Битолската плоча за Самоил - фалсификат!

adzigogov2001 напиша: Самоил си одел и си пеел, ЈОВАНОООО, ЈОВАНКЕЕЕЕ, на Вардарот платно белиш море на вардарот платоооо итн... Ај сите на ГЛАС

Йовано, Йованке, ама ако го пипне жена му Ирина, ромейката, ... направо не ми се мисли

Поздрав,
Венелин

Boogie напиша: Се враќаме повторно на истите муабети и имам чувство дека ти Венелин се вртиш само во круг додека да најдеш нешто по интересно.

Прав си, Буги, че се въртя в кръг и очаквам да ми отговорите на тези въпроси, ама все не става.

Здраве да е!

Ама ще те помоля за последно. Дай някакви документи за коронясването на Самуил и за създаването на Охридската Патриаршия! Признах ти, че сега се занимавам с тези въпроси и не съм имал възможност да прегледам всички български документи по тази тема, да не говорим за чуждите историци. Затова те моля да дадеш, ако имаш нещо, което да ми помогне да се оправя по-бързо и целенасочено.

Не е проблем и ако не ми дадеш нищо. Щом споменавате римския папа (и вие и проф. Златарски, ама той казва, че нищо не се е получило) значи има някакви документи. Друг е въпроса дали са достъпни.

Извинявам се, ако съм нервирал някого с многото си въпроси, но право да ти кажа, досега в този форум не съм получил еднозначен и подкрепен с доказателства отговор на голяма част от тях.

Някак дискусията във форума стои далеч от един качествен исторически дебат. Ето, нашия приятел Наум пита в друга тема дали българите са православни. Дадох му доказателства от най-високо и достоверно ниво, а той вика "не ми давай линкове, а кажи ти какво мислиш". Явно за някои хора тук е място за чешане на езиците. Може и да са прави. Все пак това е публичен форум, а не научен симпозиум.

Поздрави на всички,
Венелин

Еве нешто интересно за тебе Венелин,дали негде распознаваш за Бугарите и Бугарската нација во оваа година или нема овој пат англиски да разбереш.

Article from the 1911 Encyclopedia

BELISARIUS (c. 505-565), one of the most famous generals of the later Roman empire, was born about A.D. 505, in "Germania," a district on the borders of Thrace and Macedonia. His name is supposed to be Slavic. As a youth he served in the bodyguard of Justinian, who appointed him commander of the Eastern Macedonian army. He won a signal victory over the Persians in 530, and successfully conducted a campaign against them, until forced, by the rashness of his soldiers, to join battle and suffer defeat in the following year. Recalled to Constantinople, he married Antonina, a clever, intriguing woman, and a favourite of the empress Theodora. During the sedition of the "green" and "blue" parties of the circus (known as the Nika sedition, 532) he did Justinian good service, effectually crushing the rebels who had proclaimed Hypatius emperor. an against the Vandal kingdom in Africa, a perilous office, which the rest of the imperial generals shunned, was conferred on Belisarius. With 15,000 mercenaries, whom he had to train into Roman discipline, he took Carthage, defeated Gelimer the Vandal king, and carried him captive, in 534, to grace the first triumph witnessed in Constantinople. In reward for these services Belisarius was invested with the consular dignity, and medals were struck in his honour. At this time the Ostrogothic kingdom, founded in Italy by Theodoric the Great, was shaken by internal dissensions, of which Justinian resolved to avail himself. Accordingly, Belisarius invaded Sicily; and, after storming Naples and defending Rome for a year against almost the entire strength of the Goths in Italy, he concluded the war by the capture of Ravenna, and with it of the Gothic king Vitiges. So conspicuous were Belisarius's heroism and military skill that the Ostrogoths offered to acknowledge him emperor of the West. But his loyalty did not waver; he rejected the proposal and returned to Constantinople in 540. Next year he was sent to check the Persian king Chosroes (Anushirvan); but, thwarted by the turbulence of his troops, he achieved no decisive result. On his return to Constantinople he lived under a cloud for some time, but was pardoned through the influence of Antonina with the empress. The Goths having meanwhile reconquered Italy, Belisarius was despatched with utterly inadequate forces to oppose them. Nevertheless, during five campaigns he held his enemies at bay, until he was removed from the command, and the conclusion of the war was entrusted to the eunuch Narses. Belisarius remained at Constantinople in tranquil retirement until 559, when an incursion of Bulgarian savages spread a panic through the metropolis, and men's eyes were once more turned towards the neglected veteran, who placed himself at the head of a mixed multitude of peasants and soldiers, and repelled the barbarians with his wonted courage and adroitness. But this, like his former victories, stimulated Justinian's envy. The saviour of his country was coldly received and left unrewarded by his suspicious sovereign. Shortly afterwards Belisarius was accused of complicity in a conspiracy against the emperor (562); his fortune was confiscated, and he was confined as a prisoner in his palace. He was liberated and restored to favour in 563, and died in 565.

The fiction of Belisarius wandering as a blind beggar through the streets of Constantinople, which has been adopted by Marmontel in his Belisaire, and by various painters and poets, is first heard of in the 10th century. Gibbon justly calls Belisarius the Africanus of New Rome. He was merciful as a conqueror, stern as a disciplinarian, enterprising and wary as a general; while his courage, loyalty and forbearance seem to have been almost unsullied. He was the idol of his soldiers, a good tactician, but not a great strategist.

Изменето од Boogie - 27.Октомври.2006 во 22:32

Eве што вели проф. Horace Lunt од Harvard за битолската плоча:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

The historian and paleographer Vladimir Moshin published the text (in Makedonski jazik, 1966), with a bold series of conjectures and emendations arguing that the inscription included reference to Samuel's defeat in 1014 and had been set up by Ivan Vladislav, Samuel's nephew (ruled 1015-1018). The Zaimovs confidently ”restore„ most of the text, including dates, and proceed to take their wish thoughts as incontrovertible proof of a number of historical events otherwise unknown.

Unfortunately there is no even remotely reliable set of criteria for dating early South Slavic Cyrillic, and epigraphic material is sparse and extremely controversial. I must respectfully disagree with Moshin's estimate that this text fits in the early eleventh century. Zaimov's paleographic and linguistic arguments are inaccurate and naive.

One basic point: Moshin clearly records the fact that the date he confidently reconstructs as 6522 (1014) has been worn away (”datata e izlizhana„; p.39 in Slovenska pismenost, ed P.Ilievski, Ohrid, 1966). Indeed it does not show up in any published photographs (note that Zaimov's plate 2 has been doctored in an unspecified manner, and plate 3 is frankly drawing), nor is it found in a latex mold made by Professor Ihor Sevchenko od Dumbarton Oaks. Assuming that this spot does contain a date, one can grant the 6 and the final 2, and a vertical line with a partial crosspiece that could be F(500) but looks much more like ps (700), and is followed by a space wide enough even for M (40). If one then conjectures the numbers as 6742, the date would be 1234. This fits beautifully with the ortography and language, and identifies Ivan as Asen II, who gained power over Macedonia in 1230. Yet it also demolished the inctricate historical explanations elaborated by the Zaimovs and generally diminishes the light that this inscription allegedly throws on an obscure period of Macedonian and Bulgarian history. The crucial questions remains open.

Horace G Lunt
Harvard University ”

(„Slavic Review, 31,2, 1972)

Професор Lunt нагласува дека бугаринот Заимов и неговиот тим jа "фризирале" плочата на неодреден начин, и дека извеле заклучоци врз основана тоа што сакаат да видат наместо врз основа на страрноста.

Проф. Lunt исто така докажува дека и по ортографиjата и по jазикот, плочата одговара на XIII веки во времето на Асен II и одговара на 1230 година, а не 1014 година.

Професорот Lunt го критикува Мошин ха "храбрите ... дополнениjа" на текстот наплочата кои ги смета за НЕПРИФАТЛИВИ во науката.

Значи, гледаме дека битолската плоча е од 1230 година,
односно од времето кога Maкедониja краткотраjнo влегла во границите на тнр. Второ бугарско царство кое пак е куманско-влашка творба!

Проф. Lunt ги нарекува jазичките и палеографските "докази"
на бугаринот Заимов НЕТОЧНИ и НАИВНИ.

Со ова се завршува приказната за битолската плоча,односно за уште еден бугарски фалсификат преку коj се обидува да се докаже недокажливото -некаков наводен бугарски карактер на Са,оиловото царство.

Да стои како доказ за Бугарско Татарските фалсификати да не биде после наивно не бе не сме фалсификувале ништо.Таа треба повеке да се заштити за да сведочи на што се се спремни Татарите само за да ја преиначат Македонската култура и јазик во Татарска

zdravej oste eden od mislitelite