one day join a 'Balkan Federation' of which Bulgaria would be a part of. The various generations of IMRO fighters had different thoughts on the subject, however, they were all aware of the the Bulgarian identity and to them the establishment of an independent Macedonia did not mean secession from the Bulgarian identity. To them, a 'Macedonian' was any person of any ethnic background who was from the geographic region of Macedonia, be they ethnic Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Armenians etc. Macedonian patriotic organizations only started to identify with an ethnic Macedonian identity until much later in the game. You need to better acquaint yourself with the history of the IMRO and all Macedo-Bulgarian patriots that are celebrated in both Macedonia and Bulgaria today. Are you denying there were no members of VMRO who identified as Macedonians only, particularly from the leftist factions?
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Aug 25, 2011 21:45:12 GMT -5
We all gotta represent for our countries here but Croatia would fall into that category of retaining its name from its original kingdom. Only Croatia and Bulgaria as far as I know. I'm not Bulgarian btw. And I said Bulgaria because when it created a kingdom in the Balkans, it mixed it with slavs and became Slavic. And to this day, they still remain slavic, that's why I believe Bulgaria is the oldest country in the Balkans that still exists today. Agreed , Bulgaria is the oldest continuous country in the Balkans since it achieved sovereignty before Croatia or Serbia. But both Bulgaria and Croatia were original names brought over by their peoples and didn't change.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Aug 25, 2011 21:46:42 GMT -5
Obviously everything depends on what is meant by 'oldest country'. In terms of modern political entities in the Balkans, Greece is clearly the 'oldest country' in the Balkans given its birth as a sovereign state in the early 19th century. In terms of a recognisable people, again Greeks are the oldest in the region with a continued recorded existence harking back to Mycenae and beyond. However, prior to the independence of Greece less than a couple of centuries ago there was never a unitary Greek state per se despite very numerous sovereign entities through the ages that were 'Greek'. As far as current states in the Balkans who are clearly derivatives of earlier political entities proceeding the modern nation state, Bulgaria can easily lay claim to this (culturally, geographically, linguistically, biologically ... but of-course not politically). Ancient Macedonia was certainly a 'state' and therefore a 'country' although the same could be said of practically all of its contemporaries ... and it was certainly not the earliest in this regard. A lot of you here seem to have decided it is 'the oldest country' because of some connection in your heads between ancient Macedonia and the FYROM which pretends to take its name. The FYROM is neither a derivative - cultural, linguistic, geographical, biological - of the ancient kingdom nor indeed is it even ... Macedonia. In fact it is one of the newest states of the region and its people (former self-identifying Bulgarians) the newest ethnic group of the Balkans. Yes, but we have ancient Macedonian blood flowing in our veins which links us to our ancient Macedonian ancestors But you have no practical connections to them. It's like were technically 'Illyrians' but our modern identity is very different from those people.
|
|