[ad_1]
We Bulgarians are often accused of not presenting our positions sufficiently to other countries of the European Union. And this is absolutely true. This is what archaeologist Prof. Nikolay Ovcharov wrote in his analysis, quoted by Trud.
That is why I propose to the government in the coming months to make a massive campaign to present the Bulgarian position in the European capitals.
But for this purpose, historians and linguists must be found who are firm and do not compromise Bulgarian history. Because sadly a lot of them have leaned lately. In fact, the clash with the “historians of Skopje” is not easy.
At the moment, Skopje is pouring huge funds into public relations for the Macedonian cause. Here are some obvious facts that Professor Plamen Pavlov managed to find on the internet. This is paid lobbying for North Macedonia’s entry into NATO:
In any case, Bulgarian historians must react immediately to the influx of forgeries coming from the north side of Macedonia and from the spokesmen of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, who are circulating it.
A typical example is what happened a few days ago with the unfortunate King Samuel. I will remind you that his bones, discovered by the Greek archaeologist Nikolaos Mutsopoulos, are preserved in Thessaloniki. They are probably rejecting right now, considering what is happening today.
At another unsuccessful meeting of the joint Bulgaria-North Macedonia Historical Commission on December 4, it became clear that the supposedly clarified issue of Tsar Samuel suddenly resurfaced on the negotiating table with terrible force.
It suddenly turned out that when Samuel and his successors declared themselves Bulgarian kings, they were actually doing so just to legitimize themselves before the rest of the world. That is, to understand that they are Macedonians, but thus they legitimized their power.
This crazy idea underlies the entire Macedonian (today – North Macedonian) position for the formation of a separate “Macedonian” state in the Middle Ages. It was especially well developed by the historian Milan Boskoski a quarter of a century ago.
To support his idea, he explains at length that in the first half of the 10th century Bulgaria was an empire in which different peoples participated, which it brutally repressed.
That is why in 969 an uprising broke out against the central government in Preslav, led by Samuel and his brothers, sons of the former governor of the southwestern regions of the kingdom, Comite Nicholas. Using the weakness of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter and his successors, they fought against them and eventually took power.
This is how the new Macedonian state was created, headed by Samuel. Boskoski places special emphasis on explaining why the rest of the civilized world knows nothing about the so-called Macedonian kingdom.
According to him, although “in Byzantine and Western historians and later authors, the new Macedonian state or kingdom is called Bulgarian, and the inhabitants are called Bulgarians, … it is obviously a new kingdom and a new state that has taken just a part of the state. -the legal and ecclesiastical traditions of the old Bulgarian kingdom, in order to gain international recognition from the then medieval elite ”.
It is further explained that “the center of the new state of the Comitopuli is made up of the areas inhabited by Slavic Macedonians.” “The kingdom of Macedonia was a completely new state in character and composition.
Ideologically, it is associated with the ancient Bulgarian kingdom, because only there (except in Byzantium) were there traditions of kingdom and patriarchy.
Samuel only assimilates them and thus conquers the inheritance of the kingdoms of Simeon and Peter ”. And more: “The then medieval European elite did not understand the difference that it was a new state, but mechanically transferred the name of Bulgaria and Bulgarians to the kingdom of Macedonia.
Here, in any case, it is necessary to take into account the linguistic similarity of the South Slavic world, whose language is based on Church Slavonic and the nuances cannot be perceived. “
But how are things going according to unshakable historical data? The basis, no doubt, is the repeatedly commented Bitola inscription of Samuel’s nephew, Tsar Ivan Vladislav (1015-1018).
In it, the then ruler of the “Macedonian state” called by the historians of Skopje is presented as a “Bulgarian autocrat” who was Bulgarian by birth, grandson of the faithful Nicholas and Ripsimus, son of Aaron, who was brother of Samuel, the autocratic king, and that they both defeated Tsar Basil’s Greek army at Stip ”. The inscription also says that the ruler built the fortress of Bitola “for refuge and salvation, and for the life of the Bulgarians.”
It is very important that the army of your enemy, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II (986-1025) present himself as Greek, which clearly shows that in this period there is a clear idea of the ethnic community.
Not a word about the universal concept of “Romans” or “Romans”, which Vasilevs themselves boast of. By the way, from Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-1241) onwards, our rulers defined themselves as “kings of Bulgarians and Greeks”, which clearly shows the real ethnic situation. After all, Bulgarian historians have called Basil II a “Bulgarian assassin” and not a “Macedonian assassin”.
Medieval sources give more unmistakable examples of the Bulgarian family, whose existence is not in doubt in Europe at the time. For example, in the Borilov Synod of the 13th-14th centuries, “Eternal memory of Tsar John Assen – Belgun, who freed the Bulgarian family from Greek slavery.”
Again, it is clearly stated that St. Cyril “translated the divine scripture from Greek into Bulgarian and enlightened the Bulgarian nation” (this example, by the way, is extremely important for another topical dispute: whose is Cyrillic!)
And in a late 14th century manuscript (kept, among other things, in the library of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Ohrid), a fervent prayer is offered to our national saint Saint Ivan Rilski: “Pray to the merciful Lord to save your compatriots Bulgarian people ”.
As for the ethnicity of the people close to Vardar in the Middle Ages, today we receive information from the Byzantines themselves. In his “Life” of Saint Clement of Ohrid, the Roman Archbishop of Ohrid Theophylact (1084-1107), defined the language of his flock as Bulgarian and linked it to a specific ethnic group.
In his letter, Theophylact of Ohrid himself complained to the Metropolitan of Vidin that the attacks of the Kumans in the latter’s diocese were nothing compared to the intrigues of the Bulgarians of Ohrid.
And in a document from the office of the Emperor Andronicus I Komnenos (1183-1185) it is reported that on Mount Kozhuh, on the border between present-day Greece and North Macedonia, the Cumans coexist with Wallachian and Bulgarian shepherds.
And here’s an example from the 14th century: After the devastation of the Balkans by the Ottomans, many were enslaved. An inventory of the Venetian notary is preserved on the island of Crete Manole Bresciano for the period 1381-1383, where data on the sale and liberation of slaves appear. In it we read about many who come from cities in the territory of present-day North Macedonia, who are “from the Bulgarian family.”
Here you have, dear Bulgarians, the truth about what the people close to Vardar were like in the Middle Ages without the ornate and “multi-layered” jokes of Dragi Georgiev and company. Choose for yourself if you will accept it!
Sofia, Bulgaria
[ad_2]
