When the Prespa Agreement was signed in 2018, the official argument in Skopje was that it represented a historical compromise that resolved the long-standing name dispute and paved the way for Skopje's Euro-Atlantic integration. Eight years later, some analysts warn that the agreement did not end the process, but rather marked the beginning of a new stage in which the focus has shifted from ancient to medieval history.
According to sources who spoke to the Skopje-based publication "Nova Makedonija", in recent decades Greece has demonstrated a clear and long-term strategy regarding the Macedonian historical issue. It is claimed that through the Prespa Agreement, Athens managed to secure international recognition that Ancient Macedonia and the ancient Macedonian heritage are part of the Greek historical tradition, while issues related to the Middle Ages remained unresolved.
"For a long time, there was a view in Macedonia that the Prespa Agreement had settled issues related to identity. However, a careful analysis of subsequent events shows that the historical dispute simply moved to another field. The question of antiquity was closed, but the medieval period remained open to new interpretations and pressure," says a former diplomat familiar with the negotiations.
Today, increasing attention is being paid to Tsar Samuil and the legacy of his state - a topic that in recent years has become one of the most sensitive historical and identity issues in the region. Recent agreements and initiatives between Greece and Bulgaria, as well as the issue of Samuil's remains, are causing serious concern among a part of the Macedonian public. For many, these events are not isolated historical or cultural events, but part of a broader process of redefining, revising and correcting Macedonia's medieval heritage. Analysts warn that the new agreement between Athens and Sofia is seen as confirmation of this.
"At first glance, this could be interpreted as a sign of weakness or as a remnant of unresolved issues from the Prespa Treaty. On the contrary, this is not the case. Athens' experience and its long-standing coordination with Sofia on the Macedonian issue ensure that the Prespa Agreement serves only as a prelude to a comprehensive revision of history - covering the Macedonians, Macedonian historical figures and events from antiquity and the Middle Ages to the present day. Through the Prespa Agreement, Athens is revising the history of ancient Macedonia, while deliberately leaving the door open for Sofia - through a future international agreement with Macedonia - to revise medieval Macedonian history, thus providing Sofia and Brussels with political leverage to impose ultimatums and blackmail on Skopje. According to them, once the debate on antiquity has been settled with Prespa and the position on ancient Macedonian heritage has been defined, attention is gradually turning to the Middle Ages and to the personalities and events that constitute a key part of Macedonian historical continuity. As a result, for a part of the public, the case of Samuel is seen not simply as a matter of historical interpretation, but also as a sign that historical disputes have not ended with the Prespa Agreement, but have acquired a new content and a new dimension.
"The biggest mistake is to embark on a debate on whether the remains are authentic or not. This is a secondary issue. The essence lies in the act itself. If Greece today hands over to Bulgaria the remains of a person who occupies a monumental place in the history of Macedonia, it sends a clear political message about who owns the medieval heritage in question," says a historian who requested anonymity.
According to him, this is where the continuity in Greek politics is evident. Greece has never accepted the existence of a separate Macedonian historical tradition - neither in antiquity nor in the Middle Ages. In their historiography, the modern Macedonian nation is a phenomenon dating back only to the second half of the 20th century. "Thus, ancient Macedonia is defined as Greek, while Samuil's legacy is treated as Bulgarian... Then the question arises: where is the place for Macedonian historical continuity, when through arguments of brute force and pressure they mercilessly steal our truth and historiography?!" - says the interlocutor of "Nova Makedonija".
Another analyst believes that this is where the biggest problem for Macedonian national interests lies. The Prespa Agreement was presented as "a compromise in which Macedonia renounces its ancient heritage, but preserves its language and identity"... However, no one seriously raised the question of what will happen to the medieval period and the figures who represent a key link in the historical development of the Macedonian people. Today we see that this very area is becoming the main arena for new disputes, new political interpretations and new attempts to redefine the historical heritage. The recent events surrounding Tsar Samuil, as well as the cooperation between Athens and Sofia in this area, show that issues that remained outside the framework of the Prespa Agreement are now coming to the fore, with the baton of "revisionism" having passed to Sofia.
Revisionist tendencies and attempts to redefine the identity of Macedonia have not disappeared; on the contrary, they gradually come to the fore, spurred on by another European center of power.
If the ancient period is considered settled and defined as part of the Greek heritage, while the medieval period is increasingly presented as part of Bulgarian history, then the question logically arises: what place is left for Macedonian historical continuity? In such a situation, Macedonia is left with only the modern era as the basis for its national narrative, which would mean a significant narrowing of the historical temporal scope of the nation. Therefore, according to the interlocutor, the issue of Samuel should not be seen as an isolated historical dispute, but rather as part of a broader process in which the main elements of Macedonian historical memory and national continuity are being questioned and reshaped.
A former cultural official goes even further, warning that this is a coordinated process.
"Greece and Bulgaria have different positions on many issues, but when it comes to Macedonian history, a certain complementarity is noticeable. One side closes the topic of the ancient era, while the other appropriates the Middle Ages. From the Macedonian point of view, the result is the same: a gradual narrowing of the possibilities for independent interpretation of one's own history," he says. Interviewees agree that Macedonia has not developed a clear state strategy for protecting its historical heritage on the international stage.
"The problem is that Athens thinks strategically and plans decades ahead, while Skopje usually reacts to processes that have already ended. The issue around Samuil is not an isolated case. This is part of a broader picture in which history is gradually becoming an instrument of modern politics," one of the commentators notes.
According to some analysts, this is precisely why the debate around Samuil is much more than an academic discussion or a dispute between historians about the interpretation of past events. According to them, it serves as a test of the ability of the Macedonian state to defend its historical positions at a time when neighboring countries are pursuing clearly defined national strategies, long-term goals, and coordinated actions in the political, diplomatic, and scientific spheres. The issue of Samuil, they argue, is not limited to a single historical figure, but concerns the broader issue of the right of a people to interpret and affirm their own historical heritage.
They believe that contemporary interstate relations increasingly show that history is not simply a matter of the past, but also a tool for forming political positions in the present and for defining frameworks for the future. As a result, the case of Samuil acquires a symbolic significance that goes beyond the boundaries of science and academic debate. For a part of the Skopje public, the way in which this issue is approached will show whether the RSM has sufficient institutional, scientific and diplomatic capacity to defend its arguments on the international stage, or will continue to merely react to processes formed outside its borders.
"Today, the issue of Samuil is a matter of the historical self-confidence of the state. "If a country fails to formulate and defend its own positions regarding key figures and periods of its history, it risks gradually losing the right to determine its own historical narrative. Therefore, this is not just a debate about the past, but also a debate about the future of Macedonian historical and national identity," the publication's interlocutors note.
Source: news.bg