| Revision as of 19:16, 3 August 2006 edit194.80.178.1 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:32, 9 August 2006 edit undo62.162.135.209 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{Infobox_Monarch | name =Samuil | {{Infobox_Monarch | name =Samuil | ||
| | title =Tsar of |
| title =Tsar of Macedonia | ||
| | image =] | | image =] | ||
| | reign =] - ], ] | | reign =] - ], ] | ||
| | coronation = | | coronation = | ||
| | predecessor =] | | predecessor =] | ||
| | successor =] | | successor =] | ||
| | consort =] | | consort =] | ||
| | issue =] <br> ] <br> ] <br> ] | | issue =] <br> ] <br> ] <br> ] | ||
| | royal house =] | | royal house =] | ||
| | royal anthem = | | royal anthem = | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| | place of birth = | | place of birth = | ||
| | date of death =] ] | | date of death =] ] | ||
| | place of death =], present day |
| place of death =], present day Republic of Macedonia | ||
| | buried =Church of Saint Achillios | | buried =Church of Saint Achillios | ||
| |}} | |}} | ||
| '''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 ]). A minority of historians, mainly from the ] ,views his ethnicity as ]. At any rate, neither he nor his court ever identified themselves as anything else but ]. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Although he wasn't crowned as ] until ], Samuil's reign actually dates from ], when his predecessor Tsar Roman bestowed the power of the state, if not the crown, upon him. He restored the ], previously abolished by Emperor ]. Already known as a successful general, Samuil now extended Bulgarian territory in all directions. Soon, the kingdom reigned supreme over virtually the entire ], with only parts of ] and ] remaining under Byzantine control. In ], Samuil drove Basil II's army from the field at ], and the emperor (barely surviving the heavy defeat in Troyanovi Vrata) soon turned to the east for new conquests. His victory prompted ] to recognize him as ], and he was crowned in Rome in 997. | Although he wasn't crowned as ] until ], Samuil's reign actually dates from ], when his predecessor Tsar Roman bestowed the power of the state, if not the crown, upon him. He restored the ], previously abolished by Emperor ]. Already known as a successful general, Samuil now extended Bulgarian territory in all directions. Soon, the kingdom reigned supreme over virtually the entire ], with only parts of ] and ] remaining under Byzantine control. In ], Samuil drove Basil II's army from the field at ], and the emperor (barely surviving the heavy defeat in Troyanovi Vrata) soon turned to the east for new conquests. His victory prompted ] to recognize him as ], 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 ]. Only with the help of ] Guard sent from his ally ], 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. | After this victory Samuil was able to expand without many obstacles since a civil war erupted in the ]. Only with the help of ] Guard sent from his ally ], 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. | ||
| ] and killing its governor]] | ] and killing its governor]] | ||
| In ], a full-scale war broke out. By this time, Basil's army was stronger. The emperor was determined to conquer |
In ], a full-scale war broke out. By this time, Basil's army was stronger. The emperor was determined to conquer Macedonia 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 Macedonian independence and even kept Basil away from the main Macedonian cities, including the capital of ]. | ||
| However, on ], ] at ] (or Belasitsa) (present day ]), Basil II was able to corner the main Bulgarian army and force a ] while Samuil was away. He won a crushing victory and ] 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 ]. | However, on ], ] at ] (or Belasitsa) (present day ]), Basil II was able to corner the main Bulgarian army and force a ] while Samuil was away. He won a crushing victory and ] 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 ]. | ||
| The independent ]n kingdom survived him by less than four years, and didn't throw off Byzantine rule until ]. 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. | The independent ]n kingdom survived him by less than four years, and didn't throw off Byzantine rule until ]. 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== | ==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 |
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. 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 Macedonia between ] and ], where he claims to be ] by birth. | ||
| Alongside this view, there is another theory, initially presented by D. Anastasievic (and | |||
| subsequently shared by the historians from the present-day ]), which questions the Bulgarian character of Samuil's empire and suggests that it was a Slav state, in particular ] state. The theory is centred around a short note by Byzantine historian John Skilitsa saying that after the death of Tsar ], his sons, ] and ] (held until then as hostages in ]), were sent back to Bulgaria in order to hinder the ] from stirring the people to revolt. The note is dated to the end of ] or to ], when northeastern Bulgaria with the capital of ] were occupied by Prince ] of the ], who also had established a capital south of the ], in the Bulgarian town of ]. The riot of the ] is consequently viewed as a revolt of the ] against the ]. 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 ]. It argued that the integration of Bulgars and Slavs by the 10th century was far from completed. Samuil tolerated ] which were mostly second rate citizens of First Bulgarian Empire: Slavs. It is also very striking that almost all of his generals have Slavic names; only Krakra have Bulgarian name. This also is true for the younger members of the royal family. He completely ignored Bulgaria proper – Pliska, Preslav, etc. Rather, the expansion was oriented toward south - deeply in Slav populated Thessaly. This is once again emphasized by his grandson Peter Delyan when he is advancing from Belgrade all the way to Peloponnesus – once again ignoring Bulgaria proper. It is also indicative that Samui is almost absent from the Bulgarian Orthodox literature and is always surrounded with a veil of reserve. (Dimitri Obolensky : The Bogomils : A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism ; page 151, Giferding page 236). | |||
| The multitude of other sources which refer to the empire of Samuil as to ] 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 ] 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. | |||
| Regarding the Bitola Inscription the critics points that the word “by birth” in the Slavic languages shows the origin (geographical, ethnic, confessional, religious. Many parallel in that relation could be found in Byzantium, for Romei, Macedonians, Thracians etc. by birth). Also in the Byzantine and Western sources from the 11th-12th century, the term “Bulgarians” is not used neither for the territories in Thrace and Misia, nor for the north of Danube; where Bulgarian is called the population on the theme Bulgaria, or wider of the Ohrid Archbishopric, called in the sources as Bulgarian ( reference Skilica, Kekavmen, correspondence of Theophilact of Ohrid, Zonara, sources for the crossing of the Crusades through the Balkan etc.) . It should be added also that the main reference for Samuil comes from Skilica some 80 years latter than the actual events when such nomenclature is complacent. | |||
| The critics of this Slav theory have asserted that its supporters are interpreting Skilitsa extremely frivolously (who never stated that the intended riot of ] 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 ] and Peter's successor, ] 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 ]), and it was Sredets that was the original centre of the riot, with Macedonia becoming a political centre as late as the late ] when ] settled in ], making it a temporary capital of the tsardom. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 09:32, 9 August 2006
- Alternate usage: Samuil of the Britons
| Samuil | |
|---|---|
| Tsar of Macedonia | |
 | |
| Reign | 997 - 6 October, 1014 |
| Predecessor | Roman of Bulgaria |
| Successor | Gavril Radomir of Macedonia |
| Issue | Gavril Radomir of Macedonia Theodora Kosara of Macedonia Miroslava of Macedonia Katun of Macedonia |
| House | Comitopuli |
| Father | Nikola |
| Mother | Ripsimia of Armenia |
Tsar Samuil of Macedonia (c. 958 - October 6, 1014), also sometimes referred as Samuel or Samoil, was Tsar of Macedonia between 997 and 1014 (co-rule with Roman . between 976 and 997). A minority of historians, mainly from the Bulgaria ,views his ethnicity as Bulgarian. At any rate, neither he nor his court ever identified themselves as anything else but Macedonian Slavs.
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 Ohrid Archiescopy, 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 Macedonia 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 Macedonian independence and even kept Basil away from the main Macedonian cities, including the capital of Ohrid.
However, on July 29, 1014 at Kleidion (or Belasitsa) (present day Strumica 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 Macedonian 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. 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 Macedonia, 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 Macedonia and of his state as the state of the Macedonians, the very nickname of Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the "Bulgar-Slayer"), as well as the Bitola Inscription of Samuil's nephew, Ivan Vladislav, Tsar of Macedonia between 1015 and 1018, where he claims to be Macedonian by birth.
See also
- History of Bulgaria
- List of Bulgarian monarchs
- History of the Former Yugoslav 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 |