text:
Talk:Samuil

Vandalism against Samuil and Bitola Inscription by Azwhoopin18
Here are the references regarding the two articles. I give you a day to rethink your attitude/provide reference/enter some kind of a discussion. If not, I'll proceed towards finding an arbitrator or request for blocking of the article to keep it from further vandalist attacks. VMORO 11:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of world history, 2001

Samuel of Bulgaria 976–1014 Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria. He built up another great Bulgarian Empire, with its capital at Ochrid, extending from the Adriatic to the Black Sea and from the Danube to the Peloponnesus. In 981 he defeated Basil near Sofia.

The Encyclopedia of world history, 2001

The great Bulgarian campaigns of Basil II

The great Bulgarian campaigns. In 996 Basil defeated Samuel on the Spercheios River and reconquered Greece. In 1002 he overran Macedonia. Samuel recovered, however, reconquered Macedonia, and sacked Adrianople (1003). In 1007 Basil subdued Macedonia again and after years of indecisive conflict annihilated the Bulgarian army at Belasitsa (1014). He sent several thousand blinded soldiers back to Samuel, who died of the shock. The Bulgarians finally submitted (1018), but were left an autocephalous church at Ochrid. Many of the Bulgarian noble families settled in Constantinople and merged with the Greek and Armenian aristocracy.

Encarta, History of Bulgaria

Encarta, History of Bulgaria Weakened by domestic strife and successive Magyar raids, Bulgarian power declined steadily during the following half-century. In 969 invading forces from Russia seized the capital and captured the royal family. The Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimisces, alarmed over the Russian advance into southeastern Europe, intervened in 970 in the Russo-Bulgarian conflict. The Russians were compelled to withdraw from Bulgaria in 972, and the eastern part of the country was annexed to the Byzantine Empire. Samuel, the son of a Bulgarian provincial governor, became ruler of western Bulgaria in 976. Samuel’s armies were annihilated in 1014 by the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, who incorporated the short-lived state into his empire in 1018.

The Columbia Encyclopedia 2001 edition

Basil II c.958–1025, Byzantine emperor (976–1025), surnamed Bulgaroktonos [Bulgar slayer]. With his brother, Constantine VIII, he nominally succeeded his father, Romanus II, in 963, but had no share in the government during the rule of the usurping generals Nicephorus II (963–69) and John I (969–76). Primarily a soldier, Basil exercised virtually sole rule from 976, while his debauched brother was emperor only in name. Basil suppressed (976–89) a series of revolts of the great landowners led by Bardus Sclerus and revived and strengthened the laws directed against them by Romanus I. He annexed (1018) Bulgaria, although leaving it some measure of autonomy, and later extended the eastern frontier of his empire to the Caucasus. During his reign the schism between the Roman and the Eastern churches widened. Basil was succeeded by Constantine VIII (reigned 1025–28) and by Constantine’s daughter Zoë.

Concise Encyclopedia Britannica Basil II Concise Encyclopedia Article Page  1  of  1 born 957/958 died Dec. 15, 1025

Byzantine emperor (976–1025).

known as Basil Bulgaroctonus (“Slayer of the Bulgars”) Crowned coemperor with his brother in 960, he had to exile the grand chamberlain (985) and defeat rival generals (989) in order to gain the authority to rule. Basil became one of the strongest Byzantine emperors, winning territory in the Balkans, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Georgia. He was noted for his victory (1014) in the war with Bulgaria, which ended with his blinding all the soldiers in the defeated Bulgarian army. He increased his domestic authority by attacking the landed interests of the military aristocracy and of the church. Because Basil left no able successor, the gains of his rule were soon undone.

Hutchinsons Encyclopedia

Basil II

Byzantine emperor 976–1025. He completed the work of his predecessors Nicephorus (II) Phocas and John Zimisces and expanded the borders of the Byzantine Empire to their greatest extent since the 5th century. He eliminated political rivals, drove the Muslims from Syria, and destroyed the power of the Bulgars.

Basil’s decisive defeat of the Bulgarians in 1014 earned him the title ‘Bulgar-Slayer’. After the battle he blinded almost all 15,000 of the defeated, leaving only a few men with one eye to lead their fellows home.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 edition, History of Bulgaria

The empire at Ochrida, however, rose to considerable importance under Samuel, the son of Shishman (9761014), who conquered the greater part of the Peninsula, and ruled from the Danube to the Morea. After a series of campaigns this redoubtable warrior was defeated at Blasitza by the emperor Basil II., surnamed Bulgaroktonos, who put out the eyes of 15,000 prisoners taken in. the fight, and sent them into the camp of his adversary. The Bulgarian tsar was so overpowered by the spectacle that he died ctf grief. A few years later his dynasty finally disappeared, and for more than a century and a half (1018-1186) the Bulgarian race remained subject to the Byzantine emperors.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, History of Bulgaria

The western part, not able to preserve its autonomy, went to pieces in 1018 under the repeated attacks of the Emperor Basil II, surnamed Bulgaroktonos (the slayer of the Bulgarians). Though Basil left the Bulgarian Church its autonomy, the Metropolitans of Achrida were no longer styled Patriarchs, but Archbishops, and after 1025 were chosen from the Greek clergy, instead of the Bulgarian.

There is no such a thing as macedonian language, macedonian history.....You are all lost bulgarians come back to us. Samuil "macedonian Tzar"! Is this a joke??? Come on.... He wrote himself that he is the Tzar of Bulgaria.

Neutral Wikipedia???
Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

I sterbinski 13:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is good to be enthusiastic, Igor. And to defend your cause. But where is the science? Where are the facts? My friends were in Radko. Do you want to know their names? And maybe then you will be able to point who exactly was born in Bulgaria. They are Bulgarians from Republic of Macedonia. Their ancestors weren't in these 100000 Macedonians who "were fighting against the Bugarians" (In the time when present RM had 1 500 000 citizens :))and they do not believe in Stalinistic propaganda about the past of Macedonia. Regards, Igor Shikov

Samuil/Samuel
Dear friends from the Republic of Macedonia, The country you live in has faced serious difficulties in gaining its international recognition. The main problem is that starting from 1944, it was established and built as a country on the basis of anti-Bulgarianism by forging a false national feeling among the population, based on falsification of the Greek and Bulgarian history. While I completely understand the fervor to defend your national rights, I have to say that your country is in almost unique position in the world - it has to come to terms with its own past and to recognise that EVERYTHING that was written and said in 60 years and that shaped the consciousness of three generations is FALSE! You may not know but those of you who are interested can find out how many Macedonians were sent to the concentration camp on Goli Otok just because they said they were Bulgarians, a word forbidden after 1944 in Yugoslavia, especially Macedonia and Eastern Serbia. By the way, false nations were created in the Soviet Union and this is a Bolshevik/Stalinist recipe: Karelia (ethnic Finns), Moldavia (Romanians) and even Belarus, where despite of the differences and the centuries-long Polish influence the population had no "Belarussian" ethnic or national consciousness. If any Greeks read this article, the names Macedonia and Macedonians I used do not imply any claims over Greek history. ( I myself am Bulgarian, with one Romanian grandmother to be exact)

Games a la Miskin in Macedonian Slavs
Cigor, the statement is "western Bulgaria or Macedonia". The text after that, as well as all mentions of him or his reign in other articles such as Basil II or History of Bulgaria (yes, he is included in History of Bulgaria and NOT in History of Macedonia), make it very clear which was the state he ruled over. And that is Bulgaria and not "Macedonia". By trying to take things out of the context, you won't get far. VMORO 21:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Read my response in Vukashin talk --Cigor 02:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Read my response there, as well, Cigor. By the way, I see where you draw all of your assumptions from - Ostrogorsky. But he is only one historian of many, hehe... And even he doesn't give support to the Macedonian fringe version. VMORO 12:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ostrogorsky is not my only source, I assure you but it is convenient for me as I have a hard copy of “History of Byzantine State”. Also he DOES support the view that Samuil’s empire was not Bulgarian. Now I am pasting your last response from Vukashin’s talk page and moving it here because this is more appropriate place to talk about Samuil.--Cigor 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Vukashin talk page
Continuation from Talk:Vukashin

VMRO wrote: There are not "plenty of historians" who think that "Samuil was the true ruler of the Macedonian Slavs", all western histories on the Balkans or Europe regard Samuil as a Bulgarian tsar and include him in the History of Bulgaria. The concise online edition of Britannica, for example, says this:

"Tsar of Western Bulgaria (980–1014). Ruling originally in Macedonia, he conquered Serbia, northern Bulgaria, Albania, and northern Greece. He revived the Bulgarian patriarchate and in the 980s defeated Basil II. However, his struggle with the Byzantines continued until 1014, when Basil defeated Samuel's army at the Battle of Belasitsa. At Basil's order, the 15,000 Bulgarian prisoners were blinded and then returned to Samuel, who is said to have died of shock."

Regarding the full edition of Britannica which you quote incorrectly, the article consisently talks of him as a Bulgarian ruler and not a Macedonian one - as well as all articles referring to the matter - Basil II, First Bulgarian Empire, etc. Regarding other online encyclopedias - check the listing on the Talk page of Samuil. History books are, unfortunately, not available online but all western (or Russian) ones include his rule as part of the First Bulgarian Empire.
 * Cigor answers: As you already noticed, Ostrogorsky support the view that Samuil’s empire is not Bulgarian. He is the one of the greatest byzantologist. If that is not good enough, probably the greatest byzantologist A. A. Vassilijev considers the theory; although he is still calling the empire Bulgarian; but the mere fact he is mentioning is worth more than 90% of all the historians out there. Then you have another Russian, Durnovo in 1895 who is clearly talking about Slavonic-Macedonian Empire.  Even your own Bulgarian historian Radule is supporting the view. I mean,  one does not need to be genius and see the map of the empire and see where is the main advance – Danube Bulgaria is almost ignored and lost at the very beginning of Basil II offensive. Or see Peter  Delyan  - another “Bulgarian” (Samuil’s grandson) – proclaimed czar in Belgrade, Nish, Skopje, and then last hurrah at Thessaloniki - hardly core Bulgarian provinces.

 * No, I have not noticed at all that Ostrogorsky "supports the view that Samuil's empire is not Bulgarian", what I have noticed is that he reviews different theories while still regairding the Empire as Bulgarian. Something else that I have noticed is that O. discusses at length a theory by a Bulgarian 19th century historian that there was a dvision between Eastern Bulgaria and Western Bulgaria since the 960s. Cigor, this theory has been completely refuted since the middle of the last century, both in Bulgaria and abroad. And do you know why: because it ascribes real events which happened in the 14th century (the secessionist despotate of the Shishmans {Shishmanids}) to the 10th century. So, I would say that the book you are quoting (and which is the only one by O. I could find some information about) is very, very old. There is no Bulgarian historian called "Radule". And don't give yourself the right to call Ostrogorsky or anybody else "the greatest Byzantologist" of all times and what this comment is worth and what the other one is not. This is called POV, Cigor. Don't allow yourself, either, to ruminate which Bulgarian provinces are core, which are peripheral and which are imaginary. This is called speculations, my friend, nothing else. If we get down to facts, the facts speak volumes - all contemporary evidence - Byzantine, German, Arab, Roman, etc., including the only local inscription from the time, the Bitola inscription of Ivan Vladislav, call the Empire Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian and again Bulgarian. VMORO 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

VMRO writes: "The Western Bulgarian Empire" or "Western Bulgaria" is an expression which can be found quite often, especially in older sources, but it refers to the First Bulgarian Empire as a whole - in order to distinguish between the western Bulgars (the Bulgarians) and the eastern ones (the Volga Bulgars and their state, also called Bulgaria).
 * Cigor answers : No, that is not true: This is about Drinov's theory of a West Bulgarian empire of under the Cometopuli had split off from the empire of the tzar 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. This has nothing to do with Volga brothers. But I guess you can believe in that, it’s your choice.

 * Yes, this is true, statements like the "Western Bulgarian Empire" can also be found about the time of Simeon and they were used to differentiate between the Volga and the Danubian Bulgars. The theory of Drinov has nothing to do with that. But this theory was refuted a long time ago, my friend. VMORO 19:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

VMRO wrote: A civilised solution is already found, Cigor - and it is to include the accepted version (which is presented in the very same way in the vast majority of sources) in the main body of the article but also to mention the fringe theory, keeping in this way the NPOV of the article. You want to place a fringe theory in the leading sentence (unacceptable) - well, there are also sources which refer to the Macedonian Slavs as Western Bulgars or simply Bulgarians, if you follow your own "principles", you should hurry to the article Macedonian Slavs and make the necessary corrections before you come to Samuil and want corrections there. VMORO 12:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor writes: Apparently, you are thinking that I am trying to trick you or pull words out of context. I assure you that is not my intention. My desire is to find a mutual acceptable version. After all, we both know the this is not about Samuil – it’s just one front in the Macedonian-Bulgarian dispute. However there are some problems and that is on Bulgarian side, as Eric Hobsbawn wrote:” The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies. “In other words, what meant Bulgarians in the past does not necessary means the same thing today . This is why there are millions of Bulgarians in Macedonia in the late 19 century ( but almost none in early 19 century) and much less in 20 century – and no, terror was not the major instrument in this transformations. Likewise, Macedonians are going to recognize at some point that they are closely related to Bulgarians in many aspects – historical, linguistic, ethnic etc. But that is not going to happen if every side insists on their side of the story. So therefore since you accuse me that I misquote Britannica, this time I’ll copy the first sentence fully, hopefully there is no copyright problems.--Cigor 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * VMRO answers: I am sorry, what you said is complete bollocks - there were not "millions of Bulgarians in Macedonia in the late 19th century", there was a bit more than a million ones, of which 150,000 were Muslims and at least 150,000 were either pro-Serbian or pro-Greek. There were as many Bulgarians in Macedonia at the beginning of the 19th century as in the end, that was just a completely different period - there were very few schools, almost all of them Greek, the few representatives of the merchant class, the emerging bourgeosie and the intelligentsia were predominantly Hellenophile, the rest of the population lived in utter poverty, misery and lack of education. And the same situation was in Moesia and in Thrace - nearly all learned Bulgarians were Hellenophile. Should I tell u that the first Bulgarian school was opened as late as 1835 and until the 1850s the process of opening of other schools was so slow that it was almost invisible? The differentiation between Bulgarians and Macedonians in the 20th century (which you quote) was owing to two factors - 1) the political development on the Balkans and the borders drawn by the Balkan Wars and 2) the differences between some of the Macedonian dialects (some of them, however, being Eastern Bulgarian ones or border dialects) and the Bulgarian literary language which was based on the Eastern Bulgarian dialects. Thus, if I have to make rough estimates, 60% of the Slavs in Macedonia participated in the (very late) nation-formation of the Macedonian nation, 30% (including all emigrants and refugees + Pirin Macedonia) participated in the formation of the Bulgarian nation and the remaining 10% or so got assimilated into the Greek majority in Aegean Macedonia. However, the vast majority of the Slavs in Macedonia, both at the beginning of the 19th century, at its end, at the beginning of the 20th century, in the 18th century and in any other century called themselves  Bulgarians and were known as such by everybody else in the region. It is not me, it is Misirkov who claims that "we have called ourselves Bulgarians until now" (1903) and that "whether we call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, we'll remain separate from the Serbs and with our own, Bulgarian national consciousness" (1920), etc., etc., etc. This long statement was just to make clear where I am standing and bears no reference to the the article in questions. What matters here, however, is that:
 * You seem to be under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is an extension of Britannica - which is indeed a good encyclopedia but also tends to make mistakes as everybody else (the use of Western Bulgaria - if it is indeed the "Western Bulgaria" according to theory of Drinov which was put forward in the 19th century and is a living anachronism unaccepted by modern history - is clearly an anachronism and a mistake). Why should we accept the version of the full Britannica? Why not the Concise edition? Why not Enc. of World History? Why not Encarta? Why not Columbia? Why not a modern history of the Balkans? Why not some other modern history of the world? Because it suits you and your own nationalistic review of history. But what suits you does not have to suit Wikipedia, Cigor. Practically no modern book of history or an encyclopedia talks about "Western Bulgaria", neither in the sense mentioned by me, nor in the sense of Drinov's theory. Practically all sources talk about Samuil's empire simply as of a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire, not as of "Western Bulgaria" and certainly not as of "Macedonia" - and I'll go to the library on Monday or Tuesday and will check in all encycopedias and histories (written by non-Bulgarians, Macedonians or Serbians) for their versions and will put a complete list here. Then you'll have to explain to me not why I have to take the version of one source against 5 other (meaning encyclopedias), but why I have to accept the version of one source (full Britannica) against the version of 20 others. The logical solution (the one at present) is to include the majority opinion (and this is the majority opinion - Bulgaria and not Western Bulgaria and not Macedonia) in the main body and to discuss later fringe theories and other opinions. This is NPOV, Cigor, and not your mish-mash... If you want to pull this off in this way, sure you can get a deal but then you'll have to accept the "Western Bulgars" on the Macedonian Slavs page - and not only this but also Bulgarians - inasmuch as most authors before WWII described the Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarians. VMORO 20:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cigor answers: Hello, to answer the minor stuff; first I said Vassilijev was one of the greatest byzantologist, not Ostr. As for Radule, his name is Georgi Radule.As for the population, milions => million . small typo. I’ve posted demographic data in Demographic history of Macedonia  (which you promptly deleted), so I know the order of magnitude.

 * As I previously said, The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies. So let us see how did using some names evolve in Bulgaria and some other countries:The ethnical composition of the Second Bulgarian Empire was/is heavily disputed.Contemporary historian Nicetas Choniates  is not mentioning the Bulgarians as one would expect, but to the Wallachians(Vlachs), and contemporary Western sources (Ansbert, Robert of Clari, Villehardouin) also validate this. And yet, today this is explained that Wallachians are just Bulgarians from thema Paristrion. Just because you called yourselves Wallachians doesn’t means you are related with modern Wallachians. Just because we call ourseves Macedonians doesn’t means  that we are related to ancient Macedonians. Just because we called ourselves Bulgarians doesn’t make us same with modern Bulgarians.

 * VMRO: The remark about that: The first three rulers (who were brothers) styled themselves "Tsars of Bulgarians and Vlachs". Nicetas Choniates also talks about Bulgarians and Vlachs. The three rulers were the ones who were called exclusively Vlachs by Nicetas Choniates - although they clearly have Cuman and not Vlach names. So the situation is not exactly the way you describe it, Cigor. There is something else here, however, which you have missed - it is almost certain that the Second Bulgarian Empire initially included Wallachia. The first Bulgarian archbishop is, for example, called "Primate of Bulgaria and Wallachia". The successors to the first three rulers dropped the "Vlachs" from all titles and styled themselves only "Tsars of Bulgarians" (sometimes Bulgarians and Greeks). And everyone else also dropped the "Vlachs" as a denomination after the beginning of the 13th century. And something else again - We have NOT called ourselves Vlachs, Bulgarians, especially in Paristrion, have sometimes been called "Moesians" by Byzantine sources but that's about it. The one who tried to explain that the Byzantines said "Wallachians" for "Bulgarians" is a Bulgarian historian in the 1930s but his theory has not won almost any recognition. To wrap it up - it is quite possible that the founders of the Asen dynasty were Vlachs (although they had Turkic names) but foreign dynasties were something quite normal in ALL medieval and even modern states - the Byzantine Empire had Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, etc. rulers and dynasties, the Second Bulgarian Empire had only three rulers who did not have a Cuman origin - one was Mongolian, the second one was the feudal ruler of Skopje... Konstantin Tih. The thing is that they opted for a Bulgarian state based on the Bulgarian language and talked about Bulgarians in their documents. And no, we have not called ourselves Vlachs - you called, however, yourselves Bulgarians until the beginning/middle of the 20th century. VMORO 00:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cigor: Nicetas Choniates, 482, 3, says that the barbarians of the Haemus region who used to be called Moesians, were now called Wallachians. Тheodore Scutariot explicitly  states that Wallachians are Bulgarians. It is interesting that you recognize that Bulgarian rulers were not Bulgarians but yet somehow, they opted to be Bulgarians, like that is something predefined god-given dogma. BTW there are no Slav Byzantine emperor (and I think no Georgian either, but not sure) – the closest Slav got to the throne was the uprising of Toma the Slav 821-23)--Cigor 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor: Let me give some other examples: if you see political map of Europe 14 century you will see huge country called Lithuania. Naturally, one would think this is land of Lithuanians, but that would be only partly correct. What are now modern Belorussians, used to call themseves Lithuanians at that time, altough they are clearly not (given their Slavic origin). Or Kiev Rus is the origin (9-13 century) of the modern Ukrainian nation. Incedently, both Ukrainian and Belorussian were also calling themsevles as Ruthenians which today is separate etnic group. And let’s not even start about Byzantines calling themselves Romans…. So imagine the outrage if  they are denied their own history, just based on nomenclature!?
 * You want me to admit that we were (west) Bulgarians? No problem, of course we were! ‘’But the key question is what does Bulgarian means throughout the centuries’’. Just like you stated that Vukashin was Bulgarian king, I can provide you 14 century Halkondil stating about Macedonian price Marko and despote Constantine Dragas. Does that prove Marko was Macedonian (Slav)? I think not, he still remains Serbian, IMHO.

 * So short summary is this; despite being peripheral province for so many empires, for so many centuries, despite many pressures and influences, according to you, we have maintained being Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian and again Bulgarian. And then poof – in just one generation the Bulgarians are gone! How the hell is this possible?? --Cigor 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)''

 * VMRO: Let's not use the little game with church, Cigor, it has never worked, it will not work this time, either. The Bulgarian Exarchate was established in 1870, not in the 15th century and you called yourselves Bulgarians long before that. It was at the beginning of the 19th century that Kiril Peychinovich called his language the "simple Bulgarian language" and Macedonia "lower Moesia", it was in the 1860s that Kuzman Shapkarev wrote around 10 textbooks and grammars in "Bulgarian" talking about "Macedonian Bulgarians" and the "Macedonian dialect being the most important dialect of the Bulgarian language along with Upper-Bulgarian" and again in the 1860s that Stepan Verkovic explained that he called his collection of folk songs "Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians" because "everyone he asked what his nationality was, said - I am Bulgarian"

 * Why the Macedonians separated from the Bulgarians? Cigor, I think I answered you - political division + linguisitic differences. How did the Englishmen disappear from the United States in the 1780s? Did the Americans come from outer space? How did the Romanians in Soviet Moldova became Moldovans (after being called Romanians until WWII)? They had only 50 years to do so (you had 80) and their dialect is extremely close to standard Romanian, yet according to the latest census there are only 2.0% Romanians in Moldova. Did they land from outer space? Did they appear from nowhere? The same is valid for the modern Macedonians - there was a strong Macedonian nationalism as early as the 19th century (political, not ethnic), there was an extremely harsh de-Bulgarification campaign in the 1920s and 1930s when everyone who dared call himself Bulgarian was practically liquidated, there were linguistic differences sufficing to create a new language and there was (again) a harsh de-Bulgarification campaign for around 50 years under Tito. It all just added together. VMORO 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor: Oh please. Kiril Pejcinovic writes about Kosovo battle where “our” Serbian Tzar lost, that shows you what kind of the Bulgarian he is. Kuzman Shapkarev says „taman se oslobodivme od grcine, zar sega shopje (Bugarians) li da stanime”? Jordan HadzhiKonstantinov-Dzhinot writes that "Bulgarians in Makedoniji are ancestors from ancient Macedonian tribes "Frigi, Peonci, Mirmidonci" etc. Kiril Makedonski from Kajlari writes that Macedonians of Alexander still lives in  Macedonia and they are Bulgarians.  As a side note do note that I don’t think we are descendent of ancient Macedonians (at least not in a notable part). As for why Macedonians are leaving separated from the Bulgarians, I allready agreed with you, because of the political events. However all nations exsist because of political events – they don’t just appear out of nowhere. I can think of  scenario where Macedonians are Bulgarians, Macedonians are Serbians, and Macedonians and Bulgarians are Yugoslavs.--Cigor 04:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The Bulgarian element in Macedonia in the late 19/ early 20 century is mostly based on religion, i.e. members of the Bulgarian church. The fact that Bulgarians “disappeared” in 20 century in Vardar Macedonia can means one of the following:
 * 1)	The were using the word Bulgarian for other meaning (i.e. belonging to Bulgarian church)
 * 2)	They were Bulgarian; propaganda and terror turned them into artificial nation “Macedonians”

 * VMRO: You are being extremely simplistic here - this is only the official Bulgarian/Greek view, which I don't share. I think that the Macedonian nation developed quite naturally - although the process was indeed seriously aided by the Serbification in the Interwar Years and the de-Bulgarification under Tito. I said earlier - political division + linguistic differences. If M. had been incorporated into Bulgaria, you would be Bulgarians now. If Pirin Macedonia had been incorporated into M., they would be Macedonians now (check Moldova) - they have as it is a double identity, a regional Macedonian one and a national Bulgarian one. They are Macedonians but they believe that Macedonians are Bulgarians so they are also Bulgarians. The same situation existed in Vardar Macedonia before. That's about it. VMORO 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well good, I don’t share the official Macedonian view either. But what would happen if this happened is fruitless. It is what it is.--Cigor 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor (contd) If 2 is true (, and terror was definitively out of the question – even though I’ve read that Bulgarians claims that thousands were imprisoned in Goli Otok because of Bulgarian conscience; but this is completely not supported. ) than there were not some ardent Bulgarians in the first place – which is highly strange since they allegedly maintained to be Bulgarians for so many centuries.  So therefore we are back at 1.  Here we can say that we went into nation awakening later than other Balkan nations. But the whole concept of nationalism can not be earlier than 19 century (at least for eastern Europe)  so we are not that far from the rest considering that we had not outside sponsors as the Bulgarians (Russia), Serbians(Austria) and Greeks (Britain and France) had.
 * The fact is that almost all Slavs in Macedonia are Macedonians; almost all Slavs in Pirin Macedonia are Bulgarians; almost all Slavs in Greek Macedonia are Hellenized; almost all emigrants to Serbia are Serbians (for example the most famous Serbian scientist after Nikola Tesla is Mihajlo Pupin : his parents are from Prespa region and yet this person was one of the most influential Serbian lobbyist in US ; or Nikola Pašić (his family origin is from Tetovo) – designer of first Yugoslavia/Great Serbia, etc.)

 * So, as to differentiation between Bulgarians and Macedonians, you are absolutely right that it was because of the political development on the Balkans; the language difference, IMHO is not that important, just look at the Serbs and Croats, almost same language but very hostile to each other. Political development is the cause why we have so many nations today; otherwise we could have one giant Slavic nation from Adriatic to Vladivostok – since we all have same origin.

 * So, back to Samuil. I don’t deny today his Empire is/was called Bulgarian in most of encyclopedias .The problem is this is just convenience, without tracing the relationship between Bulgarian 10 century and Bulgarian 20 century, beacuse medieval states were not national states. Generally there is no problem in such reasoning with that exception in case of modern Macedonians: Since we called ourselves Bulgarian, and since the core of Samuil’s empire is on our territory, since there are reasonable assumption that this was somewhat different than previous Bulgarian empires, than this is part of our history and heritage. The main Bulgarian argument goes that since Samuil’s empire was called Bulgarian and since there is modern country Bulgaria, hence this belongs to the history of Bulgaria. But, how can Samuil belong to some Bulgarian from, say Plovdiv more than to some Macedonian from Ohrid, Prilep or Prespa? Did the modern Macedonians arrive in Macedonia after 1018? No, we are direct descendent of Samuil’s people. Therefore, Samuil is SHARED between the history of modern Bulgarians and modern Macedonians.--Cigor 14:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * VMRO: No one has said that Samuil is not shared - it is. Inasmuch as the Macedonians broke off from being part of the Bulgarian people (not nation, that's something different) quite late. But exactly because you broke off late and not in the 9th century, you cannot claim that "Samuil was a Macedonian tsar, tsar of Macedonia or anything similar". This is a pure anachronism, Cigor. Or were the pilgrims who came to Cape Cod on the Mayflower in the 1600s Americans because they are now an important part of American history??? No, they were not - they were English. It is not a matter of "whom S. belongs" but a matter of objective review of history.

 * I have done the "encyclopedia check" and have results but that will come tomorrow - am tired of writing now. One hint - Britannica is the only modern enc. which says something like this and it is because the article has not been updated since the 1930!!!! when it was believed that Nikola Shishman, a boyar from Tarnovo (the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire)!!!! led a revolt in Macedonia and western Bulgaria in 963. More about that tomorrow. VMORO 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor: ''OK great, now we are talking about the actual article, btw I appreciate the time you’ve spend to answer my question. What exactly vexes you VMRO? I did 3 things:
 * ''1)	I’ve modified the first sentence into this “Tsar Samuil (c. 958 - October 6, 1014, reigned 976-1014) was a Bulgarian tsar of Western Bulgaria, or Macedonia”. Do note I am saying Bulgarian tsar
 * ''Explanation: As Skilitca says the Samuil’s uprising happens in 969. At that time there is still Bulgarian emperor in Eastern Bulgaria. The sources mentioning Samuil hardly mentions anything eastern than Serdica. This territory Samuil seems to completely neglect. Expansion of the Empire is primarily toward north/south, above all south. In addition, eastern Bulgaria is the first lost territory. I don’t think this is disputable, not even in Bulgaria.

 * ''2)	The next modification was “He is also sometimes referred as Samuel or Samoil” Is there problem here?

 * ''3)	The last modification is I added new Category:Macedonian history. But I think you agree with this.
 * SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?--Cigor 04:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you must recognize that Samuil is a part of Serbian, Albanian and Greek heritage. :) His empire is on territories of these countries too. Igor Shicov

And please do not forget that not only the world called Semuil and his people Bulgarian. Do not forget domestic sources like inscription of Bitola. Regards, Igor Shicov

New paragraph: about Macedonian question
VMRO: Don't please me.
 * Cigor: Hi VMRO,
 * I’ve noticed that the tone of discussion is getting murkier – calling me nationalist for several times and my edits idiotic, etc. There is no need for that, Wikipedia should not be used like some crappy-mud-throwing Internet chat forum. I think both of us like to put claims backed with some facts, so we don’t have to out yell each other.

--Cigor 04:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * VMRO: 1. Peychinovich consistently used the term Bulgarian about himself, his language, as well as anything else in Macedonia. The fact that he called Dushan "our Tsar" is of minor significance - Dushan was anyway the last great Christian Tsar ruling on the Balkans. Peichinovich, however, did not call himself Serbian - nor his language Serbian, although the language in which he wrote is actually a Serbianised form of Church Slavonic.
 * Cigor:1.1. On Kiril’s epitaph the only nation mentioned is Serbian (a ole pak obnovi se ktiroria sviatago kneza Lazara Srpskago). Kiril was after all a monk in Serbian monastery Hilandar. He has three major contributions, two have moral-religious nature (Ogledalo i Utheshenie Greshnim) whereas the third “Zhitie na Knez Lazar” is dedicated to the events of which  Serbs are obsessed about it even today. There he wrote:
 * “Zaradi grehova naših, pusti Bog silu agarjansku i ismailtansku, udari na srpsku zemlju mnozina velika bez broja, kako da reknes imase sto Turaka na jednog Srbina” So for him OURS and Serbian is the same. So as you can see Kiril is claimed by Bulgarians, Macedonians and Serbians.

 * 1.2. The Serbs actually have very similar claims like the Bulgarian – that is the population of Macedonia have Serbian ethnicity. For example here is a link where somebody assembled references that support this: http://www.pogledi.co.yu/makedonija/english/index.php .I should note that in the scale of operation the Serbs were lagging the Bulgarians both in 19 and 20 century. This is because their main objective was west (Bosnia and part of Croatia) not south.--Cigor 04:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 2.VMRO: The "shopi" statement of Shapkarev - this was an anonymous note to one of the Bulgarian newspapers in Tzarigrad, which was later ascribed (I think by Slaveykov) to Shapkarev. The statement refers to the codification of modern Bulgarian. Shapkarev was indignant that scholars from upper Bulgaria refused to accept too many Macedonian elements in the process of codification of the Bulgarian language (was I talking about linguisitic differences before as one of the core reasons for the formation of a separate Mac. nation??? Are you aware that when people from Macedonia wanted to ridicule eastern Bulgarians, they called them "Shopi" and their language "Shopski", while calling themselves "Bulgarians" and their language "Bulgarian"?). Shapkarev, however, continued to write textbooks in Bulgarian after this statement as he did before that - and he became the first director of the Bulgarian high school in Thessaloniki in 1880. It was actually a pull-of-war between the Exarchate and Shapkarev where the Bulgarian school should be situated - the Exarchate insisted on Prilep, Shapkarev on Thessaloniki, Shapkarev eventually won.
 * 2.1.Cigor: Shapkarov quotes make his personality conflicting to evaluate him as Macedonist, Bulgarian or something in between. The Bulgarians were regarded not as enemies but as natural allies against the Turks and their Greek henchmen. In the second half of the 19th century, Macedonia was the only country that had not gained its independence from the Turks, and it was courted by the others with vigorous propaganda.
 * 2.2. Cigor:Furthermore one has to consider the name Bulgarian and all its meanings: The term "Bulgarian," which had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (Friedman 1975:84), or as a virtual synonym for "peasant" without any political significance at all (Wilkinson 1951:149), came to mean "Bulgarian" in a national sense.--Cigor 04:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 3. VMRO: You are not really acquainted with the the history of who claimed Alexander the Great (see the Alexander the Great section in . It was an official Bulgarian position from the 19th century that Alexander the Great was actually Bulgarian (although called Macedonian for some reason - something like the Macedonian bollocks about Samuil nowdays). He was not the only one who was claimed - 19th century Bulgarian historians claimed also Attila the Hun and many others. According to a modern Bulgarian historian, the Bulgars had a Shumer origin. Nationalism is a funny thing, haha... But thank you for confirming that all these people you mentioned talked about themselves, as well as about any other Slav in Macedonia as about Bulgarians. VMORO 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3.1. Cigor: No I was not aware, I’ll give you that. But that is what Wikipedia is for-it’s encyclopedia. Anyways, I am sure that this theory was not applied to all Bulgarians – North & East Bulgaria + Romania? Yes they might say they are Bulgarians at some point, but some of them clearly use this theory to differ themselves from Bugarians in Bulgaria, for example Jordan HadzhiKonstantinov-Dzhinot writes "tija prokletija Blgari" and he is tagged in 1852 as a “Serbian agent” by the Bulgarians – a common traits in Macedonian history where persons in one historiography are celebrated as enlighteners, cornerstones of identity, pioneers of national languages, while in the other they are depicted as “predavnici”, lunatics, mercenaries, uneducated amateurs, dreamers etc. Anyway regarding the Ancient Macedonian theory is accepted firmly in the Macedonist camp - Georgija Puleski, Partenija Zografski, Venijamin Mandzukovski. Even in the vrhovist VMRO, reserve colonel of Bulgarian Army, Atanas Jankov, the leader of GornoDzumaja uprising (and participant in Ilinden uprising) stated “I am not Bulgarian but Macedonian!”--Cigor 04:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Cigor: Finally, let me summarize you my view around Macedonian nation:
 * 1)	The formation of Macedonian nation is very unique and distinct, especially when compared with its neighbors.
 * 2)	The process started somewhere after the first half of 19 century; it amplifies strongly after the division of Macedonia in 1913; it gets institutionalized in 1944.
 * 3)	There are more than one Macedonian nationalism – Bulgarian, Macedonian Slav and Greek. Furthermore there are different layers/ levels within the said nationalism – from separatist to autonomist.
 * 4)	The vast majority of Slav inhabitants in Macedonia in 19th century did not have a national identity.  The “aristocrats” were the Turks; the bourgeoisie was the Greeks or Jews or Hellenized Vlachs or Slavs; Wealthy people were taking pride of being called Greek; it’s like that Macedonian (or Bulgarian, I forgot the name) play “Otkoga se pogrciv, mnogu itar stanav”;). The peasantry was for the most part Slav and its loyalty was primarily to their family, village, with the Christian Orthodox identity as the paramount spiritual affiliation. It’s like when Bulgarian officer during WWI asked in Macedonia some old man what is he; he replied “I am this (making the sign of cross), and he (pointing to his grandchildren) will be whatever you teach him.
 * 5)	All of these nationalism were based on exclusion; not being Serb, not being Greek, etc; it’s like During World War I, the Bulgarian troops under the command Alexander Protogerov (a high-ranking VMRO member) were ordered to inflict reprisals upon the population east of Kumanovo for an attack made on some Bulgarian troops .Before the reprisal measures were begun, the entire population declared that it was Bulgarian. Protogerov was greatly perplexed. Then Protogerov's aides had an idea: they asked who celebrated the Slava.Those who did so were shot, since the celebration of the 'slava' is a sign that one is a Serb:it is a custom which the Bulgarians do not have. However slava is celebrated in about one third of Macedonians and there are some differences with the Serbian slava. I am mentioning Bulgarian atrocity, because I am sure you know plenty of cases of Serbian and Greek atrocities in Macedonia. --Cigor 04:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

About the real thing
VMRO:
 * 1. Skilitsa says only one thing - that the Comitopulis are "dangerously stirring the people". Not less, not more, not a word that a revolt has broken out, no nothing.
 * 2. The note is dated to 969 or the beginning of 970 when northern Bulgaria was occupied by the Rus and Svyatoslav had established his new capital on Bulgarian territory.
 * 1&2.1. Cigor: Not quite. Skilica is writing that in 969, Boris and Roman (sons of the Tsar Peter of the Bulgarians), were dispatched from Constantinople to Bulgaria to deal with Nikola&sons dangerously stirring the people. Now let’s see in 969 Bulgarians and Byzantines are allies against the Russians. There is absolutelly not a single reference that says that Byzantines or Russians were in Macedonia. So this was most likely an uprising, or just absence of central authority. --Cigor 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 3. VMRO: Sofia was an extremely important centre in Samuil's empire. It is mentioned exclusively as the first centre of the Bulgarian Patriarchate after the flight of Damyan from Dorostol (Drastar or Silistra) and it is likely to have been the first temporary capital of the Empire. Sofia was practically one of the last Bulgarian fortresses to fall under the Byzantines - it was surrendered in 1018 by Krakra of Pernik after Queen Maria and the nobility in Ohrid decided to capitulate.
 * 3.1 Cigor: Well, I don’t know about this one. One of us have the wrong book, I am not sure who. In few books I have, it says that in 1001 Basil II penetrates in Serdica’s region and conquers all region fortresses. Is it possible Serdica was recaptured? Also, I thought last city to surrender was Pernik? Either way like I mentioned before, the sources barely mention anything east of Serdica.--Cigor 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

VMRO: What's the problem otherwise??? Tsar of Western Bulgaria and Macedonia is WRONG AND ANTIQUATED. I found a dozen encyclopedias from the 1930s, 40s and 1950s which said "Samuil was tsar of Western Bulgaria" or "Samuil was Tsar of Western Bulgaria or Macedonia" and then they launched the fantastic theory of Marin Drinov that the boyar Shishman who was from Turnovo led a breakaway revolt in Macedonia and western Bulgaria in the 960s. Some of those encyclopedias, esp. the older ones, still claimed that the Macedonian Slavs are Bulgarians ("the bulk of all independent authorities agree that the Macedonian Slavs are Bulgarians" or something like it). Modern scholarship does not take seriously the theory of Drinov - nor its disproval by Atansievic or anyone else - it does not talk at all about Western Bulgaria and it certainly does not talk about Western Bulgaria or Macedonia - nor does it talk about the Macedonian Slavs as of "Bulgarians". I can clearly see that you are ready to do anything just to include the name "Macedonia" in the leading sentence of the article and I understand why you want to do this. But that's just raving nationalism and nothing more. I am not trying to include the statement that "Macedonian Slavs, also called western Bulgars or simply Bulgarians" in the leading sentence of Macedonian Slavs although I can quote 100 older sources (and several modern ones) confirming that so it really puzzles me why you want to do that in this article...??? VMORO 17:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cigor answers: VMORO if you really ever studied medieval Balkan history you know how difficult is to divide the history into Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian and so on. This is not just because of overlapping influences and traditions. It’s because there is a myth that histories of nations fights for freedom and national state, and the medieval states on the Balkan are treated as ethnic. Nothing would have been wrong if the states on the Balkan in the Middle Ages were ethnic states and if the contemporary nations existed as nations at that time. ‘’’That is the problem’’’.
 * So lets consider first Bulgaria in the 10 century when Samuil arises.
 * There is this (now dominant) theory that by this time there was a single Slav-Bulgar nation. The origin of this theory is from the 19th century when Bulgaria was suppose to be an instrument of Russian pan-Slavic imperialism – therefore having similar explanation as origin of Russian people themselves – small portion of Varyages in Slav masses => small drop of Bulgars blood in Slav masses.

 * But, the number of the Bulgarians was not at all small, as it is seen from the big raid organized and led by the Byzantine Emperor against them. The occupation of the Slavs, undoubtedly speaks that the Bulgarians were more numerous (plenty of references available if nedeed) The state from 681 until 972 has been exclusively called Bulgaria, and its rulers Bulgarians. There is no example of neither a Slav as a Bulgarian  officials, nor to mention Slav as a candidate for the throne. In the Biography of St. Clement written by Theophilact of Ohrid in , there is confusion of the ethnonyms Bulgarians and Slavs.  It presents the Byzantine ethnic terminology in the second half of the 11th century, different from the Slavic from the 10th century, which is easily noticed when the Slavic and Byzantine sources from 10th-11th century are compared. In the Byzantine, Latin, Arabic, and Jewish sources from the 10th century, the Danube Bulgarians are correctly marked as Turkish ethnos, and had its own (non-Slavic) language and clothing

 * In the mean time Samuil creates his state in Macedonia. He tolerates bogomils which are mostly second rate citizens of First Bulgarian Empire : Slavs, specifically Macedonian Slavs. Apparently there are some members in the royal family that are bogomils themselves. It is 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 ignores Bulgaria proper – Pliska, Preslav, etc. This is once again emphasized by his grandson Peter Delyan when his going from Belgrade all the way to Peloponnesus – once again ignoring Bulgaria proper. And BTW just before you even think of mentioning the Inscription of Jovan Vladislav from 1015 : 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 un 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.

 * Bulgaria itself goes to significant changes due to attacks from somewhat related Turkish nations (Kumans, Pechenegs, Uzes). There is no any Western European, or other non-Slavic historian who has dealt specifically with the Bulgarian ethno-genesis in the Middle Ages. The majority of the historians, who in some way have reviewed in their works parts of the Bulgarian history, have done that indirectly, in addition to their main issue and normally they have accepted the dominant attitudes in the specific area. So when you claim that the Samuil&its Empire is Bulgarian this mostly the local Bulgarian + some pan Slav Russian historians whereas the rest is basicly copy+pasting, because they couldn’t care less for one, and because the documentation is very scarce. As you already said, there practically no Bulgarians in the throne of second Bulgarian Empire. This just illustrates one of the complexities of Medieval European State. Bulgaria from VIII, X, XIII is very different state.  Any assumption of equivalence is just a product of 19th century Romantic nationalism.--Cigor 07:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits
As I generally agree with your edits, I don't see it necessary to read the Talk page. But - if you want to include the other arguments, you should take into consideration the following:
 * the expansion was not directed mainly southward (I think you are reading too much of too old sources) - Samuil conquered and ruled for different period of time northern Bulgaria, Thessaly and Epiros, Albania with Dures and Serbia, i.e. the expansion was in all directions.
 * northwestern Bulgaria and the region of Sofia were core regions in the state - they were never conquered by Tsimishi.
 * Slavic names were extremely predominant also during the time of Simeon and Peter - one example is ichirguboil (the highest ranking official after the Tsar) Mostich, who occupied his post for more than 40 years (check Mostich + inscription on the net). Considering that the Bulgar aristocracy adopted Christian names in the 860s (the best example being Tsar Boris who renamed himself Michael) and the Tsars after him were Vladimir (!!!! is this a Slavic name or not, Cigor???? On top of it, he was a paganist!!!!!), Simeon, Peter and Roman, it is very difficult to say that this person is a Slav because he has the name Peter, Vladimir, etc. This is NOT a valid argument.
 * Bulgarians in Thrace and Moesia were consistently called "Bulgars" by the Byzantine historians, along with Moesians, Mirmidonians and even Cumans, please don't claim things which have nothing to do with reality. On top of it, you are talking that the Byzantine historians called Bulgarians in Macedonia "Bulgarians" because of the name of the thema of Bulgaria but this thema was created 40 years after the actual events and there are a multitude of sources which called them Bulgarians during the course of those events. The very reason why the thema was called Bulgaria that the state which was occupied was called Bulgaria.
 * In two words: if you want to add arguments, make them tight and clear and please, don't confuse reality with the way you want to see it. VMORO 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Still, I am curious of what you think of what I wrote about the Macedonian question, if you have time. I think that Macedonian and Bulgarian historians needs to sit together and somehow reach consensus – this could be painful to both sides but on the long run should remove lot of the current hostilities.

 * I speculate that your family probably immigrated to Bulgaria from Aegean or Vardar Macedonia, given your passion for Macedonian issues?  Am I close? Thanks. --Cigor 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor Shikov Questions

 * I can not imagine a consensus between Bulgarian and Macedonian historians about Samuil. Maybe it is necessary to reach consensus between world history science and macedonian historians :) If you meen Macedonian questiom as a whole, maybe ... Maybe it is possible if many people forget their complexes end frustrations, maybe. Igor Shikov
 * "The process started somewhere after the first half of 19 century"?!? Evidences? Who noticed this? One people? Or two? And what about the others? What about so many documents from the epoch - domestic and foreign? Or you have explination for everything? (They call Bulgarian, but they did not ment Bulgarian :)) Is it a little suspicious? Sombody can think that some present Macedonians (my compatriots) trying to arrange a history acording their present adjustment. Igor Shikov
 * Hello Igor,
 * I already mentioned some protagonist in the Macedonist camp above. They were not necessarily the strongest alternative, but at the end this turned to be dominant.
 * Yes, I was thinking of the entire Macedonian question.
 * Is it a little suspicious about their feelings? You are forgetting that no matter how many documents you present to us, we still have the ultimate source – our parents, grandparents etc. This is why many Macedonians feel that Bulgarian views are extremely arrogant, aggressive propaganda. The grandfather of my mother, Ilija Zahariev was the youngest of the Solunski atentatori 1903. He was for independent Macedonia. When on some congress in Sophia he was arguing his ideas about Macedonia his friend told him “Ilija, you signed your death verdict”. In Ohrid, Serbian authorities sent him to Serbia proper to be liquidated (unsuccefully). Or, on my father side, Ivan Čakulev who fought  in the Ilinden Uprising as a “komitski vojvoda so Prespanskiot odred”.  He too was for independent Macedonia. When I would ask other old people what we were (before WWII), no one would say Bulgarian (while generally  preferring Bulgarians to Serbians). There was one my relative who was talking with Bulgarians on Serbian language, and talking to Serbians with Bulgarian language. Do you understand this, Igor?  Do you honestly think that if indeed we were Bulgarians we would switch our sense of belonging overnight (say in 1944)? Do you honestly think that there is a view in this mess that holds the ultimate truth whereas the other views are cheap propaganda?
 * Regards, Igor Čakulev --Cigor 20:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Igor!

I think that it is not coincidence but my grandfather was for independent Macedonia too. His 21 old brother died in this strugle in the region of Kostur (present Greece). They were for indipendent Macedonia, they were Macedonians in regional sense, but their nationality was Bulgarian. What are you thinking about this? Is this a propaganda? (Your family memory against my? However, what except personal memory yuo have?)

Regards, Igor Shikov.

 * No, it’s not propaganda. It is the sad history of Macedonia. I already said there were different Macedonian nationalisms. Every member of it thought he is doing the right, honorable thing. My grand-grandfather was not for independent Macedonia so that can be latter annexed by Bulgaria. I am not going to tell you what he thought of Serbians and Bulgarians, I don’t want to insult you. The fact of the matter is here we are, 15 years after the fall of communism (i.e. single party system) and Yugoslavia. All the information about history of Macedonia is freely flowing. Anybody that has Internet access can read about Bulgarian revolutionaries such as Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev (this is my mother maiden name, btw) etc.  How do you explain the fact that there isn’t a single relevant political movement (that collects at least 1% of votes) that advocates unification with Bulgaria? Even though we are clearly very close in culture, history, language etc? I’ll tell you this: if for example SanStefan Bulgaria was sustained, probably there would not be Macedonian question. But it didn’t and this opened possibilities for different outcome. This how every nation is created; based on a particular sequence of political events.
 * P.S It’s funny, I know another Shikov and he is ardent Macedonian nationalist.
 * Regards --Cigor 17:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is pleasant to contact with reasonsble men. I am not agree with every of your statements about our past, but I appreciate your tone of the discussion. I want to note of some things:

1. Of course, there were many nationalisms in MK in the past. But what was the consciousness of the majority of Slav language people in MK? (In 19 century for exampe.)

2. Do you think that to be Bulgarian mean to be only for annexion to Bulgaria? Why do you think that the Serbian and Greek politicians in 19 and begining of 20 century defined the idea for authonomy of Macedonia and Thrace like Bulgarian idea. Do you read the memoirs of one of the founders of IMORO d-r Hristo Tatarchev?

3.I am not dening that the majority of present population in Republic of Macedonia is macedonistic (i.e. with nonbulgarian consciousness), but we are talking about our history and not about present political realities. Bulgaria was the first country wich recognized the Republic of Macedonia in 1992, but it not recognized macedonistic point of view about the history, culture etc.

P.S Abut another Shikov I would like to say - It is the sad history of the Bulgarians - not only in Macedonia.

Regards, Igor Shikov.

 * Hello Igor, thank you for your kind words.
 * The pitiful and pathetic truth, regardless of the desire to look for greatness and myth-mania in one’s history, is that there was practically no national consciousness. I am talking about the vast percentage of Macedonian Slavs; there were exceptions, of course. We are talking about primitive neutral Slav type that can shift allegiance overnight dependending who provides free education/church, etc. It is true when given choice between Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, the majority opted for Bulgarians. But at the same time they were calling themselves “cisti Bugari” while the Bulgarians (from Bulgaria) were called “Shopi”. My point is that even though there was practically no national identity, there was somewhat regional identity. There was not a single movement in this time, imported or home grown, including VMRO, that managed to create a critical mass within Macedonia for a really mass uprising and a really united movement that could offer a dominant and unchallenged vision for promotion of a future autonomy, or whatever other alternative.
 * Latter on, when the idea of Macedonian nation got crystallized, there was little doubt of their choice. While Bulgaria can argue that the people of RofM  was indoctrinated, it’s striking that even in Pirin Macedonia, which is under Bulgaria for almost a century there are several thousand people that declares themselves as Macedonians. This is despite all possible documentation from 19th century. Similarly, if one look at the Rainbow Party in Egej Macedonia (however marginal party this is), as far I know they do not consider themselves as Bulgarians. I am saying this because sometimes one has to look the present to understand the past (and vice versa).
 * Regards, Igor Cakulev.--Cigor 19:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor, I think that the insoluble problem betwen us is a dose. A dose and importance of one or other argument. There are arguments which are very resonable but if we give them enormous importance, without realize the historic context, we are risking to go too far when we are looking in the present and thinking about the past. So, it is clear that the force of the consciousness in present is not like the consciousness in the past. I am agree that there was very thin national consciousness in some parts of Balkans, but what was the difference between Central Macedonia and Sothern Bulgaria for exmple? The foreigners noticed Bulgarians in both of them, the domestic sources are agree whith this. It is truth that there was thin national cinsciosness but however there was some consciousness and what was it - in present RM and in present BG too?

I do not know from where you know that "the Bulgarians (from Bulgaria) were called “Shopi”." in MK. Isn't is an exeption? Do you know that the people from some areas in RM is calling Shopi too? Concerning the "Macedonians" in BG, I have to say that about 5000 people declare them in this way (not only in regional sence like me), but they are not only in Pirin Macedonia, but in Sofia too etc. I suppose you know whole the history - how Bulgarian communist party before 1953 by force made 200 000 Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia. (I have a friends which families were under repression becouse they refuse to accept the communist macedonism). So 5000 Macedonians left from these times.

I reccomend you one little confession in BG Wikipedia. It is from the memoirs of the one of ideleogists of the macedinism - the coomunist leader Dimitar Vlahov - http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2

Regards, Igor Shikov

 * Hello Shikov,
 * I have been neglecting WikiPedia for few months as it was taking unacceptable amount of time. To make things worse the bulk of the time was not spent on actual adding value but in revert wars and refuting. Generally I agree with you, it is the question of dose, but determining which argument is more important than another is a difficult task. One way is to look the actual outcome: Macedonian nation in RoM, (mostly) Bulgarians in Pirin Macedonia, and (mostly) Greeks in Egey Macedonia. So I would say none of the arguments from before Balkan wars were strong enough to survive the changes/events that occurred after it.
 * As for difference between Central Macedonia and South Bulgaria, I don’t know, probably little. I’ve been to Bulgaria only once, briefly, but I do have relatives from Sofia. If you look at the people that lived around Serbian-Bulgarian border in 1878 they shared the same ethnicity. Yet, the only Bulgarians in Serbia today are from territories ceded in 1919, and there is no significant Serb self-consciousness on the Bulgarian side.

 * Best regards,
 * Igor Cakulev

title: Talk:Samuil