Origin and Ethnicity of Tsar Samuel

-

  Excerpt and english translation of  a part of  "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.

Source: George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, (p.301-2), 1969.

Popular posts from this blog

'Alexander the Slav' by Universumskristall Blog

-
Image
  We found an very interesting article published by a German speaking Polish Blog, named Universumskristall ( Universe crystal ). We thought, it is worth translating and of course for You, it is much worth to read it... Alexander the Slav by Universumskristall Blog Alexander the Great is an ancient ruler who we believe we have a thorough knowledge of. Hardly anyone has exercised such a fascination on people as he and despite many reports and testimonies, one fact has not been sufficiently taken into account until today, namely that the people from which Alexander was descended actually had little to do with the Greeks. Generations of historians tried to convince people that Alexander was a Greek. It was mentioned here and there that he was a Macedonian ruler, but Western historiography has always considered him and his people to be part of a Greek culture. That is of course not true. The ancient Macedonians and Greeks share a common past, but at the time of Alexander the differences we
Read more

Letters by Greek soldiers about the massacres in Aegean Macedonia - 1913

-
Image
The Hellenic army is burning all slavophonic villages and kills all slavophones it captures! It can be seen from the letters by Greek soldiers sent from the front the horror that the Macedonian population in the towns and villages under Greek occupation faced. The bloody collection of about hundred letters should have been delivered to the addresses through the Greek Army’s military post office, but after it was captured by the Bulgarian Army in Razlog on 14 July 1913, the letters were made public. It is a fearsome collection of authentic testimonies that were taken to the State Archives in Sofia in 1913, as Ljubomir Miletic PhD claims. In those letters, the Greek soldiers bragged to their relatives and friends that they hadn’t left a single Slavophone alive wherever they went, that they had raped all the Slavic Macedonian women and that they had burned all the Slavophonic villages. One hundred years ago After the Ottoman army left Macedonia, Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks wante
Read more

History: Macedonia was never a part of the ancient Hellenic city-states

-
Image
One of the steps in the Scientific Method of Investigation is the publication of your obtained results. This is done, so that others by repeating the same experiment using same methodology may independently arrive to the same conclusion and verify whether it is true what you have accomplished with your own hypothesis. Once many independent laboratories—through their scientific research—confirm your results, then, the hypothesis that you have proposed becomes accepted and your findings acknowledged.  I have said before, and I stand by my assertions that: (a) Macedonia was never a part of any ancient Greek city-state, nor were the ancient Macedonians ever considered by the ancient Greeks or by themselves, to be Greek. (b) Macedonia was never a member of any Hellenic League. Macedonia was not a member of the Greek Amphictyonic League either. Fact is that membership into these leagues was reserved for Hellenes only. And since Macedonians were not considered Hellenes, they were n
Read more