Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DimitarP
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2011
    • 28

    According to bulgarian sourse during the "siege of Varna in 1201" led by Kaloyan (second bulgarian kingdom), he ordered the whole Byzantine population of the city to be buried alive. "He wanted revenge for Samuil's 14,000 blinded soldiers and called himself Romanoktonos (Roman-slayer) as Basil II was called Bulgaroktonos (Bulgarian-slayer)".

    Comment

    • Daskalot
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 4345

      The 'Roman-slayer' is the slayer of the citizens of East Rome in contrast to the non citizens, ie the commoners/peasants. The Voulgaroi/Vulgars.
      Macedonian Truth Organisation

      Comment

      • TrueMacedonian
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2009
        • 3810

        Dimitar said:
        According to bulgarian sourse during the "siege of Varna in 1201" led by Kaloyan (second bulgarian kingdom),
        The flaw in your post is the use of a label that was never used by contemporary sources of the time. The "First Bulgarian Kingdom" and the "Second Bulgarian Kingdom" was first given birth by Edward Gibbons and later on by William Martin Leake. From then on these labels were used by historians without ever questioning when these terms were first originated and what these terms appropriated.

        he ordered the whole Byzantine population of the city to be buried alive. "He wanted revenge for Samuil's 14,000 blinded soldiers and called himself Romanoktonos (Roman-slayer) as Basil II was called Bulgaroktonos (Bulgarian-slayer)".
        I would love to see this Bulgarian source.
        Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

        Comment

        • Soldier of Macedon
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 13670

          Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
          According to bulgarian sourse during the "siege of Varna in 1201" led by Kaloyan (second bulgarian kingdom), he ordered the whole Byzantine population of the city to be buried alive. "He wanted revenge for Samuil's 14,000 blinded soldiers and called himself Romanoktonos (Roman-slayer) as Basil II was called Bulgaroktonos (Bulgarian-slayer)".
          I remember a few years back some Bulgars were trying to convince me that 'Kaloyan' is an old Bulgar name, only to find out that it was a nickname common during East Roman times, which meant 'good Johnny', lol.

          Interestingly, Kaloyan didn't try and usurp the Ohrid Archbishoric in Macedonia as his church, but instead, he established a new Bulgarian Patriarchate at Trnovo in 1186. That is a significant point, and clear indication of the differences between the Christian communities of Macedonia and Bulgaria at the time. The Macedonians would never have given up Ohrid for Trnovo.
          In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

          Comment

          • DimitarP
            Junior Member
            • Jan 2011
            • 28

            Hi there, the refference is : Canev, Bǎlgarski hroniki, p. 314-315
            I've no idea where you can find this book.. in a bulgarian library i suppose, then you would have to see where did the author got such information from.
            I read the above statement in wikipedia and this is the correspponding refference..

            BTW thanx for the "second bulgarian kingdom" clarification. I'm curious when did those guys come up with the contemporary term? I personally don't see anything wrong with calling them first and second bulgarian kingdoms.. I mean I talk with watever contemporary terms we have to address events from the middle ages. I guess we have come up with those terms for a reason. In your opinion what is a more accurate way of calling them and why?

            Comment

            • DimitarP
              Junior Member
              • Jan 2011
              • 28

              Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
              I remember a few years back some Bulgars were trying to convince me that 'Kaloyan' is an old Bulgar name, only to find out that it was a nickname common during East Roman times, which meant 'good Johnny', lol.
              Yeah, from what I've read he was born near Solun (not sure of the spelling) and his name was actually fom bezantine origin.

              Comment

              • DimitarP
                Junior Member
                • Jan 2011
                • 28

                Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                Interestingly, Kaloyan didn't try and usurp the Ohrid Archbishoric in Macedonia as his church, but instead, he established a new Bulgarian Patriarchate at Trnovo in 1186. That is a significant point, and clear indication of the differences between the Christian communities of Macedonia and Bulgaria at the time. The Macedonians would never have given up Ohrid for Trnovo.
                I'm sorry but that last sentance :"The macedonians would never have given up Ohrid for Turnovo" is a guess, with the word "would" in it.

                Comment

                • Soldier of Macedon
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 13670

                  Ok then - The Macedonians never did give up Ohrid in favour of Trnovo, and that is a fact. Better?

                  Are you Bulgarian, Dimitar?
                  In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                  Comment

                  • DimitarP
                    Junior Member
                    • Jan 2011
                    • 28

                    In terms of Belasica, is there any other sourses of info about that battle, or is it just the one from Skylitzes? Bezantine historians, (and not only them), have exagerated the success of their country's military campains and battles on many occasions. I may be wrong but historians often work from some political point of view (or towards it), instead of seeking the truth.

                    Comment

                    • DimitarP
                      Junior Member
                      • Jan 2011
                      • 28

                      Yes I come from Varna in Bulgaria. Live in New Zealand now. History was my favourite subject in school. However I know that it is quite a controversial matter. When Bulgaria changed from communism to democracy I read a version of hystory books written before and after the change.. people really have to read up and make up their minds after some research, which is generally avoided because it can consume a lot of time... and really what's the point of making up legends or hate other people based on the fact that they are from such and such ethnicity or because something happened 1000 years ago, or because some one is a peasant, or because someone else is rich, or thinks differently?

                      Comment

                      • TrueMacedonian
                        Senior Member
                        • Jan 2009
                        • 3810

                        Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                        Hi there, the refference is : Canev, Bǎlgarski hroniki, p. 314-315
                        I've no idea where you can find this book.. in a bulgarian library i suppose, then you would have to see where did the author got such information from.
                        I read the above statement in wikipedia and this is the correspponding refference..
                        Yeah I wouldn't go by wikipedia. Especially if no one can see the source itself.

                        BTW thanx for the "second bulgarian kingdom" clarification. I'm curious when did those guys come up with the contemporary term? I personally don't see anything wrong with calling them first and second bulgarian kingdoms.. I mean I talk with watever contemporary terms we have to address events from the middle ages. I guess we have come up with those terms for a reason. In your opinion what is a more accurate way of calling them and why?
                        The reason why these terms were put together was to create a clean, linear, chronological order of history. Unfortunately these terms are as flawed as the term "Bulgarian" itself because they limit the focus of complex, chaotic periods to what would amount to peanuts.
                        You want an accurate "thematic" way of expressing this period in time? Why? It would not only be an error to use modern terminologies that a contemporary of that time would never understand but it would be an alternative for Bulgarian nationalists to use to appropriate figures in history who were most likely not ethnic Bulgarians.
                        Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                        Comment

                        • DimitarP
                          Junior Member
                          • Jan 2011
                          • 28

                          Hi True Macedonian. Although there are different opinions in Bulgaria it-self, the prevalent view is that at this moment the percentage of bolgars in bulgaria is about 0%. In fact they say we are slavs more than anything else...

                          I heard one of the leading historian on the national radio saying that according to genetic studies that have been done in bulgaria 0% of the population have traces of actual bolgar genes and about 0.3% of the population have traces of monol genes. A lot more people have unexplained traces of some sort of ugro-baltic genes. On the other hand anthropological studies show that until this day there are still people with thracian bone structure. For example in the village of Chiprovtsi. There was a bulgarian jurnalist who traveled accross the stepes of russia and places where old bulgar setlement have existed. He ended up talking to some russian scholar about anthropology, and that guy told him that actually his own skull (the jurnalist's) was defenetly thracian and that this is actually basic anthropology... So talking about bulgarian ethnicity and bulgarian kingdoms is very easy if you want to make some sort of political statement. It is such a mixture of peoples traditions and languages with scarce historical documentation - especially from the one kingdom which existed between 7th and 10th century on the balkans and was called Bolgar/Bulgar kingdom by the Bezantine historians at the time.

                          The reason it is still called bulgaria i guess is some sort of legacy to the ?turko/iranic peoples that were great worriors and made possible the establishment of a predominantly slavic state on the balkans south of the Danube river. The reason we can't find bolgar genes in the modern population goes to show that the bolgars were completely asimilated. However they were the ones who stayed in charge of the 7-10th century kingdom on the balkans, refered to as first bulgarian kingdom by modern bulgarians.

                          Also the guy on the radio said that the grave of one of the bolgar generals from that time was discovered. Unfortunately I cannot remeber his name, although it has been mentioned by historians from that time. I believe he was a general in Krum's armies, but I may be wrong. The point is that he actually had bolgar bone structure, skull etc..

                          I wander if this agrees to some extend with your view of bolgar - bulgarian relationship...

                          Comment

                          • George S.
                            Senior Member
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 10116

                            Dimitar P i have to agree with you that there is no such thing as a real Bulgar only a tartar.The tartars replaced the real bulgars long time ago.When i hear that the Bulgarians call Tsar Samuel their own & treat him as a bulgarian king rather than a macedonian one.Also Cyril & metodia were neither greek or Bulgarian they were macedonian.So anything connected with bulgarian history i take with a grain of salt because it is a biased account of bulgarism.Does anyone really know what went on & to say how much the bulgarians really influenced things without biased bulgarian propaganda.I'm sure with TM on the job he can bust that nyth .
                            Last edited by George S.; 01-14-2011, 09:04 PM. Reason: edit
                            "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                            GOTSE DELCEV

                            Comment

                            • DimitarP
                              Junior Member
                              • Jan 2011
                              • 28

                              Which bolgars are you talking about? the ones in Balharia in south Russia, the ones in Volga Bulgaria, or Danube Bulgaria? Or all of them? Actually the populations of the three geographic regions are genetically very different. Around what time did they became "replaced" by tatars and how did it happen? What evidence do you have? I would like to receive an answer for eah of the questions.

                              Generally speaking the Byzantine sources talk about bolgars and bulgarians ever since 7th century, so the name has remained but not the content.. modern genetic and anthropologic evidence goes to show that bulgarians are slavs with a little bit of spice from other gene pools. To me the "tatar" statement seems to be some kind of label rather than having any ground. Please let me know what evidence do you have.

                              Comment

                              • TrueMacedonian
                                Senior Member
                                • Jan 2009
                                • 3810

                                Originally posted by DimitarP View Post
                                Hi True Macedonian. Although there are different opinions in Bulgaria it-self, the prevalent view is that at this moment the percentage of bolgars in bulgaria is about 0%. In fact they say we are slavs more than anything else...

                                I heard one of the leading historian on the national radio saying that according to genetic studies that have been done in bulgaria 0% of the population have traces of actual bolgar genes and about 0.3% of the population have traces of monol genes. A lot more people have unexplained traces of some sort of ugro-baltic genes. On the other hand anthropological studies show that until this day there are still people with thracian bone structure. For example in the village of Chiprovtsi. There was a bulgarian jurnalist who traveled accross the stepes of russia and places where old bulgar setlement have existed. He ended up talking to some russian scholar about anthropology, and that guy told him that actually his own skull (the jurnalist's) was defenetly thracian and that this is actually basic anthropology... So talking about bulgarian ethnicity and bulgarian kingdoms is very easy if you want to make some sort of political statement. It is such a mixture of peoples traditions and languages with scarce historical documentation - especially from the one kingdom which existed between 7th and 10th century on the balkans and was called Bolgar/Bulgar kingdom by the Bezantine historians at the time.

                                The reason it is still called bulgaria i guess is some sort of legacy to the ?turko/iranic peoples that were great worriors and made possible the establishment of a predominantly slavic state on the balkans south of the Danube river. The reason we can't find bolgar genes in the modern population goes to show that the bolgars were completely asimilated. However they were the ones who stayed in charge of the 7-10th century kingdom on the balkans, refered to as first bulgarian kingdom by modern bulgarians.

                                Also the guy on the radio said that the grave of one of the bolgar generals from that time was discovered. Unfortunately I cannot remeber his name, although it has been mentioned by historians from that time. I believe he was a general in Krum's armies, but I may be wrong. The point is that he actually had bolgar bone structure, skull etc..

                                I wander if this agrees to some extend with your view of bolgar - bulgarian relationship...
                                Dimitar this will be my reply to what you posted:

                                Unfortunately for the government, the members of the largest minority groups in Bulgaria- Pomaks, Gypsies, and Turks- were unwilling to change their identities voluntarily in order to comply with ideological requirements in order to bring social realities in line with official ideology, the Bulgarian government mounted a number of brutal campaigns between 1972 and 1984 to force Pomaks, Gypsies, and Turks to replace their Muslim names with conventional Bulgarian names. Between 1972 and 1974 Pomaks were forced to take on Bulgarian names. Between 1981 and 1983 the same fate befell the Gypsy Muslims. Finally, during the winter months of 1984-1985 close to one million Turks and the small number of
                                Tatar, Alevi, and Albanian Muslims were forced to assume Bulgarian names, so that in March, 1985 Bulgarian officials could confidently declare that Bulgaria was at last a unified, single nation state, that everyone living in Bulgaria was Bulgarian (Simsir 1986: 352-353).
                                High-ranking government officials were dispatched to "formerly" Turkish areas to tell Turks that they were henceforth Bulgarians. For example, Deputy Prime Minister Todor Bozhinov, in a speech given in the northern Bulgarian town of Ruse which has a sizeable Turkish population and reported in Dunavska Pravda On March 16, 1985 stated categorically:
                                Our countrymen who have reconstituted their Bulgarian names are Bulgarians ...They are the flesh and blood of the Bulgarian people. Bulgarian blood flows in their veins, even though their national consciousness is beclouded...(Quoted in Baest 1985:24; emphasis added).
                                Bulgarian historical texts were revised to reflect this new version of history. References to the existence of Turks in Bulgaria were deleted. Bulgarian historians went even further: they revised the history of the Balkans as well by eliminating all references to the existence of Turks in the entire Balkan Peninsula! Discussing the present ethnic make-up of the Balkans, Dimitrov (1982:14) wrote:
                                In terms of ethnic and linguistic affiliation tbe population of the Balkan states as a wbole belong to the Indo-European group. In the Balkans there also live Russians, Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, Tatars, and otber ethnic groups.

                                The government enlisted the aid of anthropologists and other scientists to collect evidence in support of the 'racial purity' of the Bulgarian people. An article published in July 25, 1988 in an official journal presented the "findings" of anthropologists from the Sofia Institute of Morphology, based on, according to the article, over 30 years of research in three ethnically mixed districts. These "findings" suggested that the Bulgarian people had remained pure and uncontaminated since their emergence as a people during the early Middle Ages. A commentary on the article in the Newsletter of the East Eurol2en Anthropology Group (1988:16-17) observed:
                                According to anthropologists, the Bulgarian people took shape in the ninth and tenth centuries as a blending of Slavs, Thracians, and Asiatic tribes. This mixture evolved into a homogeneous entity, tbe people now called Bulgarians. The foreign invasions of tbe past 1,OOO years left no racial mark, it seems. The minority are merely Bulgarians who happen to speak Turkish.
                                Between 1985 and 1989, Bulgarian authorities insisted that there were no Turks in Bulgaria; that all Turks had "restored" their original Bulgarian names and identities voluntarily and spontaneously during the winter months of 1984 and 1985. However these "voluntary Bulgarians" engaged in widespred demonstrations and hunger strikes in late May and early June, 1989 demanding the restoration of their Turkish names and their civil and human rights. Peaceful demonstrators were fired upon by Bulgarian security forces and scores were killed and injured. As a response, the Bulgarian government began to deport native Turkish intellectuals and leaders of human rights organizations to Western countries, primarily to Austria, and to send thousands of others to the Turkish border on very short notice. Between late May and August 22, when the Turkish authorities closed the border, over 320,000 Turks were forced to leave Bulgaria. This mass exodus caused serious social and economic dislocations in both countries. Turkey, already overburdened with Iranian refugees and Kurdish refugees from Iraq, lacked adequate resources to settle the new refugees. The attention of Western countries was diverted by developments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and the plight of the Turkish refugees was largely forgotten. The mass exodus of Turks exacerbated the already acute labor shortages in key economic sectors in Bulgaria that led to the downfall of the Zhivkov regime.


                                Nationality Policy in the USSR and in Bulgaria: Some Observations
                                Ali Eminov, Wayne State College
                                Soviet Nationality Policy to 1985 pages 10-12.

                                This is what your government's 'anthropological' findings state from the article above:

                                [U]The government enlisted the aid of anthropologists and other scientists to collect evidence in support of the 'racial purity' of the Bulgarian people. An article published in July 25, 1988 in an official journal presented the "findings" of anthropologists from the Sofia Institute of Morphology, based on, according to the article, over 30 years of research in three ethnically mixed districts. These "findings" suggested that the Bulgarian people had remained pure and uncontaminated since their emergence as a people during the early Middle Ages.

                                Wasn't Bozodar the museum curator of Sofia claiming that his ancestors were powerful Turkic peoples with shaved heads and crazy customs??? I guess this isn't in focus with what you're telling me.
                                Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X