| Revision as of 16:13, 11 June 2006 editMajahm~enwiki (talk | contribs)22 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 17 June 2006 edit undo62.162.226.110 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :''Alternate usage:'' ] | :''Alternate usage:'' ] | ||
| ]]] | ]]] | ||
| '''Tsar Samuil of |
'''Tsar Samuil of Macedonia''' (c. ] - ], ]), also sometimes referred as Samuel or Samoil, was ] of ] between ] and ] (co-rule with ] <ref>There is a theory that Samuil shared the crown with ] between 972/976 and 997. According to this theory he was recognised as ] and reigned until 997 when he died in Byzantine prison. Roman is explicitly mentioned as Tsar in several historical sources, for example in ''Annals'' by ''Yahya of ]'' who calls Roman "Tsar" and Samuil "Roman's loyal military chief". Other historians dispute this theory as Roman was castrated and technically could not lay claims to the crown. The name "Roman" turns up later as the name of the commander of Skopje who surrendered the city to the Byzantines in 1004, received the title of patrician from ] "The Bulgar-Slayer" and became the Byzantine strategus in Abydus, (]-Cedr. II,455,13). This, however, could also be only a coincidence of names.</ref>. between ] and ]). | ||
| Although ultimately unsuccessful in saving his country's independence from the incursions of Emperor ] of the ], Samuil resisted him for decades and is the only man to ever defeat Basil II in battle. | Although ultimately unsuccessful in saving his country's independence from the incursions of Emperor ] of the ], Samuil resisted him for decades and is the only man to ever defeat Basil II in battle. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ==Other theories== | ==Other theories== | ||
| The text above represents the established—and internationally accepted—theory about the reign of Samuil, as well as about the origin and character of his state. In a nutshell, Samuil's short-lived empire is considered to be a continuation of the First |
The text above represents the established—and internationally accepted—theory about the reign of Samuil, as well as about the origin and character of his state. In a nutshell, Samuil's short-lived empire is considered to be a continuation of the First Macedonian Empire. The theory is based on a chain of events documented by Byzantine and Western sources, starting with the visit of messengers sent by Samuil and his brothers to the court of the Emperor of the ], ], in ] in which the messengers presented themselves and were accepted as representatives of the Bulgarian Empire. It includes the escape of the ], Damyan, from ] to the first centre of the ], ], in ], the co-rule of Samuil and ]'s son, ], the crowning of Samuil as Tsar only after the death of Roman in ] and the official recognition of that by the Roman Pope, the various quotes of Byzantine and Western historians of Samuil as Tsar of ] and of his state as the state of the ], the very nickname of ] Bulgaroktonus (the "Bulgar-Slayer"), as well as the ] of Samuil's nephew, ], Tsar of Bulgaria between ] and ], where he claims to be ] by birth. | ||
| Alongside this view, there is another theory, initially presented by D. Anastasievic (and | Alongside this view, there is another theory, initially presented by D. Anastasievic (and | ||
Revision as of 20:34, 17 June 2006
- Alternate usage: Samuil of the Britons
Tsar Samuil of Macedonia (c. 958 - October 6, 1014), also sometimes referred as Samuel or Samoil, was Tsar of Bulgaria between 997 and 1014 (co-rule with Roman . between 976 and 997).
Although ultimately unsuccessful in saving his country's independence from the incursions of Emperor Basil II of the Byzantine Empire, Samuil resisted him for decades and is the only man to ever defeat Basil II in battle.
Although he wasn't crowned as Tsar until 997, Samuil's reign actually dates from 976, when his predecessor Tsar Roman bestowed the power of the state, if not the crown, upon him. He restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate, previously abolished by Emperor John I Tzimisces. Already known as a successful general, Samuil now extended Bulgarian territory in all directions. Soon, the kingdom reigned supreme over virtually the entire Balkans, with only parts of Greece and Thrace remaining under Byzantine control. In 986, Samuil drove Basil II's army from the field at Trayanovi Vrata, and the emperor (barely surviving the heavy defeat in Troyanovi Vrata) soon turned to the east for new conquests. His victory prompted Pope Gregory V to recognize him as Tsar, and he was crowned in Rome in 997.
After this victory Samuil was able to expand without many obstacles since a civil war erupted in the Byzantine Empire. Only with the help of Varangian Guard sent from his ally Vladimir the Great, was Basil able to subdue the rebellious nobility. After emerging victorious against the rebels he was forced to lead a campaign against the Arabs in Syria. Finally he was able to face Samuil.
In 1002, a full-scale war broke out. By this time, Basil's army was stronger. The emperor was determined to conquer Bulgaria once and for all. He moved much of the battle-seasoned imperial war potential from the Eastern campaigns against the Arabs, and Samuil was forced to retreat into his country's heartland. Still, by harassing the powerful Byzantine army, Samuil hoped to force Basil to the peace table. For a dozen years, his tactics maintained Bulgarian independence and even kept Basil away from the main Bulgarian cities, including the capital of Ohrid.
However, on July 29, 1014 at Kleidion (or Belasitsa) (present day Blagoevgrad Province), Basil II was able to corner the main Bulgarian army and force a battle while Samuil was away. He won a crushing victory and blinded 14,000 prisoners, leaving one man in every hundred with the sight in one eye to lead his comrades home. The sight of this atrocious act was too much even for Samuil, who blamed himself for the defeat and died less than three months later, on October 6.
The independent Bulgarian kingdom survived him by less than four years, and didn't throw off Byzantine rule until 1185. Vanquishing Samuil’s empire, the Byzantines were able to rule the entire Balkan Peninsula for the first time after the Slavic migration in the 6th-7th century.
Other theories
The text above represents the established—and internationally accepted—theory about the reign of Samuil, as well as about the origin and character of his state. In a nutshell, Samuil's short-lived empire is considered to be a continuation of the First Macedonian Empire. The theory is based on a chain of events documented by Byzantine and Western sources, starting with the visit of messengers sent by Samuil and his brothers to the court of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Otto II, in 973 in which the messengers presented themselves and were accepted as representatives of the Bulgarian Empire. It includes the escape of the Bulgarian Patriarch, Damyan, from Drastar to the first centre of the Comitopuli dynasty, Sofia, in 972, the co-rule of Samuil and Peter I's son, Roman I of Bulgaria, the crowning of Samuil as Tsar only after the death of Roman in 997 and the official recognition of that by the Roman Pope, the various quotes of Byzantine and Western historians of Samuil as Tsar of Bulgaria and of his state as the state of the Bulgarians, the very nickname of Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the "Bulgar-Slayer"), as well as the Bitola Inscription of Samuil's nephew, Ivan Vladislav, Tsar of Bulgaria between 1015 and 1018, where he claims to be Bulgarian by birth.
Alongside this view, there is another theory, initially presented by D. Anastasievic (and subsequently shared by the historians from the present-day Republic of Macedonia), which questions the Bulgarian character of Samuil's empire and suggests that it was a Slav state, in particular Macedonian Slav state. The theory is centred around a short note by Byzantine historian John Skilitsa saying that after the death of Tsar Peter I, his sons, Boris II and Roman (held until then as hostages in Constantinople), were sent back to Bulgaria in order to hinder the Comitopulis from stirring the people to revolt. The note is dated to the end of 969 or to 970, when northeastern Bulgaria with the capital of Preslav were occupied by Prince Sviatoslav of the Kievan Rus', who also had established a capital south of the Danube, in the Bulgarian town of Pereyaslavets. The riot of the Comitopulis is consequently viewed as a revolt of the Macedonian Slavs against the Bulgarians. The other argument quoted by the supporters of the theory is that a part of the core of the state of Samuil was the present-day region of Macedonia. The multitude of other sources which refer to the empire of Samuil as to Bulgaria and to him as a Bulgarian Tsar are explained in one way or another, depending on the context, predominantly explained as belonging to state, not ethnicity. The protagonists of this theory argues that the fusion of Bulgars and Slavs into a single ethnicity was far from completed. There are several theories about the actual ethnicity of Samuil, not necessarily Bulgarian or Slavic. The recognition of Samuil as a Bulgarian Tsar by the Pope is, for example, explained by the practice of the Roman Pope to give a title to the crown which was identified with the territory of an already recognized empire, and Samuil's Empire extended over the territory of the Bulgarian Empire which had collapsed. According to the supporters of the theory, this was equivalent to the Byzantines calling themselves “Romans” and their empire the Roman Empire.
The critics of this Slav theory have asserted that its supporters are interpreting Skilitsa extremely frivolously (who never stated that the intended riot of Comitopulis had an ethnic character or mentioned Macedonian Slavs or Macedonians in his chronicles) and that they are presupposing that such a revolt was directed against the Bulgarian administration as such, which according to them, did not exist at the time. Northeastern Bulgaria was in Russian hands after the death of Tsar Peter I and Peter's successor, Boris II was nothing more than a Russian puppet during his short-lived reign. It is furthermore pointed out that Samuil was the son of the Bulgarian provincial governor of Sredets (the present-day region of Sofia), and it was Sredets that was the original centre of the riot, with Macedonia becoming a political centre as late as the late 970s when Roman settled in Skopje, making it a temporary capital of the tsardom.
See also
- History of Bulgaria
- List of Bulgarian monarchs
- History of the Republic of Macedonia
- Comitopuli dynasty
- Bitola inscription
- Tsar Samuil - opera by the Macedonian composer Trajko Prokopiev.
External links
Notes
- There is a theory that Samuil shared the crown with Roman I of Bulgaria between 972/976 and 997. According to this theory he was recognised as Tsar and reigned until 997 when he died in Byzantine prison. Roman is explicitly mentioned as Tsar in several historical sources, for example in Annals by Yahya of Antioch who calls Roman "Tsar" and Samuil "Roman's loyal military chief". Other historians dispute this theory as Roman was castrated and technically could not lay claims to the crown. The name "Roman" turns up later as the name of the commander of Skopje who surrendered the city to the Byzantines in 1004, received the title of patrician from Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" and became the Byzantine strategus in Abydus, (Skylitzes-Cedr. II,455,13). This, however, could also be only a coincidence of names.
| Preceded byRoman | List of Bulgarian monarchs | Succeeded by Gavril Radomir |