Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Soldier of Macedon]

With regard to the below by Ostrogorski which I cited earlier:

Politically and ecclesiastically, the new empire was the direct descendant of the empire of Symeon and Peter, and was regarded by Samuel and the Byzantines alike as being simply the Bulgarian Empire. For apart from Byzantium, only Bulgaria at that time possessed a tradition of empire with a patriarchate of its own. Samuel was entirely committed to these traditions.

I also disagree with him here. There is no evidence to suggest that Samuel personally identified as a 'Bulgarian', strictly or otherwise. In the only surviving inscription by Samuel he identifies himself as a Christian (роб божји, servant of God). Those who wrote about him and his empire as 'Bulgarian' only did so because the new state in Macedonia partly arose from the ashes of the Bulgarian Empire which had ceased to exist only a few years earlier. It was the only precedent of statehood at the time, and is the same reason why the later theme was also named 'Bulgaria'. When the new state was created in Macedonia by Samuel and his brother(s), the territory of the actual Bulgarians had already been captured by the Romans. Thus, such references in the case of Samuel and his state relate specifically to Macedonia and Macedonians, with the legacy of the 'Bulgarian' name being relevant only in a political and not an ethnic context. It is interesting to note that while writers tended to refer to Samuel and his empire as 'Bulgarian', it was not unknown for actual Bulgarian rulers to fashion themselves as leaders of 'Romans'. Khan Krum of Bulgaria was recorded as 'De Cruma rege Macedonie' and 'Cruma rex Macedonie' and Tsar Ivan Alexander as 'Sanctus Johannes Alexander Macedo' due to their campaigns in the Macedonia Theme. John Skylitzes is an author who refers to Samuel and his state as 'Bulgarian'. However, at closer inspection his book reveals some insightful information:

The Tsar of the Bulgarians, Peter, was opposed by his brother Ivan together with other Bulgarian noblemen. But Ivan was caught, whipped and thrown into jail and all the others were subjected to the heaviest punish*ments.....Mihail, the other brother of Peter, also dreamed of seizing power in Bulgaria....He soon died, however, and his adherents, because they were afraid of Peter's wrath, entered the Byzantine lands by way of Macedonia, Strymon and Hellas.....Peter, Tsar of the Bulgarians, renewed the peace immediately after his wife's death and concluded a treaty with the Emperors and gave as hostages his own sons Boris and Roman. Not long afterwards, he died. After this his sons were sent to Bulgaria to occupy their father's Kingdom and to stop the advance of the Kometopouli. Because David, Moses, Aaron and Samuel, sons of one of the powerful comites of Bulgaria, were planning an uprising and were spreading unrest throughout the Bulgarian State.....

The rule of Petar had caused friction within his own family, which demonstrated that the Bulgarian Empire was already in a precarious position. Furthermore, the Bogomil movement, which arose in the Bulgarian Empire during the rule of Petar, found a stronghold in Macedonia (despite being persecuted by both Bulgarians and Romans alike, there is no evidence of persecution by Macedonians during the reign of Samuel). It was in this environment that the population in Macedonia rose up in rebellion against both Bulgarian and Roman rule. A governor in Macedonia, Nikola (father of Samuel) died around the same time as Petar (or shortly afterward). His sons continued to consolidate their hold over the regions previously held by their father, which was seen as a threat by the Romans, who released the sons of the deceased Bulgarian ruler Peter to confront both the rebels of Macedonia in the west and the Kievan Rus who had occupied Bulgaria in the east. Soon after, the Romans intervened against Kievan Rus, and, after being victorious they subsequently terminated the existence of the Bulgarian Empire. Either through negligence or hesitancy, Macedonia remained untouched and the position of authority held by Samuel and his brother(s) during the loose transition from Bulgarian to nominal Roman rule remained after the destruction of the former. Immediately after the death of Roman emperor John Tzimiskes, Samuel and his family rose in revolt. Boris and Roman, sons of the deceased Bulgarian emperor Petar, again departed from Constantinople, either through escape or at the instigation of Basil, the new Roman emperor, who may have hoped to cause a division between Samuel and his subjects. Upon entering Macedonia, Boris was killed by soldiers in the service of Samuel, while Roman escaped the same fate by immediately identifying himself. His former title no longer significant in Macedonia, Roman was still generously provided a measure of respect by Samuel, who made him governor of Skopje (Bulgarians argue that this was another person with the same name based on the works of Yahya of Antioch, but Ostrogorski and others dismiss this because Roman was castrated and could not produce an heir or make a claim on the title against the powerful Samuel). Skylitzes wrote:

And the town of Skopje was surrendered to the Emperor by Roman, the son of Peter, Tsar of the Bulgarians, and brother of Boris, called also Simeon after his grandfather and placed there as governor by Samuel. The Emperor received him and after honouring him for his decision with the title of patrician and prepositor, sent him as a strategus to Abydos.

When Skopje came under a suprise attack by Basil several years later, the town was surrendered to him by Roman, who was subsequently honoured with title and a position of authority in a distant province of the empire. The fact that Roman was left alive after leaving Constantinople and joining Samuel suggests that he and Basil were on favourable terms. He had either failed or betrayed Samuel. He was the last in a long line of rulers descending from the original Bulgar aristocracy in the Balkans. As for the family of Samuel, Skylitzes mentioned four brothers in total:

Of the four brothers, David was immediately killed by some Wallachian vagabonds between Kostur, Prespa and the so-called “Fair Oak Wood.” While besieging Ser, Moses was hit by a stone cast from the wall and died. Aaron was killed by his brother Samuel on July 142 (986) in the place called Razmetanitsa, together with all his kin, because he was a supporter, so they say, of the Romans, or because he was trying to seize power for himself. Only his son Vladislav Ivan was saved by Samuel's son Radomir Roman.

This account differs to that of Yahya of Antioch and Stepanos Asoghik, who wrote that Samuel had only one brother (David) and that they had an Armenian origin. It is possible that Samuel, like his adversary Basil, had a combined Macedonian-Armenian origin as a result of Armenian settlers being assimilated by the local population in Macedonia proper and the Macedonia Theme. According to the only surviving inscription by Samuel, he had just one brother called David. This argument is further strengthened with Yahya claiming that the son of Samuel was assassinated by the 'leader of the Bulgarians, son of Aaron', because Aaron belonged to the race that reigned over Bulgaria. Thus, Samuel and David were not from the same race as the Bulgarian royalty to which Aaron (and possibly Moses) belonged to. The story of kinship may have only surfaced after the son of Aaron murdered the son of Samuel and claimed lineage to legitimise his rule. If this were the case, then it wouldn't even matter if the so-called 'Bitola inscription' was from the son of Aaron instead of a later Bulgarian ruler that occupied Macedonia during the 13th century.

[Soldier of Macedon]

More from Ostrgorski, this time relating to events that took place after Samuel was toppled. Basil was rather 'sympathetic' by the usual standards of a conqueror, despite the people of Macedonia being the most important element in the former empire led by Samuel. Perhaps it was sentimental due to his own Macedonian heritage (and that of the Macedonia Theme where he came from). His actions don't appear to reflect a cruel emperor that would blind 15,000 soldiers who were largely Macedonian (not that I am discounting a severe punishment of some sort). Overall, this book from Ostrogorski is a good read, but one part I disagree with is his view of the Ohrid Patriarchate as a revival of the Bulgarian church. He fails to draw the same conclusion with the church as he does with the state, despite using similar criteria.

Having regard to the situation of the country and its existing customs, he excused his new subjects from the obligation of paying taxes in gold which was imposed on the economically further developed parts of the Empire, accepting instead payment in kind. The Patriarchate of Ochrida was degraded to an archbishopric; but the new archbishopric ranked as autocephalous, had many important privileges and was given control of all the bishoprics which had earlier belonged to the empire of Samuel and of the tzar Peter. In practice, what was meant by the autocephalous nature of the archbishopric of Ochrida was that it was subject not to the Patriarch of Constantinople but to the will of the Emperor, who reserved to himself the right of appointment to the see. This arrangement - a real master-stroke of imperial policy -- secured for Byzantium control over the churches of the southern Slavs, but avoided any further extension of the already vast sphere of jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and at the same time properly emphasised the special claims as an ecclesiastical centre of Ochrida, whose autocephalous archbishops occupied in the hierarchy of the Greek Church a significantly higher place than other princes of the Church who were subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As a component of the Byzantine Empire, the newly-conquered region was divided into themes, like any other Byzantine territory. The lands which had been the kernel of Samuel's empire now formed the theme of Bulgaria and, out of respect to the great importance of this new theme, it was governed first by a capetan, and later, indeed, by a dux. Its centre was at Skoplje. Along the lower reaches of the Danube lay the theme of Paristrion or Paradunavon, with its centre at the Danube town of Silistria, which was also later raised to a catepanate, and then to a duchy (ducatus). The region of Sirmium seems to have formed a further theme on the northern boundary of the Empire. The region on the Adriatic coast, including Zadar (Zara) in the north and Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the south, formed the theme of Dalmatia as before. The territory of Dioclea, however, and the regions of Zachlumia, Rascia and Bosnia were not organized as themes but on the contrary continued, as did Croatia, to be under the rule of their native princes, thus forming vassal principalities of the Byzantine Empire rather than provinces proper. The region south of Lake Scadar (Scodra) belonged now as formerly to the duchy of Dyrrachium, which formed the most important strategic stronghold of the Byzantine Empire on the Adriatic, just as the theme Thessalonica, created a duchy at the same time, was its most important bastion of the Aegean.

The following map is basically an illustration of the theme system of East Rome. Basil named the new theme in which much of Macedonia was located as the 'Bulgaria Theme', and it was based on Macedonian territory where the former Bulgarian Empire had expanded into. It was also the core region of Samuel's empire. It is largely because of the Bulgaria Theme that a legacy of the Bulgarian name remained in Macedonia for centuries later. This clearly has no ethnic affiliation, for example, much of actual Bulgaria in Moesia is located in the Paraistrion Theme. The territory of western Thrace had been officially named 'Macedonia Theme' over 2 centuries earlier, a result of previous influence stemming from a Macedonian element in the region.


The extent of jurisdiction for the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia around the same period.

[Soldier of Macedon]

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2541070

page 61

Here is another perspective on the Macedonian Empire under Samuel, by George Ostrogorski (History of the Byzantine State).

After the death of John Tzimisces, a revolt broke out in the Macedonian region, led by the provincial governor of Macedonia. The rising took on serious proportions and became a war of liberation, which spread over the whole of Macedonia and sought to remove the greater part of the Balkans from Byzantine rule.

Samuel became the founder of a powerful Empire, which had its centre first at Prespa and later at Ochrida. Little by little he gathered under his sway the whole Macedonian region except Thessalonica, the old Bulgar territory between the Danube and the Balkan range, Thessaly, Epirus, part of Albania including Dyrrachium, and finally Rascia and Dioclea.

Politically and ecclesiastically, the new empire was the direct descendant of the empire of Symeon and Peter, and was regarded by Samuel and the Byzantines alike as being simply the Bulgarian Empire. For apart from Byzantium, only Bulgaria at that time possessed a tradition of empire with a patriarchate of its own. Samuel was entirely committed to these traditions. But in reality his Macedonian kingdom 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 towards the west and south, and Macedonia, a peripheral region in the old Bulgarian kingdom, was its real centre.

For Basil II, the struggle with Samuel became his chief task and the annihilation of Samuel's empire his life's ambition. He seems to have sought the support of other Balkan rulers against the powerful Macedonian Empire, and to have made an alliance with the prince John Vladimir of Dioclea.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The lists are from wikipedia so not sure of their complete accuracy.

Bishoprics (diocese) under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia, mentioned in 1019:

Bishopric of Ochrid
Bishopric of Kostur
Bishopric of Strumica
Bishopric of Pelagonia, seat at Bitola
Bishopric of Velbazhd
Bishopric of Ras, seat at Stari Ras, formed by 878 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Prizren, formed in 10th century (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Niš, formed by 343 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Braničevo, formed by 878 (as of 1219 part of Serbian Orthodox Church)
Bishopric of Vidin,
Bishopric of Sredets,
Bishopric of Drastar, including the Theme of Paristrion (Moesia Inferior)
Bishopric of Servia, formed in 5th century (as of 1882 part of Ecumenical Patriarchate)



Bishops and Archbishops of Justiniana Priima and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia:

Justiniana Prima Bishops, 535 - 602
Saint Clement of Ohrid, Sveti Kliment Ohridski, 893-916
Philip, Filip, 997
John I of Debar, Jovan I, 1018-1037
Leo, Lav, 1037-1056
Theodulus I, Teodul I, 1056-1065
John II Lampinus, Jovan II Lampinos, 1065-1078
John III, Jovan III, 1078-1079
Theophylact, Teofilakt, 1084 1107
Leo II Mung, Lav Mung, 1108 1120
Michael Maximus, Mihail Maksim, 1120
John IV Komnenos, Jovan IV Komnin, 1143-1160 (resurrected the title of Archbishop of Justiniana Prima in 1143)
Constantine I, Konstantin I, 1160
Јоhn V Kamateros, Јovan V Kamatir, 1183-1216
Demetrios Chomatianos, Dimitar Homatijan, 1216-1234
Joannicius, Joanikij
Sergius, Sergej
Constantine II Kavasilas, Konstantin II Kavasila, 1255-1259, 1260-1282
Jacob Proarchius, Jakov Proarhij, 1275-1285
Hadrian, Adrijan
Gennadius, Genadij
Macarius, Makarij
Anthimus Metochites, Antim Metohit, 1341-1346
Nicholas I, Nikolaj I, 1346
Gregory II, ,Grigorij II, 1364/65
Matthew, Matej, 1408
Nicodemus, Nikodim, 1452
Dositheos I, Dositej I
Dorotheos, Dorotej, 1466 (expatriated to Istanbul in 1466 along with his administration due to support provided to George Kastriot - Skenderbeg)
Mark Xylokaravis, Marko Ksilokaraf, 1466
Nicholas II, Nikolaj II
Zacharius, Zaharij, 1486
Prochorus, Prohor, 1528-1550
Simeon, 1550-1557
Nicanor, Nikanor, 1557-1565
Paisius, Pajsij, 1565
Parthenius I, Partenij I
Sophronius, Sofronij, 1567-1572
Gabriel, Gavril, 1572-1588
Theodulus II, Teodul II, 1588-1590
Gregory III, Grigorij III, 1590-1593
Joachim, Joakim, 1593-1596
Athanasius I, Atanasij I, 1596-1598
Varlaam, 1598-1598
Nectarius I, Nektarij I, 1598-1613
Metrophanes, Mitrofan, 1614-1616
Nectarius II, Nektarij II, 1616-1624
Porphyrius Palaiologos, Porfirij Paleolog, 1624-1627
George, Georgij, 1627-1628
Joasaph, Georgij, 1628-1629
Abraham Mesaps, Avramij Mesaps, 1629-1637
Meletius I, Meletij I, 1637-1643
Chariton, Hariton, 1643-1650
Daniel, Daniel, 1650-1652
Dionysius I, Dionisij I, 1652-1653
Athanasius II, Atanasij II, 1653
Paphnutius, Pafnutij
Ignatius I, Ignatij I, 1660-1663
Arsenius I, Arsenij I, 1663-1663
Zosimus, Zosim, 1663-1670
Panaretus 1671 1673
Nectarius III, Nektarij III, 1673-1676
Ignatius II, Ignatij II, 1676-1676
Teophanes, Teofan, 1676-1676
Meletius II, Meletij II, 1676-1677
Parthenius II, Partenij II, 1677-1683
Gregory IV, Grigorij IV, 1683-1688
Germanus, German, 1688-1691
Gregory V, Grigorij V, 1691-1693
Ignatius III, Ignatij III, 1693-1703, 1695-1706
Zosimus II, Zosim II, 1695-1707, 1699-1708
Raphael, Rafail, 1699-1702
Germanus II, German II, 1702-1702
Dionysius II, Dionisij II, 1706-1709, 1706-1714
Methodius I, Metodijus I, 1708-1708
Philotheus, Filotej, 1714-1718
Joasaph II, Joasaf II, 1719-1745
Joseph, Josif, 1746-1752
Dionysius III, Dionisij III, 1752-1756
Methodius II, Metodijus II, 1757-1758
Cyril, Kiril, 1759-1762
Jeremy, Ieremija, 1763-1763
Ananias, Ananij, 1763-1763
Arsenius II, Arsenij II, 1763-1767

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is an older post from a discussion between TM and Bratot, more relevant on this thread given the information concerning the so-called Bitola 'inscription'.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3006&highlight=olympics&page=4

But what about the so-called Bitolski Nadpis? Here's something on it;




I know many people call it a forgery. But what if it's not?(how many objective scholars call it a forgery?) This would be a year or 2 after Samoil's death.

This is logical and explains alot about the term "Bulgar" during this time.

If we accept that assumption than those scholars should explain why the Bulgarian Chan Crume (802-814) have tittled himself 2 times as „De Cruma rege Macedonie“ and „Cruma rex Macedonie“.

On the other hand the other Bulgarian Tzar Ivan Alexandar have tittled himself as: Sanctus Johannes Alexander Macedo (Macedonian S.A.), meaning Ivan Alexander the Macedonian.

The both of them were not even close to being Macedonians, but should we make claims on them using the Bulgarian propaganda logic?

Prof. Lunt:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

The historian and paleographer Vladimir Moshin published the text (in Makedonski jazik, 1966), with a bold series of conjectures and emendations arguing that the inscription included reference to Samuel's defeat in 1014 and had been set up by Ivan Vladislav, Samuel's nephew (ruled 1015-1018). The Zaimovs confidently ”restore„ most of the text, including dates, and proceed to take their wish thoughts as incontrovertible proof of a number of historical events otherwise unknown.

Unfortunately there is no even remotely reliable set of criteria for dating early South Slavic Cyrillic, and epigraphic material is sparse and extremely controversial. I must respectfully disagree with Moshin's estimate that this text fits in the early eleventh century. Zaimov's paleographic and linguistic arguments are inaccurate and naive.

One basic point: Moshin clearly records the fact that the date he confidently reconstructs as 6522 (1014) has been worn away (”datata e izlizhana„; p.39 in Slovenska pismenost, ed P.Ilievski, Ohrid, 1966).
Indeed it does not show up in any published photographs (note that Zaimov's plate 2 has been doctored in an unspecified manner, and plate 3 is frankly drawing), nor is it found in a latex mold made by Professor Ihor Sevchenko of Dumbarton Oaks.
Assuming that this spot does contain a date, one can grant the 6 and the final 2, and a vertical line with a partial crosspiece that could be F(500) but looks much more like ps (700), and is followed by a space wide enough even for M (40). If one then conjectures the numbers as 6742, the date would be 1234. This fits beautifully with the ortography and language, and identifies Ivan as Asen II, who gained power over Macedonia in 1230. Yet it also demolished the inctricate historical explanations elaborated by the Zaimovs and generally diminishes the light that this inscription allegedly throws on an obscure period of Macedonian and Bulgarian history. The crucial questions remains open.

Horace G Lunt
Harvard University
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Lunt )







According to Igor Schevchenko
( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/wo...5sevcenko.html ):

"The little of this numeral can be seen on unretouched photograph might indeed be part of the cyrillic letter f (=500); but, as Horace G Lunt has pointed out, it might be also part of the cyrilic letter ps(=700), in which case the Bitolja inscription would seem to be of the thirteen century." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)

R. Mathiesen (emeritus, Brown University http://brown.edu/web/directory/academicsdepts.shtml):

"Lunt informs me that Sevchensko's photogrpaphs exclude the possibility of the numeral being an f (=500), but not being a ps (=700), amd may even exclude the possibility of the numeral being part of date. The date may then have stood at the beggining of line 12." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21,1)

His conclusion:

"As long as its true age remains in doubt, the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance of cyrillic palaegraphy which it will have as the work of two stonecutters--whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)



So we have three significant figures pointing out on the inacurate date and they have no Macedonian background to have an personal interest in this situation which is not the same for the Bulgarian side.

[George S.]

Good to hear that samuel was macedonian & not bulgarian.A lot of people say from different countries try to missapropriate him ,just because his rule encompassed bulgaria doesn't mean he is bulgarian.Also they'll try & put a slant for one reason or another to say that he is bulgarian.The problem is they try & write our history for us instead of us writing our own history.

[TrueMacedonian]

BUmp. Another good topic.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, your making it sound like I get a kick out of this. I dont have a problem with you or Macedonians. Again, I read it all and it seems as if there is a dispute of the numbers and how that is impossible due to the sheer damage 15000 blindings would of been. I read the first page and its says that Skylitzes was confused. But it didnt say how or why he was confused. Can you shed light on this ? Again it was a very interesting read and I have to admit it does make sense. The medevil ages did have its moments of exaggeration and hyperbole. Not to mention that the reference to Bulgar Slayer was made later. I understand that.

Stephenson writes in the source provided that Skylitzes uses the word phasi, 'they say', and Stephenson goes on to explain that the story was under scrutiny then considering Skylitzes "the copyist" had no firsthand accounts available about the exaggerations of this battle. The numbers "14,000-15,000" are the exaggeration. Was it a small garrison as Stephenson says? Most likely. Skylitzes more than likely altered an already altered tale and used Herodotus as inspiration and melded sequences of what transpired at Thermopylae for his fictional accounts at Belasica/Kleidon.

[Onur]

OK TM you may find the number questionable but does that really negate the essence of the story ? Its probably unrealistic for Vlad Tepesh to impale defeated soldiers into a forrest of human beings but does that mean it didnt happen ? I understand your point of view though and why you would consider it false.

Yes, the events are usually written in exaggerated way in medieval times but it doesn't mean that these events didn't happen at all.

Also Vlad the impaler was really impaling people. It`s a fact. He mostly impaled Turks, probably 100s or maybe 1000s but he was mad and i think he also impaled his own family members and his fellow people if i`m not mistaken. Then the Sultan in Istanbul gone mad because of this and he sent an army of 10.000+ soldiers to kill him and give it an end to his reign and thats how he died and his head has been taken to the Istanbul as a proof of his death.

[Voltron]

TM, your making it sound like I get a kick out of this. I dont have a problem with you or Macedonians. Again, I read it all and it seems as if there is a dispute of the numbers and how that is impossible due to the sheer damage 15000 blindings would of been. I read the first page and its says that Skylitzes was confused. But it didnt say how or why he was confused. Can you shed light on this ? Again it was a very interesting read and I have to admit it does make sense. The medevil ages did have its moments of exaggeration and hyperbole. Not to mention that the reference to Bulgar Slayer was made later. I understand that.

[TrueMacedonian]

OK TM you may find the number questionable but does that really negate the essence of the story ? Its probably unrealistic for Vlad Tepesh to impale defeated soldiers into a forrest of human beings but does that mean it didnt happen ? I understand your point of view though and why you would consider it false.

But the essence of the story changes considerably when you see that the so-called "blinding" of all these soldiers never happened the way Skylitzes penned it. The Battle of Kleidon is where Basil II would get the nickname "Bulgar-Slayer" centuries later due to the myth of these East Romans and their exaggerations. Sorry I know you want to play make believe but one day you have to grow up. How about you actually read the first page again and stop taking this topic off-topic because of its content and how it hurts your modern claims to BS:


page 387









page 2

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

That was the point of me joining this forum John. To see the other side's POV

And you're already insulting people.

[Voltron]

That was the point of me joining this forum John. To see the other side's POV

[johnMKD]

John, thanks for your advise. As SOM suggested I will read up on it in the history section. No offense intended.

Yes, that's the best idea. One, if he wants to be objective should read and go through thoroughly all aspects of history. E.g. you want to know about Macedonia? Read also the Macedonian side. By all means, read the Greek side, but move on...read the Macedonian, the Bulgarian, and if available some from distant and objective countries. You'll find that the truth is not necessarily what you have been taught in school.
If you are curious about history, do the same for all historical events you're interested in. For sure you will acquire a more holistic approach on viewing things.

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

half of Euorpe are Slav speakers. Not too bad if you ask me.

We have our own languages, and we sure don't call it "Slav".