F.Y.R.O.M. - EU membership talks delayed

[achilles]

Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:00am EDT


SKOPJE, Oct 30 (*******) - The European Union has decided to again delay the start of FYROM's (Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia) EU membership talks because it sees the political situation as "unstable" and reforms remain stalled, a FYROM newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Brussels has made it clear in the past it wants to see FYROM, which became an official candidate for EU membership in 2005, make progress on issues such as the rule of law, relations with its Albanian minority and fighting organised crime before formal talks.

FYROM's leading newspaper, Dnevnik, quoted a European Commission report as saying FYROM will not get a green light from the European Commission to start membership talks next week.

Dnevnik quoted the report as saying that parliament had been disrupted by a quarrel between the government and the opposition party representing the country's large ethnic Albanian minority.

"Several laws are still blocked, especially judicial reform," Dnevnik quoted the report as saying.

"Corruption is widely spread and a serious problem," the newspaper quoted the report as saying, underlining the difficult relationship between FYROM's president and prime minister.

The report criticises the mass sackings of civil servants following a change of government in 2006, saying "there has to be a separation between the political and administrative level."

The EU report also says FYROM and Greece had to renew efforts to find a solution to their dispute over the country's name, Dnevnik added.

Athens has opposed the name "Macedonia" ever since the republic broke away from socialist Yugoslavia in 1991.

Macedonia is also the name of Greece's northern province and Athens objects to its use as a sign of territorial ambition.

The neighbours have been involved in UN-led talks for a compromise since 1993, with little progress.

http://www.*******.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30579176


Good job.

[Sevryn]

I side with you Greeks on this issue, today's Macedonia is not the Macedonia from Ancient times.

[Amateur]

I side with you Greeks on this issue, today's Macedonia is not the Macedonia from Ancient times.
Many thanks for that, dear friend.
It's natural for a historic people like the Poles to know history well. p-)

[Vorian]

Let's hope they will do it right this time.

[Freibier]

If I had anything to say, I'd stop taking new candidates for the next 25 years anyway

[achilles]

I side with you Greeks on this issue, today's Macedonia is not the Macedonia from Ancient times.

I appreciate your comment, Sevryn.

It just happens that a small part of today's FYROM used to be a small part of Northern Macedonia in ancient times, and based on that - and on an artifical Macedonian consciousness and history created by Tito and sustained ever since - our neighbours have convinced themselves that they have a distinct "Macedonian" ethnicity. Through their shameless propaganda they raise historical and even territorial claims against Greece. Unofficialy of course.


Macedonia is the province of Northern Greece. Period.

Now, FYROMians have two options:

1. Promote a commonly accepted name for their "state" that will include the term Macedonia, and we all live happily ever after, or,

2. Stay out of NATO and EU, since Greece will veto them if they dont get their minds straight. They dont seem to be doing pretty well on that irrespective of what Greece does.

[achilles]

If I had anything to say, I'd stop taking new candidates for the next 25 years anyway

Make that 50.

[Douros81]

If I had anything to say, I'd stop taking new candidates for the next 25 years anyway


Isn't Turkey nocking on the door and trying to get into the club? :)

[achilles]

Isn't Turkey nocking on the door and trying to get into the club? :)

Yes she does. Thats a process that will take more than 15-20 years if you ask me, if Turkey ever makes it.

[valtrex]

It just happens that a small part of today's FYROM used to be a small part of Northern Macedonia in ancient times...

Pelagonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagonia), famous from the Battle of Pelagonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pelagonia), between the Empire of Nicaea & the Franks

[tsuri]

Isn't Turkey nocking on the door and trying to get into the club?

They are already a candidate. Aside from the Western Balkan and Ukraine, there is nobody left to join anyways.

I would rather have preferred another certain country to get a delay. But The Republic of Macedonia's acceptance as a candidate was more of a "we have room for one more" issue than everything else in the first place, considering how long it took to even start negotiations after the acceptance as a membership candidate.

[valtrex]

Fixed it for you


They are already a candidate. Aside from the Western Balkan and Ukraine, there is nobody left to join anyways.

I would rather have preferred another certain country to get a delay. But FYROM's acceptance as a candidate was more of a "we have room for one more" issue than everything else in the first place, considering how long it took to even start negotiations after the acceptance as a membership candidate.

[achilles]

Fixed it for you

Right onp-)

[achilles]

A crucial round of talks begin today in New York on the name dispute between the Greek and Skopian (FYROM) delegations. The related UN envoy is Mathew Nimitz, whose stance i do not appreciate that much.


Skopje urged to decide
New talks at UN today; Athens calls on FYROM to reach a deal

Greece has warned the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) that «the time for decisions has come» as the two countries are set to embark on a new round of talks on the name issue at the United Nations today.

Writing in today's Kathimerini, Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos suggests that Skopje faces a crucial decision about its future.

«It now falls to the leadership in Skopje to choose between a Euro-Atlantic future of cooperation and good neighborly relations, or an arrogant, intransigent stance that will inevitably lead out of the European and Euro-Atlantic framework,» he writes.

Greece has indicated it will block FYROM's bid to join NATO and the European Union unless the two sides can find a mutually acceptable solution to the use of the name «Macedonia.»

«The name issue… will define the future of the region and the relations of our countries,» according to Koumoutsakos. «And these relations must not be poisoned by irredentist propaganda and provocative actions.»

Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis also suggested yesterday that Skopje should come to the negotiating table with a «constructive attitude and clear positions for a better future.»

Bakoyannis is due to fly to London on Monday to hold talks with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The FYROM issue is likely to be raised during the meeting.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100006_01/11/2007_89568

[Lokos]

As I've consistently held, citizens of the FYROM should not be attempting to hijack the classical legacy of old Macedon. The Slavic tribes that constitute the majority of their current population have nothing to be ashamed of in their history, so as to need another.

Lokos

[achilles]

As I've consistently held, citizens of the FYROM should not be attempting to hijack the classical legacy of old Macedon. The Slavic tribes that constitute the majority of their current population have nothing to be ashamed of in their history, so as to need another.

Lokos

Actually, the history of the Slavs is something to be proud of.

It happens that i know quite a few Serbs, and some of them preceive the Skopjians , essentially, as of Bulgarian descent. Their language at least is almost identical to the Bulgarian, with Slavonic elements in it of course.

Do you confirm that, Lokos? Or you think of the Skopjians (Albanians excluded) as pure Slavs?

[Raptus_regaliter]

I can confirm for you that the Macedonian language is Bulgarian, with very, very few differences.

[perdurabo]

i wonder how could they be called, they aren't Macedonians from past but FYROM is ridiculus name for a country...

[achilles]

i wonder how could they be called, they aren't Macedonians from past but FYROM is ridiculus name for a country...

It is indeed a ridiculous name for a country. Thats why they should abandon the "Republic of Macedonia" name, since Macedonia is actually N.Greece, and accept a mutually accepted solution. Something like "Slavomacedonia", or a composite term that will distinguish the real Macedonia from Skopje's artifact.

Raptus, thanks for your input. Evidently, to claim that their language is the language of ancient Macedonians is simply hilarious. Even the claim to a distinct "Macedonian language" is out of this world, on its own. Its all Skopjian propaganda


Needless to say that the terms "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" are mutually exclusive.

[Vorian]

I would like to know what people who are totally unrelated with the region feel about this. Do you think that Greece is too "touchy"? Are we right? Are we overreacting?

Your thoughts please.

[zg18]

I can confirm for you that the Macedonian language is Bulgarian, with very, very few differences.


I don`t agree,Bulgarian and Slavo-Macedonian are close but different Slavic languages ,from the perspective of Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrin speaker Macedonian language is high understandable, much more than Bulgarian,i personally have no problem of reading Macedonian cyrillic while i have to stratch my brain to read Bulgarian.

[Raptus_regaliter]

I don`t agree,Bulgarian and Slavo-Macedonian are close but different Slavic languages ,from the perspective of Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrin speaker Macedonian language is high understandable, much more than Bulgarian,i personally have no problem of reading Macedonian cyrillic while i have to stratch my brain to read Bulgarian.

During the communist Yugoslav era, Macedonian (historically regarded as a dialect or a set of dialects of Bulgarian) was pushed to mold into a language closer to Serbo-Croatian, moving away slightly from its pure Bulgarian roots.

[zg18]

During the communist Yugoslav era, Macedonian (historically regarded as a dialect or a set of dialects of Bulgarian) was pushed to mold into a language closer to Serbo-Croatian, moving away slightly from its pure Bulgarian roots.

I know,but what`s done it`s done, there is no way back,Serbian and Croatian languages were also artificialy moved closer to each other,that proccess lasted at least 150 years.

[perdurabo]

what name should they have? Slavomacedonia? Macedoslavonia? creating new name would be as ridiculus ans taking som other nation name... maybe they have some name in history that could be used?

[valtrex]

what name should they have? Slavomacedonia? Macedoslavonia? creating new name would be as ridiculus ans taking som other nation name... maybe they have some name in history that could be used?

The can take the name they had prior to Tito's attempt to falsify their cultural heritage in order to try to steal Macedonia from Greece:
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/915/map4ib4.gif
A 1946 map which presents Tito's territorial claims over Greece & Bulgaria. Unfortunately in 1946, we Greeks had other things in mind...we were killing each other.
The name of the country officially, before World War II, was Vardarska-Banovina/Вардарска бановина (Vardarska). They can also take the name "Dardania," if the inhabitants of the entity wish to identify themselves with some historical past:
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2669/getphotoyu8.jpg
A 1939 map
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3548/vardarska1939560bgwx4.gif

[achilles]

Right Valtrex,
the most historically accurate name for them would be "Republica Vardarska", or "Southslavia", or something similar to that. The word "Macedonia" was implanted into their brains, as you very well said, by Tito upon WWII, for purposes of Yugoslavian expansionism. The "Yugoslavs" wanted an exit to the Aegean archipelago:

So, hey, lets switch from "Vardarska" to "Macedonia" and when the time comes we will raise territorial and historical claims against Greece. For all intents and purposes, the modern so-called "Republic of Macedonia" is the outcome of Tito's construction of a trojan horse through which the Slavo-Bulgar element of Vardarska would penetrate Greece and, perhaps, Bulgaria, thus expanding the borders of a pseudo-state named "Macedonia". What a fraud. And what a clever idea which seems to be working perfectly so far, for the Skopjan / Vardarskans / FYROMians up there, thanks to Greece's reactive, and never proactive, foreign policy regarding that matter.

Sadly, after 3-4 generations have been brainwashed and taught at school that they are Macedonians, descendats of Philip and Alexander the Great, and that the Greeks are trying to steal Macedonia from them (as if Greece is in a need of history or anything), it is impossible now to switch back to reality the warped mindsets of those people. I heard that they are promoting the Greek language in their schools ;) A few years down the line those guys may even sound like true Macedonians!

[zg18]

They can also take the name "Dardania," if the inhabitants of the entity wish to identify themselves with some historical past:Some Albanian nationalist want to rename Kosovo to Dardania ,they want to return "historic" name of the province,they even put "Dardania" on Kosovo Albanian flag fully awared that name Kosovo is Serbian (Slavic) ,from Slavic point of view name "Dardania" is unexcepttable,i think Macedonian Slavs should rename their state Republic of Vardarian Macedonia which is geographicly correct.

[valtrex]

Some Albanian nationalist want to rename Kosovo to Dardania ,they want to return "historic" name of the province,they even put "Dardania" on Kosovo Albanian flag fully awared that name Kosovo is Serbian (Slavic) ,from Slavic point of view name "Dardania" is unexcepttable,i think Macedonian Slavs should rename their state Republic of Vardarian Macedonia which is geographicly correct

Republic of Vardarska-Macedonia (a unified name) is what we would like to hear from them.
We shall see..

[Amateur]

what name should they have? Slavomacedonia? Macedoslavonia?

I think "Vardarska" would be historically and geographically avcurate; but also "Slavomacedonia" would be fair enough, since they are Slavs, and they live in the northern part of the geographical area of Macedonia.


creating new name would be as ridiculus ans taking som other nation name... maybe they have some name in history that could be used?
Just for discussion's sake, let me say that there is, in fact, a historical name that would suit them; the ancient tribe inhabiting the area north of the ancient greek kingdom of Macedonia was called Paionians and their land (pretty much the area occupied today by FYROM) was known as "Paionia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paionia) Of course the people in today's FYROM have nothing to do with the ancient Paionians (nor with the ancient Macedonians) as a race, since they are descendants of slavic tribes that settled in the area many centuries later. But if they desperately need an ancient name to bolster their national identity, well, Paionia might also be an option :roll:

[zg18]

Republic of Vardarska-Macedonia (a unified name) is what we would like to hear from them.
We shall see..


I think that solution will satisfy everyone,Slavs would kept their right to be Macedonians and Greeks would defend their heritege.

[valtrex]

...but also "Slavomacedonia" would be fair enough, since they are Slavs, and they live in the northern part of the geographical area of Macedonia

I do not think the Albanian minority, (25-30% of the population) could ever accept the name Slavomacedonia



Just for discussion's sake, let me say that there is, in fact, a historical name that would suit them; the ancient tribe inhabiting the area north of the ancient greek kingdom of Macedonia was called Paionians and their land (pretty much the area occupied today by FYROM) was known as "Paionia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paionia) Of course the people in today's FYROM have nothing to do with the ancient Paionians (nor with the ancient Macedonians) as a race, since they are descendants of slavic tribes that settled in the area many centuries later. But if they desperately need an ancient name to bolster their national identity, well, Paionia might also be an option :roll:

Agreed. But..
"Politics is the art of the possible"
Plato

[BW2]

Apart from the name, on which I support Greece's argument. The country is just not stable enough politically/economically and more. FYROM won't see the EU for a long long long time.

[Sevryn]

FYROM won't see the EU for a long long long time.

They need to re name their country and change their identiy, brain washing their own people just to claim territory from Greece wont win them any sympathy.

I for one don't support that kind of sneaky foreign policy, Greece has more of a right to territorial claims in that area of the world then some made up country that is less then 100 years old.

[daily666]

FYROM will be out of EU for many different reasons, not only it's name. I think the closest to become a member from that region is Croatia, which is best developed of all ex-Yugoslavia republics (excluding Slovenia which is already an EU member).

FYROM is a hilarious name to be honest.

[tsuri]

Well they did not adopt the name to make territorial claims, they basically just have a very very retarded nationalist minority.

They could just call themselves Yugoslavia, the name got available recently :p

[Zombie Squad]

They need to re name their country and change their identiy, brain washing their own people just to claim territory from Greece wont win them any sympathy.

I for one don't support that kind of sneaky foreign policy, Greece has more of a right to territorial claims in that area of the world then some made up country that is less then 100 years old.

What do you know about Macedonia and history? Don't talk garbage here when you know nothing. And who said Macedonians are Slavic. Because we speak Slavic doesn't mean we are Slavic air-head. So you say also that Romanians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Portuguese, South American are Italian because they speak Latin. Have you ever heard of the phrases latinizsation, slavinization. I bet if communist would rule you would speak Russian today and polish would be forgotten.

Besides Greece and ancient Macedonia have nothing incommon or had ever. Greece was formed in 1821. They steal Aaegan Macedonian territory from us after the Balkan wars and after that they start to claim history and relation with the ancient Macedonians to keep the territory other wise they are afraid it will be another Kosovo. But don't worry Grekos. You have done a great work with Hellenising the slavic speaking Macedonians in Aeagen Macedonia since 1913, by killing those that held to their motherlanguage and didn't give it up to Greek. Now it's 2007 nearly 100 years since you stole our terretory, don't be afraid the true Macedonians from Florina and other parts in Aegean Macedonia are identifieng themselfs as Greek now. So there is another DNA is your Hellene blood now, next with Turk, Vlach, Albanian, Slavic, Tatar, Thracian...... You see Greek don't reconize minorities, they make them Greek instead.

Macedonians and Hellenes where two different people. And the Hellenes today can not even claim that they are the true Hellenes. Ever since ancient time 100 of tribes have entered what today is Greece and mixed with the Hellenes.

The people of R. Macedonia heritage from the Paionians an ancient people that lived in R. Macedonia area neighbors with the Illirians, Thracian's and Hellenes. The Paionians united with the Macedonians to form a strong brotherhood. That's why the name Macedonia is used today, and we got all rights to call us Macedonians as also Macedonians settled in Paionian area.

There is said Slavs entered the Balkans around 800AD. Yes they did as missioners and emperors not settlers, that's why many countries speak Slavic in the Balkans. But they never subdued the Hellenes that already had strong littereature, and they never subdued the Albanians as this strong trible people hold against the Slavic emperors.

Learn some history, read some books if you are from Poland and have to say something about Macedonia again.

[Zombie Squad]

Pelagonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagonia), famous from the Battle of Pelagonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pelagonia), between the Empire of Nicaea & the Franks

Exactly, I'm from the area Pelagonia. And I sure share mixed Paionian and Macedonia blood.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/MIHPM%28Bitola%29.png

[Sevryn]

Besides Greece and ancient Macedonia have nothing incommon or had ever. Greece was formed in 1821.

Ancient Macedon was a Greek City State Kingdom, they were Greeks. The capitol of this region was in PELLA WHICH IS IN GREECE, even I know this and I am not even Greek.

You guys have no connection to Macedon, Philip of Macedon or Alexander; your not even GREEKS and yet you claim to be the origional descendants of Macedon who were ALL GREEK.

Ohh and Greece is a tad bit older then 1821, you have been brainwashed that's your problem not mine.


http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/ClasDram/images/05/mapAthens&Sparta.jpg

Look at the MAP friend, this the map of Ancient Greece and their city states, Macedon is Greek. Now look at your own country Map and try to locate PELLA? WHere is PELLA, is it in FYROM, nope sorry not there it's essentialy where it's supposed to be in Greece.

Don't try to spin it if as somehow i am biased, I AM NOT GREEK; the difference is that I know a tad bit more of history then you do.

[zg18]

And who said Macedonians are Slavic. Because we speak Slavic doesn't mean we are Slavic air-head.I said,Slavics aren`t genetic or ethnic group,the`re language group,you speak Slavic language and that makes you Slavic and your people,by your standards South Slavs don`t exist!

[Zombie Squad]

That map of your don't show anything, don't you now that. Doesn't matter if Macedonia was allied with Sparta. Do you know what the word allied is? I guess you don't as you refer it as same people instead of territories allied together against other territories.
There is maps after this and they show the kingdom formed by Philip the father of Alexander The Great of Macedonia togheter with Paionia as one territories under the name Macedonia and that is kingdom not alley.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/images/AFTER_PHILIP.gif


I told you, you don't say somehting about another countrie if you don't know anything, and you self state that you don't know anything. So I see your posts as pure propaganda and won't reply to you anymore.
We can start posting many maps here. Borders change both in ancient times as they have done since your country was a part of Germany for a while ago.

http://www.lhhpaleo.religionstatistics.net/BronzeAge%20Balkans.gif

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/images/pol02.jpg

According to German history west Poland and Pressia is Germanic territory. Why don't you give it back it then? No Germans are not like Grekos they move on being civilized instead like the Greeks.

[Vorian]

I want to thank Zombie Squad for his reply and encourage him to say more about the issue it only serves our purposes about who is right and who invents pseudo-history.

:D:D:D:D:D



Besides Greece and ancient Macedonia have nothing incommon or had ever. Greece was formed in 1821. They steal Aaegan Macedonian territory from us after the Balkan wars and after that they start to claim history and relation with the ancient Macedonians to keep the territory other wise they are afraid it will be another Kosovo. But don't worry Grekos.

Formed in 1821 from who? Martians?
Stole Aegean Macedonia? First of all I know only one Macedonia. Second I don't see any FYROM combatants in the Balkans. Only Serbia,Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Turkey. If anyone can accuse us of "stealing" Macedonia that's Turkey and Bulgaria cause we fought over it!


You have done a great work with Hellenising the slavic speaking Macedonians in Aeagen Macedonia since 1913, by killing those that held to their motherlanguage and didn't give it up to Greek.

Most slavic speaking people were exchanged with Bulgaria and Serbia. The few who remained indeed suffered some distrust from the government but there were never oppressions. Btw, I can't see how a whole "nation" could lose its identity in only 80 years.


So there is another DNA is your Hellene blood now, next with Turk, Vlach, Albanian, Slavic, Tatar, Thracian...... You see Greek don't reconize minorities, they make them Greek instead.

Macedonians and Hellenes where two different people. And the Hellenes today can not even claim that they are the true Hellenes. Ever since ancient time 100 of tribes have entered what today is Greece and mixed with the Hellenes.


DNA mania is the common idiocy of unltra-nationalists all over the world.



The people of R. Macedonia heritage from the Paionians an ancient people that lived in R. Macedonia area neighbors with the Illirians, Thracian's and Hellenes. The Paionians united with the Macedonians to form a strong brotherhood. That's why the name Macedonia is used today, and we got all rights to call us Macedonians as also Macedonians settled in Paionian area.

From what I recall Paionians were invading the Macedonian kingdom constantly and that was the reason tha Phillip and Alexander repeatedly defeated them to secure their northern borders. I would like to know when Macedonians and Paionians formed a "brotherhood". LOL



There is said Slavs entered the Balkans around 800AD. Yes they did as missioners and emperors not settlers, that's why many countries speak Slavic in the Balkans. But they never subdued the Hellenes that already had strong littereature, and they never subdued the Albanians as this strong trible people hold against the Slavic emperors.


Slavic emperors?????????? Missionaries???? What????

I leave it to our Croatian and Serbian friends in the forum to educate you.
Slavs were numerous people that gave the Byzantines a hard time and some of their tribes managed to reach even Peloponesus and integrate there. If someones can talk about military elite, that would be the Bulgarians that have a totally Slavic culture now.



Learn some history, read some books if you are from Poland and have to say something about Macedonia again.

Sevryn your knowledge of the area's history is impressive, I certainly can't boast of so extensive knowledge of Polish history. Don't be offended by ultra-nationalistic outbursts.

[daily666]

Noone is trying to make FYROM to give back is territory. He was just saying that FYROM and people living there has not much in common with original Macedonians who were Hellens.

People living in FYROM are Slavs, no questions asked.

I think you will sort the problem out with Greeks in the near future.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

What do you know about Macedonia and history? Don't talk garbage here when you know nothing. And who said Macedonians are Slavic. Because we speak Slavic doesn't mean we are Slavic air-head. So you say also that Romanians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Portuguese, South American are Italian because they speak Latin. Have you ever heard of the phrases latinizsation, slavinization. I bet if communist would rule you would speak Russian today and polish would be forgotten.

Besides Greece and ancient Macedonia have nothing incommon or had ever. Greece was formed in 1821. They steal Aaegan Macedonian territory from us after the Balkan wars and after that they start to claim history and relation with the ancient Macedonians to keep the territory other wise they are afraid it will be another Kosovo. But don't worry Grekos. You have done a great work with Hellenising the slavic speaking Macedonians in Aeagen Macedonia since 1913, by killing those that held to their motherlanguage and didn't give it up to Greek. Now it's 2007 nearly 100 years since you stole our terretory, don't be afraid the true Macedonians from Florina and other parts in Aegean Macedonia are identifieng themselfs as Greek now. So there is another DNA is your Hellene blood now, next with Turk, Vlach, Albanian, Slavic, Tatar, Thracian...... You see Greek don't reconize minorities, they make them Greek instead.

Macedonians and Hellenes where two different people. And the Hellenes today can not even claim that they are the true Hellenes. Ever since ancient time 100 of tribes have entered what today is Greece and mixed with the Hellenes.

The people of R. Macedonia heritage from the Paionians an ancient people that lived in R. Macedonia area neighbors with the Illirians, Thracian's and Hellenes. The Paionians united with the Macedonians to form a strong brotherhood. That's why the name Macedonia is used today, and we got all rights to call us Macedonians as also Macedonians settled in Paionian area.

There is said Slavs entered the Balkans around 800AD. Yes they did as missioners and emperors not settlers, that's why many countries speak Slavic in the Balkans. But they never subdued the Hellenes that already had strong littereature, and they never subdued the Albanians as this strong trible people hold against the Slavic emperors.

Learn some history, read some books if you are from Poland and have to say something about Macedonia again.

Dont be rediculus! Man i understand that you have been brainwashed since your childhood but there are isues that must been in place
1. Only Hellenes had the Right to participate in the Olympic games. I hope you know that. You will also know that Macedonians participated in the olympic games just like the Athenians the Korinthians the Spartans etc
2. There are many Historical evidence about the ancient Macedonia. Thank God there are ancient graves and other monuments all over Macedonia in Northern Greece in Pella, Vergina, Dion etc. All these monuments have Hellenic Script on it. That must meen something right?
And last but not least, lets what what ancient Historicals write about Macedonia, thousand years before your slav ancestors came in the Balkans...
[quote]Aeschylus (Iketidai, 250) and Herodotus (V 22) believed that Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Herodotus claimed that the Macedonians (called at that time Makednoi) who moved to Peloponnesos from Doris were later called Dorians.

[The English translation of the works by Herodotus we use is due to A. D. Godley and published by Harvard University Press in the US, and Willian Heineman Ltd in Great Britain as part of the Loeb Classical Library]

In Herodotus Book I, 56 (page 53) it is mentioned

"These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second an Hellenic people. The Pelasgian stock has never yet left its habitation, the Hellenic has wandered often and afar. For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then in the time of Dorus son of Hellen the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeans from this Histiaean country it settled about Pindus in the parts called Macednian; thence again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia to Peloponnesos, where it took the name of Dorian".

Elsewhere, VIII-43 (referring to the naval battle in Salamis) Herodotus wrote

"The Peloponnesians that were with the fleet were, firstly, the Lacedaemonians, with sixteen ships, and the Corinthians with the same number of ships as at Atemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezinians five, the people of Hermione three; all these, except the people of Hermione were of Dorian and Macedonian stock, and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The people of Hermione are Dryopians, driven by Hercules and the Malians from the country now called Doris.".

In another passage Herodotus described how the Macedonian state had been founded (VIII,136-138).

There is one passage in Thucydides that descries the Molossians and other Epeirotian tribes among the 'barbarians'. It was proved following the excavations in Epeiros in 1950-1960 that the Molossians and other Epeirotian tribes were Greek, speaking Greek, and writing in Greek well before Thucydides' time. Thus Thucydides was wrong for these tribes. He was also wrong if he claimed, as some translators allege, that Macedonians had not been a greek tribe. Thucydides had also accused the Eurytanes, another Greek tribe, of being barbarians for their bad and improper use of the greek language and their aboriginal customs. The misinterpreted passage of Thucydides is given below. In Thucydides IV,124,1 (Loeb edition by C.F. Smith) the following passage appeared. "The total Hellenic force was about three thousand; the cavalry that went with them, Macedonians and Chalcidians, were all told a little less than one thousand, and there was besides a great multitude of barbarians".

[In Gk: "MAKEDONVN JYN XALKIDEYSIN OLIGVN ES XILIOYS, KAI ALLOS OMILOS TVN BARBARVN POLYS"]

This passage is sometimes misinterpreted so that Macedonians and Chalcidians for that matter appear to be considered barbarians by Thucydides. That this is not so can follow from an analysis of this passage. First, no one ever considered the Chalcidians, whose number is added to that of Macedonians, barbarians. Second, Thucydides distinguishes Macedonians and Chalcidians on the one hand and barbarians on the other by using the adjective few (Gk: OLIGVN) for the former and many for the latter (Gk:POLY). These two adjective clearly indicate a contradistinction.

Euripides lived many years and died in Macedonia. Many of his tragedies were written and played while he was in Macedonia. This would have been impossible, had the Macedonians been 'barbarians' (non-Greek). This is because in one of these tragedies, 'Iphigeneia in Aulis', the Greek superiority over the barbarians is emphasized. The following epigram in memory of Euripides which is attributed by some authors to Thucydides may give us more light to the actual beliefs of the people of that time (and possibly Thucydides)

"MNHMA MEN ELLAS APAS' EYRIPIDOU, OSTEA D' ISXEI GH MAKEDVN, H GAR DEJATO TERMA BIOU".

In brief, Macedonia, the land that holds the bones of Euripides is considered part of Greece.

Polyvios (VII 11,4, V 103,9, XVIII, XXXiV 7,13 , VII 9,1 IX 37,7) clearly stated his belief that Macedonia was greek, part of Greece, and considered Achaeans and Macedonians of the same race. The same beliefs were shared by Strabo as well as Titus Livius, to name a few other writers. It is also interesting to note that Polyvios describing the Balkan Peninsula he says that it includes Greece, Illyria and Thrace. One can thus deduce that he includes Macedonia in Greece. Had he not done so, he could have listed her separately.

Plutarchos(Flam. XI) describes Titus Contus Flamininus during the Isthmia celebrations claimed that Macedonia prevented barbarian attacks against Southern Greece.

Arrhianos' work is full of references to "Macedonia and the other Greece".


Q9) "Hellas" and "Macedonia". When was the first time that the word Hellas was used to describe the country inhabited by people belonging to Hellenic (greek) tribes?
Although the words Hellas and Hellen (and the other two English equivalents Greece and Greek) have been used to describe the country and the people of modern day Greece, their use in ancient times differed in various periods of time.

The usage of these words to describe the various Hellenic tribes as a whole was unknown to the people of the Homeric poems. In Iliad, the words Hellen (Gk: ELLHN) and Hellas (Gk: ELLAS) defined a small greek tribe and the land inhabited by them in Thessaly. (Iliad B' 683)

"OI T' EIXON FUIHN HD' ELLADA KALLIGYNAIKA, MYRMIDONES DE KALEYNTO KAI ELLHNES KAI AXAIOI".

At some earlier line (B' 530) there is a reference to the word "PANELLHNVN". This word since the time of Aristarchos has been considered to be absent in the original poem and was added at some later time.

Plutarchos (Lykourgos 6) wrote about the message brought from Delphoi to Sparta by Lykourgos "DIOS (S)ELLANIOU KAI AUHNAS (S)ELLANIAS IERON IDRYSAMENON...". Because of this reference, it is believed that the words "Hellas" and "Hellen" became more widely used after the dispersion of the Dorians. It is also possible that they were sacred words possibly related to the (S)elles priests of the Dodonian Zeus.

[the parenthesized (S) is to mean that the S say in the word SELLANIOY was later dropped from use thus giving ELLANIOY.]

The words Hellas and Hellen became more widely used some time in the 8-7th century BC and in the 5th century BC we find the first references of them to describe the lands and the Greek people living south of river Peneios. In the 4th century BC and later they were also used to describe the various Hellenic (greek) tribes as a whole. The passage from Herodotus (I,56), mentioned in a previous Question indicated another use of these words, that of distinguishing Ionian Greeks from Dorian Greek.

Since the Macedonians were pretty much isolated from the Greeks of Southern Greece up to the early 5th century BC, the words 'Hellas' and 'Hellen' were not used by them to describe collectively the lands of various Hellenic tribes, as this was also true for all the other greek tribes until the 8-7th century BC.

Hence when the Macedonians initiated contacts with other Greek tribes they continued to use the word 'Macedonian' to describe themselves instead of the collective 'Hellen(es)'. This is the reason various authors (such as Isocrates, Philippos 154) use the term "Hellenes" and "Macedonians" on the one hand and 'barbarians" on the other to distinguish the greek tribes (of Macedonians and other Hellenes) from the non-greek ones (barbarians).

The intellectual Athenians of the 4th century gave yet another definition for the word "Hellen" (Isocrates, Panegyrikos 50), that of the person having an Athenian educational background, "... the name 'Hellenes' suggests no longer the people but an intelligence, and that the title 'Hellenes' is applied rather to those who share our [note: the 'our' refers to the Athenians] culture than to those who share a common blood".

It is also believed (N.G.L. Hammond,page 6) that the distinction made by authors of Macedonians and Hellenes differentiates only the descendants of Hellen from the descendants of Thyia, as in the genealogy provided by Hesiod. According to Hesiod, Deucalion had a son Hellen and a daughter Thyia. The ancestors of Hellen were Dorus, Xouthus (whose son was Ion) and Aeolus. Thyia had two sons Magnes and Macedon. According to Hellanikos on the other hand, Macedon was a son of Aeolus.
[quote]

As for the so-called minorities in Greece, i would be more concerned about the Albanian, and the Greek (mainly Vlachs) minority in FYROM
Friently from a real Macedonian :)

[Sevryn]

I told you, you don't say somehting about another countrie if you don't know anything, and you self state that you don't know anything. So I see your posts as pure propaganda and won't reply to you anymore.
We can start posting many maps here. Borders change both in ancient times as they have done since your country was a part of Germany for a while ago.


:cantbeli:

Borders change but look at poland throught history, were still the same people. Shift in Borders is just that a SHIFT in Borders, the point you are trying to make is illogical itself since POLISH CULTURE and POLISH people did not cease to exist when Poland was Partitioned, plus we had WWI and WWII and 50 years of commie rule. NOW DOES THAT MEAN THAT POLISH PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER EXISTING, were a distinct ethnic group from other slavs.

So accoding to your logic if Ukranians all of a sudden decided to change the name of Ukraine to Poland and started brainwashing their population then that in your opinion would make them MORE POLISH then the POLES?

roflroflroflroflrofl


No wonder the Greeks are so pissed off, they got a copy cat trying to steal their heritage, culture and history.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

[QUOTE=Zombie Squad;2848517]

I told you, you don't say somehting about another countrie if you don't know anything, and you self state that you don't know anything. So I see your posts as pure propaganda and won't reply to you anymore.
QUOTE]

Man you accusing a Polish from Propaganda , just because you dont agree with him? I wonder what you will say about me, then!

[Vorian]

Man you accusing a Polish from Propaganda , just because you dont agree with him? I wonder what you will say about me, then!

:D

You are a paid tool of Greek evil Secret Services of course.

[daily666]

I hear Bulgarians have similar issues with FYROMs nationalists as they try to speak up some territorial claims from Bulgaria. Greece and Bulgaria are two EU members so I wouldn't count on entering the EU in the next 10 years.

[spale]

Noone is trying to make FYROM to give back is territory. He was just saying that FYROM and people living there has not much in common with original Macedonians who were Hellens.

People living in FYROM are Slavs, no questions asked.

I think you will sort the problem out with Greeks in the near future.

Greece wants the name to be changed, nothing to do with the territory.

And there is no point in trying to explain that modern Macedonians have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians/Greeks as they teach them in schools that Alexander the Great was in fact Macedonian as in Slav Macedonian.

So most will find it hard to understand that he is not.

Trust me I know, I'm married to one ;)

[spale]

I hear Bulgarians have similar issues with FYROMs nationalists as they try to speak up some territorial claims from Bulgaria. Greece and Bulgaria are two EU members so I wouldn't count on entering the EU in the next 10 years.

He he Bulgarians are issuing Bulgarian passports to anyone from eastern Macedonia (and a bit wider) who wants it.

Just wait for few years when Bulgaria turns around and say:

"hold on, but we have 500,000 Bulgarian citizens in Macedonia. Thats 25% of the population. We don't want to treated as minority"

[Vorian]

He he Bulgarians are issuing Bulgarian passports to anyone from eastern Macedonia (and a bit wider) who wants it.

Just wait for few years when Bulgaria turns around and say:

"hold on, but we have 500,000 Bulgarian citizens in Macedonia. Thats 25% of the population. We don't want to treated as minority"


That's the reason FYROM wants so desperately to enter NATO and EU cause it's between hammer and anvil (Bulgarians being the anvil and Albanians the axe)

[Vorian]

So most will find it hard to understand that he is not.

Trust me I know, I'm married to one ;)

I can somehow imagine that ;)

[chris450]

He he Bulgarians are issuing Bulgarian passports to anyone from eastern Macedonia (and a bit wider) who wants it.

Just wait for few years when Bulgaria turns around and say:

"hold on, but we have 500,000 Bulgarian citizens in Macedonia. Thats 25% of the population. We don't want to treated as minority"

spot on...high ranking members of the administration included...let me add that Bulgarian univercities add the citizens of the neighbouring state as Bulgarians,ie they dont pay what other foreigners do

they have baricated themselves behind this false national identity ,believing that it will save them from the instability and the hot issues of the region...the Albanians are starting to move again,and there are voices from inside the country that speak of a shift in foreign policy...this stance is completely counterproductive , i dont see a very bright future for our neighbours ,unfortunately...which contrary to what their think ,is not something that makes us happy(the biggest investments in the country come from Greece)...nobody in Greece should be in favor of a greater Albania or Bulgaria (infact we are the only ones to gain from a sovereign state in the north and the only real friends in the region)but this kind of propaganda and claims on our soil cannot be tolerated...it sets a very unpleasant precedent

talking about bad PR...their FM made statements yesterday,that were very insulting ...speaking of "irrational losers" ....so righfully a recent gallup showed that the majority in Greere (over 80%) is in favor of a veto in both NATO and the EU...

they have shot themselves in the foot with these statements....no Greek government will ever reach an agreements close to their positions,coz it will fall the next day...

[valtrex]

What do you know about Macedonia and history? Don't talk garbage here when you know nothing. And who said Macedonians are Slavic. Because we speak Slavic doesn't mean we are Slavic air-head. So you say also that Romanians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Portuguese, South American are Italian because they speak Latin. Have you ever heard of the phrases latinizsation, slavinization. I bet if communist would rule you would speak Russian today and polish would be forgotten

Hmm, OK, if you say so...
Now, please do me a favor and when the clue train drives by, I want you to hop on, alright?


So there is another DNA is your Hellene blood now, next with Turk, Vlach, Albanian, Slavic, Tatar, Thracian...... You see Greek don't reconize minorities, they make them Greek instead

Yet, in this part of SE Europe (Greek peninsula, Greek Archipelago, Cyprus and other neighbouring areas), have been recorded Greek-speaking people from ancient times to this day.
Except the language (the most important part), we share the same religion (98% of us are Orthodox Christians), ancient myths have survived until today (together with some ancient customs), we share the same Ethos (the fundamental values peculiar to a specific culture).
Greeks, according to Herodotus of Halicarnassus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/herodotus01.htm), the world's first historian, are defined by the four principles of Homaemon (same blood), Homoglosson (same language), Homothreskon (same religion) & Homotropon Ethos (same customs). Even if the first part of the "equation" (homaemon), today is out of the question, the other three parts (homoglosson, homothreskon & homotropon) are still valid, don't you think?
So, there is, an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia.
Now, because the side that makes assumptions must present proof: you say that modern Greeks have nothing to do with ancient Greeks; so you have to either prove that:
A) modern Greek is unrelated to ancient Greek, or
B) the Greek language ceased to be spoken here for centuries (which proves by induction that Greeks ceased to exist as separate ethic group) & was taught to Slavic (or Turkic, or Germanic or whatever) populations, in order to re-construct a "modern Greek" ethnic identity. Can you prove either A or B?
Because I can prove quite the opposite:
-->Byzantine Greeks, felt the continuity they had with the ancient Greeks; they felt it & wrote down that the historic link between medieval/modern Greeks and the ancients has never been broken:
In the 12th century Anna Comnena (http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/heroine5.html) writes in her work "The Alexiad" (after she's boasting about how well she speaks & writes Greek; she's proud she's not using her contemporary colloquial dialect but rather classical Greek in her writings, "the language of Aristotle" as she says. She describes the Byzantines as Greeks (Hellenes):
"There could be seen a Latin being trained, and a Scythian [she probably means a Slav] studying Greek, and a Roman handling Greek texts and an illiterate Greek speaking Greek correctly" (Book 15:7-9) (in Greek: "Καί έστιν ιδείν καί Λατίνον ενταύθα παιδοτριβούμενον καί Σκύθην ελληνίζοντα καί Ρωμαίων τά των Ελλήνων συγγράμματα μεταχειριζόμενον καί τόν αγράμματον Έλληνα ορθώς Ελληνίζοντα").
In the 14th century, Pletho Gemistus (http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/GAG_GEO/GEMISTUS_PLETHO.html) wrote this to Emperor Manuel Palaeologus, for the people under his reign:
"We are Hellenes (Greeks), as the language and the ancestral education testifies" (in Greek: "Έλληνες εσμέν το γένος, ως τε η φωνή και η πάτριος παιδεία μαρτυρεί).
In the 15th century, Byzantine historian Laonicus Chalcocondyles (http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Laonicus_Chalcondyles) in his work "Demonstrations of History-Historianum Demostrationes" (in Greek: "Αποδείξεις Ιστοριών"), strongly believed in the connection between the ancient Greek civilization & his contemporary one. He describes the people of Byzantium as "Hellenes" (Greeks).
-->In the Peloponnese today (2007), there are people who speak a unique dialect (approx. 2,000. Their number was 30,000, thirty or fourty years ago). This dialect is called Tsakonian (http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=TSD). Its uniqeness derives from the fact that it retaines many elements of the Laconic-Doric dialect (http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/gnl2/doric.htm), spoken by ancient Spartans (SPARTAAA STRONG!!!111). [sidenote:Modern Greek as a language, is a direct descendant of the Hellenistic Koine (3rd century BC) (the language of the New Testament), which is a direct descendant of Attic Greek (5th century BC)].
<sarcasm> On the other hand, these Tsakonians (who were monolingual until 1927), are probably Slavs, Albanians or Turks, who decided collectively to take a gigantic leap back in time & adopt a unique dialect, foreign to themselves & to the neighbouring populace </sarcasm>.
Of course there were non-Greek people who got assimilated by the most numerous and more developed (culturally) Greeks. I have no problem admitting it; or rather, I see it as an "achievement quotient" of my people, who managed to keep their identity and haven't disappeared as many other ancient peoples have (where are today the Hettites, or the Sumerians, or the Phrygians, or the Carians, or the Lydians, or the Paghlagons, or the Babylonians, or...).
Besides, this concept of "Greekness" as a cultural identity & not a biological one, has been a common one since the 4th century BC, already expressed by Isocrates (http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/w.willis/isocrates.html):
"The name Greek is no longer a mark of a race, but of an outlook, and is accorded to those who share our culture rather than our blood" (in Greek: "Καί τό των Ελλήνων όνομα πεποίηκε μηκέτι του γένους αλλά της διανοίας δοκείν είναι, καί μάλλον Έλληνας καλείσθαι τούς της παιδεύσεως της ημετέρας ή τους της κοινής φύσεως μετέχοντας").
Personally, I could never argue that ancient Greeks are the direct ancestors of today's Greeks in a biological sense; that the Greeks of 21st century AD, are directly descended from the ancient Greeks of 5th or 4th century BC, genetically. A pure-blooded Greek, existed only in the imagination of the Nazi party (untermensch-ubermensch dichotomy). I don't give a shyt, if my ancestor was a Nordic German, or a Negroid Sub-Saharan.
The modern Greek nation is a "cultural" group of people with a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium.
BTW, while I'm waiting for you to give me proofs for the discontinuity between ancient & modern Greeks, the sea to me will always be Thalassa, the earth, Ge*, the sky Ouranos, life Zoe & death Thanatos; as they have always been to us since the days of our great-grandfather Homer.
"GREEK, the language they gave me; poor the house on Homer's shores. My only care my language on Homer's shores..."
Odysseus Elytis, 1979 Nobel laureate for literature.
Modern Greek is much closer to ancient Greek, than Italian is to Latin, and generally much closer than one would expect. It is probably fair to say that the difference between Plato’s Greek and that of the present day, parallels the difference between the English of Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400AD) (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/chaucer.htm) and modern English. English has changed more in the last 600-700 years than Greek in 2 millenia. The Greek spoken today is closer to Ancient Greek than the Greek spoken two hundred years ago because of the massive influence of the ancient language in all areas from vocabulary, to inflection, to syntax...
...just my 0.02...drachmas

*Ge (****. Yee, Doric Ga) is a pre-Greek substrate word that some relate to the Sumerian Ki, also meaning Earth (I think that's about as early of a root as you can get ;) ). "Earth as a goddess," was Gaia (****. G-eh-a), the personification of earth.

PS1: Please excuse me for being a "little" pedantic.
PS2: This is a traditional (folk) dance from Macedonia (from Naousa, the Mieza of ancient Greece, Aristotle's birthplace)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFKPyz1WIr0

One can clearly see the pagan, pre-Christian influence (a common thing in the Greek ethnography)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2764/ancientgreece19rc7.jpg

[achilles]

Zombie squad is a fine example of a brainwashed FYROManiac who feels like the grandson of Alexander the Great. I am glad you showed up, brother, since your hilarious posts will prove every single Greek claim here...



Besides Greece and ancient Macedonia have nothing incommon or had ever. Greece was formed in 1821.

Really? Tell that to Alexander the Great...yeah, your grandpa... :lol:


Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the COMMON welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; but I AM MYSELF GREEK by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. …If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON.‘
From: [Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]

FYI, "Greece" was not formed in 1821 but our revolution against the Ottomans was launched in 1821. The declaration of the independent Greek STATE took place later on. Do your homework before posting here. Needless to say that "Hellenism" was present long before your ancestors (whoever they were) even knew of the existence of Macedonia.



They steal Aaegan Macedonian territory from us after the Balkan wars and after that they start to claim history and relation with the ancient Macedonians to keep the territory other wise they are afraid it will be another Kosovo.

Wrong. We liberated Macedonia from the Bulgarian element, i.e. your real grandfathers...



But don't worry Grekos. You have done a great work with Hellenising the slavic speaking Macedonians in Aeagen Macedonia since 1913, by killing those that held to their motherlanguage and didn't give it up to Greek. Now it's 2007 nearly 100 years since you stole our terretory, don't be afraid the true Macedonians from Florina and other parts in Aegean Macedonia are identifieng themselfs as Greek now. So there is another DNA is your Hellene blood now, next with Turk, Vlach, Albanian, Slavic, Tatar, Thracian...... You see Greek don't reconize minorities, they make them Greek instead.

You, as a self-proclaimed offspring of the ancient Macedonians, should know that being a Greek is more of a mindset than DNA, blood, genes and bones.


Macedonians and Hellenes where two different people. And the Hellenes today can not even claim that they are the true Hellenes. Ever since ancient time 100 of tribes have entered what today is Greece and mixed with the Hellenes.

People intermix all over the world, professor. It is called "anthropological evolution". Do you know any group of people today sharing the same DNA with its predecessors 3000 years ago? The card of the long gone "Greekness" is cheap and hardly makes any case for you.



The people of R. Macedonia heritage from the Paionians an ancient people that lived in R. Macedonia area neighbors with the Illirians, Thracian's and Hellenes. The Paionians united with the Macedonians to form a strong brotherhood. That's why the name Macedonia is used today, and we got all rights to call us Macedonians as also Macedonians settled in Paionian area.

:lol: Paeonians? Or macedonians? Or both? :lol:

Make up your minds people and choose for Christ's sake the history that suits you the most!


Learn some history, read some books if you are from Poland and have to say something about Macedonia again.

That was probably the funniest bit of all....:lol:


And here is a little something for you to relish:


"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian."
"There is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country."

[FYROM's Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, 24 February 1999]

Stick around. I got more of these... ;)

[perdurabo]

Gyordan Veselinov
with names like that they say that they are ancient greeks? ROTFL!

[achilles]

This is a must-see for everyone interested in the subject. English subtitles included

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhTvnU&NR=1

[achilles]

with names like that they say that they are ancient greeks? ROTFL!

No, they claim to be direct descentands of the ancient Macedonians, who were unrelated to the ancient Greeks. And they probably spoke...Bulgarian!woot

Watch the video i posted. This is probable the most blatant attempt of appropriating someone else's history. A true hoax.

On edit: glad to see that the poles are well alligned with history :)

[perdurabo]

Moust of Poles are bit nuts about history as our history was twisted meany times... BTW we had similiar move like FYROMnians now back in XVI and XVIIth century our nobleman belived they are descendants of acient Sarmatians uber-wariors that counquered native slavs. We had few things similiar to sarmatians, our heraldic has nothing in common with rest of Europeans and main figures used are very similiar to sarmatic runes, also some cultural similarities exist but this is big overshoot...

[Zombie Squad]

Dont be rediculus! Man i understand that you have been brainwashed since your childhood but there are isues that must been in place
1. Only Hellenes had the Right to participate in the Olympic games. I hope you know that. You will also know that Macedonians participated in the olympic games just like the Athenians the Korinthians the Spartans etc
2. There are many Historical evidence about the ancient Macedonia. Thank God there are ancient graves and other monuments all over Macedonia in Northern Greece in Pella, Vergina, Dion etc. All these monuments have Hellenic Script on it. That must meen something right?
And last but not least, lets what what ancient Historicals write about Macedonia, thousand years before your slav ancestors came in the Balkans...

Aeschylus (Iketidai, 250) and Herodotus (V 22) believed that Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Herodotus claimed that the Macedonians (called at that time Makednoi) who moved to Peloponnesos from Doris were later called Dorians.

1. The Swedish King is married to a German Queen. You know royalties marries outside their borders to keep good relation to eachother. This was very importand in the 1800-WWII.
Just like then even in ancient times they did that. Macedonian royalties married with Hellenes to keep good relations.
Speaking of the Olympic Games Alexander I from Macedonia, was not allowed to participate in the games because he couldn't show proof that he had grandparents that heritaged from a Greek colonie as Peloponnese. Hellenes didn't allow Macedonians into the games as they where not Hellenes, only if they royalties had Hellene blood they could participate.

2. Hellenic Script?? Is that proof? Hellene culture was wide spreed in ancient times and people where schooled with Greek. Just like English is widespread today Greek was that in ancient times. I bet you have monuments with English text in Greece, does that make you English men now??

Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus everywhere. Are you actually taking what a man that lived 3000 years ago to be proof. Do you belive in Santa Clause too?

[Zombie Squad]

with names like that they say that they are ancient greeks? ROTFL!

If the Frenchmen hadn't stopped the Arab/Moore invasion into Europe you would probably be named Muhammad instead of Gregor. Would I then call you Arab instead of Slav?

[achilles]

Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus Herodotus everywhere. Are you actually taking what a man that lived 3000 years ago to be proof. Do you belive in Santa Clause too?

Not happy with Herodotus as an ancient source? I can support my claims with hundreds of additional ancient quotes coming from classical, roman, medieval and modern scholars.

Can you support YOUR claims with ANY credible source, to begin with?

Apparently, you dont expect people to believe you simply because you say so.

Plus, take a look at the video i posted and you might get an idea of all the brainwashing you have been through, in your country's attempt to artificially create a "Macedonian" identity and history.

I am waiting for you to support your claims Mr. Alexandrovits the Greatovski :lol:

[Zombie Squad]

Yes, she said you are smart with your propaganda fooling everyone to believe you're Macedonians. Ever since 1991 your government have formed a section just to spread lies about Macedonia. As I see many internet smurfs believes that propaganda. But I don't worry scholorad people make decision and they don't use internet source.
Many great nations have already recognized Macedonia as Macedonia, and they have stated that with references. In EU it's harder as the EU politicianare are parting with Greece as their love of ancient history.

[daily666]

Hey why don't you call your country a Great Roman Empire than? It's free to pick.

[Vorian]

I suggest we stop this discussion here. This guy is not going to change opinion even if we built a time machine and brought him Alexander the Great himself to tell him he was Greek.

If we continue, the only thing we are going to earn is warnings and bans. Let him be in his dreamy world with his Macedonian imaginary ancestors and his fake heritage. He should at least pay tribute to Tito's grave for creating it.

[achilles]

Yes, she said you are smart with your propaganda fooling everyone to believe you're Macedonians. Ever since 1991 your government have formed a section just to spread lies about Macedonia. As I see many internet smurfs believes that propaganda. But I don't worry scholorad people make decision and they don't use internet source.
Many great nations have already recognized Macedonia as Macedonia, and they have stated that with references. In EU it's harder as the EU politicianare are parting with Greece as their love of ancient history.

Is that all you cherry-picked from the video i posted? Good job....

You have no case my friend, and thanks for prooving that all by yourself with your last post. Have a good day.


Vorian, i am not trying to change anyone's mind, thats practically impossible. There are multiple generations in Skopje raised to believe whatever they believe. Its just interesting to show how ingorant, brainwashed and misinformed those people are, through their own claims. When i am not laughing at their hilarious claims, i feel sorry for them.

[chris450]

oh dear...that was quite a pounding guys...i would like to point out that this is NOT only a "name issue" ...

anyone can choose to call himself whatever he wants..but cant demand from others to believe him too..

i mean FYROM has the right to pursue whatever name it suits them...but we also have the right -and the obligation let me add- to protect our cultural and historical rights in every possible way...

i dont include our sovereignity in the above list,coz i think its more than obvious that we have both the means and the will to protect it...so please remember that ,we both live in the Balkans ,we have seen what happens when someone tries to fool around with national borders

For those who dont know it,there was an article in their constitution that called for the liberation of the "Macedonian lands" under occupation...Aegean macedonia as the officials up there call it...what i am trying to say is that borders could indeed change when someone pushes full throttle...but sometimes the outcome of that change is quite different than the one expected

mindsets like these made the word "Balkans" a synonim of bloodshed and chaos...enough already

[Molosi]

I agree that modern Macedonians have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians, and Greece's stance should be to end the propaganda coming from Skopje that says that, rather than being concerned with a name.

Looking at it from historical prespective, Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. Since the time of Philip II, it has encompased a lot of different kinds of peoples in it, and has been used simply as a geographical name.

Some Greek members here suggested changing the name to Paionia or Dardania. Well, if thats the case, how is that different than simply naming it Macedonia? If you associate the name of Macedonia with a particular people, then why not associate the name Paionia and Dardania with the Illyrian people that lived there? Modern Macedonians have nothing to do with those people either.

However, as I was saying above, the name has been used in a geographical sense for thousands of years. Philip II added Pelagonia and Peionia to Macedonia, as well as several Thracian tribes which lived in the territory of present-day FYROM (Dardania was never part of this, so connecting FYROM with Dardania makes no sense). So yes, the entirety of present-day FYROM was part of Macedonia, the one after Philip II. The name Macedonia continued to be used simply as a geographical name during Roman times as well. There were, after all, far more Illyrians and Thracians and what nots living in the territory called "Macedonia", both in the time of Philip and in Roman times, then there were actual Macedonians. So the name has indeed refered to a geographical place, which certainly did encompass modern-day FYROM. The Macedonia of the Roman times encompassed most of modern-day Albania as well for that matter. It simply had no meaning other than a territorial entity. The people living there, were very varied and multi-ethnic. Since that time, the name has only meant a territorial entity, and the name "Macedonian" is simply used to refer to people who live in that territory.

The problem, as you correctly point out, is that the government of Skopje tries to associate this name with a particular people from the past, and associate itself with those people. That is historically ridiculous. Greece should focus on that, not on something as silly as a name or a flag.

As for any name such as Slavo-antyhing, that is simply unaceptable to the Albanians of Macedonia. Slavo-anything associates with a particular ethnicity. FYROM is a very multi-ethnic country. It cannot be associated with any ethnicity.

Therefore my personal opinion is that the name is actually adequate. The connection the government of Skopje is trying to do with it however, is not. Also Greece's reaction is a bit dramatical.

[chris450]

I agree that modern Macedonians have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians, and Greece's stance should be to end the propaganda coming from Skopje that says that, rather than being concerned with a name.but the name itself is the vehicle of the said propaganda...i'd say that they are inteconnected


Looking at it from historical prespective, Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. Since the time of Philip II, it has encompased a lot of different kinds of peoples in it, and has been used simply as a geographical name.here i must disagree with you...Historically ,Macedon according to Herodotus (Ε 18) is an area with specific boundaries whose inhabitants are the Macedons ,a Doric tribe...the name itself -Macedonia- comes from the primogenitor Makednos ,son of Zeus and Thiia according to Hesiod...after the Roman conquest and the decline of Macedonian power , the Romans name the province Macedonia attaching adjacent regions to it...but thats irrelevant to the current issue...i dont see how the choices of the Roman administration cancel the cultural identity , political presence and legacy of ancient Macedons..they didnt simply stop to exist after the Romans came in control...

Example: This is the Byzantine theme of Macedonia ...see what i mean?
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/xiotis38/byzantinemacedonia.gif

The problem, as you correctly point out, is that the government of Skopje tries to associate this name with a particular people from the past, and associate itself with those people. That is historically ridiculous. Greece should focus on that, not on something as silly as a name or a flag.as i pointed out above ,the name and the symbols of Macedonia are the vehicle of their propaganda....maybe we didnt focus on that as much as we should...that i can accept...but from my point of view the name and the symbols are a very serious matter...its the core of the problem..

as for Greeces stance so far...i feel it has been way too low profile and subtle...a direct insult of national sovereignity is usually delt in another manner by more serious Western states..constant provocations and a crescento of statements like the one i quoted a few posts earlier...

[Molosi]

It seems to me on the other hand to be little more than Balkanian mentallity at its best, I don't like you because of what you call yourself. That is petty.

The name Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. It has meant only that for the past 2500 years. That territory has always encompassed a mutli-ethnic crowd of peoples. It is by no deffinition as easy and clean as you'd like to make it sound when you quote Herodotus. You'r basing your claims on myths created by a ruling class at a later period of time. I don't tink you have a very good understanding here of what we'r dealing with, if the ancient excuse is what you Greeks want to go for.

Archeology shows that the dominant culture in the area by the 8th century BC was an Illiro-Phrygian culture. After this we see the establishment of Greek colonies on the Aegean coast of Macedonia, and we see Greek culture spreading for the first time. My opinion is that we are dealing with Hellenization, Hellenization from those Greek colonies on the coast, which hellenized the ruling class of the Macedonians. In order to be accepted, they created myths of their Greek heritage, such as Alexander's myth. However, Alexander claims to be a descendent of Greeks from elsewhere in Greece, not from Macedonia. Also it would be strange for Alexander to have to explain himself as to why he was Greek, if being a Macedonian was so obviously being Greek.

We are dealing with a Hellenized part of Macedonian society, the ruling class and the Greek colonies on the coast. In the hinterland, in the countryside, we see a mish-mash of different peoples and cultures. And the more they expand their territory, the more they incorporate a mish-mash of peoples. The Peionians for example did become close collaborators of the Macedonians when it was added to Macedonia. Various Thracian tribes were equally part of this.

So the question isn't, was Alexander the Great a Greek or not. That really doesn't even matter. The question is, were the Macedonians Greeks? You have to understand that the ruling class of many such peoples had little to do with the general population. The answer to that, is by no means clear. However, that answer doesn't even matter either.

Macedonia is just a territorial name that encompassed that territory, not since roman times, but since the time of Philip II. There has never been any other name for that area that encompasses all of it. Pelagonia, Paionia and what not are only pieces of that territory.

[Vorian]

What archeology are you talking about??? Macedonians are a Doric tribe according to most historians. End of story.

[chris450]

Molosi is just putting forth 2 things: the multi culturalism of FYROM ,and the non-relation of the name with any ethnicity....because it suits his agenda ofcourse,ie the agenda of the Albanians in FYROM...i can understand why someone would defend his point of view its only natural ,as i said before

what is wrong is that he is trying to project his "vision" of todays FYROM -or how FYROM should be to be more precise- in the ancient times,with complete disregard to what the sciences of History and Archeaology tell us...

-We are talking about Ancient Macedon ,NOT FYROM ,they are very two different things! two distinct geographical regions ,the Roman theme incorporated other territories too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28Roman_province%29) but as we see they renamed their airport to Alexander the Great not some Roman Centurion meaning they target the Macedonian legacy 800s BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon#Early_history) – 146 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna) not the Roman one
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg/250px-Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg
a hint..check where the capital Aigai and later Pella is located...is it Skopje? is it Tetovo? ofcourse not...what does Aigai o Pella mean in Modern "Macedonian" ? what do they mean in Greek?


the lack of historical proof of what he is saying ,is the reason he keeps repeating the said arguements in the same post....

it is an interesting theory really...but the fact Molosi that you have no substantial proof to back it up....meaning its a pretty theory ,but its still a theory...

ofcourse you can prove us wrong by sheding some light at the following points:

Archeology shows that the dominant culture in the area by the 8th century BC was an Illiro-Phrygian culture(what area is that and which finds are you reffering to?)
The name Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. It has meant only that for the past 2500 years. That territory has always encompassed a mutli-ethnic crowd of peoples.(valtrex and achilleas have provided a lot of original sources that prove you wrong in the begging of the thread..what you are saying is completely unfounded)
You have to understand that the ruling class of many such peoples had little to do with the general population.(i want to understand ,i really do..but you must help me..where do you base that?)
Macedonia is just a territorial name that encompassed that territory, not since roman times, but since the time of Philip II(even if we accept what you say -which we dont ,there was a Macedonian Doric tribe ,Macedonian culture history etc Check the previous posts- how does that make the present FYROM entitled to use a name that EVEN geographically has nothing to do with it? check the maps in the first two pages ,it encompases nothing but a small fraction of Alexanders Macedon)
The name Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. It has meant only that for the past 2500 years.(check above)

It is by no deffinition as easy and clean as you'd like to make it sound when you quote Herodotus. You'r basing your claims on myths created by a ruling class at a later period of time. I don't tink you have a very good understanding here of what we'r dealing with, if the ancient excuse is what you Greeks want to go for.(Herodotus is often called the father of History....so that we know what we are talking about...the ancient excuse we Greeks use-as you ellegantly put it- happens to be the only historical proof besides archaeological finds which also happen to convalidate what Herodotus says...i will go with you on this one..lets say Herodotus is wrong and someone planted Vergina and Pella were they stand...WHERE do you base YOUR understanding of what we are dealing with? if not on historical sources and scientific fact?i am very curious...some sources please..)
It seems to me on the other hand to be little more than Balkanian mentallity at its best, I don't like you because of what you call yourself. That is petty. my friend defending your rights with all legal means is never petty....the Albanians in FYROM took a step further and took up arms to defend their right to be called Albanians..nevermind UN or diplomacy...are they petty or what?

anyway...we are having a discussion on the stability in the region and the name issue...it is normal to have different views since the main factor of instability and friction is the albanian one..Kosovo,Preshevo,FYROM

we are for the current status quo(meaning borders),you are against it

[Paya]

I would really like to know if Zombie Squad's interpretation of history is official in FYROM, and more importantly, if kids read it in schools. Because if they do, not only are they falsifying history, but they are also creating a collective mental deasese of sorts, a million and a half people thinking they're descendants of Alexander the Great.

Now, I've heard some pretty amazing theories about the origin of the Serbs, the most memorable being the one about us being from Iceland originally, from where we migrated to the Balkans, on our way founding Sorbonna (get it, Serbs-Sorbonna), but not only they never became official, they were believed in by about three people in the country.

Ancient Macedonians... :roll: Gotta love the Balkans. Not only do we like to kill each other every 50 years, we're also as mad as hatters... p-)

[chris450]

I would really like to know if Zombie Squad's interpretation of history is official in FYROM, and more importantly, if kids read it in schools. Because if they do, not only are they falsifying history, but they are also creating a collective mental deasese of sorts, a million and a half people thinking they're descendants of Alexander the Great.

Now, I've heard some pretty amazing theories about the origin of the Serbs, the most memorable being the one about us being from Iceland originally, from where we migrated to the Balkans, on our way founding Sorbonna (get it, Serbs-Sorbonna), but not only they never became official, they were believed in by about three people in the country.

Ancient Macedonians... :roll: Gotta love the Balkans. Not only do we like to kill each other every 50 years, we're also as mad as hatters... p-)

most certainly YES...i will quote from another forum...


Children in FYROM have been taught that this definition of Macedonia has existed with roughly the same boundaries since ancient times while being populated in the vast majority by a 'Macedonian' ethnos. This map, taken from a FYROM school text book, shows how Macedonia was defined and populated circa the period of the slavic Migrations:

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/xiotis38/Copyofexample2.jpg
Taken from: Grade 7 History, Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Skopje 1992, page 155

These boundaries as well as the notion of a "Macedonian" ethnicity were unknown at the time! Of course the implication of this propaganda is that we now have a whole generation of people in FYROM thinking that Macedonia existed as an ethno/social entity defined by borders that have remained roughly the same for millenia! From this they conclude that Greece and Bulgaria are occupying territory that rightfully belongs to a "Macedonian" nation. In reality a consensus on their definition of "Macedonia" was only established in the 19th century. Even academics from Skopje concede this fact in their publication "Macedonia and its Relations With Greece" published in 1993:

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/xiotis38/scholars2.jpg

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/xiotis38/scholars3.jpg


Another example ...Η' grade History Book ,2005, page 54....the yellow line is the "ethnic border" according to them ,the "regions of Macedonia under foreign occupation" in green and grey......
this goes one goes out to the ones that call this "only a name issue"...
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2890/ex1yi3.jpg

Ζ' grade history book page 120 ,2005...the line shows "Macedonia national border" during the Ilinden uprising...this is the things that they teach them...no wonder they say what they say..

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2851/ex2as6.jpg

And not only school textbooks! Official FYROM websites reproduce this nonsense.....for instance

"Macedonian" Embassy London (http://www.macedonianembassy.org.uk/history.html)

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/1686/fyromofficialpropagandabl0.jpg
There are countless examples,let me know if you need another one..
Another thing.....

Since some fellow members have grown a dislike for Herodotus thinking perhaps that he is the only source to validate the Greek point of view...i will post some more sources to clear any doubt they might have...Molosi previously said that Macedonia is only a geographical region distinct from the rest of Greece..lets see who disagrees with that,shall we?

1.

Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece". Strabo, VII, Frg. 9 (Loeb, H.L. Jones)

*Strabo, the famous ancient geographer makes it more than clear to everybody that ancient Macedonia, without doubt, IS A PART OF GREECE.

2.

"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury;... I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks... " Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II, 14, 4 (Loeb, P. A. Brunt);

*Alexander the Great here, verifies also that Ancient Macedonia was a part of Greece.

3.

"They say that these were the clans collected by Amphictyon himself in the Greek assembly... The Macedonians managed to join and the entire Phocian race… In my day there were thirty members: six each from Nikopolis, Macedonia, and Thessaly - and from the Boeotoi that were the first that departed from Thessalia and that's when they were called Aioloi - two from each of the Phokeis and Delphi, one from the ancient Dorida, the Lokroi send one from the Ozoloi and one from the ones living beyond Evoia, one from the Evoeis. From the Peloponnesians, one from Argos, one from Sikion, one from Korinthos and Megara, one from Athens..." [Pausanias, Description of Greece, Phocis Book VIII, 4]

*Again, only Greeks participated in Amphictyonies. Macedonians as Greeks took part also.

4.

"...he (Alexander) inflicted punishment on the Persians for their outrages on all the Greeks, and how he delivered us all from the greatest evils by enslaving the barbarians and depriving them of the resources they used for the destruction of the Greeks, pitting now the Athenians and now the Thebans against the ancestors of these Spartans, how in a word he made Asia subject to Greece." [Polybius, Book IX, 34, 3]

*He "made Asia Subject to Greece". Another irrefutable evidence that Macedonia was part of Greece.

5.

"Alexander lived many hundred years ago. He was king of Macedon, one of the states of Greece. His life was spent in war. He first conquered the other Grecian states, and then Persia, and India, and other countries one by one, till the whole known world was conquered by him. It is said that he wept, because there were no more worlds for him to conquer. He died, at the age of thirty-three, from drinking too much wine. In consequence of his great success in war, he was called Alexander the Great."(Plutarch’s, Moralia, On the Fortune of Alexander, I, 328D, 329A [Loeb, F.C. Babbitt])

*Plutarch refutes all propagandistic claims of FYROM by stating that "Macedon was one of the states of Greece".

6.

and the Athenians were not ready to concede the leading position AMONG the Greeks to Macedon. [Diodorus of Sicily, 17.3.2]

*Another evidence coming from Diodorus of Sicily proving that Macedon was a greek land.

7.

The 38th book contains the completion of the disaster of the Hellenes. For though both the whole of Hellas and her several parts had often met with mischance, yet to none of her former defeats can we more fittingly apply, the name of disaster with all it signifies than to the events of my own time. In the time I am speaking of a comon misfortune befell the Peloponnesians, the Boiotians, the Phokians, the Euboians, the Lokrians, some of the cities on the Ionians Gulf, and finally the Macedonians."[Polyvius 38.8]

*Polyvius here prooves that Macedonia was a part of Hellas.

8.

Such was the end of Philip ... He had ruled 24 years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to athrone won for himself the greatest empire AMONG the Hellenes, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy." (Diodoros of Sicily 16.95.1-2)

*Diodorus' quote "greatest empire among the Hellenes" says it all.

9.

"Caesar judged that he must drop everything else and pursue Pompey where he had betaken himself after his flight, so that he should not be able to gather more forces and renew, and he advanced daily as far as he could go with the cavalry and ordered a legion to follow shorter stages. An edict had been published in Pompey's name that all the younger men in the province (Macedonia), both GREEKS and Roman citizens, should assemble to take an oath." Civil War 111.102.3]

*Since Macedonia was a Greek land, it would be populated by Greeks.

10.

"Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scrombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.." [Meteorology, BI.13]

*The rivers of Macedonia was certainly "rivers of the Greek world".

11.

Annibas put himself under oath to Xenophanis (ambassador of Philip) in front of the all gods that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas have..." [Polivius, Book 7-9]

*The treaty of alliance between Philip V of Macedonia and Hannibal. Again another proof Macedonia was part of Hellas.

12.

"Xerxes, having so spoken, held his peace. (SS 1.) Whereupon Mardonius took the word, and said:
....I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle.
......But, notwithstanding that they have so foolish a manner of warfare, yet these Greeks, when I led my army against them to the very borders of Macedonia, did not so much as think of offering me battle." [The History of Herodotus Book VII]

*Mardonius, the Persian general, as all Persians considered Macedonia part of Greece.

-My bad ,its Herodotus again! :)-

13.

Is considered this king (Philip) began his monarchy with the bad conditions and he conquered the bigger monarchy of Hellenes (Macedonia) increasing the hegemony no so much with the heroism of arms, as long as with the skilful handlings and his diplomacy. [Dionysios Sikeliotis, 16-95]

*The bigger Monarchy of Hellas was Macedonia.



now apart from the Geographical issue Molosi also made a reference to the multiculturalism and ethnic backround of the Doric tribe of Macedon...i dont want to post another 30 quotes ,it would make this post too long...will do later on

[PANKRASTIS]

I would perhaps look at this from a diffrent view point, certainly there are a number of Skopjians who can legitimately claim Macedonian descent. They would be the descendants of the Macedonians forcibly amalgamated into this new republic' under the 1913 treaty.
But further there were a large number of Greeks who fled & remained within this territory after the Greek civil war, those who wedded & had families who's descendants are also still residence can also claim direct liniage to the Macedonians of old.

So, if we were to take away, those who fled to the north after the Greek civil war, & there dscendants, possibly children & grandchildren, they would total how many people, maybee 10% of the non-Albanian population which numbers 40% of the overall population of about 1.8 million people.

And if we detract, the Serbs & Bulgarians who still proudly call themselves such as oppposed to some others, minus another 10% of the total non-Albanian population.
In rough figures that leaves around 850,000 people, who claim to be Macedonian.
And if we say at least 50% of those are direct descendants of those forced into seperation in the 1913 treaty that would leave at a maximum
425,000 people.

[PANKRASTIS]

And for those people, well. the best example of there heritage comes from the Bulgarian Government, who though it does recongnise them now as Macedonia the country.

Does not recongnise them as a seperate ethnic group from the Bulgarian people but in fact states they are one & the same, which is why many persons of Bulagarian lineage, descent & even visitors are regularly assulated &/or abused on the street of Skopjia.
A complaint raised by the Bulgarian Government itself.

[chris450]

valid arguments...but in this case numbers dont matter...these people have been fanatised ,with a propaganda wave that has no precedent in post war Europe...

they even printed banknotes with the White Tower of Thessaloniki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Tower_of_Thessaloniki)* on them!!!

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2720/banknotedj2.jpg

*2nd largest city in Greece (located in N.Greece)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Thessaloniki_White_tower.jpg/250px-Thessaloniki_White_tower.jpg

[PANKRASTIS]

True, in my experience having dealt & worked with these people, i have found generaly that they adhere to most logical argument even if they choose not to accept it.
They, in most cases aknowledge some shaded areas in their own accounts, but to aknowledge anywere other than in private is to aknowledge one's own non-existence as an distinct entity.

If anyone ia able to access the records of Pope??, who was Pope in Rome during the time of the fall of Constantinople, within those records a very interesting and historical footnote relating directly to the Skopjians or Vardans if you will.

I read this in a Seminary Library whilst studying the rise & fall of Christondom.

The Pope after finally deciding to heed the call for assistance from Costantinople, despatched an Army of volunteers, Knights, Soldiers & sundry, but as they were short of funds & were in need of replenishment along the way, they were directed by the Pope to Attack and sack the city of Vardar (Skopjia) on the Vardar river, even though the Varda nation was freindly with Rome. And so the Army of Crusaders, Knights, Soldiers, Volunteers & sundry so did, in doing raping the stores of the city & its wealth so as to pay wages & expenses to afford the war to which they were going.
They remained in Varda, on the banks of the Varda river for a time as more reinforcements were arriving, and as they finally prepared to march for Constantinople, word arrived that the city had fallen.

This is around 90% accurate as i read it, the importance to the topic at hand is that even in that day, Rome, & all Sundry considered those people living on the River Varda to be neither Hellene, nor Macedonian but northern peoples (slavs) who migrated south & settled in these lands.

A complete text should be able to be found, as transcribed by the Popes scribes if one can recall the Popes name & link it to the fall of Constantinople.

[valtrex]

May I add, to those that still doubt about the Greek identity of ancient Macedonians. There's a "myth" that dominates all other considerations among the "scientific" community of FYROM, according to which "the ancient Macedonian language belongs to the insufficiently attested languages, because we do not have any written strong piece of evidence attesting they spoke a Greek dialect or an other different language".
This goes even further. They keep saying that the "hellenization process" (sic) was a slow one & it began with the hellenization of "the ruling elites", while the people remained "something other". Well, I'm sorry but that's pure, lovely-smelling, BS:
In 1986, in Pella, an inscription was found, which is known to us as the "Pella Katadesmos". This katadesmos, is a curse, or magic spell and is probably written by a low social status woman on a scroll in 4th or 3rd century BC; she seeks for the intercessions of a magic deity to help her to deal with her lover:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5507/pellatabzg8.jpg

The language is recognizable and readable by every Greek, I hope the "pure Macedonians" of FYROM are able to read it too http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3492/sarcasmyl9.gif

Oh, and although art is a universal language and it belongs to all mankind, I can't afford not to stress that the artist's name on this hunting mosaic in Pella is Greek & is written in Greek:
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/1651/huntingmosaicpella2gy3.jpg
[it reads "ΓΝΩΣΙΣ ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕΝ", Made by Gnosis]]

PS1: I've never understood, how is it possible for a whole nation, to speak "Macedonian", in the 6th century BC and a couple of centuries later, all their inscriptions and writings to be in Greek? and not only that but the earlier inscritions written in "Macedonian" to have been vanished?
PS2: I wonder, when the Apostle Paul, saw in his sleep the Macedonian telling him "come to the Macedonians", was this speech delivered in "Macedonian" or Greek? (read Paul's epistles to the Thessalonians. They're written in Greek. Read the "Apostle's Acts". The first European woman who believed in Christ was Lydia, a woman from Verroea, Macedonia. She was Greek).

[chris450]

A complete text should be able to be found, as transcribed by the Popes scribes if one can recall the Popes name & link it to the fall of Constantinople.

Nicolas V was Pope at that time

[phoebus]

What needs to be understood is that pissing off 3 million Macedonians in Northern Hellas and around the globe, won't do do any good at to a country of which the proclaimed, yet recently falsified nationality, is soon to become an absolute minority. Those poeple are soon to become a minority in their own country and that will create blowback to all Vardar-Bulgarians and Serbian minorities in the north as well; plus the small yet unrecognised Hellenic minority (the true Macedonians in every sense of the word).

In addition if I can read those maps well, they claim land-strips in Albania, Bulgaria and of course Hellas... It's also worth noting that the illusion of Hellenic, EU and Bulgarian investement will soon go away once the stability of the country is struck by phenomena of seperatism and unequal minority treatment - oppression.

All in all, multiculturalism sometimes can lead to pseudo-culturalism. We can see this alot in the Balkans and I'd advise our leaders in Hellas but also EU to AVOID multicultural models for our societies. What needs to be protected is the identity of each individual identity of all European countries, not mish-mash everything and create more problems than they're needed.

[Paya]

There are countless examples,let me know if you need another one..
Well, since you're offering, I would like to see some examples where it is distinctly said that the Slav inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia are descendants of ancient Macedonians.

While these maps and writings are interesting, on the very first map it is said that "ethnic Macedonia" is inhabited by Macedonian SLAVS.

And while we're at it, it's somewhat confusing to me why are this "ethnic Macedonia's" borders exactly the same as those of the Macedonian Pashaluk, an Ottoman administrative unit? Perhaps Zombie Squad could clear that up for me.

[Vorian]

Well... here is an example of nationalistic and aggressive ideas:


WHY IS GREECE STEALING MACEDONIAN HISTORY?


But why is Greece doing this, what is behind it, why do they steal the history of the ancient Macedonians? Well it’s rather quite simple. Macedonia was partitioned in 1913 after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part - 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, since the Greek minority there was not more then 10% comparing to the overwhelming majority ethnic Macedonians who lived throughout Macedonia. For complete statistical evidence, please see the "Macedonian-Greek Conflict" on this matter. Now, in 1913, since Greece acquired obviously a foreign land, they had to provide a link that would justify their claim on that ½ of Macedonia, and that is exactly why they claim that the ancient Macedonians are Greek, so if in the ancient times there was a Greek tribe (Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek (just like Andronikos points above). Indeed absurd. What is not disputable however, is that since 1913 till today, that modern Greek state still discriminates against the ethnic Macedonians who now find themselves living in Greece (see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) which is evidenced in the "Macedonians in Greece" page. The other northern part of Macedonia, today’s Republic of Macedonia, broke out of Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991. That brought addition fuel to the Greek nationalists who are afraid now that one part of the ethnic Macedonian nation is independent, the partition of 1913 can be seen as illegal, and that could lead to loss of their Greek Macedonian part and a reunification of one Macedonia. That is exactly why they claim that there is no modern Macedonian nation, not in Greece nor anywhere, and continue to violate the basic human rights of their Macedonian minority. It is indeed mean politics, filled with paranoia, which without the revision of the ancient history could not breathe.

Directly from http://faq.macedonia.org/history/index.frame.html


Also you can find here http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ plenty of paranoia...

[achilles]

It seems to me on the other hand to be little more than Balkanian mentallity at its best, I don't like you because of what you call yourself. That is petty.

The name Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. It has meant only that for the past 2500 years. That territory has always encompassed a mutli-ethnic crowd of peoples. It is by no deffinition as easy and clean as you'd like to make it sound when you quote Herodotus. You'r basing your claims on myths created by a ruling class at a later period of time. I don't tink you have a very good understanding here of what we'r dealing with, if the ancient excuse is what you Greeks want to go for.

Archeology shows that the dominant culture in the area by the 8th century BC was an Illiro-Phrygian culture. After this we see the establishment of Greek colonies on the Aegean coast of Macedonia, and we see Greek culture spreading for the first time. My opinion is that we are dealing with Hellenization, Hellenization from those Greek colonies on the coast, which hellenized the ruling class of the Macedonians. In order to be accepted, they created myths of their Greek heritage, such as Alexander's myth. However, Alexander claims to be a descendent of Greeks from elsewhere in Greece, not from Macedonia. Also it would be strange for Alexander to have to explain himself as to why he was Greek, if being a Macedonian was so obviously being Greek.

We are dealing with a Hellenized part of Macedonian society, the ruling class and the Greek colonies on the coast. In the hinterland, in the countryside, we see a mish-mash of different peoples and cultures. And the more they expand their territory, the more they incorporate a mish-mash of peoples. The Peionians for example did become close collaborators of the Macedonians when it was added to Macedonia. Various Thracian tribes were equally part of this.

So the question isn't, was Alexander the Great a Greek or not. That really doesn't even matter. The question is, were the Macedonians Greeks? You have to understand that the ruling class of many such peoples had little to do with the general population. The answer to that, is by no means clear. However, that answer doesn't even matter either.

Macedonia is just a territorial name that encompassed that territory, not since roman times, but since the time of Philip II. There has never been any other name for that area that encompasses all of it. Pelagonia, Paionia and what not are only pieces of that territory.

You have definitely come accross a twisted version of history. I'll get back to you later on...call it a history lesson, with sources, references and related quotes.

Where is the back-up to your claims? Albanian history books?

[achilles]

Well... here is an example of nationalistic and aggressive ideas:



Directly from http://faq.macedonia.org/history/index.frame.html


Also you can find here http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ plenty of paranoia...

The ruthless imagination of those guys is just...scary sometimes. They even published a pseudo-scientific "study" claiming that the Greeks have sub-suharan DNA :lol:

Magazine "Nature" has falsified this piece of crap and accussed the Skopjian pseudoscientists of being a true disgrace to science...

[chris450]

Well, since you're offering, I would like to see some examples where it is distinctly said that the Slav inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia are descendants of ancient Macedonians.

While these maps and writings are interesting, on the very first map it is said that "ethnic Macedonia" is inhabited by Macedonian SLAVS.

And while we're at it, it's somewhat confusing to me why are this "ethnic Macedonia's" borders exactly the same as those of the Macedonian Pashaluk, an Ottoman administrative unit? Perhaps Zombie Squad could clear that up for me.


need i say more? :-D

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9885/fyromeroo7.jpg



on a more serious note...i will gather some "serious" sources and get back to you

[joka]

All in all, multiculturalism sometimes can lead to pseudo-culturalism. We can see this alot in the Balkans and I'd advise our leaders in Hellas but also EU to AVOID multicultural models for our societies. What needs to be protected is the identity of each individual identity of all European countries, not mish-mash everything and create more problems than they're needed.

It's self delusion to think that you live in mono-cultural society in this day and age, in fact I doubt it has ever been true, save perhaps for very early tribes and clans. Arguably the most successful countries are multicultural eg. The US, Switzerland, Canada..

In the Balkans this seems to be a problem though, I don't know why you guys just can't get along, I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with ethnicity.

[achilles]

In the Balkans this seems to be a problem though, I don't know why you guys just can't get along, I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with ethnicity.

This is a fair questions. I realize, though, that as an outsider you dont understand. Its not an obsession with ethnicity. Its an obsession with protecting our cultural and historical heritage which is constantly being challenged by a country whose current identity and history is a true hoax. These people up there live a pharse. A true hoax. They have been deceived by their own people 50 years ago.

Today they are trying to appropriate a Hellenic term and a big, proud part of Hellenic history. Tomorrow, who knows what? Dont forget that the initial plan of the Yugoslav leader Tito, was to appropriate hellenic LAND...i.e. Hellenic Macedonia as a path towards the Aegean archipelago.

Remember France not allowing the UK to be officially named as "Great Britain", because of France's northern province of "Britany"(Bretagne). Who could guarantee to the French that the Brits wouldnt raise territorial claims against Britany, based on a damn name? Who can guarantee to me, a Macedonian Greek, that tomorrow those brainwashed ultranationalists up North will not officialy raise territorial claims against my country?

So, its an obsession with fairness, justice, pride and , perhaps, national security, and i am not saying that the Skops can pose any security threat to Greece at the moment. Quite the opposite.

[zg18]

It's self delusion to think that you live in mono-cultural society in this day and age, in fact I doubt it has ever been true, save perhaps for very early tribes and clans. Arguably the most successful countries are multicultural eg. The US, Switzerland, Canada..



The only real successful multiethnic country in Europe is Switzerland (Swiss Germans,French,Italians,Romans are native people) and it`s not comparable to U.S. and Canada by any means.


In the Balkans this seems to be a problem though, I don't know why you guys just can't get along, I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with ethnicity.


Our last 700 years were somewhat different then last of Europe,you will understand why Balkan peoples are so different than other in Europe if you take a book and try to learn it`s history,but even then you will understand partly.

[achilles]

I would really like to know if Zombie Squad's interpretation of history is official in FYROM, and more importantly, if kids read it in schools. Because if they do, not only are they falsifying history, but they are also creating a collective mental deasese of sorts, a million and a half people thinking they're descendants of Alexander the Great.

Take a look at this video (english subs) that i posted a couple of pages above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhTvnU&NR=1

Definitely, its the official stance of FYROM's educational system. Sad, pathetic, unfair but true.

[Molosi]

Now, I am Albanian, so of course I can't really support either side of the argument. However, I do feel the Macedonians are more "in the wrong" here, but at the same time the Greek stance is also a wrong one.

To begin with, the problems with Macedonia are many. First of all there is no such thing as a "Macedonian ethnos". I think most people familiar with the issue, realise this, as do the Macedonians themselves. We are dealing with a part of the Bulgarian ethnos, and a Bulgarian dialect (of course it can also be said, most Slavic languages are dialects of each other). That, is Macedonia's number one "problem". They are trying to create an identity for themselves, and this isn't a new process at all.

On the other hand, no one can prevent them from trying to create an identity for themselves.

Second, those maps shown do NOT represent an ancient Macedonia. They are maps showing a medieval situation in the Balkans. At that time, that area WAS part of the Bulgarian kingdom, and settled to a large part by Slavic-speaking peoples. If the maps are being shown as a historical referance, then there is little wrong with them, except maybe a little generous in their stretch. Greece equally cannot try and rewrite history and pretend there were no Slavs living in those areas for at least 1000 years either.

Third, the issue of "territorial claim". Greece doesn't like to admitt this much. However, its a historical fact, that pretty much every Balkan nation has expanded its territory into someone else's turf, and as a consequence either assimilated, or ethnically cleansed, large numbers of other peoples from those territories which today make up their borders. greece is no different. Before 1912, those areas were not part of a Greek state, of course. What is also certain, is that before 1912 there were large and diverse communities of other peoples living in those areas of Thrace and Northern Greece (and we'll leave Epirus and Chameria out of this discussion becasue that is simply counterproductive). Greece does not like to admitt this, and in this respect it is equally guilty of "fabricating" history, as modern day FYROM is.

It cannot be denied, that large parts of those areas were inhabited by Slavic-speaking peoples (ie Bulgarians), Vlachs, Turks, and in some small areas, Albanians as well. Greeks, before 1912, were in essence a minority in those areas. Outside of Greece, I don't think there is any serious historical source which can possibly claim otherwise. Certainly the Slavic elements were not as spread out as portrayed in the Macedonian version. For example, certainly Thessalonika was not by any stretch of the imagination a "Slavic" city. However, Slavs did make up a substantial minority in that city, prior to 1912, and probably made up an even more substantial part of the population of the surrounding villages. However, the same can be said that Thessalonika was a mulit-ethnic city, and equally cannot be called a "Greek city", for at least the past 500 years (if not more). Therefore, why are the Greek claims to the city any more valid? For example, by 1912 the largest single ethnic group in Thessalonika, were Jews, who were not ethnically Greek at all. Turks were at least 30% of the population. Bulgarians were a substantial minority as well. There was also a sprinkeling of Albanians there. And of course, Greeks. However Greeks were not the dominant group, nor the largest in the city. And they had not been the largest single group since the 15th century.

A similar situation existed throughout those areas which today are part of Northern Greece. A substantial population of Bulgarians and Turks lived in Thrace. the areas of the border with today's FYROM, also were substantially Slavic-inhabited. These are historical facts. So then one would ask the question, why is it that these facts are not also accurately portrayed in the Greek version of history? Why is it then that the Macedonian claim, that in the past those areas were inhabited by Slavs, is wrong? Why is Greece's claim to those areas, any more solid, than the "Macedonian"/Bulgarian claim?

So this issue is not so clear cut as you'd like to portray it. Greece is equally guilty of being a Balkanin country, and having committed the same sins as everyone else in the Balkans. I'm not saying that Greece did anything wrong. All I'm saying is, if one looks at this objectivly your case isn't any stronger than anyone else's case. Those areas were very ethnically mixed, and have alwasy been very ethnically mixed. And greece is equally guilty of trying to fabricate a history and an identity for themselves, as is everyone else in the Balkans. This can be very clearly demonstated by the fact that in Thessalonika in 1912 there were 40 mosques, but today only a single one exists as a museum. Something happened in that city, obviously, to make it so ethnically homogeneous today. What that was, there is no need to be said, unfortunately.

These are things that Greeks need to recognise, that they have gone down this path themselves in the past, and perhaps recognising their own historical faults is a step in going foreward.

----------

As for the ancient Macedonians. You are of course being selective in what you quote about them. Reading Strabo or Thycidi**** and a number of other ancient Greek historians, will provide equally a number of quotations and arguments for the other side. Of course, you like to quote Strabo when he says Macedonia was part of Greece, but I'm certain you don't like to quote Strabo when he says Epirus was not part of Greece, barbarian, and in the same grouping with the Illyrians and Thracians. But lets not go down that road, its not related to the issue at hand.

My point is, selectivly throwing quotes around, will convince only laymen, not a lot of people who are educated in the subject.

There are many versions of what Macedonia and Macedonians were. My version, I feel is a more realistic interpretation.

What we are dealing with, is a process of Hellenization. It is the same process that has been observed in several other places as well, and can be clearly supported. We know for a fact, that there were Greek colonies established on the coast of the Aegean in Macedonia. The Macedonian peoples themselves, prior to this, were not so developed as to have left in the historical or archeological record much to show. These Greek colonies become dominant culturally and economically. This, as in many other places, led to a process of Hellenization of a certain part of the local population. That part being the citiy-dwellers, the ruling class and so forth. So yes, it can be said that Philip or Alexander the Great, were "Greeks", or at the very least that they considered themselves as Greeks. What cannot be said so certainly, is what a local villager somewhere in the hinterland, was.

To back-track a little bit, the archeological record shows a mixture of cultures at different time periods in that region. In western Macedonia, the Illyrian culture seems to be the dominant type, until the time of Philip II. The armour and other objects, are similar or are of Illyrian-type. This can be for the same reasons that Hellenic culture becomes evident afterward, a dominant culture of a specific time and in a specific place. Prior to that however, up until the 8th century BC, we see a Phrygian cultural element as being dominant in the area. This is attested by the presence of Phrygian-style tombs in a wide area of ancient Macedonia. Certainly also it can be said that there was a heavy Thracian pressence there. This is not attested archeologically as much as historically. After all, if you read Strabo, and don't selectivly cut out parts that are not appealing, he speaks of the Thracians of Mygdonia for example, a name that sounds strangely too close to "Macedonia" as well. Mygdonians were a Thracian peoples, according to Strabo and that area corresponds to modern day Thessalonika. Mygdon, was also a Phrygian leader, which also adds to the theory of the Phrygian presence in the area, or at least of a Phrygian cultural dominance in the area, prior to the Hellenic one.

Hellenic culture, certainly, in the historical record does not appear prior to a specific period in time. And it appears as a culture replacing other dominant cultures in the region.

As I was saying earlier, with the presence of the Greek colonies on the Aegean, the Hellenization of the local ruling class, we see the appearance of a "Greek identity" among this ruling class. This ruling class, now attempts to find a historical or mythical connection to portray itself on an equal footing with the rest of the "civilised" world. This is a common practice throughout the ancient world. Your mythical connections, are more important than anything else. This is a phenomenon we see everywhere in the ancient world. So of course, when a Macedonian leader would go to Greece, his reasonsing for why he should be accepted, was becasue he had a mythical connection to a great source. Today such quotations are thrown around without people understanding them too well or their background. Alexander for example claims to be Greek, through a mythical connection to Greeks from another part of Greece, not from Macedonia. It should seem strange to anyone reading those quotations, why in the first place Alexander would need to explain to anyone why he was Greek. It would have been sufficient to say he was a Macedonian, if indeed Macedonians were considered as Greeks, at that time. However, an explonation was needed, and a connection made with another part of Greece. This to say, that yes Alexander was Greek, he may have actually even been been ethnically Greek, from those colonies, or he may have been Greek "by feeling", meaning through Hellenization.

Those things however, should not be as important as rather what were the "Macedonians" themselves, meaning the vast majority of the population that was not in the ruling class and was not in the cities.

A similar example we find in Amphilocia. Amphilocia is on the very edge of Epirus with Greece, and in close distance to the Greek colony of Ambrakia, the main source of Hellenic cultural influence in that part of Epirus. Thycidities tells us that in Amphilocia, there had come a large number of Greek Ambrakian settlers. he says that the Greek language the inhabitants of Amphilocia speak today, they had learend from these Ambrakians, but that the rest of the Amphilocians, were still "barbarian". Here we have a very clear case, although much smaller than Macedonia, of Hellenization and how it worked. Greek settlers had moved into the city, being in close proximity to Ambracia, and had become culturally more dominant. This in turn had led to the addoptation of the Greek language in that city. However, the rest of the Amphilocian tribe, that did not live in that city, had not addopted such a language, but remained "barbarian" (in this case Thycidities is speaking of language). Having been "civilised", the inhabitants of the city had to create a myth, or associate themselves with a mythological entity to give themselves prestige. So the myth created around the city was that Amphiloci had come and ruled over this city, and had thus given it its name.

Today, some historians will claim the Amphiloci were "Greek", because of their mythology over the founding of the city, and because of the fact that, as Thycidities points out, they spoke Greek. However, this is only if one selectivly looks at the evidenc. To the ancient Greek historians, the Amphiloci certainly were not Greeks. Strabo calls them in fact, "barbarians". (yes I know someone will come and tell me that the term "barbarian" could also be applied to not-so-civilised Greeks. If one reads Strabo however, the meaning of that word as he uses it, is all too clear. And besides that term has in fact only been used, besides for all non-Greek people, only to refer to the Macedonians, and in only one case, to the Spartans as a derrogatory term).

The point I'm trying to make, because I'v written far too much than is necessary for this forum, is that the ancient archeological and historical evidence is a confused one, which actually can point to many things if one looks at things selectivly, but in the overall view, points to a mish-mash of things, as was most of the ancient world back then.

Today's historians look at things only selectivly, at least some historians do. They may say for example that Macedonians spoke Greek because they wrote in Greek (based on the few writing samples that have been found). Well, this is all good and simple, if it weren't for the fact that many other non-Greek people also wrote in Greek, because they didn't have a written language of their own. All Illyrian cities and kingdoms, wrote in Greek. The Illyrians however, certainly weren't Greeks and didn't speak Greek, but they had no written language of their own, so they addopted written Greek in the same way as English is used today in parts of the world where clearly the local language isn't English. In Albania for example, there was virtually no written form of Albanian until the 19th century, due to many factors, and instead Greek was used, Latin, and later Turkish for writing. Does this mean that that was the local language? Of course not.

Also some of today's historians take the claims of mythological connection of the Macedonians to the Dorics, at face value. Well, the Dardanians in Illyria in their myth of greatness, connected themselves to Dardanus, the founder of Troy. Are they, therefore, Troyans? For Macedonians to have been Doric, some special skip of history must have occurred. The Macedonians were bordered by Greek people who did not speak the Doric dialect. The Dorics were pretty far away from them, and the cultural development of the Macedonian tribes, compared to the Doric tribes of the time, was very different. What is however explainable, is that the Dorics established colonies on the Aegean coast of Macedonia, and the spread of the Doric dialect among the ruling class, would have happened through that mechanism.

--------

Now, all this in fact still supports Greece's claim that the Macedonians were "Greeks", as they at least felt Greek, at least the ruling class. However, the archeological record indicates the presence of other cultures there prior to the Hellenic one. The historical sources from the Greeks themselves, tell us that there were other peoples living there that were incorporated into Macedonia, Thracian Mygdonia for example, other Thracian tribes and regions as well, Pelagonia and Peionia later on during Philip II. All these say clearly, that regardless what the Macedonians were, what its ruling class was, what the local population spoke and was culturally, there were also large numbers of clearly non-Greek peoples incorporated in there as well, who probably, even outnumbered the "pure Macedonians".

And as such, Macedonia takes on a geographical name, rather than an ethnic connection. And later on, during the time of the Romans, Macedonia truly was a geogrpahical name, as the provice included large parts of Thracia and Illyria as well.

------------

The point I'm trying to make is that there is little that is clear cut in history, especially of that area, as the Greeks of today would like to portray. However, on the other hand, claiming a region because 2000 years ago, you claim your people lived there, is also a little bit ridiculous. Considering of course, that for at least the past 1000 years, that area of Northen Greece, has seen some very drastic ethnic shifts, towards the Slavic.

None of this excuses the modern FYROMs from some of the ridiclous claims they make. However, as I said, greece's issue should be with SOME of the claims they teach, rather than try and change someone's name or precieved identity.

That is not right, and it is a bit petty, especially when the Greek state itself in the past, has been equally guilty of such things. Greece today feels it can put its weight on such countries becasue it is economically more powerfull. That is a temporary condition however, and such behavior is not in the best interests of anyone. It is, typical Balkanism.

[Vorian]

You make some intelligent points but I can point out some mistakes.


First about the status of Macedonia in 20th century, the Greeks were a minority but they were the most numerous group. Meaning that Greeks made about 31-32% of the population, having some 25% Turks, some 30% Bulgarians and the rest Serbians with a small pop. of Albanians. After the wars, there were population exchanges. So everything is pretty much homogenous in the area. As for Thessaloniki, it was Greek until everyone was massacred. Then many inhabited it but it was a multi-ethnic city indeed. However the Turks and Bulgarians were exchanged and the Jews exterminated by the Nazis. So i think we can call it a Greek city now.


And about ancient Macedonians etc. Your username is Molossi clearly by the Mollosoi of Epirus so I don't think arguing in this subject has any value. We can understand your thesis here.

[Molosi]

First about the status of Macedonia in 20th century, the Greeks were a minority but they were the most numerous group. Meaning that Greeks made about 31-32% of the population, having some 25% Turks, some 30% Bulgarians and the rest Serbians with a small pop. of Albanians. After the wars, there were population exchanges. So everything is pretty much homogenous in the area

The problem is defining "that area". Are you talking about Thrace? Are you talking about the northern part of Greece today bordering FYROM? I can assure you, and you probably know, that there were areas where the Greeks were only a small minority out of those areas, and which were incorporated into modern-day Greece regardless. What good reason was there to incorporate those areas into Greece if there were no or few Greeks living there?

Meaning, those areas can be broken down even further, to show that perhaps the Greeks had good reason to incorporate some of them into modern-day Greece, but certainly not all those areas.

As for population exchange, you can call it that I suppose. Another word is ethnic cleansing, as the population exchange was with Turkey, while the Slavic population wasn't exchanged for anything other than Pontic Greeks from Turkey.

And I wouldn't jump so fast as to say the area is now homgeneous ethnically. There certainly remained a large number of Slavic peoples in those areas. How they may be called ethnically homogenous, or by what methods that was achieved, or if it was achieved, is another issue, which given Greece's stance on minorities, isn't so easily answerable.

So don't be so quick to accuse people of things you'r guilty of yourselves.


As for Thessaloniki, it was Greek until everyone was massacred.

I don't know of any massacre of Greeks in the city. The Greek population of Thessalonika stopped being a majority since 1500.


However the Turks and Bulgarians were exchanged and the Jews exterminated by the Nazis. So i think we can call it a Greek city now.


Well as I said, exchanged is a pretty word. How accurately it describes real events, is another story. The Jews are also another story, but Thessalonika was incorporated into Greece even though the population of the city at the time could hardly be described as "Greek". What was the reasoning for that then?


And about ancient Macedonians etc. Your username is Molossi clearly by the Mollosoi of Epirus so I don't think arguing in this subject has any value. We can understand your thesis here.

Well thats not much of a counter-argument.

[valtrex]

As for population exchange, you can call it that I suppose. Another word is ethnic cleansing, as the population exchange was with Turkey, while the Slavic population wasn't exchanged for anything other than Pontic Greeks from Turkey

Sources please?


And I wouldn't jump so fast as to say the area is now homgeneous ethnically. There certainly remained a large number of Slavic peoples in those areas. How they may be called ethnically homogenous, or by what methods that was achieved, or if it was achieved, is another issue, which given Greece's stance on minorities, isn't so easily answerable

Sources please?


I don't know of any massacre of Greeks in the city. The Greek population of Thessalonika stopped being a majority since 1500

Sources please?


The Jews are also another story, but Thessalonika was incorporated into Greece even though the population of the city at the time could hardly be described as "Greek". What was the reasoning for that then?

Sources please?

[Molosi]

If you don't know your own history, why are you expecting me to teach you about it?

[Paya]

need i say more? :-D

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9885/fyromeroo7.jpg


Whoa...


Take a look at this video (english subs) that i posted a couple of pages above

Definitely, its the official stance of FYROM's educational system. Sad, pathetic, unfair but true.
Well, to be honest, I'm more dumbstruck than anything. I quite like the Makedonci (that's what we Serbs call them), I've been there a couple of times, and fell completely in love with the country. Well, the people, actually. They're funny, fun-loving, and kinda... Well, happy! In spite of living in a poor and unstable country, they're some of the most content people I've met.

Now, I did see the Vergina Sun during my stay there, as well as the Bulgarian lion, but I didn't thought of it as the appropriation of history. I don't know what i thought, but I didn't think that! But if a professor at Skopje University (or maybe even dean, I don't remember) is convinced that Macedonian Slavs are descendants of ancient Macedonians, than the problem is almost unsolvable.

Logic dictates that Greeks shouldn't give a damn what Macedonian Slavs call themselves, or think they are, as long as the Greeks know what they themselves are. But than again, I'm not a Greek, and no one is stealing perhaps the most glorious part of my history. I just hope that this problem is solved with both sides saving face.

[chris450]

If you don't know your own history, why are you expecting me to teach you about it?

valtrex just asked for some sources that could back up your claims...and you call him ignorant instead ?

you could at least say you dont have any or dont have the time to post them...please dont insult us,we are not stupid,and there is no need at all to create tension over nothing

@Paya

i have to agree that generally they are a nice bunch,this is by no means a dispute of this sort...its not even a dispute over names and definitions...the problem is the territorial claims that follow their state sponsored propaganda...it is shown quite clear in the images above...their border reach the Aegean sea,engulfing the neighbouring Greek region in all the depictions of '"Macedonia" as they dream of it....its even in their constitution...the name is just a vehicle,the means to legitimise their claims..

[Vorian]

The problem is defining "that area". Are you talking about Thrace? Are you talking about the northern part of Greece today bordering FYROM? I can assure you, and you probably know, that there were areas where the Greeks were only a small minority out of those areas, and
which were incorporated into modern-day Greece regardless. What good reason was there to incorporate those areas into Greece if there were no or few Greeks living there?

Meaning, those areas can be broken down even further, to show that perhaps the Greeks had good reason to incorporate some of them into modern-day Greece, but certainly not all those areas.

Population in Macedonia was mixed there were no "ethnic areas" just Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek and Turkish villages scattered around.




As for population exchange, you can call it that I suppose. Another word is ethnic cleansing, as the population exchange was with Turkey, while the Slavic population wasn't exchanged for anything other than Pontic Greeks from Turkey.

Actually there was an exchange between Bulgaria and Greece for the exchange of Slavic and Greek speaking populations.



And I wouldn't jump so fast as to say the area is now homgeneous ethnically. There certainly remained a large number of Slavic peoples in those areas. How they may be called ethnically homogenous, or by what methods that was achieved, or if it was achieved, is another issue, which given Greece's stance on minorities, isn't so easily answerable.

So don't be so quick to accuse people of things you'r guilty of yourselves.


"large number", no. Small slavic communities, yes. They number a few thousands and exist mainly around the town Florina.



I don't know of any massacre of Greeks in the city. The Greek population of Thessalonika stopped being a majority since 1500.

Thessaloniki was hard to get and the Turks entered only after the Sultan promised his men full freedom to do as they please when they entered. Not many survived this. After that the Greeks were a minority in the town.




Well as I said, exchanged is a pretty word. How accurately it describes real events, is another story. The Jews are also another story, but Thessalonika was incorporated into Greece even though the population of the city at the time could hardly be described as "Greek". What was the reasoning for that then?


Thessaloniki was the largest city of a region full of Greeks. According to this logic, all the cities in Greece are Turkish,as before the revolution the Turks were the main city-dwellers.


Well thats not much of a counter-argument.

It is a perfect one. Your choice of username brands you as one of the Albanian nationalists. Or at least that's what somebody can assume. So it's perfectly logical to assume that you will be biased against Greece in general.

[Vorian]

Logic dictates that Greeks shouldn't give a damn what Macedonian Slavs call themselves, or think they are, as long as the Greeks know what they themselves are. But than again, I'm not a Greek, and no one is stealing perhaps the most glorious part of my history. I just hope that this problem is solved with both sides saving face.


It's not about history. It's about being careful now, so that you don't have problems later. As a Serbian you can understand that through indirect means you can find a part of your ancestral land snatched away.

And no, FYROM's dreams of greatness alone do not pose a risk, but that could change in the future. And they can be used by other "players" of the region. Do you know one country that recognised them from the start? You can guess.

[Molosi]

valtrex just asked for some sources that could back up your claims...and you call him ignorant instead ?

you could at least say you dont have any or dont have the time to post them...please dont insult us,we are not stupid,and there is no need at all to create tension over nothing


There was no intention to insult or call anyone ignorant. The events of the Balkan wars are well known and well documented.

This is a map prepared by the Germans following WW1, showing the ethnic distributions of the time.
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7231/bigmkd2pb4.jpg

Of course there are many takes on this, however most will agree, in Thrace and in what is today Northern Greece, Greeks were not a majority or even the largest ethnic group.


Population in Macedonia was mixed there were no "ethnic areas" just Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek and Turkish villages scattered around.


Well there were villages scattered around everywhere, no doubt. However certain areas were heavily ethnic in one way or another. Which areas were mainly ethnically Greek? The answer to that can be seen on that map above.


"large number", no. Small slavic communities, yes. They number a few thousands and exist mainly around the town Florina.


I would say probably about 100,000 or so. True, nothing significant, but not small either. By the last census where ethnicity was asked in Greece, I think sometimes in the 50s, that number was around 50,000.


Thessaloniki was the largest city of a region full of Greeks. According to this logic, all the cities in Greece are Turkish,as before the revolution the Turks were the main city-dwellers.


The areas around Thessaloniki were not full of Greeks. Thessaloniki rested in a heavily Slavic area. The city itself wasn't Slavic however, but its surroundings were. And Thessalonik itself wasn't a Greek city either. By the 1912 data, the population was 61,439 Jews, 45,867 Muslims, 39,956 Greeks and 10,660 of other nationalities. (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Contributions/20010704_Nar.html ) So the question then becomes, what was the reasoning for Greece taking this city then? I'm not trying to argue one way or another, but the statements made by some Greeks here make it sound as if this area which today is Northern Greece, was alwasy inhabited by Greeks and was as homogenous as it is today. That certainly wasn't the case 100 years ago.


It is a perfect one. Your choice of username brands you as one of the Albanian nationalists.

Thats your take on it. It still doesn't answer anything, now does it.

---------

I'm not trying to support FYROM arguments here. As I said they really have no value. However, the Greek stance is equally a wrong one. This is a far more complicated issue, that bullying will not resolve, but only postpone for a later date. Greece today feels confident in its economic prosperity, but thats not to mean that in the future the surrounding countries will be as dependent on it as they are now.

[Molosi]

Do you know one country that recognised them from the start? You can guess

Huh? Albania? :) You give us too much credit ;)


As a Serbian you can understand that through indirect means you can find a part of your ancestral land snatched away.


Well Serbian claims to Kosovo are about as founded as FYROM claims to Greece. But if you feel it necessary to associate your cause with theirs, go right ahead.

[chris450]

thats a really strange map Molosi....coz it seems that only a couple years before the Germans did not find a "Mazedonien" ethnicity and Skopje was predominatly Bulgarian......the year is 1908...

PS btw are you familiar with the 1912-1918 war in the region and the different camps that waged it? it explains a lot ,i think...the "Macedonian" question sprung initially as a by-product of the Bulgarian nationalist movement,dont forget that...

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3121/balkansethnographicmapaeh8.jpg


another German map....nope....no Macedonians here too



http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/8831/eth29ok.jpg




and yet another one....curiously no "Macedonians" here either

http://www.banatul.com/banatul-images/map-banat-ravenstein1880a.jpg

http://www.banatul.com/banatul-images/map-banat-ravenstein1880b.jpg


1847...No "Macedonians"

http://www.history-of-macedonia.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/MapbyAmiBoue1847.jpg


yes,yet another German ethnographic map of Europe...No "Macedonians"


http://www.history-of-macedonia.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/VolkerkartevonMittel-undSudosteuropa.jpg



1923 Races of Balkans...No "Macedonians"...yeap


http://www.history-of-macedonia.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/races_balkan_shepherd_1923.jpg


"Macedonien" lands...No "Macedonians"...strange huh?

hmmm..Vardar? interesting


http://www.history-of-macedonia.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/makedonienlandschaftsundkultur.jpg

i'd say that there are 2 things happening...1)all the cartographers were so dumb that they "forgot" to put the inexistant "Macedonians" in their maps..2)someone created a "nationality" out of zero later on,to serve his own agenda...






anyway ,valtrex quoted many abstracts of your post asking for some sources....to tell you the truth i am as curious as he is...:)

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

Some more maps of the region "Vardarska"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/f/ff/Kgr._Jugoslawien.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Vardar003.png
http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/178.gif
http://www.montenet.org/history/banovina.gif
http://chicago.agrino.org/images/Vardarska_1939_560_bg.gif
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3740/vardarskalz1.jpg

[achilles]

Sources please?



Sources please?



Sources please?



Sources please?

:lol: :lol: That was the dominant question popping up on my mind while reading Mollosi's posts. Its easy for anyone to create a brand new version of history out of nowhere.


Mollosi my friend, until you tell us where have you read all those spicy things you are telling us, you dont worth a single point of refutation.

[achilles]

I'm not trying to support FYROM arguments here. As I said they really have no value. However, the Greek stance is equally a wrong one. This is a far more complicated issue, that bullying will not resolve, but only postpone for a later date. Greece today feels confident in its economic prosperity, but thats not to mean that in the future the surrounding countries will be as dependent on it as they are now.

Well "Molosi", i will not bother at all with your historical arguments since there is hardly any historicity in them, unless you manage to back up your claims somehow, which i dont see happening any time soon.

Just a small comment on "bullying".
Greece bullying? Quite the opposite i would say. We are taking it VERY easy with the Skops, even after the partition of Yugoslavia when they escalated their provocations.

Bullying would be for example if we posed a casus beli on them regarding the use of the term "Macedonia" or any other Greek element used inappropriately.

Bullying would be if we violated their FIR in order to display superior firepower and deter their ultranationalist ambitions.

Bullying would be if we bombed the hell out of their airport right after they named it "Alexander the Great".

This is bullying. Greece is trying to be overly reconciliatory and consistent in seeking consensus.

The FYROManiacs are the ones being inflexible and stubborn, curtesy of the neo-con superpower accross the Atlantic.

[chris450]

i dont think we can blame the neo-cons or anyone else for that matter...i would put the blame -first and foremost- on our non existant reaction ,and our general policy on the issue....you dont have to bomb someone to to apply pressure...the Intermediate accord was a mistake,and keeping it alive despite numerous provocations by the other party(there was a strict term to abstain from such bahaviour ,in the agreement) was also a mistake...

for many years our governments turned the bling eye on what was coming...it was "just another annoying issue" to our FMs...these are the results..you reap what you sow

Molosi is just throwing fireworks..it is easy when you are out of the game...The Greek (passive) stance on the territorial claims by FYROM was "bullying" according to that logic....armed rebellion in Preshevo,FYROM and Kosovo (and threats to other neighbouring states inclluding to us) is obviously "not bullying" ,its completely justified....i think the contradiction is self evident

[achilles]

i dont think we can blame the neo-cons or anyone else for that matter...

Sure Chris,

i dont blame the Americans for creating this issue, i blame the American neo cons, i.e. the Bush family and the rest of the good fellas surrounding them, for ferociously supporting the puppet-state up North.

Other than that, if Greece really wanted to shut the vocal mouths of the Skops 15 years ago, she would have done so. In a sense, we reap what we sow during the early 90s.


What follows is a history lesson for Molosi...

[achilles]

The evidence is so overwhelmingly against your theories that I can't resist refuting a couple of basic elements of your “historical” argument. Here we go…


The name Macedonia is a territorial geographical name. It has meant only that for the past 2500 years. That territory has always encompassed a mutli-ethnic crowd of peoples. It is by no deffinition as easy and clean as you'd like to make it sound when you quote Herodotus. You'r basing your claims on myths created by a ruling class at a later period of time. I don't tink you have a very good understanding here of what we'r dealing with, if the ancient excuse is what you Greeks want to go for.

The territory SURROUNDING Macedonia was multi ethnic, pretty much as it is today, and not Macedonia itself, which was purely Hellenic (the Macedonians were of Dorian stock), irrespective of what certain political cronies from Athens, like Demosthenes, used to say. Since you are not happy with Herodotus, let me quote a few non-Greek ancient people regarding their perception of the Macedonians:

Quintus Curtius Rufus

Alexander also summoned the delegates of the League of Corinth in order to have himself declared its Hegemon and, when he had obtained their support for his expedition against Persia, he returned to Macedonia (Diod. 17.4.9) The government of Persia had undergone a number of changes since Philip II first organized the Greek crusade against the East.
The History of Alexander - Penguin Classics, Translation by John Yardley, page 20


“One of the latter was Thais. She too had had too much to drink, when she claimed that, if Alexander gave the order to burn the Persian palace, he would earn the deepest gratitude among all the Greeks. This was what the people whose cities the Persians ahd destroyed were expecting she said. As the drunken whore gave her opinion on a matter of extreme importance, one or two who were themselves the worse for drink agreed with her. the king, too, was enthusiastic rather than acquiescent. “Why do we not avenge Greece, then and put the city to the torch?” he asked.”
(Quintus Curtius Rufus 5. 7. 3)

This is what the Cathaginians used to say:


In the presence of Zeus, Hera, and Apollo: in the presence of the Genius of Carthage, of Heracles, and Iolaus: in the presence of Ares, Triton, and Poseidon: in the presence of the gods who battle for us and the Sun, Moon, and Earth; in the presence of Rivers, Lakes, and Waters: 3 in the presence of all the gods who possess Macedonia and the REST of Greece: in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath. 4 Thus saith Hannibal the general, and all the Carthaginian senators with him, and all Carthaginians serving with him, that as seemeth good to you and to us, so should we bind ourselves by oath to be even as friends, kinsmen, and brothers, on these conditions. 5 (1) That King Philip and the Macedonians and the REST of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect the Carthaginians…
The Histories of Polybius, VII, 9, 4 (Loeb, W. R. Paton)

There are endless Roman, Carthaginian, Persian, Jewish, Indian, Babylonian, among others, quotes available that prove my point. I don’t want to overload the thread so I stop here. If you are interested please pass me your e-mail I will be glad to send it over.



Archeology shows that the dominant culture in the area by the 8th century BC was an Illiro-Phrygian culture.

What archaelogy? Conducted when? By whom? For how long? Names, places, sources, quotes, pictures, excerpts, ANYTHING that would somehow substantiate your claims?

Let me talk to you about archaeology:
This is a tablet found in Dispilio, Kastoria, Western Macedonia. It has been dated back to 5260B.C. The following picture shows the correspondence of the letters inscripted on this table to Linear A, the forefather of Linear B and subsequently the Hellenic language.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c259/panosvls/Pinakida_1.gif?t=1165726776

Were those people non-Greek, or non-Dorian if you like? Or were they Hellenized before 5260BC by aliens?

And a little something about the “Pella katadesmos”, just in cased you missed Valtrex’s post:


The Pella katadesmos is a katadesmos (a curse, or magic spell) inscribed on a lead scroll, probably dating to between 380 and 350 BC. It was found in Pella (at the time capital of Macedon) in 1986; it was published in the Hellenic Dialectology Journal in 1993.

The former opinion is concurred by the Oxford Classical Dictionary, in which Professor Olivier Masson writes: "Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it {i.e. Macedonian} an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet (4th cent. BC) which may well be the first 'Macedonian' text attested (provisional publication by E.Voutyras; cf. the Bulletin Epigraphique in Rev. Et. Grec. 1994, no.413); the text includes an adverb "opoka" which is not Thessalian." (OCD, 1996, pp 905, 906).

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/macedonian-archeology-artifacts/97-pella-katadesmos.html


After this we see the establishment of Greek colonies on the Aegean coast of Macedonia, and we see Greek culture spreading for the first time. My opinion is that we are dealing with Hellenization, Hellenization from those Greek colonies on the coast, which hellenized the ruling class of the Macedonians. In order to be accepted, they created myths of their Greek heritage, such as Alexander's myth.

I wont ask for sources again, cause it seems to be futile. The “Hellenization” card is cheap and makes hardly any point. You and your likes, who are being taught a certain warped version of history, perceive ANY non-Greek piece of archaeological evidence found in Macedonia in order to support the “Hellenization” theory. What if I find a Celtic sword in, say, Pella? Will I then claim that Macedonia is Celtic, and it’s the Celts who have been Hellenized? Lets not insult out intelligence here with those silly “Hellenization” theories…

[achilles]

This is what Molosi claimed:

However, Alexander claims to be a descendent of Greeks from elsewhere in Greece, not from Macedonia.

Did he tell you that over the phone or he just e-mailed you?


Sources? Nevermind…

And this is the truth:


So the question isn't, was Alexander the Great a Greek or not. That really doesn't even matter. The question is, were the Macedonians Greeks?

Oh yes. Alexander was Greek and the Macedonians were Greek, simply because they identified themselves as such. And when Alexander was identifying himself and his army as Hellenes IN FRONT OF HIS ARMY, this means that even average Macedonians perceived themselves as Hellenes. We both know that an average Macedonian soldier could not have been part of the Macedonian elite. Enjoy….


In reality we have only scarce evidence on what ancient Macedonians believed for themselves. However i will try to collect the available literary and archaeological evidence that would shed some light on the beliefs of ancient Macedonians during Classical and Hellenistic Ages. The available evidence shows that Macedonians considered themselves to be Greek.

Alexander I, king of Macedon
Quote:
Men of Athens... Had I not greatly AT HEART the COMMON welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; but I AM MYSELF GREEK by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. ...If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON.'
[Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]

Quote:
Tell your king who sent you how his GREEK viceroy of Macedonia has received you hospitably... "
Herodotus V, 20, 4 (Loeb, A.D. Godley)

Alexander III (the Great)

In his letter to the king of the Persians:
Quote:
Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did US great harm, though WE had done them no prior injury [...] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks [...]
(Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)

ALEXANDER TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF AND MACEDONIANS
BEING GREEK AND FIGHTING FOR GREECE:

Quote:
...............There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service --
but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
pay--- and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for
GREECE, and our hearts will be in it.
As for our FOREIGN troops ---Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes --- they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of
Asia.

Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.

Quote:
He set the Persian palace on fire, even though parmenio urged him to save it, arguing that it was not right to destroy his own property, and that the Asians would not thus devote themselves to him, if he seemed determined not to rule Asia, but only to pass through as a conqueror.
but Alexander replied that he intended to punish the persians for their invasion of Greece, the destruction of Athens, the burning of the temples, and all manner of terrible things done to the Greeks: because of these things, he was exacting revenge.
but Alexander does not seem to me to have acted prudently, nor can it be regarded as any kind of punishment upon Persians of long ago.
[Arrian Anab. 3. 18. 11-12].

Quote:
On this occasion, he [Alexander] made a very long speech to the Thessalians and the other Greeks, and when he saw that they encouraged him with shouts to lead them against the Barbarians, he shifted his lance into his left hand, and with his right appealed to the gods, as Callisthenes tells us, praying them, if he was really sprung from Zeus, to defend and strengthen the Greeks.
[Plutarch. Alexander (ed. Bernadotte Perrin) XXXIII]


Hellenism is a very broad term “Molosi” (keep in mind that the Mollosian were an ancient Epirotan,i.e. Hellenic tribe). Not all Hellenes were drawn from the same genetic pool and frankly which group of people has? “Hellenism” is the resultant of many parameters, including the amalgamation of various groups of people into one with a sense of solidarity and a sense of “Hellenism”.

If you are to link the Macedonians with anyone, that would be the Greeks anyway you look at it. If you are still not convinced, allow me to provide you with further sources, references and ancient, medieval and modern quotes regarding Macedonia and its character.

[valtrex]

@Molosi
My dear fellow, I do not like your attitude. You come here, making claims about ethnic cleansing committed by us Greeks in the past, without providing any credible sources...you're the one who is making the accusations, you must provide proofs that back up your claims


If you don't know your own history, why are you expecting me to teach you about it?
Unfortunately for you dear Molosi, it happens that I'm a Philologist with major in Byzantine Philology and Laography (http://www.uoa.gr/uoauk/uoaindex.htm), so, when someone is making claims, my scientific mind expects from him to provide credible sources ;)


As for population exchange, you can call it that I suppose. Another word is ethnic cleansing, as the population exchange was with Turkey, while the Slavic population wasn't exchanged for anything other than Pontic Greeks from Turkey

In 1922-1924, an exchange of populations took place in Macedonia. The Turks of Macedonia were exchanged with the Greeks of Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace, as well as the Bulgarians of Macedonia with the Greeks of Bulgaria (Eastern Rumelia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rumelia)). The President of the Commission of the League of Nations, who supervised the exchange, the renown American Henry Morgenthau, writes in his book [i]"I was sent to Athens" (1929): "Macedonia became a purely Greek area, following the departure of the Turks and the Bulgarians".
The Neuilly Treaty (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Neuilly) arranged for the exchange of the Greek Population living in Bulgaria and the Slavic population living in Greece. The corresponding numbers were 53,000 Greeks and 92,000 Slavs. The only minority (since the Slavs were supposed to go following the Neuilly Treaty) left in N. Greece was a Muslim one in Thrace.
The League of Nations in 1926, mentions: Greeks 1,341,000 (88.8%), Bulgarians 77,000 (5.1%), various other nationalities (mainly Jews) 91,000 (6.0%) and Turks 2,000 (0.1%). The League of Nations also provides figures from an earlier conducted Ottoman census, dating from before the Turks departure (1906). This cencus raises the percentage of Greeks to 42.6%, of Muslims (Turks mainly and Albanians) to 39.4% and of Slavs (Serbs and Bulgarians) to 9.9%; see League of Nations: "Greek Refugee Settlement, Annex, Geneva"


And I wouldn't jump so fast as to say the area is now homgeneous ethnically. There certainly remained a large number of Slavic peoples in those areas. How they may be called ethnically homogenous, or by what methods that was achieved, or if it was achieved, is another issue, which given Greece's stance on minorities, isn't so easily answerable
My dear fellow, the Slavic element that remained in the area, after the exchange of populations (according to the treaty of Neuilly), was not ethnically homogenous either (Serbs, Bulgarians, Slavophones with Greek National Identity). With the establishment of the "Autonomous Republic of Macedonia" by Tito in 1946, the Yugoslav government had two objectives: 1) The reinforcement of Southern Yugoslavia, to succeed in effectively removing any Bulgarian influence or aspiration for this region - because undoubtedly the Bulgarian presence in that area was quite strong and pro-Bulgarian tendencies were powerful, and 2) to unite Macedonia as a whole-that is, not only the Yugoslav part of it, but also the Greek part and the Bulgarian part, a connecting link in establishing a "Socialist Federation of the Balkan peoples" (sic). What we're witnessing today in the region, are the "remnants" of the Greek civil war & the communist attempt in the '40's to create a "Balkan Federation of Socialist Peoples" (The Bled Protocols, 10th session of the Bulgarian Communist Party, August 1946, the Tito-Dimitrov meeting).
BTW, the first "premier" of the new republic of "Macedonia" was Dimitar Vlahov, who had been an outspoken Bulgarian during the first decade of the 20th century, was an elected Bulgarian delegate to the Ottoman Parliament, became leader of the "IMRO-United" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Macedonian_Revolutionary_Organization) (known as VMRO or BMPO in Cyrillic) in 1925, and in the following years declared himself an "authentic Macedonian" (sic).


The areas around Thessaloniki were not full of Greeks. Thessaloniki rested in a heavily Slavic area. The city itself wasn't Slavic however, but its surroundings were

That's BS. in the late 6th and early 7th centuries A.D., some Slavic groups moved towards the southern areas and settled in the Greek territories, where they formed Slavic enclaves - named "Sklavinies" by Byzantine sources - especially in west Macedonia and Thessaly. Being cultivators and cattle breeders, they settled mainly on mountain slopes, less often in the plains and very rarely near the sea, as can be ascertained from toponymic material.
For slavic toponyms, see the basic work by M. Vasmer, "The Slavs in Greece", Berlin 1941, pp. 176-229
A basic policy of the Byzantine administration was a demographic measure, the forcible transfer of populations. By transferring Slavic populations to Asia Minor, the Byzantine empire achieved two things: 1) on one hand the Slavic element in the Greek area was weakened, and on the other hand assimilation was facilitated, since Slavs who were transferred to Asia Minor found themselves amidst a flourishing and numerous Greek population. But this demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Greek populations from Asia Minor were transplanted into Slavic populations ("epi tas Sklavinias") in order to reinforce the Greek element in these areas. Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus I (802-811) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicephorus_I) established in the northern Greek area populations which he transferred from all administrative districts ("ek pantos thematos") of Asia Minor.
The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers (Washington D.C., August 3-8, 1986) New York 1986, pp. 345-367
Furthermore the new adminstrative organization of Themata (http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-590490/theme) that was generally put into practice during this critical period, reinforced imperial rule and made control of Slavic groups more effective. Between 680 and 685 the "thema of Thrace" was established and in in 695 for the first time the "thema of Hellas" is mentioned. In the 9th c. reorganization was further reinforced by a division into smaller administrative units - a general tendency of the era: the "Thema of Macedonia" with Andrianople as capital (mentioned for the first time in 802); the "thema of Strymon" and the "thema of Thessaloniki" were established at that time.
We find out, therefore, that the Byzantine state followed a realistic and consistent policy in order to cope with the problem of Slav settlers, a policy that led to the control and integration of Slavic races by the empire. In this way the Byzantine state contributed decisively to their assimilation by the indigenous population and to their Hellenization.
Now let's move to my area of interest, Laography:
1) The almost total lack of remnants of Slavic civilization (burial customs, dwellings, techniques and types of ceramics) testifies to this assimilation, which of course, could never have been achieved without the presence of an indigenous Greek population.
2) Travellers who visited Macedonia during the Ottoman domination referred to the inhabitants as Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians or Serbs and never as a separate nation, Macedonians.
3) The whole culture and artistic production of the area was purely Greek and greatly influenced SE Europe during the years of the Ottoman domination. The main characteristics of the culture of the Slavs during the first period of their settlement in the Balkan Peninsula are: a) the burning of the dead, b) hand-made ceramics with certain shapes and decorations, and c) half-underground hut for dwelling. However, except for two rare exceptions (15 urns containing the ashes of the dead and some vases), no indisputably Slavic objects have been found on Greek soil.
As Paul Lemerle writes, "Byzantium christianized, civilized and assimilated these Slavs, making them Greeks. And this is one of the most impressive victories of the Greek genius"
P. Lemerle, "La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: le commentaire historique et legendaire", Revue des Etudes Byzantines 21 (1963), p. 49
So, by the 9th century AD, the Slavs living in N.Greece, are completely assimilated by the more prosperous & culturally more developed indigenous Greeks.
The Slavs found in the area in the 19th-20th c. AD., were moved there during the Ottoman occupation and especially during the "dark ages" of our history, the 15th-17th century AD (named dark ages, due to lack of written historical material).
...just my 0.02 eurocents.

[achilles]

...just my 0.02 eurocents.

That was not 2 eurocents. That was a million € of factual argumentation on Molosi's head.

We are all longing for you to back up your claims, Molosi.

[chris450]

@Valtrex

Bravo! thats summed it up very well

@Achilles

Sure Chris,

i dont blame the Americans for creating this issue, i blame the American neo cons, i.e. the Bush family and the rest of the good fellas surrounding them, for ferociously supporting the puppet-state up North.

Other than that, if Greece really wanted to shut the vocal mouths of the Skops 15 years ago, she would have done so. In a sense, we reap what we sow during the early 90s.as a matter of principle i never blame others for pursuing their own interests..its only nature,it would be unnatural for the US administration to act against their interest(or how the present administration percieves that)...there is no sentimentalism here,only hard facts and pure logic..

(and for the same purpose not only i think the antiamericanism sponsored by the leftist wing is counterproductive,but also stupid..)

so consequently i must ask myself the following question...what are WE doing to protect our interests,and to convince our US allies that the stability in the region is in their best interest too?in one word...nothing

we just try to manage the outcome of our passive stance..

lobbying was created for a reason...just take a look at whats going on in the Senate halls...millions of dollars spent on law firms and other companies to promote different agendas...we just watch..i believe this is called the freerider syndrome

sorry for the OT guys ,just had to let it off my chest :)

[achilles]

sorry for the OT guys ,just had to let it off my chest :)

Roger that.

I dont blame the US for being egoistic either. All countries tend to behave similarly. I just disagree with the means through which those goals are being pursuit.

The US hardly ever wanted the Balkans to be a stable and peaceful region. That may sound strange to American users around here but thats they way it's always been. The Americans have largely applied the "divide & conquer" principle in the Balkans in order for their game to be played. Thats what i disagree with and thats precisely what the US support towards the "Republic of Macedonia" and "Independent Kosovo" is all about. Creating spots of tension here and there so that the strings of the participant countries can be easily pulled.

There are always more nobble means to achieve ends.


And i agree that leftish anti-Americanism in Greece is plain stupid. Criticism of US policies is not.

Rant off at this end! :P

[Dodge]

I also side with Greece on this issue. I also think they should revert to the 1920 borders, but that's a whole other issue right there.

[Molosi]

The numbers and figures you are pointing to, as you see, are from 1926. That is after the "population exchanges" had already happened, so of course the Greek element would be the dominant one, at that time.

My argument was purely academic. I'm not supporting claims of Macedonia or anyone else here. What I'm saying is, there was large non-Greeks populations in that area, prior to the population exchanges, and areas which today are part of Greece where there was very little of a Greek ethnic element in them. If you'r going to accuse Macedonia of showing historical maps extending into northern Greece, then you must also accept the fact that these areas were not populated by Greeks at that time either. So what is Macedonia doing that is so wrong, in showing historical maps of that sort?

Second, regardless whether those mpas show a "Macedonian" ethnos or not, is irrelevent. They do show a Slavic element in all of those maps. I already said from the very beggining that the Macedonian Slavic ethnos is a creation, not a real ethnos. But that is irrelevent as well. If they want to create that identity for themselves, no one has the right to stop them from doing so, anymore than anyone has the right to tell the Bosnians that there is no such ethnos, or the Montenegrins that they are not different from Serbs. Who are you to impose such a thing on another nation?

Third, yes sources. No problem.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Molosi http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2855771#post2855771)
As for population exchange, you can call it that I suppose. Another word is ethnic cleansing, as the population exchange was with Turkey, while the Slavic population wasn't exchanged for anything other than Pontic Greeks from Turkey

Sources please?


Well to be fair I didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. There were at least 2 waves of "population exchnage" in that area. The first wasn't an exchange, but a forced expulsion of a Bulgarian element from the areas.

There were some figures that came out of the area of Macedonia during the pre-Balkan wars period. Admittedly, I got these from a pro-Macedonian source, however the figures are from the era. If anyone has a problem with them, they can refute them with other statistics from the era to show otherwise. For the area of Macedonia, which includes Vardar Macedonia and Aegean macedonia (the area added to Greece later on). According to the German K. Ostreich in 1905 there were 1,500,000 Slavs, 550,000 Turks and others, and 200,000 Greeks in that area. According to the Austrian K. Gersin in 1908, there were 1,182,036 Slavs, 627,915 Turks and others, and 228,702 Greeks. According to the British Andrew Rousos there were 1,150,000 Slavs, 400,000 Turks and others and 300,000 Greeks. According to the Serb Gopchevich in 1886 there were 1,540,000 Slavs (he classifies them as Serbs, but that is not important. Slavs is more important), 397,020 Turks and others, and 201,000 Greeks. According to the Bulgarian Kenchov in 1900 there were 1,037,000 Slavs (he calls them Bulgarian), 610,365 Turks and others, and 214,000 Greeks.

The only source which claims Greeks as a dominant number in Macedonia, are greek sources. All the others range between 200,000 and 300,000, but are outnumbered considerably by both other main groups (although to understand, when they say "Turks", they generally mean anyone who is muslim).

Obviously the situation changed following the Balkan wars. How this was done, is not important. But it was done, that much we can all agree on? If that is the case, one has to wonder, why was this done? What were greece's claims to this land where they were not major inhabitants? And why was Greece's actions in the Balkan wars more acceptable to you than the Macedonians putting up some historical maps of that situation?

That, smells like denial of history, but not so much by the Macedonian side.

As for the mechanisms, which is I think what you wanted me to elaborate more on, becasue you feel i was accusing you of "genocide". I wasn't accusing you of anything, history however speaks for itself and there is no need for accusations or getting defensive. Greece didn't do anything that every other Balkan nation didn't do in the Balkan Wars. Prior to the population exchanges, when the Greek army entered this area, forced expulsions and other acts did occur. The Carnegie Commission, made up of observers from several western countries, reported on many similar actions throughout the Balkan wars. According to them, in Aegean Macedonia, the Greek army burned down 170 villages with 17,000 houses. The people who lived there, I would assume, didn't remain there. The rest of the Slavic population in Aegean Macedonia, which according to various sources ranged from 119,000 (lowest Greek estimate, "Ethnic Map of Greek Macedonia Showing the Ratio Between Various Ethnic Elements in 1912 and 1926"), to 199,000 (highest Greek estimate, Athenian newspaper, "Message d' Aten" February 15, 1913), to 206,000 (Bulgarian estimate, Rumenov, 1928), to 250,000 (Serbian estimate, Bora Milojevich), was exchanged later on. The same for the Turkish population, which was at least as high if not more.


Originally Posted by Molosi http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2855771#post2855771)
And I wouldn't jump so fast as to say the area is now homgeneous ethnically. There certainly remained a large number of Slavic peoples in those areas. How they may be called ethnically homogenous, or by what methods that was achieved, or if it was achieved, is another issue, which given Greece's stance on minorities, isn't so easily answerable
Sources please?


The last greek census where the question of ethnic origins was asked, I believe was sometimes in the 1950s. At that time, some 50,000 people from that area declared themselves as Slavic-speaking. Today, one can assume that population is obviously more numerous, shall we say 100,000? True that is a minority, but its not small. And this again is after the Balkan wars.

This is the official Greek census at least. How truthful, accurate or realistic it is, is another question. However, even that one shows that even following all the events of the Balkan Wars, there still remained a sizable Slavic population.



I don't know of any massacre of Greeks in the city. The Greek population of Thessalonika stopped being a majority since 1500
Sources please?


According to Ottoman cadastral records, in Thessalonika in 1500 there were 7,986 Greeks and 8,575 Muslims (the term "Greek", in the Ottoman books, alwasy refers to people belonging to the Greek orthodox church, not to a specific ethnicity). By 1519 there were added another 15,715 Jews expelled from various parts of Europe.



The Jews are also another story, but Thessalonika was incorporated into Greece even though the population of the city at the time could hardly be described as "Greek". What was the reasoning for that then?
Sources please?

I already provided information regarding that. By the 1912 data, the population was 61,439 Jews, 45,867 Muslims, 39,956 Greeks and 10,660 of other nationalities. http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Contributions/20010704_Nar.html Thats a Greek source.

----------

I hope I have answered the questions as best as I could.

----------

Now, regarding the quotes from Ancient Macedonia. I don't know if you read what I wrote earlier or not, maybe not. All these quotes speak of the ethnic connection one person or another of the Macedonian ruling class makes. They'r not exactly revealing in any way. Herodotus on the other hand hands us down myths of mythical connections, myths which most likely were an invention of the Macedonian ruling class, as were similar myths from many other peoples from the area as well.

I already pointed out one problem why such myths or such sources should not be taken on face value. They are good to impress only laymen. To claim Macedonians were Doric, is a bit ridiculous, given the location of the Doric tribes at that time in history, and theyr cultural development. None of this matches with the Macedonians at all. The Macedonians, if they were Greeks, would have been related to the Thessalians, not the Dorics.

The spread of Doric, and the myth of a Doric connection, comes as a result of the establishment of Doric colonies on the Aegean coast (colonies, weren't founded on lands inhabited by Greeks). This was the main source of Hellenization of the Macedonian ruling class, which, as I said earlier, by that time in period could certainly be described as "Greek", becasue thats how they identified themselves as.

Now you mention Demosthenes and say, well regardless what he says... Well you can't be selective and pick and chose. The Macedonians, as a race, were regarded low by the Greeks, prior to Alexander. Demosthenes regards them as barbarians and as a source of slaves for the Greeks before. Well, what he's saying is in fact probably very true. It fits in with my theory that I explained earlier, that we are dealing with a Hellenized peoples here, and whose enemies would use the fact that they were not ethnically Greeks to put them down.

Of course no one again addressed any of the points I raised earlier. If Macedonians were so pure Greeks, why would Alexsander need to explain himself as to why he is a Greek? And also, why would he explain that he is a Greek by claiming descent from someone from another part of Greece, and not Macedonia?

The above sources you have provided are actually, relativly speaking, pointless. We have good sources, like Strabo, who go into much more detail and explain things much better. We don't need to rely on such weak things.

Now, in the territory of Macedonia Strabo describes a large number of people living in there. This is one excerpt for example:

But the districts which extend from the beginning of the Macedonian and the Paeonian mountains as far as the Strymon River are inhabited by the Macedonians, the Paeonians, and by some of the Thracian mountaineers; whereas the districts beyond the Strymon, extending as far as the mouth of the Pontus and the Haemus, all belong to the Thracians, except the seaboard. This seaboard is inhabited by Greeks, some being situated on the Propontis,others on the Hellespont and the Gulf of Melas, and others on the Aegaean

So we have Macedonians, Paeonians and Thracian mountaineers.


What is now called Macedonia was in earlier times called Emathia. And it took its present name from Macedon, one of its early chieftains. And there was also a city emathia close to the sea. Now a part of this country was taken and held by certain of the Epeirotes and the Illyrians, but most of it by the Bottiaei and the Thracians. The Bottiaei came from Crete originally, so it is said,along with Botton as chieftain. As for the Thracians, the Pieres inhabited Pieria and the region about Olympus; the Paeones, the region on both sides of the Axius River, which on that account is called Amphaxitis; the Edoni and Bisaltae, the rest of the country as far as the Strymon. Of these two peoples the latter are called Bisaltae alone, whereas a part of the Edoni are called Mygdones, a part Edones, and a part Sithones. But of all these tribes the Argeadae,as they are called, established themselves as masters, and also the Chalcidians of Euboea; for the Chalcidians of Euboea also came over to the country of the Sithones and jointly peopled about thirty cities in it, although later on the majority of them were ejected and came together into one city, Olynthus; and they were named the Thracian Chalcidians.

These people who inhabited all these lands, are all non-Greek peoples. Strabo is giving us a view of the ethnic make-up of Macedonia "in earlier times".

Somehow Strabo's descriptions don't fit in at all with the myth of some "pure Doric race".


Mt. Bermium, also, is somewhere in this region; in earlier times it was occupied by Briges, a tribe of Thracians; some of these crossed over into Asia and their name was changed to Phryges

Here he mentions something about the Phrygians, of "earlier times"


Mt. Athos is high and breast-shaped; so high that on its crests the sun is up and that the people are weary of ploughing by the time ****-crowbegins among the people who live on the shore. It was on this shore that Thamyris the Thracian reigned, who was a man of the same pursuits as Orpheus

Here he is speaking of Mt. Athos, which in 'earlier times" was ruled by a certain Thamyris the Thracian.


It is clear that in early times, as now, the Paeonians occupied much of what is now Macedonia, so that they could not only lay siege to Perinthus but also bring under their power all Crestonia and Mygdonis and the country of the Agrianes as far as Pangaeum. Philippi and the region about Philippi lie above that part of the seaboard of the Strymonic Gulf which extends from Galepsus as far as Nestus. In earlier times Philippi was called Crenides, and was only a small settlement, but it was enlarged after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius.

Here he says that the Paeonians in earlier times occupied most of Macedonia, all the way to Mygdonia, which was Thracian.


From its melody and rhythm and instruments, all Thracian music has been considered to be Asiatic. And this is clear, first, from the places where the Muses have been worshipped, for Pieria and Olympus and Pimpla and Leibethrum were in ancient times Thracian places and mountains, though they are now held by the Macedonians;



Now Hecataeus of Miletus says of the Peloponnesus that before the time of the Greeks it was inhabited by barbarians. Yet one might say that in the ancient times the whole of Greece was a settlement of barbarians, if one reasons from the traditions themselves: Pelopsbrought over peoplesfrom Phrygia to the Peloponnesus that received its name from him; and Danaüsfrom Egypt; whereas the Dryopes, the Caucones, the Pelasgi, the Leleges, and other such peoples, apportioned among themselves the parts that are inside the isthmus — and also the parts outside, for Attica was once held by the Thracians who came with Eumolpus, Daulis in Phocis by Tereus, Cadmeia by the Phoenicians who came with Cadmus, and Boeotia itself by the Aones and Temmices and Hyantes. According to Pindar,there was a time when the Boeotian tribe was called "Syes." Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names — Cecrops, Codrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.

Here he describes the condition of Greece, pre-Hellenic. Notice at the bottom he says that parts of Greece are held by "barbarians", Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, parts of Acarnia and Aetolia by the Epiriotic tribes (so much for them being Greeks, ehh ;) )

This in itself is describing a contion of the expansion of Thracians and Epiriotic tribes into parts of Greece, following the considerably weak state the Greek states were at the time.

----

So while Strabo himself does not say the Macedonians are not Greeks, he in fact says that Macedonia was part of Greece. However, Strabo gives us a lot of information regarding the population of Macedonia, in pre-Hellenic times, describing it as a mish-mash of Thracian, Illyrian, Phrygian and other such peoples. He gives us good infromation on the establishment of Greek colonies on its shores.

All this information, which isn't pompous statements by one individual or another quoted as one-liners, but rather serious geographical and ethnic information, does not fit in at all with a notion of a "pure Doric Macedonian race", or even a Greek Macedonian race. It fits in with what the archeological record describes, a mish-mash of peoples, with Greek colonies established on the seashore, with a Hellenization process from those colonies, leading to a ruling class like that of Philip, but nevertheless a territory still encompasing a large number of varied ethnicities and peoples.

Unfortunately most of Strabo's description of Macedonia is lost, only a few of these fragments remain.

Now why do I need to hear Alexsander saying "why I am Greek", when a more serious source is Strabo who describes in detail the ethnicities of the region in various time periods. That is more important to the question of who lived in Macedonia, then what Alexsander considered himself as, which actually has no importance at all.

Perhaps this will go unanswered again with a simple, "but your name is Molosi, therefore we don't want to hear from you becasue we know what you are going to say".

Sorry for the long reply, once more.

[Vorian]

Huh? Albania? You give us too much credit

Turkey actually.


also side with Greece on this issue. I also think they should revert to the 1920 borders, but that's a whole other issue right there.

Nope. The "Megali Idea" concept was to liberate all Greeks under one state. Now pretty much all Greeks live in Greece except those in N. Epirus. This belongs to the past.


PS: valtrex well done.

[Molosi]

The League of Nations in 1926, mentions: Greeks 1,341,000 (88.8%), Bulgarians 77,000 (5.1%), various other nationalities (mainly Jews) 91,000 (6.0%) and Turks 2,000 (0.1%). The League of Nations also provides figures from an earlier conducted Ottoman census, dating from before the Turks departure (1906). This cencus raises the percentage of Greeks to 42.6%, of Muslims (Turks mainly and Albanians) to 39.4% and of Slavs (Serbs and Bulgarians) to 9.9%; see League of Nations: "Greek Refugee Settlement, Annex, Geneva"


Oh I forgot to reply to this one.

This is not from "the league of nations". It is in their documentation, true, but it comes from a Greek source, which was accepted in the league of nations, since they themselves did not conduct any research into the population there. These are figures supplied to the league of nations from Greece.

And the Greek figures are the only ones which show anything like this.

[Molosi]

Now pretty much all Greeks live in Greece except those in N. Epirus. This belongs to the past.

I am from Northern Epirus. I am Orthodox too. Am I counted in these figures? ;)

[Molosi]

3) The whole culture and artistic production of the area was purely Greek and greatly influenced SE Europe during the years of the Ottoman domination. The main characteristics of the culture of the Slavs during the first period of their settlement in the Balkan Peninsula are: a) the burning of the dead, b) hand-made ceramics with certain shapes and decorations, and c) half-underground hut for dwelling. However, except for two rare exceptions (15 urns containing the ashes of the dead and some vases), no indisputably Slavic objects have been found on Greek soil.

Wait let me understand this right. Is this claiming, that there were no Slavs in Greece, period? Hmm, Peloponesus comes to mind ;) I hope thats not what this is saying though, because it would be very ridiculous.

[Zombie Squad]

There was no intention to insult or call anyone ignorant. The events of the Balkan wars are well known and well documented.

This is a map prepared by the Germans following WW1, showing the ethnic distributions of the time.
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7231/bigmkd2pb4.jpg

Of course there are many takes on this, however most will agree, in Thrace and in what is today Northern Greece, Greeks were not a majority or even the largest ethnic group.



Well there were villages scattered around everywhere, no doubt. However certain areas were heavily ethnic in one way or another. Which areas were mainly ethnically Greek? The answer to that can be seen on that map above.



I would say probably about 100,000 or so. True, nothing significant, but not small either. By the last census where ethnicity was asked in Greece, I think sometimes in the 50s, that number was around 50,000.



The areas around Thessaloniki were not full of Greeks. Thessaloniki rested in a heavily Slavic area. The city itself wasn't Slavic however, but its surroundings were. And Thessalonik itself wasn't a Greek city either. By the 1912 data, the population was 61,439 Jews, 45,867 Muslims, 39,956 Greeks and 10,660 of other nationalities. (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Contributions/20010704_Nar.html ) So the question then becomes, what was the reasoning for Greece taking this city then? I'm not trying to argue one way or another, but the statements made by some Greeks here make it sound as if this area which today is Northern Greece, was alwasy inhabited by Greeks and was as homogenous as it is today. That certainly wasn't the case 100 years ago.



Thats your take on it. It still doesn't answer anything, now does it.

---------

I'm not trying to support FYROM arguments here. As I said they really have no value. However, the Greek stance is equally a wrong one. This is a far more complicated issue, that bullying will not resolve, but only postpone for a later date. Greece today feels confident in its economic prosperity, but thats not to mean that in the future the surrounding countries will be as dependent on it as they are now.

chris450, I'm so confused how you answer this map, with your bull**** again. Is that the best you can come up with.
That where the borders then, and those people in Aegean Macedonia where Slavic speaking, sure there where small Greek villages but the part of Macedonia that is in your occupation had nothing with Greeks to do.
Bulgarians in Skopje? And Bulgarian national movement, you're confusing yourself.
The large nations often part with other large nations, that's a big reason in many maps Macedonia is referred with Bulgaria because of the Bulgarian interest in Macedonia. And the VMRO national movement clearly had in it agenda that it was revolting against the turks to liberate the borders of Macedonia and to constitute Macedonia for the Macedonian people.
I don't have time as you have posting evidence that it was so, so please stop with your childish ignorant bull****.

[chris450]

keep it up son,and you'll soon be history

you have my sympathy btw

[Zombie Squad]

Whatever!

http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/

Here is maps dating 1477-1928.

[Molosi]

This is a tablet found in Dispilio, Kastoria, Western Macedonia. It has been dated back to 5260B.C.

Wow! That would make that the earliest form of writing, ever! Look at your dates again more carefully, I think you added a couple of zeros to that number ;) Thats before there were ever any Greeks, or Illyrians, or Thracians, in the world.

[McNasty]

Actually that's pretty much in the ballpark of the other "earliest form of writing, ever!" objects. The actual dates vary depending on what the guys in white coats think constitutes writing. Ancient Greece doesn't even enter into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

[Molosi]

Well yes, perhaps. The dating may or may not be right, but thats not important. To begin with thats from Kastoria, which wasn't part of Macedonia anyway (until later). Seccond, that isn't Greek or remotely like written Greek, IF it is a form of writing. I don't know where that comparion to Linear A comes from, but these are the symbols of that tablet apparently. they are nothing like the Pheonician letters.

http://www.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/ESCRITURAS_ANTIGUA/2005-06-05_181634_grafi.gif

They are in fact similar to the Vinca-culture symbols found throughout the Balkans, and predate Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and what not.

The Greek writing comes from Phenician writing. Even in ancient Greek cultures, this is said over and over, and the mythology behind it is that Cadmus when he came from Phenicia, and founded the city of Thebes, taught the Greeks the art of writing and astronomy.

So much for that.

[valtrex]

Wait let me understand this right. Is this claiming, that there were no Slavs in Greece, period? Hmm, Peloponesus comes to mind I hope thats not what this is saying though, because it would be very ridiculous
Lame attempt...please read my post again (and again)...I thought we were talking about the presence of Slavs in N.Greece...of course it is a well known fact that the Slavinii Slavs overran Greece & reached the Peloponnese. Emperor Constantine VII the Porphyrogenitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_VII) in his work "De Administrando Imperio" writes to his son Romanus:
"Only the Ezeritae & the Milingi moved toward the Lacedaemon & Elos, and because the place is harsh, they established their dwelling places at the glacis of the mountain known as Pentadaktylon". The Slavic names of the places (toponymics) they settled down have been recorded by the Venetians during the census by Grimani (1700) and are still used by the locals even today: Arachova, Stresova, Anastasova, Zelina, Petrina, Levecova, Kerasova, Toporica etc. M. Vasmer, "The Slavs in Greece", Berlin 1941, pp. 176-229
However, already in the 13th c. AD & the Frankish occupation of the Peloponnese, only the toponymics, remain. Since the 9th-10th c. AD, the Slavs of the Peloponnese have lost their distinct ethnic identity.


There were some figures that came out of the area of Macedonia during the pre-Balkan wars period...According to the German K. Ostreich in 1905 ...According to the Austrian K. Gersin in 1908...According to the British Andrew Rousos ...According to the Serb Gopchevich in 1886 etc.
So, now you're using as source the "credible" historyofmacedonia.org?
You should have better used as your source Zografski's "Egejska Makedonija" instead; a fabricated census of 1941 by the Nazis in which he presents the following ethnic groups living in Macedonia: 258,000 "Macedonians", 250,000 Greeks, 210,000 Karamanlides(!!!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamanlides), 80,000 Armenians, 74,000 Laz(!!!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laz_people).
I'm done with this thread, have a nice day sir...
good luck @Chris450, Achilles, Vorian et al.

[Molosi]

Lame attempt

No I just didn't understand where you were going with that. Its kind of pointless to talk about the Slavic settlement in the area from the time of the Byzantines. They were there, deson't matter since when.


So, now you're using as source the "credible" historyofmacedonia.org?
You should have better used as your source Zografski's "Egejska Makedonija" instead; a fabricated census of 1941 by the Nazis in which he presents the following ethnic groups living in Macedonia: 258,000 "Macedonians", 250,000 Greeks, 210,000 Karamanlides(!!!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamanlides), 80,000 Armenians, 74,000 Laz(!!!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laz_people).


Oh good! So, instead of replying with some other source you may have that shows otherwise, you don't. Well thats not much of an argument now is it.

Are there any non-Greek sources which claim a majority Greek population in those areas? Or even Greeks as the largest group in those areas? The answer is no.


have a nice day sir...

You too, though you leave me a little dissapointed.

[Molosi]

However, already in the 13th c. AD & the Frankish occupation of the Peloponnese, only the toponymics, remain. Since the 9th-10th c. AD, the Slavs of the Peloponnese have lost their distinct ethnic identity.


Yes. I wasn't even arguing about things from that time period. You did, which is why I found it strange. As for the Peloponesian Slavs, its a completely unrelated story. They were replaced at a later date by the Albanians of Gjon Bua Shpata.

[Douros81]

Sure Chris,

i dont blame the Americans for creating this issue, i blame the American neo cons, i.e. the Bush family and the rest of the good fellas surrounding them, for ferociously supporting the puppet-state up North.

Other than that, if Greece really wanted to shut the vocal mouths of the Skops 15 years ago, she would have done so. In a sense, we reap what we sow during the early 90s.


What follows is a history lesson for Molosi...

You sound like the people I go to church with, just blame Bush for everything under the sun. This gose back to Clinton remember KFOR? Why dosen't Greece stop talking and do something about it then?

Macedonia is Macedonia, get over it, its not going to change.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

Macedonia is Macedonia, get over it, its not going to change.

Excuse me @Douros (you are a Greek right?) But what exactly do you mean by this?
I just hope that by the term "Macedonia" you refering to the geographical area, which the bigest part belong to Greece, and you don't refering to the FYROM Do you?
Ofcourse not (i hope)
How could you,
-the official name of this country in every international organization is FYROM (i dont like it, i would prefer the most corect FYROV -Former Yugoslav Republic Of Vardarska )
And
-You are a Greek

Don't you?
So clear this out please. Thanks

[AK-Lover]

I beleive the "Makedonci" are a slavic, Serbian ethnic group which speaks a Bulgarian dialect. To be honest I don't see why they didn't remain a part of the FRY after 91. Not to mention they are Orthodox, although recently they have disgusted me with their behavior towards the SPC in Macedonia, especially with the Fr. Jovan incident and attempting to establish their own church like some of those mafiamen in Montenegro.

[Douros81]

Excuse me @Douros (you are a Greek right?) But what exactly do you mean by this?
I just hope that by the term "Macedonia" you refering to the geographical area, which the bigest part belong to Greece, and you don't refering to the FYROM Do you?
Ofcourse not (i hope)
How could you,
-the official name of this country in every international organization is FYROM (i dont like it, i would prefer the most corect FYROV -Former Yugoslav Republic Of Vardarska )
And
-You are a Greek

Don't you?
So clear this out please. Thanks


I'm Greek alright, 4th generation Greek American, all Greek.

1st. I don't think that Greece is going retake Macedonia or get Macedonia to become part of Greece.

2nd. Macedonia is their own county today. Plus, I don't see how you can make a county change their name?

3rd. I do not think of modern Macedonia and ancient Macedonia as the same county.

[achilles]

You sound like the people I go to church with, just blame Bush for everything under the sun. This gose back to Clinton remember KFOR? Why dosen't Greece stop talking and do something about it then?

Macedonia is Macedonia, get over it, its not going to change.

First, i dont go to church.

Second, you certainly sound like a Republican whose feelings have been hurt by my post.

Third, read my post again cause certainly i didnt blame Bush for everything under the sun.

Fourth, the fact that you consider the issue of Macedonia as a closed case makes you petty and pathetic.

Fifth, i suggest you stay out of this thread

[achilles]

Wow! That would make that the earliest form of writing, ever! Look at your dates again more carefully, I think you added a couple of zeros to that number ;) Thats before there were ever any Greeks, or Illyrians, or Thracians, in the world.



My poor man...I added no zeros since this is the actual date. You can just google and see for yourself.

Yet again, is that all you cherry picked from my posts? You avoid all the evidence against which you have nothing to say? There is a saying in my country that goes like..."the one who drawns, grabs himself from his hair"...thats definitely you ;)

[chris450]

its a pitty this tread had to come down to this..it was actually going pretty well

i will comment on this and then im out...

Macedonia is Macedonia, get over it, its not going to change.Douros if you are Greek you must surely know that if there is one thing that Greeks are famous for (besides beeing cocky and defiant when "logic" dictates the opposite ) is that they are soo hard headed ,especially when it comes to protecting this soil and their heritage..i'm surprised you take this so lightely

Noone will just "get over it",it aint going to happen ,not even if hell freezes over

My greetings to Missouri

[Zombie Squad]

I beleive the "Makedonci" are a slavic, Serbian ethnic group which speaks a Bulgarian dialect. To be honest I don't see why they didn't remain a part of the FRY after 91. Not to mention they are Orthodox, although recently they have disgusted me with their behavior towards the SPC in Macedonia, especially with the Fr. Jovan incident and attempting to establish their own church like some of those mafiamen in Montenegro.

Speak Serbian so the whole world understands you. Besides half Kosovo is Albanian and has always been the other half is Macedonian. They should rename it to Dardania. Macedonians support a free Kosovo.

[achilles]

Speak Serbian so the whole world understands you.

Listen,
this thread was launched by myself and i advise you the following:

1. Provide with well intended and positive input (if you know what that means), or

2. Fuk off and stay out.


On edit: the mods have been already notified regarding your zombie attitude.

[achilles]

UK stands behind Athens on FYROM
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Milliband yesterday appeared to support Greek concerns on the Macedonia name dispute, as a European Commission report called on Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to make fresh efforts to reach a compromise.

“We understand Greece’s sensitivities on the name issue and it is very important that a solution is found that respects Greek concerns,” Milliband said following talks with his Greek counterpart Dora Bakoyannis in London. Referring to the possibility of Athens vetoing FYROM’s bid to join NATO if the name dispute remains unresolved, Milliband said Greece would be justified in exercising its rights as a member of the alliance.

Bakoyannis expressed satisfaction on Milliband’s stance and his assertion that Britain supported a July 2006 agreement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, which Ankara has failed to honor.

In Athens, Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos said the EC’s report on candidate Turkey “made satisfactory references to all issues of particular interest to Greece,” including the rights of Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomaios and Turkish air-space violations in the Aegean.

The EC also issued a critical report on FYROM, saying it had failed to push reforms and curb corruption. It also called for a more constructive approach to resolving the name dispute.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_4515744_07/11/2007_89787


Was about time...

[Zombie Squad]

Four of the five permanent UN Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council) members:
People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) [46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-29)
Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) [47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-30) (G8 member)
United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-31) (EU, NATO and G8 member)
United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-32) (NATO and G8 member)All other former Yugoslav (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) republics:
Bosnia-Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia-Herzegovina) [50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CEFTA)
Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) [51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-33)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CEFTA)
Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro) [50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CEFTA)
Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia) [52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-34)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CEFTA)
Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia) [53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-35) (EU and NATO member)Neighbor:
Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) [54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-BulgRec) (EU and NATO member)In addition, the following countries have also recognized the nation by its constitutional name:
Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) (NATO and G8 member) [55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CanadianMFA)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-A1News)
Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) [57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-36) (EU and NATO member)
Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova) [58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-MoldRec)
Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) (EU and NATO member) [59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-37)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-38)
Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) [61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-39)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-CEFTA) (EU and NATO member)
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) [62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute#_note-40) (NATO member)118 countries recognize the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.

[chris450]

so why havent you called for a UN meeting do adopt officially your constitutional name? you have the number required to do so...

i'll tell you why...even if the whole globe recognises you ,you'd still have to avoid a Greek veto in NATO and the EU coz ultimately thats your concern..(pressure from top players wont change a thing coz your entry has to be ratified by the parliament-which means the governments falls the next second-)....and thats why you havent done so ,so far

and here comes the "hell freezes over part" Douros...

have fun guys

[achilles]

118 countries recognize the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.

Congratulations! :lol:

You can use whatever name you want in your bilateral relations. Personally, i couldnt care less.Try calling yourselves "Republic of Vatikan", this might give your country a more divine flavour...


Whats more important is what Chris said. Your name in international institutions / organization like the European Union and NATO. And when it comes to NATO and EU is either Greece's way or the highway, i.e. a composite name that will distinguish the real Macedonia, that is the northern province of Greece, from what is currently known as FYROM.

Stay tuned. Your hard line stance will change cause you are pissing off the big guys (US, UK, EU) with your stubborness. Either you change, or you will be internationally isolated.

[Zombie Squad]

Stubbornness, hm, I wonder how that word came around. Russia have vetoed many times, but nobody listened, so why should they listen to you. Macedonia is a friend of Bush and the neocons, which Greece is not. You should hope to get a democratic U.S. government if you want to kiss up.
And who cares about EU. Those cowards up at Brussels think they are something. We don't need them.

[achilles]

Stubbornness, hm, I wonder how that word came around.

Well, you already have the term "Macedonia" in your name, although you dont deserve it anyway you look at it. What else do you want? This is more than enough, no? ;)


Macedonia is a friend of Bush and the neocons, which Greece is not. You should hope to get a democratic U.S. government if you want to kiss up.

A democratic government is on its way, although i dont expect much to change, neo con or otherwise.




And who cares about EU. Those cowards up at Brussels think they are something. We don't need them.

You politicians do. Big time! You need the money trust me...but you sure have a loooooooong way towards that end.


Care explaining why Brussels is full of cowards?


And if you dont need the European Union as you say...what are you doing in Sweden? ;)

[achilles]

Speak Serbian so the whole world understands you. Besides half Kosovo is Albanian and has always been the other half is Macedonian. They should rename it to Dardania. Macedonians support a free Kosovo.

Half Kosovo has always been Albanian? :roll:


And half is "pseudo-macedonian"?:roll:

So now there is a "pseudo-macedonian" minority in Serbia also, besides Greece? :lol:

I wonder where you draw the line of propaganda and blatant lies, buddy...i trully wonder...

[Molosi]

Ahh I see that no one has anything more to add to that historical debate! I hope I wasn't too harsh on you guys, ehh? ;)


Half Kosovo has always been Albanian? :roll:


True that is ridiculous. The whole thing has been.


And half is "pseudo-macedonian"?:roll:


Well, hmm, I think he's confusing himself. I don't know exactly what Macedonia ever had to do with Kosovo, or Dardania, except that in ancient times it was the other way around where Dardania extended into the northern parts of what is today Macedonia (Uskup would beome the new capital of Dardania after the Slavs destroyed Naissi in the 6th century).

So thank you very much Macedonia for your support for Kosovo, though I think they do it only becasue they really don't have another choice, in the situation they'r in.


Serbian ethnic group which speaks a Bulgarian dialect

And what would a Balkan thread be without a brilliant input such as this! So, what exactly makes them "Serbian ethnics" if they speak a Bulgarian accent?


And when it comes to NATO and EU is either Greece's way or the highway, i.e. a composite name that will distinguish the real Macedonia, that is the northern province of Greece, from what is currently known as FYROM.

Stay tuned. Your hard line stance will change cause you are pissing off the big guys (US, UK, EU) with your stubborness. Either you change, or you will be internationally isolated.

As I pointed out earlier, Greece feels it can impose itself on such nations becasue it has economic leverage over them, now. A typical Balkanian behavior, nothing amazing here. I don't like your name and I don't like your flag. It feels like 4 year olds fighting over a toy. The question is, how long till the EU gets sick and tired of Greece's bullying? You'v been slapped in the hand a few times before.

And I'm sorry to dissapoint you but the US refers to the country as the Republic of Macedonia, since 2004.

[Molosi]

My poor man...I added no zeros since this is the actual date. You can just google and see for yourself.

Yet again, is that all you cherry picked from my posts? You avoid all the evidence against which you have nothing to say? There is a saying in my country that goes like..."the one who drawns, grabs himself from his hair"...thats definitely you ;-)

Ok ok my dear Achilles, but did you read the reply I put on there about it? I don't think you did.

I didn't reply to the rest of your stuff because it is completely irrelevent. Instead I posted quotes from Strabo describing the different ethnicities and groups living in ancient Macedonia. To that of course, I expected no replies. It is the ethnic groups that lived there that concern the issue, not what Alexander liked to call himself. That has nothing to do with the issue.

Now that tablet you gave, as I said, contains NOTHING of the sort of things that even remotely resembel PHOENICIAN script (on which the Greek script is based). That tablet, whether the date on it is right nor not, doesn't matter, has nothing to do with Greece or Greeks, since there were no Greeks in that area at that time, period. The symbols are identical to Vinca-culture symbols. Perhaps you should research what the Vinca culture is. In Greece, I'm sure, it may be portrayed as something else altogather.

[Vorian]

Molosi you have flooded this thread. I don't know were to begin to correct you, so I will just inform you that before the Phoenician alphabet the Greeks used Linear B, which was translated and proved that was Greek.

[Zombie Squad]

Athens /07/11/ 14:38

Communist Party of Greece (KKE) General Secretary Aleka Papariga called the Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis to accept a negotiated solution on the name dispute with Macedonia, which would contain the term "Macedonia".

The Greek website News In said that Papariga set forth the proposal to Karamanlis at the meeting that took place Wednesday.

The Communists are committed to finding a name that would comprise a purely geographical term in order to prevent eventual irredentist tendencies on the part of Skopje.

Papariga also called Karamanlis to disassociate himself from the recent statement made by Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Anthimos, "urging Greece to march into Skopje and take power over the territory."

^ Desperate move I see.

[chris450]

outright lie..he never said that..plus you should give a link when you post news like that

what you should highlight is this


The Communists are committed to finding a name that would comprise a purely geographical term in order to prevent eventual irredentist tendencies on the part of Skopje.Remember?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9885/fyromeroo7.jpg

he said exactly what i said here
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2849407&postcount=66

[Molosi]

So a map of a geographical area of Macedonia, in the video of some folk-music group, is the problem here? Quite a problem.



Molosi you have flooded this thread. I don't know were to begin to correct you, so I will just inform you that before the Phoenician alphabet the Greeks used Linear B, which was translated and proved that was Greek.


Irrelevbent discussion. The symbols on that tablet are Vinca-culture types. Once more, nothing to do with Greece. The tablet itself is an irrelevent discussion.

Why is it that no one addresses the actual point of the discussion, but keeps sidetracking on purpose? Come on.

[Vorian]

Athens /07/11/ 14:38

Communist Party of Greece (KKE) General Secretary Aleka Papariga called the Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis to accept a negotiated solution on the name dispute with Macedonia, which would contain the term "Macedonia".

The Greek website News In said that Papariga set forth the proposal to Karamanlis at the meeting that took place Wednesday.

The Communists are committed to finding a name that would comprise a purely geographical term in order to prevent eventual irredentist tendencies on the part of Skopje.

Papariga also called Karamanlis to disassociate himself from the recent statement made by Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Anthimos, "urging Greece to march into Skopje and take power over the territory."

^ Desperate move I see.

Anthimos is an ultra-natonalist priest as idiotic as the Skopian ultra-nationalists that want to "save brainwashed Macedonians that believe they are Greek". The end.


rrelevbent discussion. The symbols on that tablet are Vinca-culture types. Once more, nothing to do with Greece. The tablet itself is an irrelevent discussion.

Why is it that no one addresses the actual point of the discussion, but keeps sidetracking on purpose? Come on.

You started it by talking about ancient Macedonia here. Even if you believe Macedonians weren't Greek they certainly have nothing to do with Skopians.

[Martel]

118 countries recognize the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.
I don't see France in that list.

[chris450]

So a map of a geographical area of Macedonia, in the video of some folk-music group, is the problem here? Quite a problem.



Irrelevbent discussion. The symbols on that tablet are Vinca-culture types. Once more, nothing to do with Greece. The tablet itself is an irrelevent discussion.

Why is it that no one addresses the actual point of the discussion, but keeps sidetracking on purpose? Come on.

are you on drugs Molosi?

do you need me to draw a sketch for you?

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7958/skopbs3fu.jpg

[Molosi]

You started it by talking about ancient Macedonia here. Even if you believe Macedonians weren't Greek they certainly have nothing to do with Skopians.

Well I certainly didn't start it. Its an important issue, because Greece bases its claims on the basis of those ancient Macedonians.

And I'm not saying ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks. At the very least their ruling class was Hellenized and wanted to portray themselves as Greeks. What I'm saying, is that there were many different peoples in that area, and what would later be called "Macedonians", was an identity created on the basis of those already-existing roups, mixed with Greek settlers from the colonies on the Aegean. But it was, nevertheless, a multi-ethnic area, and later on, much more multi-ethnic as the term "Macedonia" was expanded to incorporate a much larger geographical area, a geographical area that included most of modern-day FYROM as well.

So realistically speaking, if one has to base themselves on ancient claims, than the name Macedonia would fit quite well with that geographical area.

For Slavic Macedonians to claim they are descendents of Alexander the Great, or the ancient Macedonians, of course it is ridiculous. And that is what Greece should have an issue with. The name itself, means nothing.

On the other hand however, to be good neighbours, and simply logical, no one can force another country to change its name, or to change its identity, because you don't like it. Greece needs to be a better neighbour in the region, instead of feeling that it can put its weight on other smaller countries simply because at present it is in a better economic state then they are. Not good behavior, and perhaps a situation that may not last forever.

This is what happens when you get these Balkan countries into the EU. Greece does this, Romania now does it with Moldavia because they want to call their language Moldavian, Bulgaria probably will do the same with Macedonia.

We really don't know how to behave.

[Molosi]

are you on drugs Molosi?

do you need me to draw a sketch for you?


There are radical peoples everywhere. There are radical people in Greece who want to claim Southern Albania. There are radical people in Greece that want to claim Istanbul. There are radical people in Greece who want to claim even Sicily from Italy.

Am I to suppose that the opinions of these radical peoples (who have equally graphic posters and so forth), represents an OFFICIAL position of a government? Am I to say that the words of that Greek priest from Thessalonik to go invade Skopje, represent the words of the Greek government?

If you'r talking government issues here, then stick to that, not what some radicals say.

The Macedonian government makes no such claim, except the fact that there is a Slavic minority in Aegean Macedonia, for which it asks rights. That is nothing exceptionally wrong. Its a requirement for Greece to do so, being that it is in the EU. And Greece has gotten a slap on the hand before from the EU on such issues. Also all the government has done is show historical maps in schools of the territory of Macedonia, which includes both Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, and a distribution of the Slavic population there, which is in fact somewhat accurate from a historic prespective.

There is nothing exceptionally wrong with that, anymore than there is with maps in Greek school books showing Southern Albania as being inhabited by Greeks.

The only difference here, is that Greece is in the EU, is more economically powerful, than other countries in the region. However, the same old Balkanian agendas continue, except that now they are backed up with economic superiority. Thats a temporary condition. One day we will be in the EU as well and economically better off. So will Macedonia. Its in everyone's best interest to behave in a friendly and neighbourly way, otherwise look at what happened in Serbia and in Macedonia. There is no need to have repeats of that, especially since the issues Grece is dealing with are far far less serious or threatening, other than the issue of a name.

[chris450]

There are radical peoples everywhere. There are radical people in Greece who want to claim Southern Albania. There are radical people in Greece that want to claim Istanbul. There are radical people in Greece who want to claim even Sicily from Italy.

Am I to suppose that the opinions of these radical peoples (who have equally graphic posters and so forth), represents an OFFICIAL position of a government? Am I to say that the words of that Greek priest from Thessalonik to go invade Skopje, represent the words of the Greek government?

If you'r talking government issues here, then stick to that, not what some radicals say.

The Macedonian government makes no such claim, except the fact that there is a Slavic minority in Aegean Macedonia, for which it asks rights. That is nothing exceptionally wrong. Its a requirement for Greece to do so, being that it is in the EU. And Greece has gotten a slap on the hand before from the EU on such issues. Also all the government has done is show historical maps in schools of the territory of Macedonia, which includes both Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, and a distribution of the Slavic population there, which is in fact somewhat accurate from a historic prespective.

There is nothing exceptionally wrong with that, anymore than there is with maps in Greek school books showing Southern Albania as being inhabited by Greeks.

The only difference here, is that Greece is in the EU, is more economically powerful, than other countries in the region. However, the same old Balkanian agendas continue, except that now they are backed up with economic superiority. Thats a temporary condition. One day we will be in the EU as well and economically better off. So will Macedonia. Its in everyone's best interest to behave in a friendly and neighbourly way, otherwise look at what happened in Serbia and in Macedonia. There is no need to have repeats of that, especially since the issues Grece is dealing with are far far less serious or threatening, other than the issue of a name.


you havent been following the thread have you? try to read the posts more thoroughly and not only what it suits you...

there are pages of OFFICIAL history books with irrendist propanda posted here in this very thread...and how more OFFICIAL does it get ? the freaking CONSTITUTION of the country has an article speakin of the exact same thing..."liberating" occupied "Macedonian" lands....there are OFFICIAL banknotes with irrendist propaganda writen all over them(the White tower,thank God its not the Acropolis)

all in all this is as OFFICIAL as it gets....

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2720/banknotedj2.jpg
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2853130&postcount=76

you are here to play little games ,and not to have dialogue..we cant be going round and round in circles because you have selective memory and a little "Greece is economically powerfull" agenda..you have an issue with Greeces economical prowress ,start a new thread and we can discuss why you feel bad about it..

[Molosi]

I'm not the one who has selective memory here, thats for sure.

You have forgotten to mention to the members of this forum, for example, that that "banknote" that you keep posting, was one of several PROPOSALS made for a Macedonian currency back in 1992, a proposal that got REJECTED and was never used.

Why did you forget to mention that detail?

[Molosi]

Furthermore there is NO part of the Macedonian constitution that makes any such claim, not since 1995.

So what are they guilty off then? That the put a map in a history book in school showing the historical condition of Macedonia prior to the Greek expansion? I have already shown, that the ethnic make-up of Aegean Macedonia was indeed heavily Slavic, or rather, certain parts were heavily Slavic and certain parts not, and that Tehssalonika itself couldn't be considered a Greek city. So why is that map wrong then? If you have an issue with the map, being a historical map with the purpose of teaching history, then find some historical sources which claim otherwise, and refute it.

[chris450]

I'm not the one who has selective memory here, thats for sure.

You have forgotten to mention to the members of this forum, for example, that that "banknote" that you keep posting, was one of several PROPOSALS made for a Macedonian currency back in 1992, a proposal that got REJECTED and was never used.

Why did you forget to mention that detail?


it was withdrawn ONLY after a strong Greek protest thats why....it was NOT withdrawn before that(certainly not "rejected" as you put it....),and ofcourse that does not change the fact that it was part of the OFFICIAL currency


Furthermore there is NO part of the Macedonian constitution that makes any such claim, not since 1995.
Wrong again,infact this was part of the issues raised by Greek EuroMPs during the last visit of their FM in Brussels ,the reform they made back then DID NOT include the said article


So what are they guilty off then? That the put a map in a history book in school showing the historical condition of Macedonia prior to the Greek expansion? I have already shown, that the ethnic make-up of Aegean Macedonia was indeed heavily Slavic, or rather, certain parts were heavily Slavic and certain parts not, and that Tehssalonika itself couldn't be considered a Greek city. So why is that map wrong then? If you have an issue with the map, being a historical map with the purpose of teaching history, then find some historical sources which claim otherwise, and refute it.]you have shown absolutely nothing,you refuse to look at evidence when is thrown right before your eyes,hapened countless times in this thread..you conveniently disregard everything that does not suit you and keep repeating your view as if it will eventually become valid by itself...

the issue of Greek presence in the area was extensively discussed ,these are YOUR conclusions and yours ONLY..the mental leaps you make are quite something

furthermore you again conveniently bypass the fact that this kind of propaganda is reproduced in OFFICIAL websites ,either embassies abroad

i have posted a photo of the site FYROM's embassy in the UK hosts in this thread... you can also check out the website of their Australian embassy ,where they reproduce their theories on how "Macedonia" was divided into 3 parts,the Aegean part beeing under Greek control...
http://www.macedonianemb.org.au/index_about.html#BRIEFHISTORICALSUMMARY

they never gave up their efforts...here you can admire FM Slobodan Casule honoring the Interim agreement in 2002


Article 7


1. Each Party shall promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by State-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility against each other.

2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1744/fyromianspmwithverginafgc8.jpg

Gruevski following his tracks.....

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/181/gruevskiverginaye3.jpg





Article 7


1. Each Party shall promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by State-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility against each other.

2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.


http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/232/skopmobilewn5.jpg




the fact is Molosi ,that you wont see terittorial claims or irrendist propaganda even if their PM sends you a personal statement...you'll find a way to twist the facts ,because we all know why you are really in this thread...

PS as a sidenote just for some laughs......(just innocent history Molosi)

FYROM Foreign Ministry website
http://www.mfa.gov.mk//default1.aspx?ItemID=291

In the period from 969 until 1018, a vast empire of the Macedonians emerged, second empire of the Macedonians after the empire of Alexander the Great, the Empire of King Samuel with its capital in Ohrid.:-D:-D

[chris450]

forgot to add another point in which you horribly distort the truth.....

this map i posted earlier depicts the current ethnotic borders accoerding to them ..NOT the historical ones..you are talking about the second one(Ilinden)...."Macedonia" under Greek occupation in this one..

it also shows the part under occupation by Albania ,in case you are interested lol

(DEl na teritoriata pod = piece of the teritory under(occupation) )
Albania,Bulgaria,Greece etc
surprisingly there is an astonishing resemblence to the Bulgarian language....


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2890/ex1yi3.jpg

[Molosi]

it was withdrawn ONLY after a strong Greek protest thats why....it was NOT withdrawn before that(certainly not "rejected" as you put it....),and ofcourse that does not change the fact that it was part of the OFFICIAL currency


It was never in circulation. It was never accepted. It was never official.


Wrong again,infact this was part of the issues raised by Greek EuroMPs during the last visit of their FM in Brussels ,the reform they made back then DID NOT include the said article


And what part would that be? Or you don't know?


you have shown absolutely nothing,you refuse to look at evidence when is thrown right before your eyes,hapened countless times in this thread..you conveniently disregard everything that does not suit you and keep repeating your view as if it will eventually become valid by itself...

the issue of Greek presence in the area was extensively discussed ,these are YOUR conclusions and yours ONLY..the mental leaps you make are quite something


LOL. Well I don't know what you call a discussion. So far in this thread I have been the only one who has provided any sources and figures about the population of the area prior to 1912. All you seem to have done, is make these seemingly angry statements.

I have provided enough figures on the population of the area, to determine its ethnic makeup. No one else has done anything of the sort, so I assume you accept those figures then.

You stating something is a done discussion or whatever, in those tones, isn't going to resolve anything, except make you think it is a done discussion.


i have posted a photo of the site FYROM's embassy in the UK hosts in this thread... you can also check out the website of their Australian embassy ,where they reproduce their theories on how "Macedonia" was divided into 3 parts,the Aegean part beeing under Greek control...
http://www.macedonianemb.org.au/inde...TORICALSUMMARY (http://www.macedonianemb.org.au/index_about.html#BRIEFHISTORICALSUMMARY)


And is he wrong? As I said the ethnic make-up of Aegean Macedonia before 1912 indicates it was heavily Slavic. Greece DID take areas of Macedonia which were inhabited mainly by Slavs, and as such, these claims aren't exactly wrong.

What is your point of contest with those statements? Do you deny that Greece took posession of areas of land in Aegean Macedonia which were mainly Slavic in population? If you deny that, then this is no longer a historical debate, but bickering.


Gruevski following his tracks.....


Unbeliavable! What a terrible thing! He's holding up a flag while dancing, probably half drunk. What a terrible situation indeed. Now I see why Greeks are so infuriated!

:roll:


the fact is Molosi ,that you wont see terittorial claims or irrendist propaganda even if their PM sends you a personal statement...you'll find a way to twist the facts ,because we all know why you are really in this thread...


I'm sorry, is burning the flag of another country by a teenage oy, cause for international tension these days? Boy oh boy...

Of coure, FYROM flags have never been burned in Greece. I do recall a certain football match about a year ago between the Albanian team and the Greek one in Greece. Do you remember?


PS as a sidenote just for some laughs......(just innocent history Molosi)

FYROM Foreign Ministry website
http://www.mfa.gov.mk//default1.aspx?ItemID=291

Quote:
In the period from 969 until 1018, a vast empire of the Macedonians emerged, second empire of the Macedonians after the empire of Alexander the Great, the Empire of King Samuel with its capital in Ohrid.
:grin::grin:

And? Shall I now point out the errors in Greek version of their history as well? Shall I know threaten your country over those errors? Or are there no errors in the Greek version of history? How could there be of course.

-------

So in conclusion, get over yourselves. This is Balkanian bullying and chest-beating, and nothing more.

[Molosi]

forgot to add another point in which you horribly distort the truth.....


Of come on its not that horrible ;)


this map i posted earlier depicts the current ethnotic borders accoerding to them ..NOT the historical ones..you are talking about the second one(Ilinden)...."Macedonia" under Greek occupation in this one..

it also shows the part under occupation by Albania ,in case you are interested lol

(DEl na teritoriata pod = piece of the teritory under(occupation) )
Albania,Bulgaria,Greece etc
surprisingly there is an astonishing resemblence to the Bulgarian language....


The map shows nothing of the sort. The map shows Ottoman possesions in Europe, probably by 1912. It shows the area which WAS known geographically, as Macedonia.

Yet here you are telling us, its a current state of affairs. 1912 is not a current state of affairs.


it also shows the part under occupation by Albania ,in case you are interested lol


Right. Look at all the terrible fuss we made about it. (well ok, we made a fuss, but not about that ;) )

-------
Oh BTW, could you post a map from a Greek textbook showing the historical borders of Greece inccluding most of Southern Albania? That would be an interesting thing to see, considering you accuse others of making territorial claims on you.

Now I'm not saying this a provocation, just that you shouldn't be accusing anyone of things you are yourself equally guilty off.

[chris450]

lol round and round...

example

Unbeliavable! What a terrible thing! He's(the 2nd party's FM) holding up a flag while dancing, probably half drunk. What a terrible situation indeed. Now I see why Greeks are so infuriated!where as 2 lines above it says

Interim Accord

Article 7

2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.have fun Molosi...

i hope you spark some good solid reactions...happy hunting p-)

[Vorian]

Oh BTW, could you post a map from a Greek textbook showing the historical borders of Greece inccluding most of Southern Albania? That would be an interesting thing to see, considering you accuse others of making territorial claims on you.

There is none. Greece is not making any territorial claims whatsoever. And since you clearly have a complex there, I can inform you that despite the fact that the Greek community of N. Epirus or Southern Albania if you like has every right for autonomy according to the protocol of Corfu (1914), but we have never pushed for this. So give us a break about our "Balkan chest-beating" and the "economically powerful Greece that bullies smaller nations".


And I don't understand why you are so interested in the FYROM subject.

[alvarhanso]

Dear lord!

Well...chris, i am Macedonian.... a real one, from Macedonia. As real as they come. Are you trying to say that i don't exist, that somehow, thin air is typing this?
I don't know if you burn books on your town town square for fun...chris, but your ideas are pure fascists ones.
To claim that a whole nation, a whole country does'nt exist, could'nt be anything but a claim of a twisted mind.
It would be like saying "good thing for Hitler for killing all those jews"...or supporting Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel should be wiped off.
For starters, Greece gained control over Egejska Makedonija after the Balkan wars, somewere after 1913, and ewen that status should have been temporery...And prove me wrong chris, but by connecting a piece of land to your one, does'nt give you the right to connect it's ritch history to your own as well.

[chris450]

Dobr vecer my "Macedonian" friend (as Aristotle would say)

ofcourse you exist...but you are as confused as Michael Jackson ..he thinks he is something he aint too :grin:


i'm out of this thread

[alvarhanso]

Dobr vecer my "Macedonian" friend (as Aristotle would say)

ofcourse you exist...but you are as confused as Michael Jackson ..he thinks he is something he aint too :grin:


i'm out of this thread


Dobro vecer my Greek "friend".

Last thing i heard, MJ opened a taverna and claimed he was Greek....that IS confusing, is'nt it. ;)

Nothing but flames in this tread, MOD's please close it.

[achilles]

Ok ok my dear Achilles, but did you read the reply I put on there about it? I don't think you did.

Well i lost the immense interest in what you are posting after reading a couple of lines of distorted and/or misentepreted "history". I must thank you though for being around as you only ENHANCE the Greek point of view by posting irrelevant, unsupported and warped "facts", in a unique "flying under the radars" trollish fashion. ;) Does username "Shqiptari" ring any bells to you? ;)


I didn't reply to the rest of your stuff because it is completely irrelevent.

It was totally relevant and cut to the chase...and we both know it. I realize that this is disturbing for you.


Instead I posted quotes from Strabo describing the different ethnicities and groups living in ancient Macedonia. To that of course, I expected no replies. It is the ethnic groups that lived there that concern the issue, not what Alexander liked to call himself. That has nothing to do with the issue.

First, no one claimed that ancient Macedonia was a stronghold of Macedonians. A cage where no other group of people had access to, or was able to pass through. Of course the Macedonians along with their territory were in contact with other groups of people, like Illyrians, Paeonians among others.You are refuting arguments that were never made, to begin with.

Well Stravon...let me furnish you with what Stravon actually said because it is evident that you dont know much about the subject. Please read carefully...


There remain of Europe, first, Macedonia and the parts of Thrace that are contiguous to it and extend as far as Byzantium; secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the places geographically, I have decided to classify it apart from the rest of Greece and to join it with that part of Thrace which borders on it and extends as far as the mouth of the Euxine and the Propontis. Then, a little further on, Strabo mentions Cypsela and the Hebrus River, and also describes a sort of parallelogram in which the whole of Macedonia lies.
[Strabo, Geography,book 7,Fragm,9]


And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.
[Strabo, Geography,book 7,VII,1]

And this should be fun for you. It might make you reconsider the relevance of the username “Molosi” to what you actually are…


….and again, of the Epeirotes, the Molossi became subject to Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles, and to his descendants, who were Thessalians. But the rest were ruled by men of native stock. …..
[Strabo, Geography, book 7, VII, 8]

This is even better…


The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press,
1990.

That was a side note just for us to lax the tension and have some fun. Unfortunately “Molosi” is not a suitable name for you but I feel honored that a non-Greek wants so much to share the Hellenic heritage and history with us. Be my guest….


I think enough with your beloved Strabo. I bet its more clear to you now.


Now that tablet you gave, as I said, contains NOTHING of the sort of things that even remotely resembel PHOENICIAN script (on which the Greek script is based). That tablet, whether the date on it is right nor not, doesn't matter, has nothing to do with Greece or Greeks, since there were no Greeks in that area at that time, period.

I am sorry to disappoint you but the claim that the Greek alphabet is based on the Phoenician one is more of a myth than a fact….stay tuned….I will do my best to make this a fruitful learning experience for you and show at the same time that almost NONE of your claims are linked with reality, even remotely.

[achilles]

Dear lord!

Well...chris, i am Macedonian.... a real one, from Macedonia.

Hey, guess what brother. I am a Macedonian too. Born and raised in Kastoria, Western Macedonia. I speak quite fluent Greek, my ID says i am an Orthodox, i have a great appreciation for the paganist religion of my ancestors, i speak some ancient Greek, i read the classicals, i adore my classical heritage and i read a lot of literature all in GREEK. Everything about me is Greek, although my DNA might not be exactly the same with my long gone ancestor Alexander the Great. See where i am getting at?

The difference between me and you is that i havent been lied. I know who i am...you just think you do. And dont draw any offense by what i say.

Want to call yourself a Macedonian? Go ahead. Very few people who know a bit of history will buy it.

Dobre vecce.... (that doesnt sound very Macedonian now, does it? :lol:)

[achilles]

Molosi, this goes to your claim that the Greeks took their alphabet from the Phoenicians. You need to catch up, man...


THE GREEKNESS OF THE ALPHABET

a) Archaeological Evidence

The theory that the alphabet is a Phoenician discovery has been maintained through the argument, among other things, that certain symbols of Phoenician writing are similar to the letters of the alphabet. For example, the Phoenician alef is the reverse or sideways Greek "A." This argument was a strong one until about 100 years ago, when linguists and historians still maintained that the Greeks did not know how to write before 800 B. C.! Around 1900 A.D., however, Arthur Evans excavated the Greek Minoan Crete and discovered the Greek Linear writings, whose symbols corresponded to 17 of the 24 letters of the Greek Alphabet.

Given that (A), the most ancient evidence of the Greek scripts (Linear A and Linear B) that were later discovered in Pylos, Mycenae, Menidi and Thebes -- but also in more northern areas up to the Danube river as well -- were dated to before 1500 B.C. And (B), that the Phoenicians and their writings appear in history no earlier than 1300 BC, Evans was the first person to express doubts about the theory that the Greeks received their script from the Phoenicians. He put forward the scientific suspicion that it was probably the other way round.

The doubts pertaining as to who was first -- the Phoenicians or the Greeks -- in discovering writing, became a certainty when French professor, Paul Fore, an internationally acclaimed specialist on Prehistoric Archaeology, published a report in Nestor (an American Archaeological Journal of the University of Indiana -- 16th year, 1989, page 2288). In this report, he submits and deciphers plates with Greek Linear writing found at the cyclopean wall of Pilikates, in Ithaca, dated, through the use of modern scientific methods, back to 2700 B.C., The language of these plates was Greek, and the decoding by professor Fore resulted in the following syllabic text, expressed phonetically: A]RE-DA-TI. DA-MI-U-A-.A-TE-NA-KA-NA-RE (ija)-TE. The phonetic equivalent of this is translated, always according to the professor, as: "Ιδού τι εγώ η Αρεδάτις δίδω εις την ανασσαν, την θεάν Ρέαν: 100 αίγας, 10 πρόβατα, 3 χοίρους" [Here is what I, Aredatis, give to the queen- goddess Rea, 100 goats, 10 sheep, 3 pigs]. (See, "Davlos" magazine, issue 107, November 1990, page 6103). Thus, Fore proved that the Greeks were writing and speaking Greek at least 1400 years before the appearance of the Phoenicians and their script in history.

But, the archaeological excavations in Greece during the last 15 years have given us many more great surprises: The Greeks were writing using not only Linear A and B, but also a type of writing identical to that of the alphabet since at least 6000 B.C. In fact, at Dispilio, in the lake of Kastoria, in northern Greece, professor G. Houmouziadis discovered a plate with writing very similar to that of the alphabet, which was dated, using radioactive Carbon-14 and visual photothermal methodology, back to 5250 B.C. (see Davlos, issue 147). Three years later, N. Samson, a curator of the Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Department, discovered shards of vases ("ostraka") with letters identical to the present Greek alphabet while excavating at the "Cyclop’s Cave," on the deserted island of Yioura, near the inhabited island of Alonnissos, in the Northern Sporades island complex. These vases were dated to 5,500 to 6,000 B.C. with the same methods (see "Davlos," issue 185, May 1997). The same archaeologist, while performing excavations on the island of Milos, discovered vessels of the proto-cycladic period (mid-3rd millennium B.C.) with letters identical to the Greek letters: "X," "N," "M," "K," "Ξ" [ksi],"Π" [p], "Ο," & "Ε." (See N. Samson's interview in Davlos, issue 204, December 1998, page 12749.)

This article appeared in the January 2000 issue of Davlos, pp.13741-13750

Thus, the Phoenicians took the alphabet from the Greeks and not the other way around. Sorry to spoil this one for you too. Better luck next time.

To get the thread back on its rails, because a great amount of Albano / Skopjian BS has been posted here....

...any news about the on going negotiations with Nimitz?

[Molosi]

i'm out of this thread

So many unaswered questions!!


There is none. Greece is not making any territorial claims whatsoever. And since you clearly have a complex there, I can inform you that despite the fact that the Greek community of N. Epirus or Southern Albania if you like has every right for autonomy according to the protocol of Corfu (1914), but we have never pushed for this. So give us a break about our "Balkan chest-beating" and the "economically powerful Greece that bullies smaller nations".


Hehe. So you have the right to territorial claims under the 1914 Crofu agreement. Balkanian mentality at its best!

[alvarhanso]

Well, good for you, it's nice to be well read....especialy with a wast knowledge of false propaganda.

Give me a break, do you realy believe in what you write. I hope not.
And yeah, i see where you gettin....but, sorry to say, you won't get far.
The list of supporters of the so called "Greek Macedonia" idea is getting thiner by the day...You'll have to do better, and what a surprise...threatening your neighbours is what you do so well.
USA, Russia, China, Canada, Poland...so on, so on....who do you think has the right friends in this dispute?

Dobre vecce doesnt sound like Macedonian to me, Dobro Vecer does.

[achilles]

Well, good for you, it's nice to be well read....especialy with a wast knowledge of false propaganda.

Give me a break, do you realy believe in what you write. I hope not.
And yeah, i see where you gettin....but, sorry to say, you won't get far.
The list of supporters of the so called "Greek Macedonia" idea is getting thiner by the day...You'll have to do better, and what a surprise...threatening your neighbours is what you do so well.
USA, Russia, China, Canada, Poland...so on, so on....who do you think has the right friends in this dispute?

Dobre vecce doesnt sound like Macedonian to me, Dobro Vecer does.

Splendid....have a pleasant evening yourself ;)

[achilles]

Molosi,
since you are so much convinced about the ethnic composition of Macedonia during the 19th and early 20th century, here is some food for thought.

According to statistics published by Brooklyns Daily Eagle on January 23 1881 the number of the Greeks in Macedonia and Thrace is estimated to be approximately 4 million

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/attachments/modern-macedonian-history/15d1154369033-4-000-000-greeks-macedonia-thrace-back-1881-4-million-greeks-1881-small-.jpg

This is an exceprt from an independent 1881 source.

And here is the opinion of the French Byzantist historian Rene Guerdan back in 1969, regarding the creation of phoney ethnic identities in the Balkans:

The magazine HISTORIA has just provided me with the very beautiful book that you so kindly sent me. I have first of all admired the presentation and then was struck by its contents.

Your thesis is brilliant. The Macedonians are and have always been Greeks, and the creation of a "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" with Skopje as capital is only a sad farce. I will not miss, when the opportunity arises, to pass this on.

In thanking you for having so kindly sent me your book, which has interested me even more, having myself written many works on Byzantium, I beg you to believe, dear Sir, by best feelings.

[alvarhanso]

Oh, i will. Feeling kinda hungry.
I'm going out...and getting me some gyro pita. :)

[Zombie Squad]

Speaking of Thrace, why don't you hand it over to Bulgaria again. Thrace have also nothing to do with Greece. You can consider it a WWII trophy.

[chris450]

So many unaswered questions!!


ha ha not quite p-)

no worries though,Bratko will fill you in :)

[achilles]

Speaking of Thrace, why don't you hand it over to Bulgaria again. Thrace have also nothing to do with Greece. You can consider it a WWII trophy.

That sounds like a brilliant idea. Shall we hand it over now or later?

To be fair, Thrace is somehow linked with ancient, and therefore modern Greece, unlike you and your Bulgarian brothers who showed up in the region thousands of years later. Now dont get me posting sources ok? We both know deep down that i am right..


Dobre vece Makedonski! :lol:

[achilles]

ha ha not quite p-)

no worries though,Bratko will fill you in :)

Dude, can you believe those guys?:cantbeli: :lol:


To be fair, i understand all this hatred and empathy stemming from our dear ultranationalist Albanians, Bulgarians and FYROManiacs posting here. They all believe they deserve chunks of Greece simply because they happend to be settled there for a small part of history. And they are very much pissed by the fact that they couldnt hold on to territories that never belonged to them in the first place.

The Albanians want Epirus, the FYROMAniacs want macedonia and the Bulgars want Thrace.

Any Egyptian claim on Crete? :lol:

[alvarhanso]

Dobre vece Makedonski! :lol:

Now i believe that you ARE a real Macedonian.
Good for you. :-D

[alvarhanso]

I havent seen so much BS since i saw "Titanic".
If this tread wasn't so funny it would have been sad. rofl

[Molosi]

Ahhh...long awaited reply!


First, no one claimed that ancient Macedonia was a stronghold of Macedonians. A cage where no other group of people had access to, or was able to pass through. Of course the Macedonians along with their territory were in contact with other groups of people, like Illyrians, Paeonians among others.You are refuting arguments that were never made, to begin with.


The arguments I have made, and which are supported both by the archeological record and the historical record, are that Greeks in Macedonia, and Hellenic influence there, is transplanted from elsewhere.

The arguments you have made, are that Macedonians are some sort of super-human pure Doric Greek race and the earliest things of all things, therefore Macedonia is wholly Greek simply becasue of that fact.

Quite contradicting arguments. I'm not even saying they had "contacts" with Illyrians and Thracians. I'm saying that there lived there Illyrians, Thraciasn and Phrygians, and there were Greek colonies established there, with some ifluence of Hellenization, creating the Macedonia we know of.

I'm certain you don't agree with that.


Well Stravon...let me furnish you with what Stravon actually said because it is evident that you dont know much about the subject. Please read carefully...


Quote:
There remain of Europe, first, Macedonia and the parts of Thrace that are contiguous to it and extend as far as Byzantium; secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the places geographically, I have decided to classify it apart from the rest of Greece and to join it with that part of Thrace which borders on it and extends as far as the mouth of the Euxine and the Propontis. Then, a little further on, Strabo mentions Cypsela and the Hebrus River, and also describes a sort of parallelogram in which the whole of Macedonia lies.
[Strabo, Geography,book 7,Fragm,9]
Quote:
And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.
[Strabo, Geography,book 7,VII,1]

You'r throwing at me quotes I already gave to you. Excellent work!
Also if you had taken the time to actually read my post, I made it clear that Strabo DOES consider Macedonia to be part of Greece.
However Strabo also talks about a large number of non-Greek peoples living there, and talks specifically of pre-Hellenic Macedonia where we see Phrygians and Thracians and Illyrians.
We'r talking about colonization and a proces of Hellenization here, quite contradictory to your claims of a "pure Doric race", or whatever such silliness.

And this should be fun for you. It might make you reconsider the relevance of the username “Molosi” to what you actually are…

Quote:
….and again, of the Epeirotes, the Molossi became subject to Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles, and to his descendants, who were Thessalians. But the rest were ruled by men of native stock. …..
[Strabo, Geography, book 7, VII, 8]
:) You are speaking to me as if I'v never read Strabo's work. Thank you! But perhaps becasue you don't really understand what he's saying, you think you are telling me something so amasing.
Of course, he says Pyrrhus, was a Thessalian, not of native stock. Amasing! So the Molosians were Greeks, because the ruling family of Phyrrus, was from Thessaly!
I assume Peruvians must have been Japanese when Fujimoro was ruling over there.
of course, you say this, right after you say this from Strabo! :)

And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes
This is a passage I posted earlier myself, but you probably didn't bother to read it and though it'd be interesting to repost it. In the paragraph (which this is the end of it), Strabo talks of the ethnic groups that lived in pre-Hellenic Greece, meaning in the Greece before there were any Greeks there. He speaks of the Pheonicians, of the Phrygians, of the Egyptians, Pelasgians, Lelegs, Thracians and other such peoples who lived in various parts of that area before there were Greeks.
In this last part of that paragraph, he says the sentance "And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks". And you find nothing wrong with this statement? It describes the present (in Strabo's time) relations between the Greeks and the "barbarians", ie non-Greeks, after he had described the older "pre-Hellenic" condition.
And then he says:

indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.

You probably thought this means something else, didn't you? What it means, is that parts of Greece, in Strabo's time, were under control of the "barbarians", non-Greeks. Macedonia he says was under the control of the Thracians, and certain parts of Aetolia and Acarnania by the Epiriotic tribes.
He sure seems to be describing these Epiriotic tribes, as anything but Greeks, in the same breath as the Thracians and Illyrians.
And he also says, Macedonia was under Thracian control at this time.

This is even better…

Quote:
The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press,
1990.

Well Strabo then should have read Malcom Errington before he wrote what he did ;) Those damn pesky Illyrians were such trouble! I wonder why both Phyrrus and Alexander spend their childhoods growing up...in Illyria.

That was a side note just for us to lax the tension and have some fun. Unfortunately “Molosi” is not a suitable name for you but I feel honored that a non-Greek wants so much to share the Hellenic heritage and history with us. Be my guest….

Ahh well you know me. I'm orthodox from Vorio Epirus. What other identity could I have.

I am sorry to disappoint you but the claim that the Greek alphabet is based on the Phoenician one is more of a myth than a fact….stay tuned….I will do my best to make this a fruitful learning experience for you and show at the same time that almost NONE of your claims are linked with reality, even remotely.
Oh wonderful. Lets keep talking about a completely unrelated issue. Do you understand what I said before? Or do you alwasy just grasp at straws?
You brought here some tablet claiming it was Greek and to show the Macedonians were Greeks and as old as the earth itself (well, so the Bible says at least), and what I said is that those are Vinca-culture symbols completely unrelated to Greece and pre-dating them by a few thousand years. (then of course you go and post an article claiming once more, Greek!)
Other than that, go ahead and have fun. I guess after you have little to say about the REAL issue, straws are all thats left to grasp at, since this doesn't even have anything to do with Macedonia.

[Zombie Squad]

How was I expecting this answer. Linked with ancient=Greece. Oh my god. That's what you try to do all the time, convince people that you are the only one remanining from that period, just because nobody Slavinized or Romanized you.
Well mate people just don't disappear from a habitance, they don't get erased and filled by others.
Just because Thracian's were Hellinized dosn't link them genetically with Hellenes. In 6th century they by the way got Slavinized, yet keeping their genetic roots. Modern Bulgarians are infact Thracian's.

Now go to the beach and have a lukomades.

[alvarhanso]

Any Egyptian claim on Crete? :lol:


No, but i hear the moon was Greek, and the Apachi and the Aboriginee were Greek tribes too. :)

[Zombie Squad]

^ Don't forget about Jesus. Yes true, I'm not fooling around. Ask any Greek. Please Achilles convince the non believers.

[chris450]

well dont know about Jesus.....but Aristotel(ov) was surely Macedonskian ROTFL

gotta love the fake beard lol
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s228/daniel_maco/P1010624.jpghttp://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s228/daniel_maco/P1010620.jpg



:-D:-D:-D

[achilles]

The arguments I have made, and which are supported both by the archeological record and the historical record, are that Greeks in Macedonia, and Hellenic influence there, is transplanted from elsewhere.

What evidence brother? :lol: You just quoted Strabo to inform us about the obvious: that Macedonia was surrounded by various groups of people. Congratulations. You invented the wheel.


The arguments you have made, are that Macedonians are some sort of super-human pure Doric Greek race and the earliest things of all things, therefore Macedonia is wholly Greek simply becasue of that fact.

Show me where i made any claim on "any super human" Dorian tribe. Dont try to paint my posts with the paitn that suits you. However, the Macedonians were of Doric stock (just like the Spartans), irrespective of whether the Paeonians, Illyrians or Marshians were living next to them.

You are not stupid ( i guess...). You are just trying to be effective in distorting what i say.


Quite contradicting arguments. I'm not even saying they had "contacts" with Illyrians and Thracians. I'm saying that there lived there Illyrians, Thraciasn and Phrygians, and there were Greek colonies established there, with some ifluence of Hellenization, creating the Macedonia we know of.

Here we go again. The same BS over and over again. Macedonia was inhabited by Macedonians. Thats all i am saying. Fairly simple to grasp no?

The rest just suits your Albanian propaganda.






You'r throwing at me quotes I already gave to you. Excellent work!
Also if you had taken the time to actually read my post,

I am not reading your posts to death, i must admit that. THat would be a shameful waste of time. I already spent enough time providing you with credible sources that refute your slur.


We'r talking about colonization and a proces of Hellenization here, quite contradictory to your claims of a "pure Doric race", or whatever such silliness.

Apparently, Strabo's writings do not support your claim of "Hellenization". Strabo simply corroborates the fact that Macedonia and the Macedonians were part of the then Greek world. "Estin oun Hellas kai i Makedonia"...i am sure that as an expert on Strabo you know what the above quote means...




I assume Peruvians must have been Japanese when Fujimoro was ruling over there.
Its good to see a sense of humour in you.



Ahh well you know me. I'm orthodox from Vorio Epirus. What other identity could I have.

Its "Voria Epirus" and i thank you so much for calling it like that.


Oh wonderful. Lets keep talking about a completely unrelated issue. Do you understand what I said before? Or do you alwasy just grasp at straws?
You brought here some tablet claiming it was Greek and to show the Macedonians were Greeks and as old as the earth itself (well, so the Bible says at least), and what I said is that those are Vinca-culture symbols completely unrelated to Greece and pre-dating them by a few thousand years. (then of course you go and post an article claiming once more, Greek!)
Other than that, go ahead and have fun. I guess after you have little to say about the REAL issue, straws are all thats left to grasp at, since this doesn't even have anything to do with Macedonia.

Many issues have been raised here. By you and me and others. And i supported all my claims one by one.

So tell me. What is the REAL issue here, apart from the very evident fact that you are crippled when it comes to supporting your claims?

Your posts are amalgamations of falsified information and malintended intepretation. Yep...i am trully dissappointed in you...

[DeltaWhisky58]

Topic closed until you learn to behave like civilised adults instead of a baying mob.




N.B. Any further threads on this subject will be treated in a similar fashion, if members behave the way they have behaved here.