блгар (татар) ајт малку прочитај тука, да видиш од кои извори учите историја.
One of the greatest difficulties facing any historian of Basil's reign is a
very uneven medieval historiographical record.
The most substantial contemporary accounts are by Yahya ibn Sa'id (Arabic) and Stephen of Taron (Armenian). But these come from the eastern periphery of the empire, are contained within texts which cover a longer period than the reign of Basil alone,
and are written in languages other than Greek.
[[4]] Leo the Deacon
is the only contemporary historian of the reign who wrote in Greek; yet his real interest lay in the reigns of
Phocas and Tzimisces and
he included only a few pages about Basil before ending his account in 989/990.
Fuller Greek accounts of the reign only surface in the mid to late eleventh century with the testimonies of Michael Psellus and John Scylitzes. Neither is particularly satisfactory. Psellus's assessment is little more than a character sketch of Basil. Scylitzes's testimony is more substantial but is far from comprehensive. He deals at length with the early civil wars and Basil's campaigns with Bulgaria, but covers little else.
He makes many chronological and topographical mistakes, mainly as a result of his fondness for compressing large and diverse bodies of material into short summary passages. Scylitzes also tends to focus on those individuals whose families remained famous in his own later eleventh-century lifetime while marginalising those whose families had died out.
He often proves more interested in didactic moralising than accurate reporting.
[[5]] Furthermore, much of
his coverage of the early civil wars seems to be drawn from a source sympathetic to the rebel general Bardas Sclerus; as a result his text is dominated by the viewpoint of one of the emperor's chief adversaries.
[[6]]
Значи работава е врвка, читај подолу ...
Денес македонците имаат имиња како ТЕО, ЛЕА, МИО, па зарем не се Македонци. И пола европа што носи христијански имиња кои имаат етимологија во еврејскиот, евреи да не се.
Значи од погоре изнесените податоци, работата е врвка.
1. Nema direktni dokazi deka Samoil primil nekakva bugarska carska kruna od Rimskiot Papa. Za toa ni svedochi prepiskata na Kalojan so Inokentije III
2. Car Samoil ne ja povrzuva krvno svojata familija so chlenovite na nekogashnata bugarska vladeachka kukja, shto kje reche nema napor i krvno da se dade legitimitet na bozhemskata "uzurpacija na bugarskata kruna".
3. Podunavska Bugarija (Preslav i Dorostol) potpolno se isklucheni od istorijskite dvizhenja vo Makedonija no i na sever se do Dalmacija. Toa e slucaj ne samo vo vremeto na Samoil tuku i 30 godini podocna za vreme na vostanieto na Petar Deljan (1041) i podocna za vreme na vostanieto na Gjorgji Vojteh vo 1072 godina. Toa ni go kazhuvaat vizantiskite izvori Skilica, Virenij i drugi.
4. Shto se odnesuva do Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija, NEMA spomen na Podunavska Bugarija vo nikakva forma! Znachi ne postoi NITU EDEN spomen za nekakov bugarski karakter na ovaa crkva. Plus, Paristrion (Podunavska Bugarija) ne bil del od Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija - za toa ni svedochi prvata ciklika na Vasilij II do Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija.
5. I na kraj, Bugarskata crkovno-duhovna tradicija voopshto ne go poznava Samoil kako svoj car, toj ne e spomnat, nitu pak srpskata isto taka. Za toa svedochat Gilferding i Obolensky.
Spored toa, nema bukvalno nikakva osnova da се odredi drzavno-pravniot karakter na Samoilovata drzhava kako bugarska.
