Samuel of Bulgaria

Samuil
Tsar of Bulgaria
Reign	997 - 6 October, 1014
Predecessor	Roman of Bulgaria
Successor	Gavril Radomir of Bulgaria
Issue	Gavril Radomir of Bulgaria Theodora Kosara of Bulgaria Miroslava of Bulgaria Katun of Bulgaria
House	Comitopuli
Father	Comita Nikola
Mother	Ripsimia of Armenia

Samuil (Bulgarian, Macedonian: Самуил) (c. 958 - October 6, 1014), also sometimes referred as Samuel or Samoil, was Tsar of Bulgaria between 997 and 1014 (co-rule with Roman between 976 and 997). A minority of historians, mainly from the Republic of Macedonia and other former parts of Yugoslavia, views his ethnicity as ethnic Macedonian and his empire as a "Slavic Empire", due to some unique distinctions from his predecessors of the First Bulgarian Empire. (George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, page 287-288)

Although ultimately unsuccessful in saving his country's independence from the incursions of Emperor Basil II of the Byzantine Empire, Samuil resisted him for decades and is the only man to ever defeat Basil II in battle.

Although he wasn't crowned as Tsar until 997, Samuil's reign actually dates from 976, when his predecessor Tsar Roman bestowed the power of the state, if not the crown, upon him. He restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate, previously abolished by Emperor John I Tzimisces. Already known as a successful general, Samuil now extended Bulgarian territory in all directions. Soon, the kingdom reigned supreme over virtually the entire Balkans, with only parts of Greece and Thrace remaining under Byzantine control. In 986, Samuil drove Basil II's army from the field at Trayanovi Vrata, and the emperor (barely surviving the heavy defeat in Troyanovi Vrata) soon turned to the east for new conquests. His victory prompted Pope Gregory V to recognize him as Tsar, and he was crowned in Rome in 997.

After this victory Samuil was able to expand without many obstacles since a civil war erupted in the Byzantine Empire. Only with the help of Varangian Guard sent from his ally Vladimir the Great, was Basil able to subdue the rebellious nobility. After emerging victorious against the rebels he was forced to lead a campaign against the Arabs in Syria. Finally he was able to face Samuil.

Samuil's army conquering Thessaloniki and killing its governor

In 1002, a full-scale war broke out. By this time, Basil's army was stronger. The emperor was determined to conquer Bulgaria once and for all. He moved much of the battle-seasoned imperial war potential from the Eastern campaigns against the Arabs, and Samuil was forced to retreat into his country's heartland. Still, by harassing the powerful Byzantine army, Samuil hoped to force Basil to the peace table. For a dozen years, his tactics maintained Bulgarian independence and even kept Basil away from the main Bulgarian cities, including the capital of Ohrid.

However, on July 29, 1014 at Kleidion (or Belasitsa) (present day Blagoevgrad Province), Basil II was able to corner the main Bulgarian army and force a battle while Samuil was away. He won a crushing victory and blinded 14,000 prisoners, leaving one man in every hundred with the sight in one eye to lead his comrades home. The sight of this atrocious act was too much even for Samuil, who blamed himself for the defeat and died less than three months later, on October 6.

The independent Bulgarian kingdom survived him by less than four years, and didn't throw off Byzantine rule until 1185. Vanquishing Samuil’s empire, the Byzantines were able to rule the entire Balkan Peninsula for the first time after the Slavic migration in the 6th-7th century.

Other theories

The text above represents the established—and internationally accepted—theory about the reign of Samuil, as well as about the origin and character of his state. In a nutshell, Samuil's short-lived empire is considered to be a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire of the Tsars Simeon and Peter. The theory is based on a chain of events documented by Byzantine and Western sources, starting with the visit of messengers sent by Samuil and his brothers to the court of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Otto II, in 973 in which the messengers presented themselves and were accepted as representatives of the Bulgarian Empire. It includes the escape of the Bulgarian Patriarch, Damyan, from Drastar to the first centre of the Comitopuli dynasty, Sofia, in 972, the co-rule of Samuil and Peter I's son, Roman I of Bulgaria, the crowning of Samuil as Tsar only after the death of Roman in 997 and the official recognition of that by the Roman Pope, the various quotes of Byzantine and Western historians of Samuil as Tsar of Bulgaria and of his state as the state of the Bulgarians, the very nickname of Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the "Bulgar-Slayer"), as well as the Bitola Inscription of Samuil's nephew, Ivan Vladislav, Tsar of Bulgaria between 1015 and 1018, where he claims to be Bulgarian by birth.

Alongside this view, there is another theory, initially presented by D. Anastasievic (and subsequently shared by the historians from the present-day Republic of Macedonia), which questions the Bulgarian character of Samuil's empire and suggests that it was a Slav state, in particular Macedonian Slav state. The theory is centred around a short note by Byzantine historian John Skilitsa saying that after the death of Tsar Peter I, his sons, Boris II and Roman (held until then as hostages in Constantinople), were sent back to Bulgaria in order to hinder the Comitopulis from stirring the people to revolt. The note is dated to the end of 969 or to 970, when northeastern Bulgaria with the capital of Preslav were occupied by Prince Sviatoslav of the Kievan Rus', who also had established a capital south of the Danube, in the Bulgarian town of Pereyaslavets. The riot of the Comitopulis is consequently viewed as a revolt of the Macedonian Slavs against the Bulgarians. The other argument quoted by the supporters of the theory is that a part of the core of the state of Samuil was the present-day region of Maceodnia. It argued that the integration of Bulgars and Slavs by the 10th century was far from completed. Samuil tolerated bogomils 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 Bulgaria and to him as a Bulgarian Tsar are explained in one way or another, depending on the context, predominantly explained as belonging to state, not ethnicity. The protagonists of this theory argues that the fusion of Bulgars and Slavs into a single ethnicity was far from completed. There are several theories about the actual ethnicity of Samuil, not necessarily Bulgarian or Slavic (See: Comitopuli dynasty and Samuil's Inscription). The recognition of Samuil as a Bulgarian Tsar by the Pope is, for example, explained by the practice of the Roman Pope to give a title to the crown which was identified with the territory of an already recognized empire, and Samuil's Empire extended over the territory of the Bulgarian Empire which had collapsed. According to the supporters of the theory, this was equivalent to the Byzantines calling themselves “Romans” and their empire the Roman Empire. 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 Comitopulis had an ethnic character or mentioned Macedonian Slavs or Macedonians in his chronicles) and that they are presupposing that such a revolt was directed against the Bulgarian administration as such, which according to them, did not exist at the time. Northeastern Bulgaria was in Russian hands after the death of Tsar Peter I and Peter's successor, Boris II was nothing more than a Russian puppet during his short-lived reign. It is furthermore pointed out that Samuil was the son of the Bulgarian provincial governor of Sredets (the present-day region of Sofia), and it was Sredets that was the original centre of the riot, with Macedonia becoming a political centre as late as the late 970s when Roman settled in Skopje, making it a temporary capital of the tsardom.

See also

• History of Bulgaria
• List of Bulgarian monarchs
• History of the Republic of Macedonia
• Comitopuli dynasty
• Bitola inscription
• Samuil's Inscription
• Tsar Samuil - opera by the Macedonian composer Trajko Prokopiev.

External links

• Borders of Bulgaria during the reign of Samuil