@noemon Please provid source where bulgarian language was bulgarian in middle ages, the language was Slavic i.e. south slavic dialects ... definitely macedonian dialects are close to the bulgarian but serbian too, macedonian dialects are transitory between serbian and bulgarian one yet distinct, on other hand slav people identified themselves as different by the toponyms, thus those slavs that were living in Macedonia were Macedonians, any intentional misleading that they were toponym in toponym is due to historical forgery and biased interpretation later by the new nationalistic vibe as from Greece so as from Bulgaria for collonial reasons presented above in my posts ...
... in romanticism because the new nations (except macedonian) were in hands of the big powers who were seeking not just to dismantle the Ottoman Empire but also position themselves through proxies more widely in the balkan peninsula, simply resulted in european imposed territory clash between the new balkan nations, macedonians didnt had that luck because as I've said earlier Ottoman Empire kept strong grip on Macedonia, thus macedonians couldnt force their way out and make own state and nation, and later they become victim of harsh assimilation when ottomans were expelled and Macedonia divided ...
here is how twisted were circumstances before the enlightenment era of nationalism, that lead to our forcible assimilation of macedonians i.e. this struggle was present even before romanticism, in ottoman times mostly on church level coz greater jurisdiction mostly like slavic vs greek battle for Macedonia and Iliricum, altho this strech till late'antiquity when Constantinople Patriarchate even in the first centuries was in jurisdiction battle with Vatican for Macedonia and Iliricum, what was put at halt in 6th century by Justinian-I who made Justiniana Prima as middlemen with vasilevs decree for new Archepyscopy in Scopia (now capital of modern north Macedonia) [
1] this emergence later in 10th century was transferred as juridical inheritance by Tsar Samoil with papal decree on level of Ohrid Patriarchate in his macedonian capital Ohrid [
1] and here comes all the confusion whether macedonians were bulgars, Samoil eager to get crown as opposition to Byzantium flea to vatican for church approval but vatican accepted this with ultimatum that he would be Tsar of Macedonia and Bulgaria, in the decree exactly is stated the crown like that what probably was done so the popes could have later greater influence in balkans, and Samoil accepted, but defacto then slavs officially didnt saw themselves as bulgars or macedonians but simply slavs, so ethnicity wasnt some kind of partial national identity but broader slavic ethnic one,
yet nowadays bulgarian historiographers say that was not true because some medieval byzantian authors classified samoil army as bulgars, yet this was mocking reflex coz the original bulgarian state was not slavic but gagauz turkic, but also it was reflex of byzantian forgery of the macedonian atiquity as own inheritance ...
falsification in history was almost norm due to hidden intentions behind the scenes, this was practice in whole history eg. later the vaticvan forgerarium [
1][
1]
but also was case with Byzantium, as is show in the work quoted bellow, where actually in 10th adn 11th centuries greeks were after the famous macedonian past so they bestowed the etiquette bulgarian to macedonian slavs, so the byzantian"macedonian"dynasty could get more proud heritage ... and nowadays this excuse is still used so we would be negated as separate existance from bulgarians who actually dont know whta they are in same time claiming that they are trakians coz turistic marketing [
1] then turko-mongols coz their first Khan Asparuh [
2] after maybe macedono'armenians coz Samoil [
3] and in the end bulgarians as by toponym! I dont mind whatever they like they can be its their Free Will, but saying me I am bulgarian is kleptomania of my Free Will for own identity, coz obvious shameful past reasons greeks support this too ...
THE IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN VASILIY II AND SAMUIL
Dr. Mitko B. Panov ~ UKIM Skopje !Institute of National History
...
page 7
The acceptance of the argued views for the later addition of the created epithet “Bulgaroslayer” to the legend of Vasily II, as well as for the existence of the presumed political agreement between Vasily II and Samuil, opens more complementary aspects of the collision, in whose basis they are
consists of ideology. This effort, in fact, pretends to show that not only
the epithet “Bugaroslayer” but also the terms “Bulgarians” and “Bulgaria” for identification of Samuel and his newly formed state in Macedonia, were gentle construction of Byzantium.
The Byzantine political and ecclesiastical establishment, after 1018, in fact, constructed an original idea of Samuel's state, through the introduction of the new meaning of "Bulgarian" terminology in the political and religious sense. This was done in order to demonstrate the political and ecclesiastical domination of Constantinople, after the liquidation of Samuel's state and the restoration of power in most of the Balkans. Based on this, it can be stated that the created ideology of the Byzantine dynasty and the political and church elite in Constantinople were the key factors that predetermined the projected terminological representation in the Byzantine sources for the new state, formed in Macedonia in 969, as and for the collision itself between Basil and Samuel, who later took on a legendary character.
As initial basis for the analysis of the ideological dimension of the legendary clash between Basil II and Samuel, its crucial the formation of a Byzantine dynasty by the emperor Basil I (867-886) .
The key ideological component of the new dynasty became the fabricated genealogy of blood ties with the Armenian Arsakids, as well as with Constantine I and Alexander the Great.
The constructed connection of the dynasty with Constantine I as the founder of the Christian ideology in Byzantium, with the ancient imperial domination of Alexander and the Armenian Arsakids, was complementary to the tendency to create an ideological notion to glorify the humble origins of Basilian I. Such an ideology was directly reflected in the
early representation for the representatives of the dynasty, who were represented and identified as "Macedonians" from "Macedonia".
For the creation of such an identity representation, in addition to the fabricated
genealogy connection with Alexander the Great, also was used the origin of Basil I on the thema of Macedonia in western Thrace.
The created ideological concept, developed in particular by Constantine VII Perfirogenit, was
in the function of the political propaganda of the dynasty, which had a direct reflection on the complexity of the use of the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" in the 10th century (Panov, 2009a: 150-160; Panov, 2010: 43-66). That directly reflected in the terminological use and spatial thought of the byzantian historians later when identifying the new state formed by Samoil in Macedonia, in 969 ...
Seen from this perspective, it is not surprising that following the logic of the ideology of the Byzantine dynasty and their identity representation with the Macedonian terminology, the Byzantine historians, who were for the most part the representatives of the elite in Constantinople, when identifiing the newly formed Samoils state. tendentiously avoided using the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians".
That was understandable, considering that the same
terms were used to identify the Byzantine emperors of
the Macedonian dynasty, which would cause identity confusion in the
Byzantian documentation.
It is indicative that the avoidance of macedonian terminological appeal applied exclusively to the part of Macedonia, which represented the sail of Samuel's state.
on other hand, For the part of the macedonian territory which was under Byzantine control, as well as for the Thema of Macedonia in western Thrace, which included members of that thema army, byzantines continued to use the macedonian terminology, what was compatible with the ideology of the Byzantine dynasty.
An in-depth critical analysis of Byzantine sources shows that they sought to make a terminological distinction between Samuel's state, which covered greater part of the region Macedonia, and the rest of macedonian territory controlled by Byzantium, with the use of the general ethnonyms "Mizi", "Scythians" or "barbarians". Pritoa,
It is possible that the Byzantine authors, who were contemporaries of Samuel, did not use the terms "Bulgaria" or "Bulgarians" to identify "others" in the newly formed state of Macedonia, but only the terms "Mizi", "Scythians" or "barbarians".
...
http://www.qb.mk/iml/images/dokumenti/kniga1.pdf