The term Μακεδόνας and its derivatives in Byzantine

sources
Posted by admin in Medieval Macedonian History, medieval writers

A quite interesting research over the term Μακεδόνας and its derivatives in Byzantine
era, comes from Professor Ioannes Tarnanides in his book entitled “Οι Κατά
Μακεδονίαν Σκλαβήνοι“. Professor Tarnanides begins with the ancient Macedonians
and dwells particularly on the Macedonians of the Byzantine era who were forced to
accept the Slavs in question in their territory. From his invenstigation of
contemporary historical sources, he draws on his own words:

a) The two terms, Μακεδών (noun, Translation: ”a Macedonian”, plural

Μακεδόνες ) and Μακεδονικός (adjective - “Macedonian”) do not always have
the same significance: they coincide only to the extend that they refer to a
geographical concept.

b) The term Μακεδoνικός is used exclusively to characterise forces or armies

coming from the Byzantine Theme, that is, the administrative or military
district, of Macedonia. Since the theme of Macedonia was not a fixed entity always
contained within geographical boundaries, a military unit coming from a specific
place, could be described as Macedonian at one historical moment or another. This,
consequently could mean that the leaders of these troops could at one time be
designated Macedonian generals and at other times not. This usage derives from the
fact that the meaning of the term was purely geographical, dependent upon the
administrative district- the “theme” - that bore the name at any given time.

c) The term Μακεδών also was to a considerable extend used in its geographical
sense, when it designated a Byzantine inhabitant of Macedonia. Since, however, it
could at the same time have other, non-geographical, connotations (racial, family,
etc.). it does not appear blindly to follow the successive administrate changes effected
by the central authority.

It is characteristic that those who from time to time are designated as Μακεδόνες
are always members of Byzantine society or the Byzantine army, speaking the
same language and apparently following the same failh, and that they never
appear to turn, as the head of a certain group, against ihe Byzantine state.

d) In this sense, the term Μακεδών could be applied lo a person who was not of
Macedonian descent. The characteristic example here is that of the Emperor
Basil I, who is clearly described as being descended “from the Armenian nation“:
This however, did not stop the Byzantines from calling him a Macedonian.
e) This category does not appear to include the more recent immigrants to
Macedonia, evidently because they retained their own ethnic particularity
(language, religion, culture, etc.) and, more important still, their independence
from the Byzantine rule. Thus, for example, in no case could any Bulgars, Slavs
or Turks who were known to have settled in the region after a certain period
(and who, indeed, became the permanent residents) ever be described as
Μακεδόνες.

An interesting case of this refusal to use the term Μακεδών, as a descriptor for local,
generally Slav, rulers, is that of Tsar Samuel. Samuel who came from the Western
Macedonian district of Ochrid and who brought all Macedonia under his rule in the
late 10th centure and early 11th century, was never called Μακεδών, either by the
Byzantines or by local Slavo-Bulgarian sources. This fact would be exceplionally
illuminating if his Armenian descent could be proven which would make his case
congruous with that of the Emperor Basil I, also of Armenian origin. This would
make it absolutely clear that the one, was called, perfectly naturally, a Macedonian
because he accepted without inhibition ot reaction the capacity of a Byzantine citizen
and Byzantine subject, while the other was denied this honour by Byzantine writers
and Byzantine public opinion because his distinction was based on rebellion against
the Byzantine authorities. The fact that the city of Ochrid was not at that particular
moment part of the Theme of Macedonia would of course, have been no obstacle to
this, for two reasons: firstly, because Ochrid had been part of Macedonia n the past
and most of Samuels dominions lay within the historical territory of Macedonia and
secondly because the designation “Macedonian” did not always, as we have noted
appear faithfully to echo the formal and practical administrative changes and divisions
of the broader Balkan region effected by the Byzantine authorities. When, that is, the
emperor Alexios (according to Choniates) calls Bryennius a Μακεδών, since he came
from the “blessed” and “all-powerful” Macedonian city of Orestiada, it is difficult to
imagine that any temporary administrative change could alter this. That Orestiada
could, that is, cease to be a Macedonian city or its inhabitants be Μακεδόνες. Even
less could the scion of a famous Macedonian family, such as the “Gomoste”
mentioned by Georgios Monachos (who does not of course specify where they came
from) cease to be called a Μακεδών, just because an administrative shit in the Theme
of Macedonia might leave him outside its borders.

From the existing literature it is possible to conclude with certainty that the privilege
of designating a region as Macedonia and its inhabitants as Macedonians always lay
with the Byzantine side. For this reason, no foreign - and especially no Slavic source -
has ever arbitrarily attributed the appellation “Macedonian” to any region or any
person outside Byzantium.

f) The designation Μακεδόνες, with the added information that the person in question
was “of the race of the Macedonians” or came from a well-known Macedonian family
(Gomostes) or was related to some Macedonian personality (Bryennius) is
encountered sporadically throughout the Byzantine period. This means that the
Byzantines were aware of the particular presence of the Macedonians in the specific
geographical area in the past and kept the memory of their continuity and succession
alive in the context of the new “Romeo-Christian” family. And
g) It is evident that on many occasions the Byzantine use of the term ‘the race ol the
Macedonians” is deliberately intended to set them apart from other peoples
surrounding them or living in their midst and these populations that are identified as
non-Macedonians, who in their majority co-exist with the Greeks in the region , are in
the main Slavs.
This means that the Macedonians, who were the recipients of Slav migrations and
who, after attempting to repulse the incomers for a period, eventually accepted and
co-habited with them, were none other than the Byzantine citizens and subjects of the
region in question. Citizens and subjects who no longer always bore the name of
Macedonians or were necessarily of Macedonian origin. They might have come, and
as we have seen did indeed come, from various parts of the Byzantine empire and in
order to serve some specific purpose were rhetorically or selectively designated
Macedonians, collectively and indepedently of their particular “racial origin” solely
because they were Byzantine subjects and lived in the Byzantine administrative
district called Macedonia or the geographical region of the historical kingdom of
Macedonia.

All the historic evidence goes to prove the the Slavs never encountered any
people who were distinctively and unambiguously Macedonians, whether by
descent or by name or by conscience. The little intermingling there was between
groups, was with with Byzantine, and ex facie presumably Greek, inhabitants of
the region.

Another consequence of this fact - that is - the Byzantine impact on or evolution of

the significance of the term ‘Macedonian’, which by this time meant any Byzantine
inhabitant of the theme of Macedonia or of historic Macedonia - is the present day
insistence of the Greeks who live in that region on calling themselves Macedonians
and the persistence of their local Macedonian conscience, as part of their broader
Hellenism. The reaction of these contemporary - and by Byzantine tradition -
Macedonians to the improper and unhistorical use of this national appelation by
the Slavs of the region, those who in all likehood are the descedants of the
“Sclavini of Macedonia” is thus wholly explicable.

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/04/28/term-macedonas-and-its-
derivatives-in-byzantine-sources/