Interpretation of history - Ostrogorsky on the ethnicity of Tsar Samuil
Zhivko Apostolovski
Origin and Ethnicity of Tsar Samuel
George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, (p.301-2), 1969.
An English translation of an originally published in German “Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates”
Nothing definite is known about the early history of the Cometopuli. The contemporary Armenian historian Stephen of Taron (Asolik), trans. Gelzer and Burckhardt (1907), 185 f., says that they were of Armenian descent. In spite of N. Adontz, 'Samuel l'Armenien' 3 ff., it remains doubtful how much weight can be given to the statement of this Armenian historian whose information on Samuel is full of obvious errors. N. P. Blegmv, 'Bratjata David, Moisej, Aaron i Samuil' (The brothers David, Moses, Aaron and Samuel), Godisnik na Sofijsk. Univ., Jurid. Fak. 37, 14 (1941-2), 28 ff., considers that Count Nicholas was a descendant of the proto-Bulgar Asparuch, and his wife Ripsimia, the mother of the Cometopuli, a daughter of the czar Symeon, which is entirely without foundation. His 'Teorijata za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo' (Theories on the West Bulgarian Empire), ibid. 16 ff., contains equally fantastic views.
The history of the origin of Samuel's empire is a much debated question. Scholars no longer support Drinov's theory of a West Bulgarian empire of the Sigmanids founded in 963, and today two different and conflicting views are current. One view holds that by 969 a West Bulgarian (Macedonian) kingdom under the Cometopuli had split off from the empire of the tsar Peter and that this existed independently side by side with the East Bulgarian empire (on the Danube); further, they consider that it was on the eastern part which was conquered by Tzimisces, while the western part continued and formed the nucleus of Samuel's empire. The second view, worked out in detail by D. Anastasijevic, 'L'hypothese de la Bulgaric Occidentale', Recueil Uspenskij I (1930), 20 ff., insists that there was no separation between an eastern and western Bulgaria, and that Tzimisces conquered the whole of Bulgaria which only regained its independence with the Cometopuli's revolt in 976 and the foundation of a new empire in Macedonia. This latter interpretation seems to me to be in the main correct, though both theories appear to go astray in so far as they imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a regular occupation of the whole countryside. Anastasijevic rightly emphasizes that the sources give practically no ground for the assumption that an independent West Bulgaria ever existed side by side with an East Bulgaria, and they afford equally slight evidence for the statement that there was a revolt of the Cometopuli before 976. The frequently quoted statement in Scylitzes-Cedren. II, 347, dated rather arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an account of a revolt of the Cometopuli, said to have broken out in this year, is in reality only a casual comment, by way of an aside, which anticipates the events it refers to (cf. the doubts of Runciman, Bulgarian Empire 218, and Adontz, 'Samuel I'Armenien', 5 ff.). On the other hand, the sources make it quite clear that Tzimisces-like Sviatoslav-never set foot in Macedonia (the entirely unsupported statement of the later Priest of Dioclea who says that Tzimisces took possession of Serbia, and consequently Macedonia as well, is of no importance). The capture of the capital and the deposition of the ruler signified the subjection of the country without any need to conquer its territory inch by inch. It is, however, true that control which was limited to occupying the centre could in certain circumstances easily be overthrown from the periphery, and this was in fact what happened after the death of John Tzimisces and the outbreak of internal conflicts in Byzantium. This problem has been recently discussed by Litavrin, Bolgarya i Vizantija 26 I ff., who does not, however, advance any new or compelling arguments for the view he adopts, i.e. that 'Bulgaria continued its existence in the West'. He concludes: 'The period from 969 to 976 was in Western Bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated under the rule of the Cometopuli. . . .' But, as our observations above make clear, this assertion has not the slightest foundation in the sources.
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
interesting on Samuel and First Bulgarian Kindom history.
> Origin and Ethnicity of Tsar Samuel
(after Bitolia inscription (1953) it is out of the question but Ostrovsky
although being in the same country - Yugoslavia) never took it in account -
for him it did not exist)
> George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University
> Press, (p.301-2), 1969.
>
> An English translation of an originally published in German "Geschichte
> des byzantinischen Staates"
>
> Nothing definite is known about the early history of the Cometopuli. The
First - Comitopuli is not a family neither clan. It is mean sons of Comit
Nikola (in Greek sources). Neither one of them had family name
<Comitopul> :-).
Comit Nikola was comit of one of Bulgarian comitas that much for sure
according to Greek sources - Teophilact.
> contemporary Armenian historian Stephen of Taron (Asolik), trans. Gelzer
> and Burckhardt (1907), 185 f., says that they were of Armenian descent. In
> spite of N. Adontz, 'Samuel l'Armenien' 3 ff., it remains doubtful how
> much weight can be given to the statement of this Armenian historian whose
> information on Samuel is full of obvious errors. N. P. Blegmv, 'Bratjata
> David, Moisej, Aaron i Samuil' (The brothers David, Moses, Aaron and
> Samuel), Godisnik na Sofijsk. Univ., Jurid. Fak. 37, 14 (1941-2), 28 ff.,
> considers that Count Nicholas was a descendant of the proto-Bulgar
> Asparuch, and his wife Ripsimia, the mother of the Cometopuli, a daughter
> of the czar Symeon, which is entirely without foundation. His 'Teorijata
> za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo' (Theories on the West Bulgarian Empire),
> ibid. 16 ff., contains equally fantastic views.
Of course, here he fail to mention several important points. Son of Ivan
Gavrail and grand son of Samuil is Presian the Second. Let me enlight you
Presian is father of Boris, grandfather of Symeon.
Nor he take in account the Bitolia inscript (you can see it in Bitolia,
Macedonia) were Ivan Vladisla (nephew of Samuel) states,
<I am Bulgarian, My clan is Bulgarian, I built that castle to protect
Bulgarians.> Nor he explain why Samuel is crown Tzar only after the death
of Roman (son of Peter) - 996, neither he could explain Why Samuel share
his power with Roman (once the last run away from Bizantian captivity).
Nor he explain why Samuel and Ohrid became a home of Bulgarian (Preslav)
Patriarhate, after Dorosturum and Sofia (ruled by Aaron, oldest brother of
Samuel) and was crown by Damjan (bulgarian patriarh).
I believe those are quite enough evidences for the ethnicity of Samuel.
Here we do not take in the account - Vladimir (Russian) and Greeks documents
about Samuel because they could be forge, missunderstanding and etc. :-)
BTW They all called him Buglarian and Bulgarian Tzar.
<....>
There were no evidence what so ever for submission of Western Buglaria. The
comitas form the Western regions and the once in the Western Vlashko
continue to rule. As today is very vlear (see History of Hungary) Bulgaria
was de-centralize country and comitas rule very much in strong power. That
contribute to the hold of western Bulgaria. So to talk for some <Revolt> is
not correct. the Western and North-Western comitets hold their posts and
continue to fight East Romans. There were not much consolidation you can
see it the continuation of the story shell reveal.
Only to mention, Russian sources never said Bulgaria subdue or cease to
exist after 972. The contacts continue and even wedidng was arange of
Russian kniaz.
++
> I am answering here (again) for our Zhivko friend, and others that are
> interesting on Samuel and First Bulgarian Kindom history.
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
The age of the stone inscription is farely easy to be determine (by the
microorganizm inside).
Voden inscription is made in the 19th century - by Voden people (you make
the math what they were).
BTW Bulgarian grammer and writting in the 10th century is quite difficult to
be copy because beside of handful people no one is speciallist on it. Even
Bodzhidar Dimitrov - Anti-Macedonist N1 - (the one that declare Voden
inscription as a false) had a real problem with that period of Bulgarian
Language and make himself a clown for one other stone.
As I learn something ago - the Bulgarian in 10th century was spell
<blak> as you can see by the Bitolia inscription.
June R Harton
"++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:tOGdndJfQsK...@rcn.net...
Stop posting stupidities, Schneider.
In a letter to Prof. Marin Drinov of May 25, 1888 Kuzman Shapkarev writes:
"But even stranger is the name Macedonians, which was imposed on us only 10
to 15 years ago by outsiders, and not as something by our own
intellectuals... Yet the people in Macedonia know nothing of that ancient
name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one
on the other. They know the older word: "Bugari", although mispronounced:
they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other
Bulgarians. You can find more about this in the introduction to the booklets
I am sending you. They call their own Macedono-Bulgarian dialect the
"Bugarski language", while the rest of the Bulgarian dialects they refer to
as the "Shopski language". (Makedonski pregled, IX, 2, 1934, p. 55; the
original letter is kept in the Marin Drinov Museum in Sofia, and it is
available for examination and study)
Here is the text in the original:
"No pochudno e imeto Makedonci, koeto naskoro, edvay predi 10-15 godini, ni
natrapiha i to otvqn, a ne kakto nyakoi mislyat ot samata nasha
inteligenciya... Narodqt obache v Makedoniya ne znae nishto za tova
arhaichesko, a dnes, s lukava cel ot edna strana, s glupeshka ot druga,
podnoveno prozvishte; toy si znae postaroto: Bugari, makar i nepravilno
proiznasyano, daje osvoyava si go kato sobstveno i preimushtestveno svoe,
nejeli za drugite Bqlgari. Za tova shte vidite i v predgovora na izpratenite
mi knijici. Toy naricha Bugarski ezik svoeto Makaedono-bqlgarsko narechie,
kogato drugite bqlgarski narechiya naricha Shopski."
And here:
Reference source for Gotse Delchev's numerous utterings of 'We are
Bulgarians'......
http://www.ucc.ie/staff/jprodr/macedonia/macmodnat2.html
Even Gotse Delchev, the famous Macedonian revolutionary leader, whose nom de
guerre was Ahil (Achilles), refers to "the Slavs of Macedonia as
'Bulgarians' in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a
designation was a point of contention" (Perry 1988:23).
In his correspondence Gotse Delchev often states clearly and simply, "We are
Bulgarians" (MacDermott 1978:192,273).
And here:
For fair use only.
http://members.tripod.com/~dimobetchev/documents/ilinden.htm
" Considering the critical and terrible situation that the Bulgarian
population of the Bitola Vilayet found itself in and following the ravages
and cruelties done by the Turkish troops and irregulars, ... considering
the fact that everything Bulgarian runs the risk of perishing and
disappearing without a trace because of violence, hunger, and the upcoming
misery, the Head Quarters finds it to be its obligation to draw the
attention of the respected Bulgarian government to the pernicious
consequences vis-a-vis the Bulgarian nation, in case the latter does not
fulfill its duty towards its brethren of race here in an imposing fashion
which is necessary by virtue of the present ordeal for the common Bulgarian
Fatherland...
...Being in command of our people's movement, we appeal to you on behalf of
the enslaved Bulgarian to help him in the most effective way - by waging
war.We believe that the response of the people in free Bulgaria will be the
same.
... No bulgarian school is opened, neither will it be opened... Nobody
thinks of education when he is outlawed by the state because he bears the
name Bulgar...
Waiting for your patriotic intervention, we are pleased to inform you that
we have in our disposition the armed forces we have spared by now.
The Head Quarters of the Ilinden Uprising"
Damian GRUEV, Boris SARAFOV, Atanas LOZANTCHEV
This memorandum was handed to Dr.Kozhuharov, the Bulgarian consul in Bitola,
and transmitted by him to the government in Sofia with report N441 from
September 17th, 1903. "
And here:
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/document.htm
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/documen1.htm
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/documen2.htm
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/documen3.htm
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/drzhava.htm
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/exarchy.htm
http://w3.tyenet.com/kozlich/mapovska4a.htm
And finally here
http://www.bulgaria.com/VMRO/bitola06.htm
http://www.historymuseum.org/items.php3?nid=199&name=ochrid
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
June R Harton
"Zhivko Apostolovski" <zap2...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:LiWId.131367$K7.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
And let me post some very clear info, Bulgar.
ADR
friend Zhivko and I wonder why he bothered to post it. Actually, the
theory that Ostrogorsky trounches, that of a "western Bulgaria"
breaking off from czar Peter's state well before the Russian invasion
would have been much more to the liking of "Macedonists", as it would
have indicated, allthough not necessarily, a sence of "otherness" among
western Bulgarians (although these assumptions are very risky in
medieval times when dynastic disputes launched wars). As it is,
Ostrogorsky states that Emperor John I conquered the whole of Bulgaria
but did not garisson all of it effectively, and this gave the
opportunity to the the sons of count Nicholas (the count designation
was probably a Greek transliteration of a Bulgarian title; the Greek
title "Komes" -count- applied mostly to military commanders of
provinces, mainly commanders of cavalry) to establish a Bulgarian state
in the area of modern FYROM independent of control from Constantinople.
Samuel and his brothers recognized the legitimate czar as their
sovereign and did not assume such titles until the last member of the
Bulgarian dynasty died.
ADR
ADR
supports your views (that there was no breakup of Bulgaria prior to its
conquest by Emperor John I and that Samuel established a Bulgarian
kingdom). So, there was no need to debate this. I am not sure why
Zhivko posted this.
ADR
PS: If count Nickolas and his sons were of Armenian descent, this means
hardly anything. A variety of ethnic groups were integrated into the
Bulgarian kingdom and despite their original ethnicity, they regarded
themselves as Bulgarians (as Samuel's inscriptions indicate). So, I
cannot understand this part of the debate.
mat...@canada.com
Thanks Zhivko - it will take me a while to read and digest this.
I am having trouble with my computer - please pardon me if a duplicate
message appears.
Matt
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
> Actually, Nikolay, I do not know why you did protest. Ostrogorsky
> supports your views (that there was no breakup of Bulgaria prior to its
> conquest by Emperor John I and that Samuel established a Bulgarian
> kingdom). So, there was no need to debate this. I am not sure why
> Zhivko posted this.
Ostrovsky is the only one to support <Macedonian> kingdom.
>
> ADR
>
> PS: If count Nickolas and his sons were of Armenian descent, this means
> hardly anything. A variety of ethnic groups were integrated into the
> Bulgarian kingdom and despite their original ethnicity, they regarded
> themselves as Bulgarians (as Samuel's inscriptions indicate). So, I
> cannot understand this part of the debate.
The mother of Samuil bears Armenian name (I believe Rinsinia or something).
Actually Bulgaria is not universal Kingdom (no records to be) like Roman
Empire. The Greeks (that run different offices) are designated as Greeks
(or Romeans), some of the ministers were Arabians and we have Serbian and
tribal origin also mention farely common.
It is let to believe Bulgaria was not highly centralize country.
Expesially if you read the history of the Northern lands (where the assault
of Madjars (and Bulgars) let to diminish of Buglarian power - one can see
all the structures of the <government>.
I also shared the view that Bulgaria is centralized country - but now, I
read more about the different <komitas> and their share of fight I can see
is it not exactly true.
For example, Solon, komita (in Bulgarian Jupan) of Panonia and knajz Lobanac
(lesser then Jupan) of Hun (Ujgorod) fought Madjars and only later
requested help from the government - Simeon - but he did not sent enough
troops - he was busy to fight for nothing on the south and to devastate
Madjar territory him self. Madjars preveal after two Bulgar tribes (from
KHazaria) help them and Solon was subdued to them (with another bulgarian
and avarian clans). Lobanec was killed by Madjars.
During the grandfather of Simeon - the Kavhan Isbul was assigned (or rule?)
on the southern territories (Trakia, Macedonia) and he essentially fought
Romeans. Presian himself rule form Pliska.
I believe that after Krum (when a lot of non-bulgar population was
incorporated) and during the rule of Omurtag the same model of Jupi
(Komitats) was introduce with same self sovicient armies and local
comanders.
At least according the scripts from that time that could be found in
Bulgaria. And the central army - chekhari was in central Buglaria.
ADR
Ostrogorsky, not Ostrovski. Ostrogorsky, despite his name, taught in
US institutions and his main book, the "History of the Byzantine
Commonwealth" is certainly not new. He also supports the thesis that
there was no breakup of the Bulgarian kingdom prior to the invasion of
the Russians and the conquest of Bulgaria by John I. He suggests that
Samuel and his brothers established their command after the conquest of
Bulgaria by John I in areas that were not well garissoned by the Greek
army (or not at all).
However, there is little doubt that the ethnic makeup of western
Bulgaria was different from that of Bulgaria proper. The Slav
settlements had come under the control of the Bulgarian crown only in
the late 8th century. I have to accept, however, that these Slavs
showed a great deal of loyalty to the Bulgarian state and, in fact,
became the greatest supporters of the Bulgarian dynasty. So much, in
fact, that the czar embraced them in his fight against the boyars.
ADR
Zhivko Apostolovski
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106688670.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Actually, Nikolay, I do not know why you did protest. Ostrogorsky
> supports your views (that there was no breakup of Bulgaria prior to its
> conquest by Emperor John I and that Samuel established a Bulgarian
> kingdom). So, there was no need to debate this. I am not sure why
> Zhivko posted this.
My god, grkoman. Can't you comprehend even the simplest of messages. The
title by itself is self explanatory, plus I put some additional explanations
at the beginning of my message.
Nikolay being the properly trained bugaroman, sees an anti-bulgarian Serbian
involvement at every corner of his little bulgar world. :-( Hence (me
thinks), the Russian historian Georgy Ostrogorsky for him has become
Aleksandar Ostrogorsky the Serbian/American) educated mechanical
engineer/physicist. But who am I to tell him otherwise. I rather let him
play happily in his imaginary Bulgar world.:-)
>
> ADR
>
> PS: If count Nickolas and his sons were of Armenian descent,
But there is no proof for this (armenian descent),.
this means
> hardly anything. A variety of ethnic groups were integrated into the
> Bulgarian kingdom and despite their original ethnicity, they regarded
> themselves as Bulgarians
And your crystal ball told you so, right? :-)
> (as Samuel's inscriptions indicate).
Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
And now when I say I am an Australian, that means I am an ethnic Australian.
Right? :-)
So, I
> cannot understand this part of the debate.
It appears you hardly understand anything at all, grkoma.
>
Zhivko Apostolovski
<mat...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1106689257.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks Zhivko - it will take me a while to read and digest this.
>
> I am having trouble with my computer - please pardon me if a duplicate
> message appears.
>
>
> Matt
>
to your other message (in the other thread). I intend to do that next week.
But over the weekend expect an interesting (lenghty) article (by a bugaroman
:-)) on origins and "interaction" of (some of) the balkan languages. :-)
Regrads,
Zhivko
Zhivko Apostolovski
Could I borrow your crystal ball for while, grkoman? I would like to see
those "loyal Slavs", as well. Some of the things you have been seeing
lately, it seems to me that it may be a lot of fun if one has such an
"imaginative" ball. :-)
Zhivko
>
> ADR
>
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
> Nikolay being the properly trained bugaroman, sees an anti-bulgarian
> Serbian involvement at every corner of his little bulgar world. :-( Hence
> (me thinks), the Russian historian Georgy Ostrogorsky for him has become
Lol, Russian Historian ... he was born in Russia but the bullshit he wrote
in Yugoslavia - don't ever forget that.
If you can put facts and etc. You are welcome - since you can't please take
a better look on what I am writing.
And I am not Bulgaroman (there are no such thing) I am Bulgarian (and you
are ethnical bulgaria most likely).
But you are Serboman!
That is - serbians (yugoslavs) impose Macedonism (with very little Bulgarian
help). Thisis how Vanche Mishailov called your breed. Why should I believe
you not him?
> Aleksandar Ostrogorsky the Serbian/American) educated mechanical
> engineer/physicist. But who am I to tell him otherwise. I rather let him
> play happily in his imaginary Bulgar world.:-)
:-)
>>
>> ADR
>>
>> PS: If count Nickolas and his sons were of Armenian descent,
>
> But there is no proof for this (armenian descent),.
Except the name of the mother of Samuil, Aron, David and Moisej but hey how
count them. It is not 100% prove - but comparing to <Brashlianski knjaz :-)
> it is solid hard evidence.
>
> And your crystal ball told you so, right? :-)
Read bitolia inscription ad do not write bullshit.
> Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
Voden inscription is not Samuil.
Read the bitolia one - it is found real BY YUGOSLAVS.
And for the voden it took 5 minutes to find it is not real.
> And now when I say I am an Australian, that means I am an ethnic
> Australian. Right? :-)
It is your problem. You are claiming to be Macedonian (as radiculaus as
Australian) but hey I am not telling your are not. It is your choice. But
the fact you are bulgarian descendent (most likely) you can hide - as black
people cannot hide they are black - still they are Americans.
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
> I wonder if we are talking about different persons. I am talking about
> Ostrogorsky, not Ostrovski. Ostrogorsky, despite his name, taught in
Same guy.
In 1972 (I believe) he wrote the article about the origin of Samuil claiming
that he may not be Bulgarian. And this is 20(almost) years after
discovering of Bitolia inscription (by Yugoslavs). He also wrote article
about Samuil Kigndom - never mantion above facts (that I post for Jivko to
think about - but he is Macedonist - hence very very problematic to see he
is not what they thought him in the school.
> US institutions and his main book, the "History of the Byzantine
> Commonwealth" is certainly not new. He also supports the thesis that
> there was no breakup of the Bulgarian kingdom prior to the invasion of
> the Russians and the conquest of Bulgaria by John I. He suggests that
> Samuel and his brothers established their command after the conquest of
> Bulgaria by John I in areas that were not well garissoned by the Greek
> army (or not at all).
Some Romean army was stationed in Belgrade (prior to Samuil) it is very well
documented of History of Hungary -bulgarian Jupan from the north ask
Hungarians to help him battle Romeans in the Banat (it is today voivodna).
And he got the help Romean was pull off, Most likely it is garnizon of
small unit. It took place in the 970's. That is for sure.
Also Roemans introduce thema Mesopotamia (in todays Besarabia - Ukrain).
Only fo rfew years so.
so if they run Belgrade (on Danube and the one on Dnestyr) it is same to
assume many of the internal cities were also <garnissoned> - at least
Serdica, Scopije and etc.
> However, there is little doubt that the ethnic makeup of western
> Bulgaria was different from that of Bulgaria proper. The Slav
No.
It is common miss understanding. Most of the territories were populated by
Bulgars as well. Those are the guys that Justinian fought in 695.
Same guys protest Tervel help to Visantia. (You can see it in the Madara
inscription).
I am sorry you do not read bulgarian, 5 years ago a book was published by
MANU (Macedonian Academy) in Scopje by prof. Miculich - he perform a lot of
archelogical <expeditions> and publish a book called Macedonian Middle age
Towns. There for the period of 6-8th century he was not able to find a
single Slav necropole in today macedonia. There many bulgars, and many
auls :-) but not slav one.
And he explaining that easily - slavs (being the plain's people) move in the
egeja - solun, greece, struma-mesta and etc and left Macedonia. Bulgars
being semi-mountain people (Caucasus, Pamir etc.) took that land -
Macedonia and albania). In Bulgaria one can find a 1000's slavic necropoles
- same in greece - in macedonia - none!
And on the other hand you should see how many trobles Bulgarians had to take
territories populated by Slavs (like Serbia, Croatia and even relatively
small Panonian and Banat slavs), punic wars with Moravians and etc.
Macedonia on other hand was took without any fights.
(nor Romans, nor Slavs) once Serdia (main obsticle) was taken.
> settlements had come under the control of the Bulgarian crown only in
> the late 8th century. I have to accept, however, that these Slavs
> showed a great deal of loyalty to the Bulgarian state and, in fact,
> became the greatest supporters of the Bulgarian dynasty. So much, in
The slavs (that was put in Macedonia) was only the slavs resettle by Bulgars
(and christianized one). Otherwise Zivko should explain where their
necropols vaporize and why not disapear in Bulgaria (mostly Moesia) and
Greece, Wven in Romania one can find a 1000's necropoles - in Macedonia
NONE.
And those are the plain facts.
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
> Could I borrow your crystal ball for while, grkoman? I would like to see
> those "loyal Slavs", as well. Some of the things you have been seeing
> lately, it seems to me that it may be a lot of fun if one has such an
> "imaginative" ball. :-)
Can you find a single refernce to the Samuil being slav, slav kign, slav
knjaz
or may be his people being slavs?
(I am not talking about Macedonians here - just for the sake of arguement -
Slavs). And do not point me the Serbian Jupan that was with him - he was
not volonteer either.
And I believe you are the man that at least should talk about <crystal
bowls> sience for you Goce is Macedonian but he did not know that - and
thought he is Bulgarian.
Zhivko Apostolovski
"Nikolay Sarmadzhiev" <nik...@sarmadzhiev.tk> wrote in message
news:35pt6nF...@individual.net...
>
> > Nikolay being the properly trained bugaroman, sees an anti-bulgarian
> > Serbian involvement at every corner of his little bulgar world. :-(
Hence
> > (me thinks), the Russian historian Georgy Ostrogorsky for him has become
>
> Lol, Russian Historian ... he was born in Russia
Exactly, he is a historian of russian descent.
but the bullshit he wrote
> in Yugoslavia - don't ever forget that.
And he wrote the "b*****t" in german, right? :-)
> If you can put facts and etc. You are welcome - since you can't please
take
> a better look on what I am writing.
> And I am not Bulgaroman (there are no such thing) I am Bulgarian (and you
> are ethnical bulgaria most likely).
The facts are that all "Bulgarians" which are not of bulgarian descent
(blood) are bugaromani. And most of you in/from "Bulgaria" are BUGAROMANI.
> But you are Serboman!
Whatever pleases you, bugaroman. :-) I have never ever declared what I am
NOT, a Serbian.
> That is - serbians (yugoslavs) impose Macedonism (with very little
Bulgarian
> help). Thisis how Vanche Mishailov called your breed. Why should I believe
> you not him?
If Macedonians are a creation of the Serbians, as your bulgar propaganda
LIES which you are reciting, state, then how is it that Gyorgy Radule, a
(retired) bulgarian professor (in Sofia), of Macedonian descent, declares
himself as a MACEDONIAN and has writtent the book "The fifteen lies of the
bulgarism". Did the Serbians create him (as a Macedonian), as well? -:) And
he says (just like you most eminent expert-bulgarologist - Zlatarski) that
you are artificial Bulgarians - BUGAROMANI. You (the Bugaromani), of all
people, should be the last of accusing others about an artificially created
nationality/ethnos. Never forget that, BUGAROMAN.
When you know 1% percent of what I know about Mihailov, maybe then I will
entertain a thought of discussing him with you. Until then you continue with
reciting verses from your bulgar propaganda.
Just remember this BUGAROMAN: in the same year (1878) Bulgaria was created
by the Russians and became their protectorate, the MACEDONIANS were fighting
("Kresna" uprising) and giving their lives for a free and sovereign
Macedonia. And it was the neo "Bulgars" and the Russians who thwarted their
quest for freedom and the creation of their own state.
Zhivko
>
> > Aleksandar Ostrogorsky the Serbian/American) educated mechanical
> > engineer/physicist. But who am I to tell him otherwise. I rather let him
> > play happily in his imaginary Bulgar world.:-)
>
> :-)
You are still imagining things which do not exist (Serbians at every corner)
:-)
>
> >>
> >> ADR
> >>
> >> PS: If count Nickolas and his sons were of Armenian descent,
> >
> > But there is no proof for this (armenian descent),.
>
> Except the name of the mother of Samuil, Aron, David and Moisej but hey
how
> count them. It is not 100% prove - but comparing to <Brashlianski knjaz
:-)
> > it is solid hard evidence.
>
> >
> > And your crystal ball told you so, right? :-)
>
> Read bitolia inscription ad do not write bullshit.
I have and it is much like the Voden "proof". :-)
>
> > Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
>
> Voden inscription is not Samuil.
> Read the bitolia one - it is found real BY YUGOSLAVS.
> And for the voden it took 5 minutes to find it is not real.
It should take even less for the one from Bitola. :-)
> > And now when I say I am an Australian, that means I am an ethnic
> > Australian. Right? :-)
>
> It is your problem. You are claiming to be Macedonian (as radiculaus as
> Australian) but hey I am not telling your are not. It is your choice. But
> the fact you are bulgarian descendent (most likely) you can hide - as
black
> people cannot hide they are black - still they are Americans.
Don't get involved in things you do not comprehend. This for your own
benefit.
Zhivko
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
> Exactly, he is a historian of russian descent.
He is Yugoslav historian from Russian descent.
It is not like he is Russian historian at all.
>
> but the bullshit he wrote
>> in Yugoslavia - don't ever forget that.
>
> And he wrote the "b*****t" in german, right? :-)
The language is irrelevant. He wrote it in Yugoslavia and for Yugoslavia.
>> If you can put facts and etc. You are welcome - since you can't please
> take
Can you rebut any of the facts I put or you can?
If you can not (and since he also can not) please take step back.
>> a better look on what I am writing.
>> And I am not Bulgaroman (there are no such thing) I am Bulgarian (and
you
>> are ethnical bulgaria most likely).
>
> The facts are that all "Bulgarians" which are not of bulgarian descent
> (blood) are bugaromani. And most of you in/from "Bulgaria" are
BUGAROMANI.
Sure, if you said so.
>> But you are Serboman!
>
> Whatever pleases you, bugaroman. :-) I have never ever declared what I am
> NOT, a Serbian.
>
>> That is - serbians (yugoslavs) impose Macedonism (with very little
> Bulgarian
>> help). Thisis how Vanche Mishailov called your breed. Why should I
>> believe you not him?
>
> If Macedonians are a creation of the Serbians, as your bulgar propaganda
> LIES which you are reciting, state, then how is it that Gyorgy Radule, a
> (retired) bulgarian professor (in Sofia), of Macedonian descent, declares
> himself as a MACEDONIAN and has writtent the book "The fifteen lies of
the
> bulgarism". Did the Serbians create him (as a Macedonian), as well? -:)
And who sponsor that book?
And again - please give me hard facts - to rebut me.
Am I ling?
Did Vladislav lie?
Did Goce lie?
> And he says (just like you most eminent expert-bulgarologist - Zlatarski)
> that you are artificial Bulgarians - BUGAROMANI. You (the Bugaromani), of
Where he said so?
And how come the <expert> Zlatarski is from beginning of the last century,
do you thing the science has not changed from then on?
> all people, should be the last of accusing others about an artificially
> created nationality/ethnos. Never forget that, BUGAROMAN.
How create us?
(As for Macedonian we have pretty good idea)
> When you know 1% percent of what I know about Mihailov, maybe then I will
> entertain a thought of discussing him with you. Until then you continue
> with reciting verses from your bulgar propaganda.
What do you know?
Have you read (or listen) his interviews after 1992?
Am I wrong he called you (Macedonist) Serbomans?
> Just remember this BUGAROMAN: in the same year (1878) Bulgaria was
created
> by the Russians and became their protectorate, the MACEDONIANS were
> fighting ("Kresna" uprising) and giving their lives for a free and
Be careful here, my relatives actually fought in that uprising and later
also being with Goce, that grand father told us his grand father was
Bulgarian and he is Bulgarian and etc.
He was from Oshtava - if you know what is Oshtava.
> sovereign Macedonia. And it was the neo "Bulgars" and the Russians who
> thwarted their quest for freedom and the creation of their own state.
Sovereign Macedonia?
Are you insane, have you see the stamp, or may be you listen to the people
of Kresna-Oshtava what they have to say, not like the folks that settle
after words there but the once that actually living there for centuries?
> You are still imagining things which do not exist (Serbians at every
> corner)
> :-)
Go take your argument to Vanche Mihailov - not to me. He is calling your
breed Serbomans.
Be aware Serbian != Serboman.
>> Read bitolia inscription ad do not write bullshit.
>
> I have and it is much like the Voden "proof". :-)
Voden proof - it is inscription (fake) from 19th century made by people of
Voden, what do you think they were if they made such inscription?
May be <Macedonians>?
>>
>> > Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
>>
>> Voden inscription is not Samuil.
>> Read the bitolia one - it is found real BY YUGOSLAVS.
>> And for the voden it took 5 minutes to find it is not real.
>
> It should take even less for the one from Bitola. :-)
Yes Zhivko, you are specialist in that - if it is not suit you it is fake,
may be the Vasili Thema (Bulgaria) was also fake, or may be the nickname of
his was a fake,
or may be Vladimir book (Kiev Rus) was also fake,
may be Theophilakt was fake, may be Scilitsa was fake,
may be the Ivan Gavrail and his son Presian were fake ....
and on and on
Who is not fake - Zhivko and Aleksandr Donski (the most ridiculous name I
ever encounter after Manalopulov)
>> people cannot hide they are black - still they are Americans.
>
> Don't get involved in things you do not comprehend. This for your own
> benefit.
Sure, you can not understand a simple facts - and ALWAYS trying to avert
the
argument - and insult people but Hey you are the UNMISTAKABLE guy.
June R Harton
Silly, Bulgar, what makes you think you can mess with peoples minds
and truth with impunity?
June R Harton
That is a false statement re different peoples. The Bulgars went to the
Western area too.
Why deny it to please the little Bulgar ilindraovski who cannot confront
his heritage?!
bg123...@abv.bg
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C50200.94109F20
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I am posting this short excerpt from Ostrogorsky's work primarily for =
> our Canadian friend Matt, but it should be of benefit to others as well, =
> if only for the sole purpose of pointing out the discrepancy in =
> scholarly(?) interpretation of historical events or individuals, in =
> instances blatantly "coloured" by political agendas. This example should =
> serve as a reminder when we discuss/arbitrate on heritage , as this =
> example is only a replica for any other point in history.
>
> Zhivko
>
>
historian at Tito. What would you expect him to write in the 1960's -
precisely one of the picks pf the Yugoslav - Bulgarian confrontation
over "Macedonia"?
You, know, I 've been following your postings for a while - you seem
totally detached from what is normally called historical research.
> Origin and Ethnicity of Tsar Samuel=20
> =20
> George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University =
> Press, (p.301-2), 1969.
> =20
> An English translation of an originally published in German "Geschichte =
> des byzantinischen Staates"
>
> Nothing definite is known about the early history of the Cometopuli. The =
> contemporary Armenian historian Stephen of Taron (Asolik), trans. Gelzer =
> and Burckhardt (1907), 185 f., says that they were of Armenian descent. =
> In spite of N. Adontz, 'Samuel l'Armenien' 3 ff., it remains doubtful =
> how much weight can be given to the statement of this Armenian historian =
> whose information on Samuel is full of obvious errors. N. P. Blegmv, =
> 'Bratjata David, Moisej, Aaron i Samuil' (The brothers David, Moses, =
> Aaron and Samuel), Godisnik na Sofijsk. Univ., Jurid. Fak. 37, 14 =
> (1941-2), 28 ff., considers that Count Nicholas was a descendant of the =
> proto-Bulgar Asparuch, and his wife Ripsimia, the mother of the =
> Cometopuli, a daughter of the czar Symeon, which is entirely without =
> foundation. His 'Teorijata za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo' (Theories on =
> the West Bulgarian Empire), ibid. 16 ff., contains equally fantastic =
> views.
>
> The history of the origin of Samuel's empire is a much debated question. =
> Scholars no longer support Drinov's theory of a West Bulgarian empire of =
> the Sigmanids founded in 963, and today two different and conflicting =
> views are current. One view holds that by 969 a West Bulgarian =
> (Macedonian) kingdom under the Cometopuli had split off from the empire =
> of the tsar Peter and that this existed independently side by side with =
> the East Bulgarian empire (on the Danube); further, they consider that =
> it was on the eastern part which was conquered by Tzimisces, while the =
> western part continued and formed the nucleus of Samuel's empire. The =
> second view, worked out in detail by D. Anastasijevic, 'L'hypothese de =
> la Bulgaric Occidentale', Recueil Uspenskij I (1930), 20 ff., insists =
> that there was no separation between an eastern and western Bulgaria, =
> and that Tzimisces conquered the whole of Bulgaria which only regained =
> its independence with the Cometopuli's revolt in 976 and the foundation =
> of a new empire in Macedonia. This latter interpretation seems to me to =
> be in the main correct, though both theories appear to go astray in so =
> far as they imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a =
> regular occupation of the whole countryside. Anastasijevic rightly =
> emphasizes that the sources give practically no ground for the =
> assumption that an independent West Bulgaria ever existed side by side =
> with an East Bulgaria, and they afford equally slight evidence for the =
> statement that there was a revolt of the Cometopuli before 976. The =
> frequently quoted statement in Scylitzes-Cedren. II, 347, dated rather =
> arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an =
> account of a revolt of the Cometopuli, said to have broken out in this =
> year, is in reality only a casual comment, by way of an aside, which =
> anticipates the events it refers to (cf. the doubts of Runciman, =
> Bulgarian Empire 218, and Adontz, 'Samuel I'Armenien', 5 ff.). On the =
> other hand, the sources make it quite clear that Tzimisces-like =
> Sviatoslav-never set foot in Macedonia (the entirely unsupported =
> statement of the later Priest of Dioclea who says that Tzimisces took =
> possession of Serbia, and consequently Macedonia as well, is of no =
> importance). The capture of the capital and the deposition of the ruler =
> signified the subjection of the country without any need to conquer its =
> territory inch by inch. It is, however, true that control which was =
> limited to occupying the centre could in certain circumstances easily be =
> overthrown from the periphery, and this was in fact what happened after =
> the death of John Tzimisces and the outbreak of internal conflicts in =
> Byzantium. This problem has been recently discussed by Litavrin, =
> Bolgarya i Vizantija 26 I ff., who does not, however, advance any new or =
> compelling arguments for the view he adopts, i.e. that 'Bulgaria =
> continued its existence in the West'. He concludes: 'The period from 969 =
> to 976 was in Western Bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated =
> under the rule of the Cometopuli. . . .' But, as our observations above =
> make clear, this assertion has not the slightest foundation in the =
> sources.
> ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C50200.94109F20
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am posting this short excerpt from =
> Ostrogorsky's=20
> work primarily for our Canadian friend Matt, but it should be of =
> benefit to=20
> others as well, if only for the sole purpose of pointing out the=20
> discrepancy in scholarly(?) interpretation of historical events or=20
> individuals, in instances blatantly "coloured" by political agendas. =
> This=20
> example should serve as a reminder when we discuss/arbitrate on heritage =
> , as=20
> this example is only a replica for any other point in =
> history.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Zhivko</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><BR><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Origin and Ethnicity of Tsar =
> Samuel=20
> <BR> <BR>George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, =
> Rutgers=20
> University Press, (p.301-2), 1969.<BR> <BR>An English translation =
> of an=20
> originally published in German =93Geschichte des byzantinischen=20
> Staates=94<BR><BR>Nothing definite is known about the early history of =
> the=20
> Cometopuli. The contemporary Armenian historian Stephen of Taron =
> (Asolik),=20
> trans. Gelzer and Burckhardt (1907), 185 f., says that they were of =
> Armenian=20
> descent. In spite of N. Adontz, 'Samuel l'Armenien' 3 ff., it remains =
> doubtful=20
> how much weight can be given to the statement of this Armenian historian =
> whose=20
> information on Samuel is full of obvious errors. N. P. Blegmv, 'Bratjata =
> David,=20
> Moisej, Aaron i Samuil' (The brothers David, Moses, Aaron and Samuel), =
> Godisnik=20
> na Sofijsk. Univ., Jurid. Fak. 37, 14 (1941-2), 28 ff., considers that =
> Count=20
> Nicholas was a descendant of the proto-Bulgar Asparuch, and his wife =
> Ripsimia,=20
> the mother of the Cometopuli, a daughter of the czar Symeon, which is =
> entirely=20
> without foundation. His 'Teorijata za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo' =
> (Theories on=20
> the West Bulgarian Empire), ibid. 16 ff., contains equally fantastic=20
> views.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>The history of the origin of =
> Samuel's empire is=20
> a much debated question. Scholars no longer support Drinov's theory of a =
> West=20
> Bulgarian empire of the Sigmanids founded in 963, and today two =
> different and=20
> conflicting views are current. One view holds that by 969 a West =
> Bulgarian=20
> (Macedonian) kingdom under the Cometopuli had split off from the empire =
> of the=20
> tsar Peter and that this existed independently side by side with the =
> East=20
> Bulgarian empire (on the Danube); further, they consider that it was on =
> the=20
> eastern part which was conquered by Tzimisces, while the western part =
> continued=20
> and formed the nucleus of Samuel's empire. The second view, worked out =
> in detail=20
> by D. Anastasijevic, 'L'hypothese de la Bulgaric Occidentale', Recueil =
> Uspenskij=20
> I (1930), 20 ff., insists that there was no separation between an =
> eastern and=20
> western Bulgaria, and that Tzimisces conquered the whole of Bulgaria =
> which only=20
> regained its independence with the Cometopuli's revolt in 976 and the =
> foundation=20
> of a new empire in Macedonia. This latter interpretation seems to me to =
> be in=20
> the main correct, though both theories appear to go astray in so far as =
> they=20
> imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a regular =
> occupation=20
> of the whole countryside. Anastasijevic rightly emphasizes that the =
> sources give=20
> practically no ground for the assumption that an independent West =
> Bulgaria ever=20
> existed side by side with an East Bulgaria, and they afford equally =
> slight=20
> evidence for the statement that there was a revolt of the Cometopuli =
> before 976.=20
> The frequently quoted statement in Scylitzes-Cedren. II, 347, dated =
> rather=20
> arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an =
> account of a=20
> revolt of the Cometopuli, said to have broken out in this year, is in =
> reality=20
> only a casual comment, by way of an aside, which anticipates the events =
> it=20
> refers to (cf. the doubts of Runciman, Bulgarian Empire 218, and Adontz, =
> 'Samuel=20
> I'Armenien', 5 ff.). On the other hand, the sources make it quite clear =
> that=20
> Tzimisces-like Sviatoslav-never set foot in Macedonia (the entirely =
> unsupported=20
> statement of the later Priest of Dioclea who says that Tzimisces took =
> possession=20
> of Serbia, and consequently Macedonia as well, is of no importance). The =
> capture=20
> of the capital and the deposition of the ruler signified the subjection =
> of the=20
> country without any need to conquer its territory inch by inch. It is, =
> however,=20
> true that control which was limited to occupying the centre could in =
> certain=20
> circumstances easily be overthrown from the periphery, and this was in =
> fact what=20
> happened after the death of John Tzimisces and the outbreak of internal=20
> conflicts in Byzantium. This problem has been recently discussed by =
> Litavrin,=20
> Bolgarya i Vizantija 26 I ff., who does not, however, advance any new or =
>
> compelling arguments for the view he adopts, i.e. that 'Bulgaria =
> continued its=20
> existence in the West'. He concludes: 'The period from 969 to 976 was in =
> Western=20
> Bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated under the rule of the=20
> Cometopuli. . . .' But, as our observations above make clear, this =
> assertion has=20
> not the slightest foundation in the sources.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C50200.94109F20--
Zhivko Apostolovski
>
>
> > Exactly, he is a historian of russian descent.
>
> He is Yugoslav historian from Russian descent.
> It is not like he is Russian historian at all.
> > but the bullshit he wrote
> >> in Yugoslavia - don't ever forget that.
> >
> > And he wrote the "b*****t" in german, right? :-)
>
> The language is irrelevant. He wrote it in Yugoslavia and for Yugoslavia.
Really? :-)
>
> >> If you can put facts and etc. You are welcome - since you can't please
> > take
>
> Can you rebut any of the facts I put or you can?
What "facts"?
> If you can not (and since he also can not) please take step back.
>
> >> a better look on what I am writing.
> >> And I am not Bulgaroman (there are no such thing) I am Bulgarian (and
> you
> >> are ethnical bulgaria most likely).
> >
> > The facts are that all "Bulgarians" which are not of bulgarian descent
> > (blood) are bugaromani. And most of you in/from "Bulgaria" are
> BUGAROMANI.
>
> Sure, if you said so.
Of course sure, since that is a fact, as your own experts tell you, as well.
>
> >> But you are Serboman!
> >
> > Whatever pleases you, bugaroman. :-) I have never ever declared what I
am
> > NOT, a Serbian.
> >
> >> That is - serbians (yugoslavs) impose Macedonism (with very little
> > Bulgarian
> >> help). Thisis how Vanche Mishailov called your breed. Why should I
> >> believe you not him?
> >
> > If Macedonians are a creation of the Serbians, as your bulgar
propaganda
> > LIES which you are reciting, state, then how is it that Gyorgy Radule,
a
> > (retired) bulgarian professor (in Sofia), of Macedonian descent,
declares
> > himself as a MACEDONIAN and has writtent the book "The fifteen lies of
> the
> > bulgarism". Did the Serbians create him (as a Macedonian), as well? -:)
>
> And who sponsor that book?
You tell me. He published it in Bulgaria. The question you should be asking
yourself is not who sponsored that, but why Radule, a bulgarian professor,
wrote that kind of a book - in Bulgaria.
> And again - please give me hard facts - to rebut me.
What are you blabbering about?
> Am I ling?
Again, what are you blabbering about?
> Did Vladislav lie?
Can you tell me? But, stop and reflect on what kind of a person he was
before you answer? :-)
> Did Goce lie?
Lie about what? Or are you referring to the bulgarian forgeries? :-)
>
> > And he says (just like you most eminent expert-bulgarologist -
Zlatarski)
> > that you are artificial Bulgarians - BUGAROMANI. You (the Bugaromani),
of
>
> Where he said so?
In his book he says that you are bulgarians only in name. Read the quotes I
have posted. Or can't you understand even the simplest.
> And how come the <expert> Zlatarski is from beginning of the last
century,
> do you thing the science has not changed from then on?
Not one serious scholar has refuted what Zlatarski tells you (and many
others say). But if you want to learn "history" from Todor Zhivkov's books,
then that is your problem, bugaroman.
> > all people, should be the last of accusing others about an artificially
> > created nationality/ethnos. Never forget that, BUGAROMAN.
>
> How create us?
You are nation of artificially created (in name only) "Bulgarians". How many
times do you want me to reapeat this?
>
> (As for Macedonian we have pretty good idea)
Good for you. :-)
>
> > When you know 1% percent of what I know about Mihailov, maybe then I
will
> > entertain a thought of discussing him with you. Until then you continue
> > with reciting verses from your bulgar propaganda.
>
> What do you know?
> Have you read (or listen) his interviews after 1992?
> Am I wrong he called you (Macedonist) Serbomans?
I know everything there is to know about Mihailov.
Now, are you aware, bugaroman, that during his time at the head of VMRO,
his members demolished the monument of the "Bulgarian unknown fallen
fighters" and built in its place built a monument for the MACEDONIAN unknown
fallen fighters. Do you know that his same party members established in the
schools of Pirin Macedonia, macedonian language classes and that they
promised the Macedonians of that region the abolition of the "bulgarian"
language, before the party was made illegal by the Bg government in the
1930's? :-)
> > Just remember this BUGAROMAN: in the same year (1878) Bulgaria was
> created
> > by the Russians and became their protectorate, the MACEDONIANS were
> > fighting ("Kresna" uprising) and giving their lives for a free and
>
> Be careful here, my relatives actually fought in that uprising and later
> also being with Goce, that grand father told us his grand father was
> Bulgarian and he is Bulgarian and etc.
> He was from Oshtava - if you know what is Oshtava.
Read the documents, bugaroman. They tell you clearly about a MACEDONIAN
uprising for a free an sovereign MACEDONIA, with a MACEDONIAN constitution,
established by MACEDONIANS.
>
> > sovereign Macedonia. And it was the neo "Bulgars" and the Russians who
> > thwarted their quest for freedom and the creation of their own state.
>
> Sovereign Macedonia?
Yes, SOVEREIGN MACEDONIA.
It's all documented, bugaroman.
> Are you insane, have you see the stamp, or may be you listen to the
people
> of Kresna-Oshtava what they have to say, not like the folks that settle
> after words there but the once that actually living there for centuries?
>
> > You are still imagining things which do not exist (Serbians at every
> > corner)
> > :-)
>
> Go take your argument to Vanche Mihailov - not to me. He is calling your
> breed Serbomans.
Mihailov passed away as a BUGAROMAN. I h
> Be aware Serbian != Serboman.
>
> >> Read bitolia inscription ad do not write bullshit.
> >
> > I have and it is much like the Voden "proof". :-)
>
> Voden proof - it is inscription (fake) from 19th century made by people
of
> Voden, what do you think they were if they made such inscription?
> May be <Macedonians>?
How many made that inscription? 1, 2, ...10, ...1 million...?
> >>
> >> > Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
> >>
> >> Voden inscription is not Samuil.
> >> Read the bitolia one - it is found real BY YUGOSLAVS.
> >> And for the voden it took 5 minutes to find it is not real.
> >
> > It should take even less for the one from Bitola. :-)
>
> Yes Zhivko, you are specialist in that - if it is not suit you it is
fake,
> may be the Vasili Thema (Bulgaria) was also fake, or may be the nickname
of
> his was a fake,
> or may be Vladimir book (Kiev Rus) was also fake,
> may be Theophilakt was fake, may be Scilitsa was fake,
> may be the Ivan Gavrail and his son Presian were fake ....
> and on and on
You are talking of semantics, bugaroman, not real ethnicities. Just like
you, with your artificial, in-name-only ethnicity, Ivan Gavril was not a
Bulgarian by race.
>
> Who is not fake - Zhivko and Aleksandr Donski (the most ridiculous name I
> ever encounter after Manalopulov)
Whatever amuses you, bugaroman, but Zhivko is definitely a REAL Macedonian,
who sees the reality and has NOT abandoned (like you bugaromani have done)
his Macedonian ethnicity-by-birth for a freign ethnicity/race (of
turko-mongol Bulgarian origin) to which he does not belong.
>
> >> people cannot hide they are black - still they are Americans.
But they are not of the same ethnos/race as the white Americans or the
American Americans, are they? You are talking of "citizenship" only, above,
bugaroman. And as a "citizen" you are a Bulgarian. Just like Samuil (and
Ivan Vladislav) was a bulgarian citizen (and a tsar) of Bulgaria. :-)
Nikolay Sarmadzhiev
>
> Really? :-)
Yes. You are wrting in English and publish your oppinions into Google this
do not make you US Professor.
>> >> If you can put facts and etc. You are welcome - since you can't
>> >> please
>> > take
>>
>> Can you rebut any of the facts I put or you can?
>
> What "facts"?
I post them above - stop be stuborn and face them. I am not going to <spam>
the news group again.
>> If you can not (and since he also can not) please take step back.
>>
>> >> a better look on what I am writing.
>> >> And I am not Bulgaroman (there are no such thing) I am Bulgarian (and
>> you
>> >> are ethnical bulgaria most likely).
>> >
>> > The facts are that all "Bulgarians" which are not of bulgarian descent
>> > (blood) are bugaromani. And most of you in/from "Bulgaria" are
>> BUGAROMANI.
>>
>> Sure, if you said so.
>
> Of course sure, since that is a fact, as your own experts tell you, as
> well.
Who is my own expert? Zlatarski?
Please read more history books (not only the <qutoes>) from him and other
later historians from Bulgaria. (Radule is not historian - he is
<jurnalist/writer> profesor).
>> >> But you are Serboman!
>> >
>> > Whatever pleases you, bugaroman. :-) I have never ever declared what I
> am
>> > NOT, a Serbian.
>> >
>> >> That is - serbians (yugoslavs) impose Macedonism (with very little
>> > Bulgarian
>> >> help). Thisis how Vanche Mishailov called your breed. Why should I
>> >> believe you not him?
>> >
>> > If Macedonians are a creation of the Serbians, as your bulgar
> propaganda
>> > LIES which you are reciting, state, then how is it that Gyorgy Radule,
> a
>> > (retired) bulgarian professor (in Sofia), of Macedonian descent,
> declares
>> > himself as a MACEDONIAN and has writtent the book "The fifteen lies of
>> the
>> > bulgarism". Did the Serbians create him (as a Macedonian), as well?
>> > -:)
>>
>> And who sponsor that book?
>
> You tell me. He published it in Bulgaria. The question you should be
> asking yourself is not who sponsored that, but why Radule, a bulgarian
> professor, wrote that kind of a book - in Bulgaria.
Because Bulgaria (unlike certain west neibourgs of us) is democratic state
and you can publish any none sense and no one we prosecute you or treaten
your live. This is why we have an <macedonian> minority - true pretty small
one :-) but we tolerate any oppinion. That's why you and Ilinden and Donski
and co. could come and we are going to meet you as a guests and close
people.
>> And again - please give me hard facts - to rebut me.
>
> What are you blabbering about?
>
>> Am I ling?
>
> Again, what are you blabbering about?
>
Did I lie for anything?
>> Did Vladislav lie?
>
> Can you tell me? But, stop and reflect on what kind of a person he was
> before you answer? :-)
See his inscription - what he wrote.
As what kind of person - :-) - He was a fighter - pretty good one. Do you
know he defeat actually Vasili in the Kluch and killed his favorite leader?
And he is the reason Vasilli did not attack Bulgaria after Kluch disaster?
If you imply the dead of Gavrail-Radomir - those were the times, you cannot
accuse Samuil for killing Aaron neither. The entire Bulgarian aristocrasy
shake hard after the fll of Krum dynasty.
>> Did Goce lie?
> Lie about what? Or are you referring to the bulgarian forgeries? :-)
>>
>> > And he says (just like you most eminent expert-bulgarologist -
> Zlatarski)
>> > that you are artificial Bulgarians - BUGAROMANI. You (the Bugaromani),
> of
>>
>> Where he said so?
>
> In his book he says that you are bulgarians only in name. Read the quotes
> I have posted. Or can't you understand even the simplest.
Haha - he state something else, but hey OK we are Bulgarians only by name
(for well 1500 years now) at same place and WITHOUT any discontinueses.
Same logic you can apply to let say Russians or French or Brits for example.
>> And how come the <expert> Zlatarski is from beginning of the last
> century,
>> do you thing the science has not changed from then on?
>
> Not one serious scholar has refuted what Zlatarski tells you (and many
> others say). But if you want to learn "history" from Todor Zhivkov's
> books, then that is your problem, bugaroman.
Hahahaha ... Who told you that?
Do you really read the sources Zlatarsky use, his books and etc.?
Most of his conclusions are possible but yet unlike some of them are simply
wrong (after the new data/archielogical/ came in and some are still
standing.
It is normal for the science to develope for 100 years and the new
methodsthat are used.
If you are really interesting about book that rebute Zlatarsky most absurd
conclussions I can send you a link and you can read the
source/Zlatarski/Comment - and you can make your conclusion by your self,
based on the source.
>> > all people, should be the last of accusing others about an
>> > artificially created nationality/ethnos. Never forget that, BUGAROMAN.
>>
>> How create us?
>
> You are nation of artificially created (in name only) "Bulgarians". How
> many times do you want me to reapeat this?
Same as Russians, French, Brtis and etc.
>> (As for Macedonian we have pretty good idea)
>
> Good for you. :-)
>>
>> > When you know 1% percent of what I know about Mihailov, maybe then I
> will
>> > entertain a thought of discussing him with you. Until then you
>> > continue with reciting verses from your bulgar propaganda.
>>
>> What do you know?
>> Have you read (or listen) his interviews after 1992?
>> Am I wrong he called you (Macedonist) Serbomans?
>
> I know everything there is to know about Mihailov.
>
Wow, enlight us.
> Now, are you aware, bugaroman, that during his time at the head of VMRO,
> his members demolished the monument of the "Bulgarian unknown fallen
> fighters" and built in its place built a monument for the MACEDONIAN
> unknown fallen fighters. Do you know that his same party members
> established in the schools of Pirin Macedonia, macedonian language classes
> and that they promised the Macedonians of that region the abolition of the
> "bulgarian" language, before the party was made illegal by the Bg
> government in the 1930's? :-)
>
Hahaha, OK read his book "Qou vadis Bulgaria" or most of his other articles
here:
http://knigite.kroraina.com/knigi/index.html
As for the 1934
It is once the fashist coupe happened in Bulgaria and other <VMRO> allied
with them and with the big help of Serbia (Yugoslavia) demolish
VMRO-vyrhovisti. Not Macedonian <language> classes ever exist before 1945 -
nowhere in the world.
... at the end if he was so big fighter with Bulgarians why you are affraid
to use his name in Macedonia today?
But using Goce, the guy that actually wanted to ally Macedonia and Bulgaria?
>> > Just remember this BUGAROMAN: in the same year (1878) Bulgaria was
>> created
>> > by the Russians and became their protectorate, the MACEDONIANS were
>> > fighting ("Kresna" uprising) and giving their lives for a free and
>>
>> Be careful here, my relatives actually fought in that uprising and later
>> also being with Goce, that grand father told us his grand father was
>> Bulgarian and he is Bulgarian and etc.
>> He was from Oshtava - if you know what is Oshtava.
>
> Read the documents, bugaroman. They tell you clearly about a MACEDONIAN
> uprising for a free an sovereign MACEDONIA, with a MACEDONIAN
> constitution, established by MACEDONIANS.
Where is that <document>?
I saw many others (including the one for proclamation of Ilinden uprising)
where they clearly state Bulgaria/Bulgarians and etc.
And again, you are most then welcome to go to the site where the Kresna
uprising started and ask around,
:-)
There are one Macedonist :-) they will show you his house right away,
(the problem is his is not from the village but came from Graovo (Shop) but
hey, who cares :-).
>>
>> > sovereign Macedonia. And it was the neo "Bulgars" and the Russians who
>> > thwarted their quest for freedom and the creation of their own state.
>>
>> Sovereign Macedonia?
>
> Yes, SOVEREIGN MACEDONIA.
> It's all documented, bugaroman.
Hahaha,
Sure, see why the Kresna uprising start (and what they put as a reason in
the proclamation) and we can talk. I can post the documents as well, you
know Bulgarians we have a tons of documents - originals - not like certain
people.
>> Are you insane, have you see the stamp, or may be you listen to the
> people
>> of Kresna-Oshtava what they have to say, not like the folks that settle
>> after words there but the once that actually living there for centuries?
>>
>> > You are still imagining things which do not exist (Serbians at every
>> > corner)
>> > :-)
>>
>> Go take your argument to Vanche Mihailov - not to me. He is calling your
>> breed Serbomans.
> Mihailov passed away as a BUGAROMAN. I h
>> Be aware Serbian != Serboman.
>>
>> >> Read bitolia inscription ad do not write bullshit.
>> >
>> > I have and it is much like the Voden "proof". :-)
>>
>> Voden proof - it is inscription (fake) from 19th century made by people
> of
>> Voden, what do you think they were if they made such inscription?
>> May be <Macedonians>?
>
> How many made that inscription? 1, 2, ...10, ...1 million...?
Is it relevant,
Why no one did not make <Macedonian> inscription for example, may be they
did not know how to write on the stones?
Can you show me the Tomestones in that region in what language is the
inscriptions on them?
May be Macedonian?
>> >>
>> >> > Just like the Voden inscription? :-)
>> >>
>> >> Voden inscription is not Samuil.
>> >> Read the bitolia one - it is found real BY YUGOSLAVS.
>> >> And for the voden it took 5 minutes to find it is not real.
>> >
>> > It should take even less for the one from Bitola. :-)
>>
>> Yes Zhivko, you are specialist in that - if it is not suit you it is
> fake,
>> may be the Vasili Thema (Bulgaria) was also fake, or may be the nickname
> of
>> his was a fake,
>> or may be Vladimir book (Kiev Rus) was also fake,
>> may be Theophilakt was fake, may be Scilitsa was fake,
>> may be the Ivan Gavrail and his son Presian were fake ....
>> and on and on
>
> You are talking of semantics, bugaroman, not real ethnicities. Just like
> you, with your artificial, in-name-only ethnicity, Ivan Gavril was not a
> Bulgarian by race.
And you now that better then him?
May be you do not know that Vladimir Mother (Olga) is Preslav Princes
(Bulgarian)?
As for Gavrail-Radomir (son of the Samuil) and his son Presian, how you can
be so sure?
Why he did not use the famous Macedonian name Alexander or Fillip or Perdica
but the name of the guy that actually <occupied> Macedonia, Kana-subigy
Presian?
No wait, may be that was *ANY* member of the Samuil house (or let say his
court /less then serbians/ that use Macedonian (Alex, Fillip, Perdika and
etc.) name?
But Krakra, Presian, Ukil and etc were there :-).
>>
>> Who is not fake - Zhivko and Aleksandr Donski (the most ridiculous name
>> I ever encounter after Manalopulov)
>
> Whatever amuses you, bugaroman, but Zhivko is definitely a REAL
> Macedonian, who sees the reality and has NOT abandoned (like you
> bugaromani have done) his Macedonian ethnicity-by-birth for a freign
> ethnicity/race (of turko-mongol Bulgarian origin) to which he does not
> belong.
Sure,
You know the NEW found origin for all you. :-).
>>
>> >> people cannot hide they are black - still they are Americans.
>
> But they are not of the same ethnos/race as the white Americans or the
> American Americans, are they? You are talking of "citizenship" only,
No, they are Americans. That is. Nationality - American. You have been in
american I imagine and you should know that better.
> above, bugaroman. And as a "citizen" you are a Bulgarian. Just like Samuil
> (and Ivan Vladislav) was a bulgarian citizen (and a tsar) of Bulgaria. :-)
I am sorry for you, Please try first to find (for yourself) what nationality
and etnicity and <citizenship> means.
... P.S.
Chovek, vsichko mnogo dobre, ama verno shto ne se razhodish do Nacionalnata
Biblioteka v BG i ne prochetesh poveche ot zlatarski, ot Gancho Tzenchev i
drugi BG istorici. Shte se uchudish kolko mnogo neshta ima i kato
dokazatelstven material i kato iztochnici za Bylgarite i proizhoda ni - i
dosta neshta shte te iznenadat - v tova moga da te uverja.
... i ostavi tezi turko/mongolski gluposti - vij sichkite bylgarski
naslednici /volga/kavkaz/balkanite, vsichkite sa evropeidi. nemoj site da
sa <vzeli> vse edno i syshto ime, nali?
... i nakraja - trebva das e osvetish ot kyde tochno trygvat bylgarite - ne
e mnogo jasno tova i nekoj ne go znae. Ima obache mnogo legendi deto kazvat
che sa izgoneni ot Aleksandar ot starite si mesta na jivot (i to nesamo
Dunavskite ami i Vlojkite gi imat) - taka che nishto ne e dokazano sys
sigurnost za nashia proizhod.
... samo za da si pomislish po dobre ot kyde sa bylgatire, Anastasii slaga
dylgata stena 513g. pred konstntinopol za da se zashtitava ot napadashtite
bylgari (koito juveeli na sever ot neia) t.e. v trakia ... i t.n i t.n.
June R Harton
Bulgar, what did I tell you about hiding from truth?