To the students of Ancient Macedonian History

[Karaahmetoglu]

To the students of Ancient Macedonian History

Gandeto
May 24, 2009
While taking subjective positioning on topics of ancient history dealing with events that have taken place thousands of years ago, shrouded in mystery and still under the veil of an inconclusive and controversial permanency, to a certain degree, is an acceptable act. Affirming your signature to a politically motivated petition, not only is not acceptable but it is also counterproductive, unethical and undermines the educational principles, the confidence and the trust inherent in the scholarly institutions and leaves a permanent stigma on the integrity of our educational system. Moreover, an act of such frivolousness, subjective and self-securing interest will not only erode the students´ morale, weaken their convictions but also chip away at the purity of their beliefs.

Listed below you will find a number of quotes regarding Ancient Macedonians and their relationship/discourse with the ancient Greeks. These quotes stand in star contrast to the position your immediate professor has assumed by signing a petition supporting Mr. Miller´s view of the ancient Macedonians.

By selecting any of these citations (written by prominent scholars) please, make your history lectures come to life by asking your professor to elaborate and explain his/her position as to why his/her beliefs are so different than the quoted text. Ask them if they believe that the ancient biographers were wrong to not assign any greekness to the Ancient Macedonians.

Ask them why Alexander dismissed his Greek allies in 330 BC; why the ancient Greeks cursed the race and the name of the ancient Macedonians and perhaps, you can probe further into why the ancient Greeks asked the ancient Macedonian kings to evacuate from Greece. If you encounter any satisfactory answer, perhaps you can push on for confirmation and pose this question: when Romans defeated the Macedonians in 168 BC., how come they liberated the Greeks?

Doesn´t your professor fall into contradiction by claiming that ancient Macedonians were Greeks by ignoring the writings of the ancient biographers? And if your professor maintains his/her assumed ground with imperfect firmness by avoiding confrontation, you can politely demand, how come he/she did not raise his/her objections before to so many quotes of a seemingly controversial nature that "litter" the pages of history. Wasn´t it their professional duty to "remedy" the incorrectness and injustices done to the interpretation of the ancient biographers´ text? Why raising his displeasures/voice at this time? Why attaching it to a controversial piece of paper with political inclinations?

Furthermore, ask your beloved teachers whether they are familiar with Greece´s treatment of the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece? Do they know that Greece does not recognize these people as such? Do they care if their signature is encouraging the Greek government to continue with its cultural and ethnic genocide of the ethnic Macedonians? Do they know that Greece obtained Macedonian territory for the first time in 1912 with the Balkan Wars? Please ask them, if by signing a petition, they care if they support and promote ethnic discrimination, racist policies and hatred?

Here are some of the quotes for your selection:

1. Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.

2. "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius."

3. "What ever the ethnic origins and identity of the Macedonians, they were generally perceived in their own time by Greeks and themselves not to be Greek."

4. On Alexander's I attempt to enter the Olympic games: "There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian -- which proves at the least, that the Teminid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an esoteric knowledge." The Olympic Games were reserved for Greeks only. This is a known fact.

5. On Alexander the Great: "Characteristically for Alexander despite his thorough Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was nevertheless a Macedonian king."

6. On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king."

7. "Philip had not tried to pass of his Macedonians as Greeks"

8. Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry, or to integrate it with Greek 'foreign' individuals".

9. On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king."

"As Callisthenes was a Greek, there was no question of trying him by the Macedonian army."

10. "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect."

11. "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history."

12. "In my view there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect."

13. "Alexander's invitation to speak (Curt. 6. 9. 34) presupposes that the entire army spoke Macedonian."

14. "Alexander's challenge presupposes that all the army would understand an address in Macedonian."

15. "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."

16. "The turning-point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non-Macedonian troops.

17. "The forces from the Corinthian League, infantry and cavalry, were demobilised from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus less than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function."

18. "The structure of command seems to have been parallel to that of the Macedonian cavalry, with regionally based ilai, but at the head was a Macedonian commander. The rest of the allied cavalry, predominantly from central Greece and the Peloponnese, was much less important and effective, fewer in number and less prominent in action. Like the Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the command of a Macedonian officer."

19. "The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles.http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/103637

More on the link.

Sounds like the Greek Government has a Macedonian Problem, the Greek state is fundamentally responsible for the creation of the problem by its fateful decision in the 1820s to create a nation-state defined as consisting of Greeks alone.

[Femto]

Who is this Gandeto ?
Is he a scholar or a journalist ?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/3657

He seems to write only propaganda(His POV) articles about FYROM and their claims .

http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html
You can check the professors that sponsor this article unlike Gandeto they state their full names and credentials .

[alvarhanso]

It falls in the same basket as the letter that was sent to President Obama last week. Some may call it propaganda... some may call it Point of View.
it's not like the American politics towards Macedonia will change over a letter signed by professors. The US has been constitent so far over this issue and i don't see anything moving in a another direction. The hopes (along with the money by certain lobby groups, supporting Obama) that the Democrats will view this problem from a different angle... came out bogus.
What's done is done people...

[Mencius]

Who is this Gandeto ?
Is he a scholar or a journalist ?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/3657

He seems to write only propaganda(His POV) articles about FYROM and their claims .

http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html
You can check the professors that sponsor this article unlike Gandeto they state their full names and credentials .

I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Especially from a source where anyone is invited to put up their own article/view. The person can't even put his full name it seems.

By contrast, we have over 200 Professors that back up the fact that Macedonia was and is Hellenic. Enough said really.:roll:

[Aor]

It falls in the same basket as the letter that was sent to President Obama last week. Some may call it propaganda... some may call it Point of View.


You'd wish I am sure. These scholars are scientists and they can sure beat you and that articles Propaganda and it's nameless author.


Harry C. Avery, Professor of Classics, University of Pittsburgh (USA)

Dr. Dirk Backendorf. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz (Germany)

Elizabeth C. Banks, Associate Professor of Classics (ret.), University of Kansas (USA)

Luigi Beschi, professore emerito di Archeologia Classica, UniversitΓ di Firenze (Italy) Josine H. Blok, professor of Ancient History and Classical Civilization, Utrecht University (The Netherlands)

Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA)

Efrosyni Boutsikas, Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of Kent (UK)

Keith Bradley, Eli J. and Helen Shaheen Professor of Classics, Concurrent Professor of History, University of Notre Dame (USA)

Stanley M. Burstein, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Los Angeles (USA)

Francis Cairns, Professor of Classical Languages, The Florida State University (USA)

John McK. Camp II, Agora Excavations and Professor of Archaeology, ASCSA, Athens (Greece)

Paul Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture, University of Cambridge (UK)

Paavo CastrΓ©n, Professor of Classical Philology Emeritus, University of Helsinki (Finland)

William Cavanagh, Professor of Aegean Prehistory, University of Nottingham (UK)

Angelos Chaniotis, Professor, Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford (UK)

Paul Christesen, Professor of Ancient Greek History, Dartmouth College (USA)

Ada Cohen, Associate Professor of Art History, Dartmouth College (USA)

Randall M. Colaizzi, Lecturer in Classical Studies, University of Massachusetts-Boston (USA)

Kathleen M. Coleman, Professor of Latin, Harvard University (USA)

Michael B. Cosmopoulos, Ph.D., Professor and Endowed Chair in Greek Archaeology, University of Missouri-St. Louis (USA)

Kevin F. Daly, Assistant Professor of Classics, Bucknell University (USA)

Wolfgang Decker, Professor emeritus of sport history, Deutsche Sporthochschule, KΓΆln (Germany)

Luc Deitz, AusserplanmΓ€ssiger Professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin, University of Trier (Germany), and Curator of manuscripts and rare books, National Library of Luxembourg (Luxembourg)

Michael Dewar, Professor of Classics, University of Toronto (Canada)

John D. Dillery, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Virginia (USA)

Sheila Dillon, Associate Professor, Depts. of Art, Art History & Visual Studies and Classical Studies, Duke University (USA)

Douglas Domingo-ForastΓ©, Professor of Classics, California State University, Long Beach (USA)

Pierre Ducrey, professeur honoraire, UniversitΓ© de Lausanne (Switzerland)

Roger Dunkle, Professor of Classics Emeritus, Brooklyn College, City University of New York (USA)

Michael M. Eisman, Associate Professor Ancient History and Classical Archaeology, Department of History, Temple University (USA)

Mostafa El-Abbadi, Professor Emeritus, University of Alexandria (Egypt)

R. Malcolm Errington, Professor fΓΌr Alte Geschichte (Emeritus) Philipps-UniversitΓ€t, Marburg (Germany)

Panagiotis Faklaris, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Denis Feeney, Giger Professor of Latin, Princeton University (USA)

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Professor of Classics and Art History, Randolph-Macon College (USA)

Nick Fisher, Professor of Ancient History, Cardiff University (UK)

R. Leon Fitts, Asbury J Clarke Professor of Classical Studies, Emeritus, FSA, Scot., ****inson Colllege (USA)

John M. Fossey FRSC, FSA, Emeritus Professor of Art History (and Archaeology), McGill Univertsity, Montreal, and Curator of Archaeology, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (Canada)

Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)

Rainer Friedrich, Professor of Classics Emeritus, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. (Canada)

Heide Froning, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Marburg (Germany)

Peter Funke, Professor of Ancient History, University of Muenster (Germany)

Traianos Gagos, Professor of Greek and Papyrology, University of Michigan (USA)

Robert Garland, Roy D. and Margaret B. Wooster Professor of the Classics, Colgate University, Hamilton NY (USA)

Douglas E. Gerber, Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies, University of Western Ontario (Canada)

Hans R. Goette, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Giessen (Germany); German Archaeological Institute, Berlin (Germany)

Sander M. Goldberg, Professor of Classics, UCLA (USA)

Erich S. Gruen, Gladys Rehard Wood Professor of History and Classics, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA)

Donald C. Haggis, Nicholas A. Cassas Term Professor of Greek Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Judith P. Hallett, Professor of Classics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (USA)

Prof. Paul B. Harvey, Jr. Head, Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, The Pennsylvania State University (USA)

Eleni Hasaki, Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Arizona (USA)

Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, Director, Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Research Foundation, Athens (Greece)

Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, Prof. Dr., Freie UniversitΓ€t Berlin und Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Germany)

Steven W. Hirsch, Associate Professor of Classics and History, Tufts University (USA)

Karl-J. HΓΆlkeskamp, Professor of Ancient History, University of Cologne (Germany)

Frank L. Holt, Professor of Ancient History, University of Houston (USA)

Dan Hooley, Professor of Classics, University of Missouri (USA)

Meredith C. Hoppin, Gagliardi Professor of Classical Languages, Williams College, Williamstown, MA (USA)

Caroline M. Houser, Professor of Art History Emerita, Smith College (USA) and Affiliated Professor, University of Washington (USA)

Georgia Kafka, Visiting Professor of Modern Greek Language, Literature and History, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Anthony Kaldellis, Professor of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University (USA)

Andromache Karanika, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of California, Irvine (USA)

Robert A. Kaster, Professor of Classics and Kennedy Foundation Professor of Latin, Princeton University (USA)

Vassiliki Kekela, Adjunct Professor of Greek Studies, Classics Department, Hunter College, City University of New York (USA)

Dietmar Kienast, Professor Emeritus of Ancient History, University of Duesseldorf (Germany)

Karl Kilinski II, University Distinguished Teaching Professor, Southern Methodist University (USA)

Dr. Florian Knauss, associate director, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek Muenchen (Germany)

Denis Knoepfler, Professor of Greek Epigraphy and History, Collège de France (Paris)

Ortwin Knorr, Associate Professor of Classics, Willamette University (USA)

Robert B. Koehl, Professor of Archaeology, Department of Classical and Oriental Studies Hunter College, City University of New York (USA)

Georgia Kokkorou-Alevras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Classical Studies, Brandeis University (USA)

Eric J. Kondratieff, Assistant Professor of Classics and Ancient History, Department of Greek & Roman Classics, Temple University

Haritini Kotsidu, Apl. Prof. Dr. fΓΌr Klassische ArchΓ€ologie, Goethe-UniversitΓ€t, Frankfurt/M. (Germany)

Lambrini Koutoussaki, Dr., Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of ZΓΌrich (Switzerland)

David Kovacs, Hugh H. Obear Professor of Classics, University of Virginia (USA)

Peter Krentz, W. R. Grey Professor of Classics and History, Davidson College (USA)

Friedrich Krinzinger, Professor of Classical Archaeology Emeritus, University of Vienna (Austria)

Michael Kumpf, Professor of Classics, Valparaiso University (USA)

Donald G. Kyle, Professor of History, University of Texas at Arlington (USA)

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Helmut Kyrieleis, former president of the German Archaeological Institute, Berlin (Germany)

Gerald V. Lalonde, Benedict Professor of Classics, Grinnell College (USA)

Steven Lattimore, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of California, Los Angeles (USA)

Francis M. Lazarus, President, University of Dallas (USA)

Mary R. Lefkowitz, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities, Emerita, Wellesley College (USA)

Iphigeneia Leventi, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Daniel B. Levine, Professor of Classical Studies, University of Arkansas (USA)

Christina Leypold, Dr. phil., Archaeological Institute, University of Zurich (Switzerland)

Vayos Liapis, Associate Professor of Greek, Centre d��tudes Classiques & Département de Philosophie, Université de Montréal (Canada)

Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Professor of Greek Emeritus, University of Oxford (UK)

Yannis Lolos, Assistant Professor, History, Archaeology, and Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Stanley Lombardo, Professor of Classics, University of Kansas, USA

Anthony Long, Professor of Classics and Irving G. Stone Professor of Literature, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA)

A.D. Macro, Hobart Professor of Classical Languages emeritus, Trinity College (USA)

John Magee, Professor, Department of Classics, Director, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto (Canada)

Dr. Christofilis Maggidis, Associate Professor of Archaeology, ****inson College (USA)

Jeannette Marchand, Assistant Professor of Classics, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (USA)

Richard P. Martin, Antony and Isabelle Raubitschek Professor in Classics, Stanford University

Maria Mavroudi, Professor of Byzantine History, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

James R. McCredie, Sherman Fairchild Professor emeritus; Director, Excavations in Samothrace Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (USA)

James C. McKeown, Professor of Classics, University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA)

Robert A. Mechikoff, Professor and Life Member of the International Society of Olympic Historians, San Diego State University (USA)

Andreas Mehl, Professor of Ancient History, Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg (Germany)

Harald Mielsch, Professor of Classical Archeology, University of Bonn (Germany)

Stephen G. Miller, Professor of Classical Archaeology Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Phillip Mitsis, A.S. Onassis Professor of Classics and Philosophy, New York University (USA)

Peter Franz Mittag, Professor fΓΌr Alte Geschichte, UniversitΓ€t zu KΓΆln (Germany)

David Gordon Mitten, James Loeb Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology, Harvard University (USA)

Margaret S. Mook, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, Iowa State University (USA)

Anatole Mori, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, University of Missouri- Columbia (USA)

Jennifer Sheridan Moss, Associate Professor, Wayne State University (USA)

Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Assistant Professor of Greek Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, New York (USA).

Richard Neudecker, PD of Classical Archaeology, Deutsches ArchΓ€ologisches Institut Rom (Italy)

James M.L. Newhard, Associate Professor of Classics, College of Charleston (USA)

Carole E. Newlands, Professor of Classics, University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA)

John Maxwell O'Brien, Professor of History, Queens College, City University of New York (USA)

James J. O'Hara, Paddison Professor of Latin, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (USA)

Martin Ostwald, Professor of Classics (ret.), Swarthmore College and Professor of Classical Studies (ret.), University of Pennsylvania (USA)

Olga Palagia, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Vassiliki Panoussi, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, The College of William and Mary (USA)

Maria C. Pantelia, Professor of Classics, University of California, Irvine (USA)

Pantos A.Pantos, Adjunct Faculty, Department of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Anthony J. Papalas, Professor of Ancient History, East Carolina University (USA)

Nassos Papalexandrou, Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin (USA)

Polyvia Parara, Visiting Assistant Professor of Greek Language and Civilization, Department of Classics, Georgetown University (USA)

Richard W. Parker, Associate Professor of Classics, Brock University (Canada)

Robert Parker, Wykeham Professor of Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)

Anastasia-Erasmia Peponi, Associate Professor of Classics, Stanford University (USA)

Jacques Perreault, Professor of Greek archaeology, UniversitΓ© de MontrΓ©al, QuΓ©bec (Canada)

Yanis Pikoulas, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek History, University of Thessaly (Greece)

John Pollini, Professor of Classical Art & Archaeology, University of Southern California (USA)

David Potter, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Greek and Latin. The University of Michigan (USA)

Robert L. Pounder, Professor Emeritus of Classics, Vassar College (USA)

Nikolaos Poulopoulos, Assistant Professor in History and Chair in Modern Greek Studies, McGill University (Canada)

William H. Race, George L. Paddison Professor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

John T. Ramsey, Professor of Classics, University of Illinois at Chicago (USA)

Karl Reber, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

Rush Rehm, Professor of Classics and Drama, Stanford University (USA)

Werner Riess, Associate Professor of Classics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Robert H. Rivkin, Ancient Studies Department, University of Maryland Baltimore County (USA)

Barbara Saylor Rodgers, Professor of Classics, The University of Vermont (USA)

Robert H. Rodgers. Lyman-Roberts Professor of Classical Languages and Literature, University of Vermont (USA)

Nathan Rosenstein, Professor of Ancient History, The Ohio State University (USA)

John C. Rouman, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of New Hampshire, (USA)

Dr. James Roy, Reader in Greek History (retired), University of Nottingham (UK)

Steven H. Rutledge, Associate Professor of Classics, Department of Classics, University of Maryland, College Park (USA)

Christina A. Salowey, Associate Professor of Classics, Hollins University (USA)

Guy D. R. Sanders, Resident Director of Corinth Excavations, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Greece)

Theodore Scaltsas, Professor of Ancient Greek Philosophy, University of Edinburgh (UK)

Thomas F. Scanlon, Professor of Classics, University of California, Riverside (USA)

Bernhard Schmaltz, Prof. Dr. ArchΓ€ologisches Institut der CAU, Kiel (Germany)

Rolf M. Schneider, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Ludwig-Maximilians- UniversitΓ€t MΓΌnchen (Germany)

Peter Scholz, Professor of Ancient History and Culture, University of Stuttgart (Germany)

Christof Schuler, director, Commission for Ancient History and Epigraphy of the German Archaeological Institute, Munich (Germany)

Paul D. Scotton, Assoociate Professor Classical Archaeology and Classics, California State University Long Beach (USA)

Danuta Shanzer, Professor of Classics and Medieval Studies, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America (USA)

James P. Sickinger, Associate Professor of Classics, Florida State University (USA)

Marilyn B. Skinner �Professor of Classics, �University of Arizona (USA)

Niall W. Slater, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Latin and Greek, Emory University (USA)

Peter M. Smith, Associate Professor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Dr. Philip J. Smith, Research Associate in Classical Studies, McGill University (Canada)

Susan Kirkpatrick Smith Assistant Professor of Anthropology Kennesaw State University (USA)

Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK)

Theodosia Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece).

Andrew Stewart, Nicholas C. Petris Professor of Greek Studies, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Oliver Stoll, Univ.-Prof. Dr., Alte Geschichte/ Ancient History,UniversitΓ€t Passau (Germany)

Richard Stoneman, Honorary Fellow, University of Exeter (England)

Ronald Stroud, Klio Distinguished Professor of Classical Languages and Literature Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Sarah Culpepper Stroup, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Washington (USA)

Nancy Sultan, Professor and Director, Greek & Roman Studies, Illinois Wesleyan University (USA)

David W. Tandy, Professor of Classics, University of Tennessee (USA)

James Tatum, Aaron Lawrence Professor of Classics, Dartmouth College

Martha C. Taylor, Associate Professor of Classics, Loyola College in Maryland

Petros Themelis, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, Athens (Greece)

Eberhard Thomas, Priv.-Doz. Dr.,ArchΓ€ologisches Institut der UniversitΓ€t zu KΓΆln (Germany)

Michalis Tiverios, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Michael K. Toumazou, Professor of Classics, Davidson College (USA)

Stephen V. Tracy, Professor of Greek and Latin Emeritus, Ohio State University (USA)

Prof. Dr. Erich Trapp, Austrian Academy of Sciences/Vienna resp. University of Bonn (Germany)

Stephen M. Trzaskoma, Associate Professor of Classics, University of New Hampshire (USA)

Vasiliki Tsamakda, Professor of Christian Archaeology and Byzantine History of Art, University of Mainz (Germany)

Christopher Tuplin, Professor of Ancient History, University of Liverpool (UK)

Gretchen Umholtz, Lecturer, Classics and Art History, University of Massachusetts, Boston (USA)

Panos Valavanis, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Athanassios Vergados, Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA

Christina Vester, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Waterloo (Canada)

Emmanuel Voutiras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Speros Vryonis, Jr., Alexander S. Onassis Professor (Emeritus) of Hellenic Civilization and Culture, New York University (USA)

Michael B. Walbank, Professor Emeritus of Greek, Latin & Ancient History, The University of Calgary (Canada)

Bonna D. Wescoat, Associate Professor, Art History and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Emory University (USA)

E. Hector Williams, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of British Columbia (Canada)

Roger J. A. Wilson, Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire, and Director, Centre for the Study of Ancient Sicily, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada)

Engelbert Winter, Professor for Ancient History, University of MΓΌnster (Germany)

Timothy F. Winters, Ph.D. Alumni Assn. Distinguished Professor of Classics, Austin Peay State University (USA)

Michael Zahrnt, Professor fΓΌr Alte Geschichte, UniversitΓ€t zu KΓΆln (Germany)

Paul Zanker, Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies, University of Munich (Germany)

200 signatures as of May 18th 2009.

For the growing list of scholars, please go to the Addenda.

12 Scholars added on May 19th 2009: Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Fresno (USA)

John P. Anton, Distinguished Professor of Greek Philosophy and Culture University of South Florida (USA)

Effie F. Athanassopoulos, Associate Professor �Anthropology and Classics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (USA)

Leonidas Bargeliotes, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Athens, President of the Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture (Greece)

Joseph W. Day, Professor of Classics, Wabash College (USA)

Christos C. Evangeliou, Professor of Ancient Hellenic Philosophy, Towson University, Maryland, Honorary President of International Association for Greek Philosophy (USA)

Eleni Kalokairinou, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Secretary of the Olympic Center of Philosophy and Culture (Cyprus)

Lilian Karali, Professor of Prehistoric and Environmental Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Anna Marmodoro, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford (UK)

Marion Meyer, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna (Austria)

Jessica L. Nitschke, Assistant Professor of Classics, Georgetown University (USA)

David C.Young, Professor of Classics Emeritus, University of Florida (USA)

10 Scholars added on May 20th 2009: Maria Ypsilanti, Assistant Professor of Ancient Greek Literature, University of Cyprus

Christos Panayides, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Nicosia (Cyprus)

Anagnostis P. Agelarakis, Professor of Anthropology, Adelphi University (USA)

Dr. Irma Wehgartner, Curator of the Martin von Wagner Museum der UniversitΓ€t WΓΌrzburg (Germany)

Dr. Ioannis Georganas, Researcher, Department ofΒ History and Archaeology, Foundation of the Hellenic World (Greece)

Maria Papaioannou, Assistant Professor in Classical Archaeology, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Chryssa Maltezou, Professor emeritus, University of Athens, Director of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Postbyzantine Studies in Venice (Italy)

Myrto Dragona-Monachou, Professor emerita of Philosophy, University of Athens (Greece)

David L. Berkey, Assistant Professor of History, California State University, Fresno (USA)

Stephan Heilen, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA)

3 Scholars added on May 21st 2009:

Rosalia Hatzilambrou, Researcher, Academy of Athens (Greece)

Athanasios Sideris, Ph.D., Head of the History and Archaeology Department, Foundation of the Hellenic World, Athens (Greece)

Rev. Dr. Demetrios JΒ Constantelos, Charles Cooper Townsend Professor of Ancient and Byzantine history, Emeritus; Distinguished Research Scholar in Residence at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey (USA)

3 Scholars added on May 22nd 2009:

Ioannis M. Akamatis, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Lefteris Platon, Assistant Professor of Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Lucia Athanassaki, Associate Professor of Classical Philology, University of Crete (Greece)

5 Scholars added on May 23rd 2009:

Georgios Anagnostopoulos, Professor of Philosophy, University of California-San Diego (USA)

Ioannes G. Leontiades, Assistant Professor of Byzantine History, Aristotle University of Thessalonike (Greece)

Ewen Bowie, Emeritus Fellow, Corpus Christi College, Oxford (UK)

Mika Kajava,Β Professor of Greek Language and Literature; Head of the Department of Classical Studies, University of Helsinki (Finland)

Christian R. Raschle, Assistant Professor of Roman History, Centre d��tudes Classiques & Département d'Histoire, Université de Montréal (Canada)

4 Scholars added on May 25th 2009:

Selene Psoma, Senior Lecturer of Ancient History, University of Athens (Greece)

G. M. Sifakis, Professor Emeritus of Classics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki &Β New York University (Greece & USA)

Kostas Buraselis, Professor of Ancient History, University of Athens (Greece)

Michael Ferejohn, Associate Professor of Ancient Philosophy, Duke University (USA)

5 Scholars added on May 26th 2009:

Ioannis Xydopoulos, Assistant Professor in Ancient History, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Stella Drougou, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Heather L. Reid, Professor of Philosophy, Morningside College (USA)

Thomas A. Suits, Emeritus Professor of Classical Languages, University of Connecticut (USA)

Dr Thomas Johansen, Reader in Ancient Philosophy, University of Oxford (UK)

6 Scholars added on May 27th 2009:

FrΓΆsΓ©n Jaakko, Professor of Greek philology, University of Helsinki (Finland)

John F. Kenfield, Associate Professor, Department of Art History, Rutgers University (USA)

Dr. Aristotle Michopoulos, Professor & Chair, Greek Studies Dept., Hellenic College (Brookline, MA, USA)

Guy MacLean Rogers, Kemper Professor of Classics and History, Wellesley College (USA)

Stavros Frangoulidis, Associate Professor of Latin. Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Yannis Tzifopoulos, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek and Epigraphy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Karaahmetoglu კოპაძე what is this? Wishful thinking that Greeks are not Greeks and that we have identity issues? Please at least make an attempt to hide your loathing.

If you want come by and I'll offer you a free tour at Vergina Aiges and Dion and translate for you free the Ancient Greek inscriptions there.

[Lokos]

It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples

To the ancient writers the Thebans and the Athenians were probably two separate and distinct peoples, too. This is a case of reading identity backwards.

The peoples of the Balkans are so intermixed, in terms of ethnogenesis, that me claiming a Hellenic heritage wouldn't be lunacy - and I'm a Serb. Countless Greeks were likely Slavicized by the Slavic migrations of the 6th-9th centuries. Countless Slavs were likely Hellenized. The Thracians, Dacians and nascent Roman populations were all absorbed over time. Celtic, Germanic, Turkish and Spanish influences were pervasive.

This argument between the Greeks and the Macedonians over Alexander the Great seems more silly to me the older I get. Who is to say that many modern Slavic Macedonians aren't descended from their ancient counterparts? My children will likely speak English as a first language, and I'm not even marrying a native English speaker. These are not tangible qualities we are tussling over. Linguistic and cultural influences change over time. Identity, personal and ethnic, is not a fixed concept. It evolves.

The Balkans represent the melting pot of Europe - and I, for one, am proud of all those who made that part of the world such a center for human culture and civilization. From the Ancient Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantines and to their Slavic inheritors.

Can't we all just get along?

:)

L.

[Mencius]

To the ancient writers the Thebans and the Athenians were probably two separate and distinct peoples, too. This is a case of reading identity backwards.

The peoples of the Balkans are so intermixed, in terms of ethnogenesis, that me claiming a Hellenic heritage wouldn't be lunacy - and I'm a Serb. Countless Greeks were likely Slavicized by the Slavic migrations of the 6th-9th centuries. Countless Slavs were likely Hellenized. The Thracians, Dacians and nascent Roman populations were all absorbed over time. Celtic, Germanic, Turkish and Spanish influences were pervasive.

This argument between the Greeks and the Macedonians over Alexander the Great seems more silly to me the older I get. Who is to say that many modern Slavic Macedonians aren't descended from their ancient counterparts? My children will likely speak English as a first language, and I'm not even marrying a native English speaker. These are not tangible qualities we are tussling over. Linguistic and cultural influences change over time. Identity, personal and ethnic, is not a fixed concept. It evolves.

The Balkans represent the melting pot of Europe - and I, for one, am proud of all those who made that part of the world such a center for human culture and civilization. From the Ancient Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantines and to their Slavic inheritors.

Can't we all just get along?

:)

L.

I can't fault with what you say here Lokos, but the key word here is 'monopoly'. Yes, many have stated that the argument is silly and it may appear to be silly but it isn't. The Greeks take it serious because they know one thing will lead to the next. Greece provides ample evidence for expansionist claims by FYROM, and once upon a time Bulgaria and even Serbia wanted access to the Aegean. The Serbs gave the Greeks an ultimatum for access to the port of Thessaloniki after their failed attempt in 1923 to reclaim their old lands in Asia minor.

They can't be allowed to monoplize the name of 'Macedonia'. Put a geographic denomination. The Greeks already have lost too much. They won't go further back on this, especially when they won the historical and moral argument a long time ago.

[alvarhanso]

The peoples of the Balkans are so intermixed, in terms of ethnogenesis, that me claiming a Hellenic heritage wouldn't be lunacy - and I'm a Serb. Countless Greeks were likely Slavicized by the Slavic migrations of the 6th-9th centuries. Countless Slavs were likely Hellenized.

This argument between the Greeks and the Macedonians over Alexander the Great seems more silly to me the older I get. Who is to say that many modern Slavic Macedonians aren't descended from their ancient counterparts? My children will likely speak English as a first language, and I'm not even marrying a native English speaker. These are not tangible qualities we are tussling over. Linguistic and cultural influences change over time. Identity, personal and ethnic, is not a fixed concept. It evolves.

The Balkans represent the melting pot of Europe - and I, for one, am proud of all those who made that part of the world such a center for human culture and civilization. From the Ancient Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantines and to their Slavic inheritors.

Can't we all just get along?

:)

L.

I couldn't agree with you more. But... i'm afraid getting along in the Balkans seems SF. People/Nations here just can't wait to back stab someone, and they are using every opportunity that comes along to do that. It just the way we "communicate" over here. :)

Wish it was different. Maybe in the near future we will see some changes, every one would benefit.

[alvarhanso]

I can't fault with what you say here Lokos, but the key word here is 'monopoly'. Yes, many have stated that the argument is silly and it may appear to be silly but it isn't. The Greeks take it serious because they know one thing will lead to the next. Greece provides ample evidence for expansionist claims by FYROM, and once upon a time Bulgaria and even Serbia wanted access to the Aegean.

They can't be allowed to monoplize the name of 'Macedonia'. Put a geographic denomination. The Greeks already have lost too much. They won't go further back on this, especially when they won the historical and moral argument a long time ago.

Nobody here is trying to monopolize anything.... You seem to see things from your own subjective perspective exclusively, and blame anybody else who doesn't share that perspective as an idiot, expansionist, hard core nationalist and a lair. Things are not that black and white my friend... especially here in the Balkans. You have a grudge with us... Ok, we have a grudge with you, wish we didn't but we do..and that's that. But blacmailing someone won't solve a thing... it can only make matters worse and worse.
We dont care (and never have) if you use the term "Macedonia" at all... did someone here said anything when the Greek goverment changed the Northern teritories in 1988 into Macedonia!? No, we didn't. Or when the "Mikra" airport in Thesaloniki became "Macedonia" airport. Or the university, or the local ministry for Macedonia and Thrace. No, we did not. Macedonia is a broether region and every body knows that... but the Republic of Macedonia (and i'm writing the full name, so that you can see the distinction between the region that you have in your own country that bears the same name and my own country) can not change it's constitutional name just becouse someone doesn't like that. Would Greece or any other country for that metter, change it's name just becouse someone desagrees with that? Hardly. Is it more logical to change the name of a country just becouse there is region that bears the same name in another country!? Even if the region is bigger... that doesn't exuse Greece's behaviour in this issue. If you are the oldest EU and NATO member in this region you should act more responcible. That should be a part of your job... leading the others who are yet to become members of those institutions. It's not your job to block the others just so that you can achieve your own selfish goals.
Let's say we do put a geographic denomination... will Greece do the same!? Becouse if there is a "North Macedonia", the logical step forward is to name the Greek province "South Macedonia"... wright?
Also the theory that somehow the Republic of Macedonia could somehow endanger Greece's soverignity doesn't hold water. I ask you how and with what!?

[4X4Driver]

Nobody here is trying to monopolize anything.... You seem to see things from your own subjective perspective exclusively, and blame anybody else who doesn't share that perspective as an idiot, expansionist, hard core nationalist and a lair. Things are not that black and white my friend... especially here in the Balkans. You have a grudge with us... Ok, we have a grudge with you, wish we didn't but we do..and that's that. But blacmailing someone won't solve a thing... it can only make matters worse and worse.
We dont care (and never have) if you use the term "Macedonia" at all... did someone here said anything when the Greek goverment changed the Northern teritories in 1988 into Macedonia!? No, we didn't. Or when the "Mikra" airport in Thesaloniki became "Macedonia" airport. Or the university, or the local ministry for Macedonia and Thrace. No, we did not. Macedonia is a broether region and every body knows that... but the Republic of Macedonia (and i'm writing the full name, so that you can see the distinction between the region that you have in your own country that bears the same name and my own country) can not change it's constitutional name just becouse someone doesn't like that. Would Greece or any other country for that metter, change it's name just becouse someone desagrees with that? Hardly. Is it more logical to change the name of a country just becouse there is region that bears the same name in another country!? Even if the region is bigger... that doesn't exuse Greece's behaviour in this issue. If you are the oldest EU and NATO member in this region you should act more responcible. That should be a part of your job... leading the others who are yet to become members of those institutions. It's not your job to block the others just so that you can achieve your own goals.
Let's say we do put a geographic denomination... will Greece do the same!? Becouse if there is a "North Macedonia", the logical step forward is to name the Greek province "South Macedonia"... wright?
Also the theory that somehow the Republic of Macedonia could somehow endanger Greece's soverignity doesn't hold water. I ask you how and with what!?

They're worring about you reclaiming the lands that they grabbed from Macedonia during the 1913 Balkan war chaos when the Ottomans were retreating from the region. People weren't aware of this when Macedonia was a part of Ex- Yugoslavia, but now you've been telling your own side of the story since your independence....and they don't like this..the more you tell this, the more they panic.

[Mencius]

Also the theory that somehow the Republic of Macedonia could somehow endanger Greece's soverignity doesn't hold water. I ask you how and with what!?

Most of your questions have been answered already in other threads and especially to the quote that I've picked out, you just need to read up on events in WW2. I't's crystal clear, along with people like Karaamehtoglu and 4 x 4 driver who don't have a clue about history and only have a vested interest in udermining the Hellenic Republic.

[Vorian]

Why is this thread still open?

A Turk posts a propagandistic article by some brain-washed Alexander wanabe just cause he found it interesting? Then why was this http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=157840 locked???

[Mencius]

Why is this thread still open?

A Turk posts a propagandistic article by some brain-washed Alexander wanabe just cause he found it interesting? Then why was this http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=157840 locked???

Most likely due to some unofficial appeasement policy.p-)

[4X4Driver]

Why is this thread still open?

A Turk posts a propagandistic article by some brain-washed Alexander wanabe just cause he found it interesting? Then why was this http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=157840 locked???


This is also open which was posted by a greek in a RIP thread.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=158089

[Karaahmetoglu]

Why is this thread still open?

A Turk posts a propagandistic article by some brain-washed Alexander wanabe just cause he found it interesting? Then why was this http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=157840 locked???


Can you please tell me why, me being a citizen from the Republic of Turkey (I am also a citizen of a few more countries why have you mentioned those), would make a difference? What does the thread you posted have to do about this thread? If you have a problem with what goes on the forums do not question me nor the other Turkish or Macedonian members for none of us are a mod on this forum.

[Aor]

To the ancient writers the Thebans and the Athenians were probably two separate and distinct peoples, too. This is a case of reading identity backwards.

The peoples of the Balkans are so intermixed, in terms of ethnogenesis, that me claiming a Hellenic heritage wouldn't be lunacy - and I'm a Serb. Countless Greeks were likely Slavicized by the Slavic migrations of the 6th-9th centuries. Countless Slavs were likely Hellenized. The Thracians, Dacians and nascent Roman populations were all absorbed over time. Celtic, Germanic, Turkish and Spanish influences were pervasive.

This argument between the Greeks and the Macedonians over Alexander the Great seems more silly to me the older I get. Who is to say that many modern Slavic Macedonians aren't descended from their ancient counterparts? My children will likely speak English as a first language, and I'm not even marrying a native English speaker. These are not tangible qualities we are tussling over. Linguistic and cultural influences change over time. Identity, personal and ethnic, is not a fixed concept. It evolves.

The Balkans represent the melting pot of Europe - and I, for one, am proud of all those who made that part of the world such a center for human culture and civilization. From the Ancient Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantines and to their Slavic inheritors.

Can't we all just get along?

:)

L.

Lokos you are correct when you say the Balcans are a melting pot of people, but they are not a melting pot of cultures. Each people in the Balkans have a distinct cultural identity that comes from traditions, the peoples history and self determination of identity. That is what the pseudo macedonians doubt and try to destroy with their notion that they are "macedonians". Macedonia is a central part in Greek history, tradition culture and self identity. It is not just Phillip II and Alexander The Great that are part of that. Even before them there are accounts of Macedonia in Herodotus , Strabo and other Greek writers. Aristotle was from Macedonia and in the byzantine era we have the Macedonian Dynasty of Byzantine Emperors. All that is done before the Slavs descend in the area.

Now their descendants claim all that culture , history, traditions are not part of the Greek nation , but theirs and more than that that we are conquerors and oppressors of the "Macedonian People". They take a big chunk of who we are, what we are and what we have contributed to the world. It is not just a name. It is a cultural and political issue.

I have grown up in the shadow of Olympus and have visited the ruins of Dion regularly, have read the in scriptures there since I was a kid. They are from the same language that has evolved but didn't fade away through the Ages, my native tongue , the Greek Language. When we rose up against the Turks our ancestors did this after books of Aristotle or Plato we smuggled to Greece and taught under fear of death.

And after all this, centuries of oppression and blood , after all that we have lived, done and sacrificed are we to have some two bit upstarts with ideas of grandeur call a history of 4000 years a lie and the Greek histories and traditions fake and constructed? With maps stretching up to central Greece that proclaim "freedom" from whom , ourselves.

Are we going to tolerate Alexander the Great celebrated as part of a Slavic culture with statues in Central Skopje, history books falsifying centuries of scientific research and truth, maps carving out a big part not only of our land ,but our very soul?

They don't aim for a settlement. They don't want a geographical term as part of a solution. If that was all they wanted they could just have it. All we want is from them to leave our heritage and history our own. They should cherish theirs.

To all Turks, you of all people should be more careful dealing with histories that developed when your ancestors were somewhere beyond the Caucasus. Your only involvement in the history of the Balkans came with conquest and centuries of oppression. So comments like this:


They're worring about you reclaiming the lands that they grabbed from Macedonia during the 1913 Balkan war chaos when the Ottomans were retreating from the region. People weren't aware of this when Macedonia was a part of Ex- Yugoslavia, but now you've been telling your own side of the story since your independence....and they don't like this..the more you tell this, the more they panic.

Are products of ignorance and hate. Your time in the Balkans is over. We are free. Deal with it.

[Lokos]

but they are not a melting pot of cultures.

I think we're having a misunderstanding re: what is meant by cultural melting pot - but let me just say that, yes, indeed, the Balkans are a cultural melting point. Slavic cultures in the Balkans absorbed an enormous amount of Byzantine influence (apparent across a broad spectrum of human activity; from governance to religion), Ottoman influence, Latin influence etc. etc. No culture in the region was left untouched by new arrivals. If you're trying to say that modern Greeks are culturally unchanged since antiquity, I hope you know you're engaging in a complete fallacy.

That is not, however, meant to say that Alexander the Great should be part of a specifically Slavic cultural heritage - he clearly wasn't a Slav. In saying Alexander was not a Slav, I am saying that he was not, in fact, a speaker of a Slavic language - and more than likely did not consider himself a Slav. Slavs, first and foremost, are a cultural and a linguistic grouping, rather than a people with a common ethno-genesis. What I'm also suggesting is that many modern (Slavic) Macedonians might, in truth, be descended in part from their ancient counterparts. Enough native populations were Slavicized to actually make this a probable, rather than a merely possible outcome.

As long as history isn't being warped (i.e. a Slavic Alexander) there is nothing wrong with them being proud of a regional heritage.

What we are left with is national chauvinism amongst various peoples stopping meaningful dialogue.

Like I said, I can be proud of the greatness of the Byzantine Empire at its zenith because, chances are, at some point in my family tree there were more than likely people who played some small part in its existence and that greatness. That doesn't mean that the Byzantine Empire was Serbian, though. Only that the straitjacketed identities we impose upon people today should not be taken at face value.

And that, by extension, you, as a Greek, can be proud of Nikola Tesla - the Serb who gave the world practicable use of AC electricity. The bonds you share are those of persons stemming from a hopelessly meshed ethnographic environment. He shouldn't be a faceless 'other' to you.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.

L.

[justasoldier]

You'd wish I am sure. These scholars are scientists and they can sure beat you and that articles Propaganda and it's nameless author.

Karaahmetoglu კოპაძე what is this? Wishful thinking that Greeks are not Greeks and that we have identity issues? Please at least make an attempt to hide your loathing.

If you want come by and I'll offer you a free tour at Vergina Aiges and Dion and translate for you free the Ancient Greek inscriptions there.

From one of the scholars on your list look for his name you'll find it:

=?UTF-8?B?0Jw=?=
From: Peter F. Mittag <peter.franz.mittag@uni-koeln.de>
To: Oxford Classicists Discussion Group <oxford.ssac.clarence.uk@barebones.usenetnext.co m>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

I was surprised to find my name on Miller's list. I would think of that as a typo, since
most likely this was not an automated process (or it was an anomalous one!). But I have
to distance myself from the list. I am not its signatory and it is
a farce if Miller could not get its instruments straight on the matter.
I will contact him, likely via ESOP's email list and challenge him.
I dislike the general tone of the letter, I think its a political no-win game.

So there goes your argument too...

[alvarhanso]

I'm sure all these scholars and scientist were not biased to the issue when they signed the letter...but i do wonder how many bottles (or cases) of Ouzo they had to give to the Non-Greek professors to do the same?

Oh, and i was to lazy to count... i'm sure they make more than half (the Greeks that is). :-)


Efrosyni Boutsikas, Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of Kent (UK)

Angelos Chaniotis, Professor, Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford (UK)

Randall M. Colaizzi, Lecturer in Classical Studies, University of Massachusetts-Boston (USA)

Michael B. Cosmopoulos, Ph.D., Professor and Endowed Chair in Greek Archaeology, University of Missouri-St. Louis (USA)

Panagiotis Faklaris, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Traianos Gagos, Professor of Greek and Papyrology, University of Michigan (USA)

Eleni Hasaki, Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Arizona (USA)

Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, Director, Research Centre for Greek and
Roman Antiquity, National Research Foundation, Athens (Greece)

Anthony Kaldellis, Professor of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University (USA)

Vassiliki Kekela, Adjunct Professor of Greek Studies, Classics Department, Hunter College, City University of New York (USA)

Georgia Kokkorou-Alevras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Haritini Kotsidu, Apl. Prof. Dr. fΓΌr Klassische ArchΓ€ologie, Goethe-UniversitΓ€t, Frankfurt/M. (Germany)

Lambrini Koutoussaki, Dr., Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of ZΓΌrich (Switzerland)

Iphigeneia Leventi, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Vayos Liapis, Associate Professor of Greek, Centre d��tudes Classiques & Département de Philosophie, Université de Montréal (Canada)

Yannis Lolos, Assistant Professor, History, Archaeology, and Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Dr. Christofilis Maggidis, Associate Professor of Archaeology, ****inson College (USA)

Maria Mavroudi, Professor of Byzantine History, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Phillip Mitsis, A.S. Onassis Professor of Classics and Philosophy, New York University (USA)

Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Assistant Professor of Greek Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, New York (USA)

Olga Palagia, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Vassiliki Panoussi, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, The College of William and Mary (USA)

Maria C. Pantelia, Professor of Classics, University of California, Irvine (USA)

Pantos A.Pantos, Adjunct Faculty, Department of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Anthony J. Papalas, Professor of Ancient History, East Carolina University (USA)

Nassos Papalexandrou, Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin (USA)

Polyvia Parara, Visiting Assistant Professor of Greek Language and Civilization, Department of Classics, Georgetown University (USA)

Anastasia-Erasmia Peponi, Associate Professor of Classics, Stanford University (USA)

Yanis Pikoulas, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek History, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Nikolaos Poulopoulos, Assistant Professor in History and Chair in Modern Greek Studies, McGill University (Canada)

Theodore Scaltsas, Professor of Ancient Greek Philosophy, University of Edinburgh (UK)

Theodosia Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Petros Themelis, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, Athens (Greece)

Michalis Tiverios, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Michael K. Toumazou, Professor of Classics, Davidson College (USA)

Vasiliki Tsamakda, Professor of Christian Archaeology and Byzantine History of Art, University of Mainz (Germany)

Panos Valavanis, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Athanassios Vergados, Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA

Emmanuel Voutiras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Speros Vryonis, Jr., Alexander S. Onassis Professor (Emeritus) of Hellenic Civilization and Culture, New York University (USA)

Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Fresno (USA)

Effie F. Athanassopoulos, Associate Professor �Anthropology and Classics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (USA)

Leonidas Bargeliotes, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Athens, President of the Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture (Greece)

Christos C. Evangeliou, Professor of Ancient Hellenic Philosophy, Towson University, Maryland, Honorary President of International Association for Greek Philosophy (USA)

Eleni Kalokairinou, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Secretary of the Olympic Center of Philosophy and Culture (Cyprus)

Lilian Karali, Professor of Prehistoric and Environmental Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Maria Ypsilanti, Assistant Professor of Ancient Greek Literature, University of Cyprus

Christos Panayides, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Nicosia (Cyprus)

Anagnostis P. Agelarakis, Professor of Anthropology, Adelphi University (USA)

Dr. Ioannis Georganas, Researcher, Department ofΒ History and Archaeology, Foundation of the Hellenic World (Greece)

Maria Papaioannou, Assistant Professor in Classical Archaeology, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Chryssa Maltezou, Professor emeritus, University of Athens, Director of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Postbyzantine Studies in Venice (Italy)

Myrto Dragona-Monachou, Professor emerita of Philosophy, University of Athens (Greece)

Rosalia Hatzilambrou, Researcher, Academy of Athens (Greece)

Athanasios Sideris, Ph.D., Head of the History and Archaeology Department, Foundation of the Hellenic World, Athens (Greece)

Rev. Dr. Demetrios JΒ Constantelos, Charles Cooper Townsend Professor of Ancient and Byzantine history, Emeritus; Distinguished Research Scholar in Residence at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey (USA)

Ioannis M. Akamatis, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Lefteris Platon, Assistant Professor of Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Lucia Athanassaki, Associate Professor of Classical Philology, University of Crete (Greece)

Georgios Anagnostopoulos, Professor of Philosophy, University of California-San Diego (USA)

Ioannes G. Leontiades, Assistant Professor of Byzantine History, Aristotle University of Thessalonike (Greece)

Selene Psoma, Senior Lecturer of Ancient History, University of Athens (Greece)

G. M. Sifakis, Professor Emeritus of Classics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki &Β New York University (Greece & USA)

Kostas Buraselis, Professor of Ancient History, University of Athens (Greece)

Ioannis Xydopoulos, Assistant Professor in Ancient History, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Stella Drougou, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Dr. Aristotle Michopoulos, Professor & Chair, Greek Studies Dept., Hellenic College (Brookline, MA, USA)

Stavros Frangoulidis, Associate Professor of Latin. Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Yannis Tzifopoulos, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek and Epigraphy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

[alvarhanso]

Double post.

[Femto]

From one of the scholars on your list look for his name you'll find it:

=?UTF-8?B?0Jw=?=
From: Peter F. Mittag <peter.franz.mittag@uni-koeln.de>
To: Oxford Classicists Discussion Group <oxford.ssac.clarence.uk@barebones.usenetnext.co m>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

I was surprised to find my name on Miller's list. I would think of that as a typo, since
most likely this was not an automated process (or it was an anomalous one!). But I have
to distance myself from the list. I am not its signatory and it is
a farce if Miller could not get its instruments straight on the matter.
I will contact him, likely via ESOP's email list and challenge him.
I dislike the general tone of the letter, I think its a political no-win game.

So there goes your argument too...

Provide the original headers of the email if you can not then this is just a plain copy paste sh1t .
btw there is no http://www.who.is/whois/usenetnext.com/
Can you give information from the listserv or the address of the email list Oxford Classicists Discussion Group .

[Greek soldier]

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, another thread about the "Macedonian" issue, with an article having as the main source the notorious anti-Greek "Ouranio Toxo" (Rainbow) aka "Political Party of Macedonian Minority in Greece".

[Vorian]

Can you please tell me why, me being a citizen from the Republic of Turkey (I am also a citizen of a few more countries why have you mentioned those), would make a difference? What does the thread you posted have to do about this thread? If you have a problem with what goes on the forums do not question me nor the other Turkish or Macedonian members for none of us are a mod on this forum.

Oh, please there has been an increase in Turkish and Greek related threads the last days and suddendly you unearthed a propagandistic article from god knows where.




This is also open which was posted by a greek in a RIP thread.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=158089

Obviously for the same stupid reasons that got him suspended? I could do that too, but I don't spend my time looking for articles that bash Turkey.

[justasoldier]

Holy **** now that's what i call well organized and coordinated.

[Homer]

Same crap different article/day/wanabe historian.


4X4Driver (http://militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=33009), the lands who took from who? There was no country called Macedonia in 1913. There was however a region of Greece called Macedonia, that had and has been called Macedonia for thousands of years. Long before the mid 1940's when southern Yugoslavia/Serbia was renamed by Tito to Macedonia.
Perhaps you should actually go and study history first, before talking nonsense and making a complete fool of your self.

Same old bulls*** as always. Time for a lock? Or are we going to go around in circles again disproving the same propaganda and history-rewriting? Really is pointless.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

Why is this thread still open?

A Turk posts a propagandistic article by some brain-washed Alexander wanabe just cause he found it interesting? Then why was this http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=157840 locked???

Couldn't agree more!
A turk for obvius reasons, post a thread about a subject that has been discuseed over and over again for so many times with the same results. The thread closed.
I mean Why bring the same BS again?

What's the point?

[Mordoror]

*inside thread before lock ....... with popcorn and beer .......*

BTW the way Lokos see the thing is the most reasonable, balanced and balkanic (in the good way as we know that there is plenty of bad way too) i have ever read
thxs Lokos, some wise words wouldn't help much but at least not everybody with Balkanic origin is lost beyond redemption

[Aor]

I think we're having a misunderstanding re: what is meant by cultural melting pot - but let me just say that, yes, indeed, the Balkans are a cultural melting point. Slavic cultures in the Balkans absorbed an enormous amount of Byzantine influence (apparent across a broad spectrum of human activity; from governance to religion), Ottoman influence, Latin influence etc. etc. No culture in the region was left untouched by new arrivals. If you're trying to say that modern Greeks are culturally unchanged since antiquity, I hope you know you're engaging in a complete fallacy.

That is not, however, meant to say that Alexander the Great should be part of a specifically Slavic cultural heritage - he clearly wasn't a Slav. In saying Alexander was not a Slav, I am saying that he was not, in fact, a speaker of a Slavic language - and more than likely did not consider himself a Slav. Slavs, first and foremost, are a cultural and a linguistic grouping, rather than a people with a common ethno-genesis. What I'm also suggesting is that many modern (Slavic) Macedonians might, in truth, be descended in part from their ancient counterparts. Enough native populations were Slavicized to actually make this a probable, rather than a merely possible outcome.

As long as history isn't being warped (i.e. a Slavic Alexander) there is nothing wrong with them being proud of a regional heritage.

What we are left with is national chauvinism amongst various peoples stopping meaningful dialogue.

Like I said, I can be proud of the greatness of the Byzantine Empire at its zenith because, chances are, at some point in my family tree there were more than likely people who played some small part in its existence and that greatness. That doesn't mean that the Byzantine Empire was Serbian, though. Only that the straitjacketed identities we impose upon people today should not be taken at face value.

And that, by extension, you, as a Greek, can be proud of Nikola Tesla - the Serb who gave the world practicable use of AC electricity. The bonds you share are those of persons stemming from a hopelessly meshed ethnographic environment. He shouldn't be a faceless 'other' to you.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.

L.

We should look at this in the scope of existing ethnic diversity as well as other historic and cultural realities. Sure there are common ground between the people in the Balkans due to the various continuous interactions through the ages. However still we talk of distinct ethnic groups and cultures as well as states. For better or worse the existing model of states in Europe are national states and not multicultural states or empires. Even at the time of their existence the various differences were still there. It is not as if we are all put in a cultural meat grinder and are one cultural entity. Even with the ideas of Rigas Fereos of a Balkan union there would be a respect of the diversity of the various populations and a cooperation between them .

There are distinct personalities and moments that are defining for every nation and belong to that nation alone. For example I may admire the struggle of the Serbs at the battle of Kosovo Polye, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to the Serbian nation alone. The same goes for Alexander the Great. One may admire him , but in the end he is maybe the defining figure in the formation of an enduring Greek national identity.

What the Slavs in FUROM are doing is that they try to twist historical and cultural facts so that they can form a national foundation. They don't do it by exerting their own heroes, traditions and culture, which would be fine by us, but they instead make ridiculous claims on what is our national identity, our culture. To make matters worse , they furthermore dispute our legitimate presence on a land that was Greek thousands of years before the Slavs arrived in the area, as if we are invaders, thieves and murderers. .

This goes beyond petty chauvinism. I hope you can see that.

[alvarhanso]

Gandeto is back.... run for your lives. :)

To the students of Ancient Macedonian History - part 2

Gandeto
May 30, 2009

Students, as per your request, I have provided adequate citations for the quotes published in the previous article ("To the students of Ancient Macedonian History" 5/29/2009). Bloggers should have a field day; there is enough ammo to last you for a long, long time. Use it as you see it fit. On this note, I would like to remind you also that under my RSS Feed at the American Chronicle under "Inappropriate Comments by a Distinguished Professor" you will find my answer to Professor Miller´s invectives against Macedonia and the Macedonian people. (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93881 Mon, 09 Mar 2009)

Moreover, one of his signatories of the petition, Richard Stoneman—who obviously supports his position—in his book "Alexander the Great" published by Routledge in 1997, on page 81 contradicts himself; he writes:

"The most problematic point about this decree is the interpretation of its legal basis. Alexander was not king of Greece; the free cities were not part of his empire."

(Recall that Professor Miller referred to Alexander the Great as a "Greek hero").

I wonder how many of these signatories are unaware of what they have signed or that they, themselves, have fallen into Mr. Miller´s trap?

Let us continue…

If your professor is one of the signatories of Professor Miller´s petition, sent to our president Obama to "clean up the debris" left from the previous administration—as Mr. Miller puts it—then, you ought to confront them and demand a full explanation for their position. Namely, after reviewing the content of these 130 quotes, one is compelled to ask how and under what conditions can anyone—with clear conscience and cogent argument—place the ancient Macedonians under the same racial card as the ancient Greeks.

It is a proven fact that good educators have moral obligations to explain to their students why they have taken certain positions on specific issues. Good educators provide their students with scholarly evidence in support of their decisions and certainly, good educators disclose all the overriding issues that underpin and prompt their stand. A good educator is like a good coach; he tells his pupils/players what should be done in a particular situation, how it should be done and finally, why it should be done that way. To simply say that it was his belief or that it was his personal conviction, is surely not enough.

Taking a stand on politically very sensitive matters with profound human rights consequences requires both a thorough background research of the issue at hand and an even greater analysis of the potential risks that may precipitate from such an act. Historical issues with political connotations and overtones are the most controversial; the fallout from such an explosive mixture may not only be catastrophic for one party but at the same time it may have ruinous self trepidations for the other. Seeking self aggrandizement at someone else´s expense is a sign of a desperate state of affairs; either your arguments do not hold any water or the water from your arguments had promptly evaporated.

Reading the posted quotes below, one comes away convinced that a great omission and an even greater injustice has been perpetrated against the ancient Macedonians by placing them under Greek history or Greek anything. They can, and they should stand alone in the cusps of history as people who significantly influenced and shaped the destiny of the ancient world through clearly Macedonian flavor. Politics and personal sentiments should be divorced from historical truth. It is a high noon for all scholars, educators and publishers to reverse the outdated—and the trend for unsupported evidence—that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. The time for this fallacy to be thrown into the hip of discarded and no-longer-viable truths is long overdue.

There is not an Indian sophist, not a polished debater, not a slick lawyer, not a common man nor a professional liar that will be able—under any circumstances—to squeeze "greekness" for the ancient Macedonians out of any of these passages listed below without corrupting the text. Our adversaries can slip and slide their way around them—till the cows come home—but they will be unable to change an iota from this irrefutable truth. Even the Gods will yield in front of such formidable obstacle.

The quotes updated:

1. "Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility." (Eugene Borza ´Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians?"

(Abstract from a paper presented at the 1996 Annual meeting of the American Philological Association http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html)

2. "The conclusion is inescapable: there was a largely ethnic Macedonian imperial administration from beginning to end. Alexander used Greeks in court for cultural reasons, Greek troops (often under Macedonian commanders) for limited tasks and with some discomfort, and Greek commanders and officials for limited duties. Typically, a Greek will enter Alexander's service from an Aegean or Asian city through the practice of some special activity: he could read and write, keep figures or sail, all of which skills the Macedonians required. Some Greeks may have moved on to military service as well. In other words, the role of Greeks in Alexander's service was not much different from what their role had been in the services of Xerxes and the third Darius." (Makedonika, Essays by Eugene Borza p.156. Published by Regina Books, California 1995)

3. "What ever the ethnic origins and identity of the Macedonians, they were generally perceived in their own time by Greeks and themselves not to be Greek." ( Borza ´In the Shadow of Olympus´ p.96 n.38)

4. On Alexander's I attempt to enter the Olympic games: "There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian -- which proves at the least, that the Teminid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an esoteric knowledge." (Badian "Greeks and Macedonians" in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art vol. 10)

5. On Alexander the Great: "Characteristically for Alexander despite his thorough Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was nevertheless a Macedonian king." ( Badian Greeks and Macedonians in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art vol. 10)

6. On Demosthenes' tirades about Macedonians: "... we are concerned only with sentiment, which is itself historical fact and must be taken seriously as such. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of Macedonian people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king." (Badian Greeks and Macedonians in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art vol. 10)

7. "Philip had not tried to pass of his Macedonians as Greeks" (Ibid)

8. Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry, or to integrate it with Greek 'foreign' individuals". (Ibid)

9 "As Callisthenes was a Greek, there was no question of trying him by the Macedonian army." (Wilcken, Alexander the Great p. 170).

10. "Even in Philip's day the Greeks saw in the Macedonians a non-Greek foreign people, and we must remember this if we are to understand the history of Philip and Alexander, and especially the resistance and obstacles which met them from the Greeks. The point is much more important than our modern conviction that Greeks and Macedonians were brethren, this was equally unknown to both, and therefore could have no political effect." (Ibid p. 22-3).

11. "The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians have grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt. This fact too is of prime importance for the understanding of later history." (Ibid p. 26).

12. "In my view there is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect." (A.B. Bosworth Ancient History Bulletin 10.1 (1996) 19-30).

13. "Alexander's invitation to speak (Curt. 6. 9. 34) presupposes that the entire army spoke Macedonian." (Ibid)

14. "Alexander's challenge presupposes that all the army would understand an address in Macedonian." (Ibid)

15. "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation." (Ibid)

16. "The turning-point in the evolution of Alexander's army appears to have been the year 330. Until then the Macedonian component was progressively reinforced, reaching peaks before Issus and after the arrival of Amyntas' great contingent late in 331. Alexander then thought it safe to divest himself of non-Macedonian troops". (Bosworth "Conquest and Empire - The Reign of Alexander the Great" p. 271).

17. "The forces from the Corinthian League, infantry and cavalry, were demobilised from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus less than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function." (Ibid 271).

18. "The structure of command seems to have been parallel to that of the Macedonian cavalry, with regionally based ilai, but at the head was a Macedonian commander. The rest of the allied cavalry, predominantly from central Greece and the Peloponnese, was much less important and effective, fewer in number and less prominent in action. Like the Thessalian they were divided into ilai (Tod. GHI no 197.3) under the command of a Macedonian officer." (Ibid p. 264).

19. "The infantry from the allied Greek states is more problematic. They formed a contingent numerically strong, 7,000 of them crossing the Hellespont in 334, and they were predominantly heavy-armed hoplites. But once in Asia they are mainly notable for their absence. There is no explicit record of them in any of the major battles." (Ibid p.264)

20. "There was also the question of loyalty. Alexander might well have been reluctant to rely on men recently vanquished at Chaeronea to face the Hellenic mercenaries in Persian service. It was too much kin against kin, and his Greek allies naturally had less stomach for the task than his native Macedonians." (Ibid p. 264)

[alvarhanso]

21. "The mythical imagination was always fertile in Greece, and it would have found Greek ancestors for the Macedonian people as easily as it had done for the royal line" ("Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World" Pierre Jouguet p. 70)

22. "He knew from experience that in the eyes of the Macedonians he was still a Greek, a foreigner. Plutarch praised his charming and refined manners, which were very unlike the haughty airs of the noble Macedonian officer." (Ibid p.142).

23. "But he was not a Macedonian, and the Macedonians did not look upon him as an equal. This may have been one reason for his tenacious loyalty to the cause of the Kings; his fortune was bound up with the Empire, and in the case of a partition he would not have received the support of the Macedonian troops in securing a portion for himself." (Ibid p.129).

24. "To endure and maintain a royal garrison must have been, for a city, one of the most certain signs of servitude. As a rule, except in the cases of strategical necessity, Alexander seems to have abstained as much as possible from inflicting the presence of his soldiers and the duty of maintaining them on Greek cities." (Ibid .p 87).

25. "So Greece was in a peculiar situation. It was not properly incorporated in the Empire. It was attached to it by a treaty of alliance which consecrated the hegemony of one ally, without injuring the autonomy of the states. It was directed rather than ruled. But it did not resign itself readily to this secondary role, or to the menace which was always suspended over its liberties. And, indeed, while it was to be feared that Alexander could not be content with this hazardous limited authority, it might also be foreseen that the most serious obstacles to the accomplishments of his designs would come from Greece." (Ibid p.71).

"But there were more serious difficulties- the resentment of those defeated at Chaeronea, the political selfishness of each city, the historical past, binding the great states to their traditions, and an invincible repugnance for accepting national unity imposed by a foreign sovereign." (Ibid p. 70).

27. On Macedonian ethnicity] "So little do the Macedonians seem to have belonged to the Hellenic community at the beginning, that they did not take part in the great Games of Greece, and when the Kings of Macedon were admitted to them, it was not as Macedonians, but as Heraclids. Isocrates, in the 'Philip' praises them for not having imposed their kingship on the Hellenes, to whom the kingship is always oppressive, and for having gone among foreigners to establish it. He, therefore, did not regard the Macedonians as Greeks." (Ibid p.68).

28. "It is sufficient for our purposes to note that the Hellenes and the Macedonians regarded themselves as different nations, and this feeling did not ceased to be the source of great difficulties for the union of Greece under Macedonian rule. When the union was achieved, it was only by policy of force." (Ibid p. 68).

29. "The architect was a King of Macedon, and he never forgot his origin, even when, after he had accumulated many crowns, his suspicious comrades accused him of denying it. Alexander always wore the insignias of his national kingship -- the purple cloak, the Kausia, or great hat adorned with purple, and the Macedonian boots. With the insignia, he retained to the end of his life the simple, free manners of his forbears." (Ibid p.62).

30. "It was quite certain that Alexander would not be content. He had called himself the avenger of Greece, and had begun the war in the capacity of Strategos of all the Hellenes, but he meant the war chiefly to serve the greatness of Macedonia. That is why there were so few Greeks in the army, which was mainly Macedonian; the Macedonians alone were sufficiently attached to the royal house of their country to follow Alexander in an undertaking for which Asia Minor was already too small a prize." (Ibid p. 20).

31. "Alexander had left Antipatros 12,000 foot and 1,500 horse, to protect Macedonia and to watch Greece." (Ibid p. 9).

32. "The Colonels, as it happened, promoted Alexander as a great Greek hero, especially to army recruits: the Greeks of the fourth century BC, to whom Alexander was a half-Macedonian, half-Epirote barbarian conqueror, would have found this metamorphosis as ironic as I did." (Peter Green "Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography" xv).

33. "Macedonia was the first large territorial state with an effective centralized political, military and administrative structure to come into being on the continent of Europe." (Ibid p.1).

"No one had forgotten that Alexander I, known ironically as the philhellene, had been debarred from the Olympic Games until he manufactured a pedigree connecting the Argeads with the ancient Argive kings." (Ibid p.7).

34. "Isocrates' letter to Philip II where he, Isocrates refers to Philip as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom to consider Hellas your fatherland Green calls this a rhetorical hyperbole. Indeed, taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement." (Ibid p.49).

35. "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress." (Ibid p. 50).

36. "The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, (Persian commander), and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster than anyone could have predicted". (Ibid p.69).

37. "The Greek states retained no more than a pale shadow of their former freedom". (Ibid p.80).

38. "The dedication of the Philipeum was a salutary reminder that from now on, whatever democratic forms might be employed as a salve to the Greeks' self-respect, it was Philip who led and they who followed." (Ibid p. 86).

39. "Philip's Panhellenism was no more than a convenient placebo to keep his allies quiet, a cloak for further Macedonian aggrandizement." (Ibid p.87).

40. "Most Greek statesmen recognized this only too well. To them, their self-styled hegemon was still a semi-barbarian autocrat, whose wishes had been imposed on them by right of conquest; and when Alexander succeeded Philip, he inherited the same bitter legacy of hatred and resentment - which his own policies did little to dispel." (Ibid p.87).

[alvarhanso]

41. "The military contingent they supplied were, in reality, so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it." (Ibid p. 87).

42. "Some 15,000 Greek mercenaries, not to mention numerous doctors, technicians and professional diplomats, were already on the Persian payroll; twice as many men, in fact, as the league ultimately contributed for the supposedly Panhellenic crusade against Darius." (Ibid p. 95).

43. "In the early spring of 336, an advance force of 10,000 men, including a thousand cavalry, crossed over to Asia Minor. Its task was to secure the Hellespont, to stockpile supplies, and in Philip's pleasantly cynical phrase, to 'liberate the Greek cities'." (Ibid p. 98).

44. "Only the Spartans held aloof. The traditions of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader. (So much for Macedonia's pretensions to Hellenism.) Alexander did not press the point....." (Ibid p.121).

45. "Darius reversed his earlier policy of non-intervention, and began to channel gold into Greece wherever he thought it would do most good. He did not, as yet, commit himself to anything more definite: clearly he hoped that the Greek revolt would solve his problem for him. But the mere thought of a Greeko-Persian coalition must have turned Alexander's blood cold." (Ibid p.138).

46. "This was the Panhellenic crusade preached by Isocrates, and as such the king's propaganda section continued - for the time being - to present it. No one, so far as we know, was tactless enough to ask the obvious question: if this was a Panhellenic crusade, where were the Greek troops?" (Ibid p. 157).

47. "Indeed, despite the league's official veto, far more Greeks fought for the Great King - and remained loyal to the bitter end - than were ever conscripted by Alexander." (Ibid p. 157).

48. "What is more, the league's troops were never used in crucial battles (another significant pointer) but kept on garrison and line-of-communication duties. The sole reason for their presence, apart from propaganda purposes, was to serve as hostages for the good behavior of their friends and relatives in Greece. Alexander found them more of an embarrassment than an asset, and the moment he was in a position to do so, he got rid of them." (Ibid p. 158).

49. "Alexander lost no time in getting rid of the league's forces which accompanied him - another ironic gloss on his role as a leader of a Panhellenic crusade." (Ibid p. 183).

50. "Their own crews, he pointed out, were still half-trained (the cities of the league must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when they chose them); and - a revealing admission - a defeat at this point might well trigger off a general revolt of the Greek states. So much for the Panhellenic crusade. Alexander's main fear, we need scarcely doubt, was that the league's fleet might actually desert him if the chance presented itself." (Ibid p. 190).

51. "The truth of the matter seems to have been that Alexander distrusted his Greek allies so profoundly - and with good reason - that he preferred to risk the collapse of his campaign in a spate of rebellion rather than entrust its safety to a Greek fleet." (Ibid p. 192).

52. "The burning of Persopolis had written finis to the Hellenic crusade as such, and he used this excuse to pay off all his league's troops, Parmenio's Thessalians included. The crisis in Greece was over: he no longer needed these potential trouble makers as hostages." (Ibid p. 322).

53. "But Greek public opinion was something of which Alexander took notice only when it suited him; and the league served him as a blanket excuse for various questionable or underhand actions, the destruction of Thebes being merely the most notorious." (Ibid p. 506-7).

54. "It is significant that two native uprisings occurred on the news of Alexander's death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no inigenous revolts against the colonial government." (Peter Green "Alexander to Actium" p. 6).

55. "Alexander meanwhile dealt swiftly with the unrest in Greece - not only did the Athenians rejoice at Philip's death, but the Aetolians, the Thebans, as well as Spartans and the Peloponnesians, were ready to throw off the Macedonian yoke. (Diod. 17.3.3-5) - and he marched south into Thessaly, demanding the loyalty of its people in the name of their common ancestors, Achilles (Justin 11.3.1-2; cf. Diod. 17.4.1). And with speed and diplomacy Alexander brought the Thebans and Athenians into submission (Diod. 17.4.4-6) Quintus Curtius Rufus "The History of Alexander" p. 20. Penguin Classics).

56. "It was decided to raze the city to the ground as a lesson to all Greek states which contemplated rebellion." (Ibid p.21).

57. "Alexander also referred to his father, Philip, conqueror of Athenians, and recalled to their minds the recent conquest of Boeotia and the annihilation of its best known city." (Ibid p.41).

58. "Your Majesty", said Patron, 'we few are all that remain of 50,000 Greeks. We were all with you in your more fortunate days, and in your present situation we remain as we were when you were prospering, ready to make for and to accept as our country and our home any lands you choose. We and you have been drawn together both by your prosperity and your adversity. By this inviolable loyalty of ours I beg and beseech you: pitch your tent in our area of the camp and let us be your bodyguards. We have left Greece behind; for us there is no Bactria; our hopes rest entirely in you - I wish that were true of the others also! Further talk serves no purpose. As a foreigner born of another race I should not be asking for the responsibility of guarding your person if I thought anyone else could do it." (Ibid p. 112-13).

59. "Men! If you consider the scale of our achievements, your longing for peace and your weariness of brilliant campaigns are not at all surprising. Let me pass over the Illyrians, the Triballians, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Aecheans, the Peloponnese - all of them subdued under my direct leadership or by campaigns conducted under my orders of instructions." (Ibid p. 121-22).

60. "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you." (Ibid p. 123).

[alvarhanso]

61. "Starting with Macedonia, I now have power over Greece; I have brought Thrace and the Illyrians under my control; rule the Triballi and the Maedi. I have Asia in my possession from the Hellespont to the Red Sea." (Ibid p. 277).

62. " Hitherto the resentment of the Athenian community against Philip had been kept in check by fear; but now, with the hope of assistance ready at hand, they gave free rein to their anger. There is never any lack at Athenian tongues ready and willing to stir up the passion of the common people; this kind of oratory is nurtured by the applause of the mob in all free communities; but this is especially true of Athens, where eloquence has the greatest influence. The popular assembly immediately carried a proposal that all statues of Philip and all portraits of him, with their inscriptions, and also those of his ancestors of either ***, should be removed and destroyed; that all feast-days, rites, and priesthoods instituted in honour of Philip or his ancestors should be deprived of sanctity; that even the sites of any memorials or inscriptions in his honour should be held accursed, and that it should not be lawful thereafter to decide to set up or dedicate on those sites any of those things which might lawfully be set up or dedicated on an undefiled site; that whenever the priests of the people offered prayer on behalf of the Athenian people and their allies, their armies and navies, they should on every occasion heap curses and execrations on Philip, his family and his realm, his forces on land and sea, and the whole race and name of the Macedonians" (Livy's book XXXI.44).

63. "There was appended to this decree a provision that if anyone afterwards should bring forward a proposal tending to bring on Philip disgrace or dishonour then the Athenian people would pass it in its entirety; whereas if anyone should by word or deed seek to counter his disgrace, or to enhance his honour, the killing of such a person would be lawful homicide. A final clause provided that all the decrees formerly passed against the Pisistratidae should be observed in regard to Philip. This was the Athenians' war against Philip, a war of words, written or spoken, for that is where their only strength lies." Livy XXXI.44).

64. "It is not until Demosthenes is fighting the "tyranny" of the Macedonian conqueror that the idea of liberty takes on its true color for him and becomes significant as a great national good. Even then this watchword of "liberty" serves solely to promote his (Demosthenes' foreign policy; but by that time it has really become an essential factor in his envisagement of the world about him, in which Greece and Macedonia are polar opposites, irreconcilable morally, spiritually, intellectually." Werner Jaeger "Demosthenes" p. 93).

65. "In the Panegyricus he [Isocrates] had urged an understanding between Sparta and Athens, so that the Greeks might unite in a common expedition against the Persian Empire. Nothing of that sort was any longer thinkable. But the policy of which he now had such high hopes offered a surprisingly simple solution for the distressing problem that lay heavily on all minds the problem of what was to be the ultimate relationship between Greece and the new power in the north." (Ibid p. 152).

66. "If Philip was not to remain a permanent menace to the Greek world from outside, it was necessary to get him positively involved in the fate of Hellas; for he could not be eluded. Of course in the view of any of the Greek states of the period, this problem was comparable to that of squaring the circle." (Ibid p.152).

67. "But for Isocrates that was no obstacle. He had long since come to recognize the impossibility of resisting Macedonia, and he was only trying to find the least humiliating way to express the unavoidable submission of all the Greeks to the will of Philip. Here again he found the solution in a scheme for Macedonian hegemony over Greece. For it seems as if Philip's appearance in this role would be most effective way to mitigate his becoming so dominant a factor in Greek history; moreover, it ought to silence all Greek prejudices against the culturally and ethnically alien character of the Macedonians." (Ibid p. 153).

68. "With the help of the role that Isocrates had assigned to him, he had the astuteness to let his cold-blooded policy for the extension of Macedonian power take on the eyes of the Greeks the appearance of a work of liberation for Hellas. What he most needed at this moment was not force but shrewd propaganda; and nobody lent himself to this purpose so effectively as the old Isocrates, venerable and disinterested, who offered his services of his own free will." (Ibid p. 155).

69. "When Demosthenes draws up his list of Philip's transgressions, it includes his offense against the whole of Greece, not merely those against Athens; and Demosthenes' charge of unbecoming remissness is aimed at all the Greeks equally- their irresolution, and their failure to perceive their common cause." (Ibid 171).



70. "Quite apart, however, from any theoretical doubts whether the nationalistic movement of modern times, which seeks to combine in a single state all the individuals of a single folk, can properly be compared with the Greek idea of Panhellenism, scholars have failed to notice that after the unfortunate Peace of Philocrates Demosthenes' whole policy was an unparalleled fight for national unification. In this period he deliberately threw off the constrains of the politician concerned exclusively with Athenian interests, and devoted himself to a task more lofty than any Greek statesman before him had ever projected or indeed could have projected. In this respect he is quite comparable to Isocrates; but an important point of contrast still remains. The difference is simply that Demosthenes did not think of this "unification" as a more or less voluntary submission to the will of the conqueror; on the contrary, he demanded a unanimous uprising of all the Greeks against the Macedonian foe." (Ibid 172)

71. "If the Persian leaves us in the lurch and anything should happen to us, nothing will hinder Philip from attacking the Persian king." (Fourth Philippic) Ibid p. 181.

72. "For historians of the old school, Greek history ended when the Greek states lost their political liberty; they looked upon it as a closed story, mounting to a heroic finish at Chaeronea." (Ibid p. 188).

73. "For if any non-Greek power, whether Persian or Macedonian, were to achieve world dominion, the typical form of the Greek state would suffer death and destruction." (Ibid p. 188).

74. "The first resolution passed by Synedrion at Corinth was the declaration of war against Persia. "The difference was that this war of conquest, which was passionately described as a war of vengeance, was not looked upon as a means of uniting the Greeks, as Isocrates would have had it, but was merely an instrument of Macedonian imperialism." (Ibid 192).

75. "Outwardly, the "autonomous" city-states kept their relations with Macedonia on a fairly strict level of rectitude. Inwardly, the time was one of dull pressure and smoldering distrust, flaring up to a bright flame at the least sign of any tremor or weakness in Macedonia's alien rule - for that is how her surveillance was generally regarded. This excruciating state of affairs continued as long as any hope remained. Only when the last ray of hope was extinguished and the last uprising had met disaster, did quiet finally settle down upon Greece -- the quiet of the graveyard." (Ibid p. 192).

76. "Then when Alexander suddenly died in the flower of his age, and Greece rose again for the last time, Demosthenes offered his services and returned to Athens. But after winning a few brilliant successes, the Greeks lost their admirable commander Leosthenes on the field of battle; and his successors was slain at Crannon on the anniversary of Chaeronea; the Athenians then capitulated, and, under pressure of threats from Macedonia, suffered themselves to condemn to death the leader of the "revolt." (Ibid p. 196).

77. "The dispute of modern scholars over the racial stock of the Macedonians have led to many interesting suggestions. This is especially true of the philological analysis of the remains of the Macedonian language by O. Hoffmann in his Makedonen etc. Cf. the latest general survey of the controversy in F. Geyer and his chapter on prehistory. But even if the Macedonians did have some Greek blood- as well as Illyrian- in their veins, whether originally or by later admixture, this would not justify us in considering them on a par with the Greeks in point of race or in using this as historical excuse for legitimizing the claims of this bellicose peasant folk to lord it over cousins in the south of the Balkan peninsula so far ahead of them in culture. It is likewise incorrect to assert that this is the only way in which we can understand the role of the Macedonian conquest in Hellenizing the Orient. But we can neglect this problem here, as our chief interest lies in discovering what the Greeks themselves felt and thought. And here we need not cite Demosthenes' well-known statements; for Isocrates himself, the very man who heralds the idea of Macedonian leadership in Hellas, designates the people of Macedonia as members of an alien race in Phil.108. He purposely avoids the word barbaroi but this word is one that inevitably finds a place for itself in the Greek struggle for national independence and expresses the views of every true Hellene. Even Isocrates would not care to have the Greeks ruled by the Macedonian people: it is only the king of Macedonia, Philip, who is to be the new leader; and the orator tries to give ethnological proof of Philip's qualifications for this task by the device of showing that he is no son of his people but, like the rest of his dynasty, a scion of Heracles, and therefore of Greek blood." (Ibid p. 249).

78. "So far as we can tell, the belief that the "Macedonians" of the coast-planes and the men of the hills were distinct people with distinct traditions and claims was held not only in Greece but in Macedonia as well." David G. Hogarth "Philip and Alexander of Macedon" (p. 7).

79. "Philip demanded that the Lyncestian towns be surrendered at discretion and the Illyrian allies be sent away. The armies met, and Philip experimented for the first time in the new tactics, which were to crush Greece and conquer Asia." (Ibid p. 50).

80. "Philip began enrolling his subjects according to their local and tribal divisions and assigned them to standing territorial regiments. These standing regiments were known each by its colonel's name and quoted thus by Arrian. "All were called 'Macedonians'; the only general distinction, made thereafter, is between Macedonians and Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians." (Ibid p. 54).

[alvarhanso]

81. "As Philip had extended the honourable title of 'King's Followers' to all his native cavalry, so he took the corresponding term 'pezshatairoi', and applied it to all the Macedonian infantry, whether of his clan or no: thus distinguishing the new nation from the Greeks, as the clan had once distinguished itself from the feudatories." (Ibid p. 56).

82. "During the winter he pressed the Thessalians to supply better support, and when he came south again in the spring of 352 he was able to take the field with more than twenty thousand foot and three thousand horse. A host of knights and mercenaries, superior to his own, was awaiting him, and in the plain of Volo Philip fought his first great battle on Greek soil." (Ibid p. 70).

83. "While Philip was conquering (342) the western shores of the Black Sea, and the northern coast of the sea of Marmora, and all inland up to the Danube, the Greek states conspire against him forming a kind of anti-Macedonian League. "They sent envoys up to the Great King in Susa, to warn him of Philip's panhellenic project, and induce him to assist Philip's enemies." (Ibid p. 108).

84. "The interest of the modern world in Philip, and his place in universal history, depend after all most on his relation to Greek civilization. Therefore, we must examine, in conclusion, the indictment so often repeated, that the Macedonian destroyed Hellenic liberty, and the measure of the wrong he did to civilization, if that indictment be true." (Ibid p. 145).

85. "Alexander came, then, in this April of 334, to the shore of Dardanelles, with an ambition to possess all Persia as already he possessed all Greece." (Ibid p.177).

86. "It is a small matter, but a straw on the stream of events. What had happened since the 'Cavalry Battle', to ease the conscience of the Captain--General? In effect enough to make Miletus a point clearly marked in the passing of the enthusiastic boy into the calculating man of affairs. For those two months had proved to demonstration nothing less than that the maritime states of Hellas, those that alone greatly mattered, were in their hearts not for Alexander, but for his enemies. The larger islands, Rhodes, Chios, and Lesbos, and nearly all the lesser, kept open ports to the Persian admirals, and the city of Athens had been at no pains to disguise her sympathies. Her continental position and twenty of her ships, held as hostages by the Macedonian, made her warn Pharnabazus off the Piraeus; but openly she sat within her walls watching for the first Macedonian reverse, and indeed had sent already, or was about to send soon, an envoy direct to Darius." (Ibid p. 179).

87. "Therefore, at Miletus, the first sanguine hour of Alexander's life has closed, and on the wreck of his exuberant illusions begins his rise a sterner purpose. Greece must be coerced if she will not be courted. Her command of the seas shall be broken by the capture of the coasts of the Levant, and her people be bent willy nilly to the panhellenic work." (Ibid p. 180).

89. "In the face of present hostility, however, it was no longer worth while to maintain an offensive fleet; and, accordingly, he issued now his much canvassed decision to 'burn his boats' and leave himself stranded in Asia." (Ibid p. 180).

90. "This early disillusionment, though it cooled the boy's spirit all too soon, and when pressed home by much future trouble with Greeks, embittered him not a little, and forced him in the end to adapt a policy alien to modern sympathy, was in certain ways salutary." (Ibid p. 180-81).

91. "Certain consequence of Issus, however, is of more importance to Alexander's individual history than the battle itself; for through it, in two ways, illumination come to him, and a distinct change in his personal attitude ensues. In the first place, not only had he been placed by the capture of Darius' baggage in possession of much correspondence between the Great King and Hellenic states, but also, for the first time, he had seized in flagrant fault the persons of Hellenic envoys sent up to the Persians." (Ibid p. 185).

92. "He was officially both King of Macedon, and Federal Captain-General of the Hellenes; but neither the habitual attitude of his Macedonians towards his Greeks, nor of his Greeks towards his Macedonians, was consistent with the relation in which each stood to the general." (Ibid p. 207).

93. "The attitude of the Hellenes in Greece had raised, as we have seen, a first difficulty; the attitude of the older Macedonians was now raising a second. The party which Parmenio led had no panhellenic ideals. They would have had Alexander even as Philip and his forefathers had been--feudal king of the Macedonians, conqueror of the Greeks if he would, and of the Persians if he could." (Ibid p. 207).

94. "The Roman general replied that his duty dictated an answer which was both simple and clear. He demanded that Philip should withdraw from the whole of Greece, restore to each of the states the prisoners and deserters he was holding, hand over to the Romans the region of Illyria which he had seized after the treaty that had been made in Epirus, and so on...." Book XVIII, I. (Penguin Classics) Polybius "The Rise of the Roman Empire" p. 495).

95. "But what is most outrageous of all is that they should attempt to put themselves on the same footing as the Romans and demand that the Macedonians should withdraw from the whole of Greece. To use such language is arrogant enough in the first place, but while we may endure this from the Romans, it is quite intolerable coming from the Aetolians. In any case,' he continued, 'what is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Aphilochians cannot be regarded as Greek. So do you allow me to remain in those territories?"( Polyb. XVIII, 5).

96. "When he received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows: in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes."

97. "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." (Arrian "The Campaigns of Alexander" Penguin Classics p. 114).

98. "In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states." (Ibid p. 34).

99. "In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, moreover, was a tricky thing - one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea." (Ibid p. 80).

100. "...But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;........."(Ibid p. 292).

[alvarhanso]

101. "Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort." (Arrian, Book 5 p. 294).

102. "We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2. 81. 6; 4. 124.1) (NGL Hammond "The Macedonian State" p. ?).

103. "These instances show us that even Philip II and Alexander III introduced very few Greeks into the Assembly of Macedones. They wanted the 'Macedones' to have their own esprit de corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection." An ordinary soldier is represented as speaking in the Macedonian dialect to the dying Alexander in Ps-Callisthenes B 32. 14 (ed. Kroll), and the Macedonian soldiers greeted Eumenes in the Macedonian dialect when he came to command them (Plu. Eum. 14. 11). Ibid p. 64.

104. "Alexander's Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them." (Plutarch "The Age of Alexander" Penguin Classics (p. 263).

105. "Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle." (Ibid p. 264).

106. '"It was Asclepiades, the son of Hipparchus, who first brought the news of Alexander's death to Athens. When it was made public, Demades urged the people not to believe it: If Alexander were really dead, he declared, the stench of the corpse would have filled the whole world long before." (Ibid p. 237).

107. 'If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom. Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares' (Ibid p. 216).

108. "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece." (Ibid p. 212).

109. "The news of Philip's death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines states: "For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in putting on garlands and offering sacrifices to celebrate the death of a king who, when he was the conqueror and they the conquered had treated them with such tolerance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a contemptible action to make Philip a citizen of Athens and pay him honours while he was alive, and then, as soon as he has fallen by another's hand, to be besides themselves with joy, trample on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms." (Ibid p. 207).

110. "The maladies and defects in the Greek scene of the fourth century BC were not hard to find. But its great and overriding merit is summed up in the word 'freedom.' With allowance made for the infinite variety promoted by so many independent governments, Greece was still broadly speaking a free country. This freedom was threatened and in the end extinguished by the coming of the Great Macedonians." (Ibid p. 8).

111. "All Herodotus in fact says is that Alexander himself demonstrated his Argive ancestry (in itself a highly dubious genealogical claim), and was thus adjudged a Greek---against angry opposition, be it noted, from the stewards of the Games. Even if, with professor N.G.L. Hammond, we accept this ethnic certification at face value, it tells us, as he makes plain, nothing whatsoever about Macedonians generally. Alexander's dynasty, if Greek, he writes, regarded itself as Macedonian only by right of rule, as a branch of the Hanoverian house has come to 'regard itself as English'. On top of which, Philip II's son Alexander had an Epirote mother, which compounds the problem from yet another ethnic angle." (Peter Green "Classical Bearings" p. 157).

112. "We have no way of judging the authenticity of either the claim or the evidence that went with it, but it is clear that at the time the decision was not easy. There were outraged protests from the other competitors, who rejected Alexander I as a barbarian -- which proves, at least, that the Temenid descent and the royal genealogy had hitherto been an isoteric item of knowledge. However, the Hellanodikai decided to accept it -- whether moved by the evidence or by political considerations, we again cannot tell. In view of the time and circumstances in which the claim first appears and the objections it encountered, modern scholars have often suspected that it was largely spun out of fortuitous resemblance of the name of the Argead clan to city of Argos; with this given, the descent (of course) could not be less than royal, i.e., Temenid." (Ernst Badian - "Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times").

113. "As a matter of fact, there is reason to think that at least some even among Alexander I's friends and supporters had regarded the Olympic decision as political rather than factual -- as a reward for services to the Hellenic cause rather than as prompted by genuine belief in the evidence he had adduced. We find him described in the lexicographers, who go back to fourth-century sources, as "Philhellene" -- surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek." (Ibid)

114. "The loyalist of all the successors was Eumenes of Cardia, not a Macedonian but a Greek, which meant that even his first-rate generalship could not gain him the continued support of Macedonian soldiery." (Michael Grant "From Alexander to Cleopatra - the Hellenistic world" p. 101).

115. "Alexander's various successors, to whom Greece was still the most coveted prize, held two conflicting opinions of the city-states (with many nuances in between): that they were still free allies (a view upheld ostensibly, and perhaps genuinely, by the philhellenic Antigonus I Monophtholmos), and, conversely, that they were little better than subjects (the attitude of Antipater and Cassander." (Ibid p. 105).

116. "...the appropriation of Greek Kulturgescichte, and the use by non-Greeks for political purposes against Greeks, is less common, and even less well documented. Here I offer an example of highly effective Macedonian use of Greek cultural history to advance the propaganda aims of Philip II which had the double aim of blunting Greek criticism of his state-building while at the same time cloaking his work in the legitimizing terminology devised by Greeks for their own, often violent, colonizing and city founding activities." (D.Brenden Nagle " Macedonian Appropriation of Greek Kulturgechichte" APA Ancient History Bulletin Vol 10, 1996).

117. "That it has continued to confuse interpreters is testament to the hegemonic power of Greek cultural history and the adroitness of the Macedonians in using this powerful tool of self-identification against its devisers." (Ibid)

118. "The designation of Macedonia as part of Greece has intrigued modern critics. This, according to Schachermeyr, is enough to 'take one's breath away'. He went so far as to suggest that, however brief, it encapsulates a whole and bold strategy: to counter the Great King's strategy of attempting to exploit the age-old distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes. The reason for including Macedonia as part of a larger Hellas was designed to justify Macedonian participation in the so-called war of revenge. Whatever the truth on this point, on the basis of what we know happened in Macedonia in 480, Alexander had no more grounds for carrying out a war of revenge on behalf of Macedonia than he had on behalf of Athens or Sparta. Of course, Macedonians never regarded their territory as forming part of Greece, and certainly the Greek poleis did not regard Macedonia as being another Greek polis. The reason why Alexander here includes Macedonia as being part of Greece may be an attempt to paper over the glaring anomaly between what Philip and he had just done to 'the rest of Greece' and what he is in the process of doing to the Persian empire. The Persians had never done anything significant against the Macedonians. It is noteworthy that Herodotus, although he provides considerable information on Xerxes' activities when he passed through Macedonia in 480, does not record any acts of destruction--- scarcely surprising if Xerxes was instrumental in Macedonia gaining control of Upper Macedonia." (Edmund F. Bloedow "Diplomatic Negotiations between Darius and Alexander: Historical Implications of the First Phase at Marathus in Phoenicia 333/332 BC" APA Ancient History Bulletin Vol. 10, number 1, 1996).

119. "What is more important is the that Chaeronea, Thebes, and Agis make a complete mockery of attempting in this context to suggest that the Greeks in Hellas regarded themselves as willing subjects under legitimate Macedonian kings (Philip and Alexander) or- that the inhabitants of the regions he had just conquered did so entirely of their own will." (Ibid)

120. "In a speech delivered at Sparta in 210 BC the Aetolian Claeneas, appealing for Spartan collaboration in the Roman alliance against Macedonia, is said by Polybius (ix, 28, ) to have opened with the truism: 'Men of Sparta, I am quite certain that nobody would venture to deny that the slavery of Greece owes its origin to the kings of Macedonia'.....He goes on to describe in detail the outrages which Philip, Alexander and their third-century successors have inflicted on the Greek cities." p.92-3 from "The Hellenistic World" by F.W. Walbank.

121. "Relationship with Macedonia was as loaded a question in the third and second centuries BC as it had been in the fourth. The Macedonian policy of controlling Greece was up against the Greek passion for freedom and autonomy". (Ibid p. 92).

122. "The war ended in disaster for the Greeks, and in 261 BC Athens had to surrender. Areus of Sparta was killed fighting near Corinth, and for about ten years Antigonus' control of Greece was unchallenged". (Ibid p.95).

123. "I deliberately refrain from adopting any position on the linguistic status of ancient Macedonians. It has little significance outside the nationalistic propaganda of the contemporary Balkan states, in which prejudice and dogma do duty for rational thought. What matters for the present argument is the fact, explicit in Curtius, that Macedonian was largely unintelligible to non-Macedonians. Macedonians might understand Greek, and some Greeks (like Eumenes) with experience of Macedon might speak Macedonian. However, even Eumenes took care that a vital message was conveyed to the phalangites of Neoptholemus by a man fluent in Macedonian." (Bosworth "The Tumult and the Shouting: Two Interpretations of the Cleitus Episode" Ancient History Bulletin Vol 10, 1, 1996).

124. "There is nothing at all surprising in the use of Macedonian. Alexander was calling his hypaspists, who were Macedonians, and he addressed them in their native language/dialect." (Ibid)

125. "He used Macedonian because the troops would instantly understand and (he expected) would react immediately. There is no need for more complicated explanation."

(Ibid).

126. "Of the nearly 850 persons listed by Berve, 275 are either certainly or probably ethnic Greeks. Of this number, 126 persons are not associated with Alexander's train, and thus outside present concerns. Of the 149 which remain, 69-- nearly half-- are court figures not associated with administration. They include sophists, physicians, actors, athletes, musicians, jugglers, and other entertainers, and a variety of hangers-on. 89 names remain. Of these three are of uncertain ethnic origin. 24 Greeks serve the king in variety of administrative tasks: some are envoys, some are clerks, some financial officers, and some act as the king's agents in local places. They pop in and out of the historical record as Alexander sees the need to employ them. The remaining 53 Greeks serve specific military functions. (Borza, "Makedonika" p.153).

127. "Out of these 53 persons, 22 names are attached to a single unit (the allies from Orchomenos), who, by the way, are dismissed along with the other Greek allies in 330 BC (Only a few short years into the expedition). Fourteen other Greeks hold naval appointments, either as ship commanders in the Hydaspes fleet, or in conjunction with Nearchus' ocean voyage. Four Greeks are in charge of mercenary units, and 9 others have unspecified, low-level military assignments. Seven have duties that did not take them beyond Egypt. In summary, of the 149 known Greeks with official connections to the king, only 35 to 40 held positions of rank- some as officers, some as administrators, but only a handful in top positions." (Ibid p. 154).

128. "It is necessary, in any assessment of the role of Macedonia in the Hellenistic world to bear in mind that although our sources naturally, being Greek or based on Greek writers, lay their emphasis on Macedonian policy towards Greece, Macedonia was in fact equally a Balkan power for which the northern, western and north-eastern frontiers were always vital and for which strong defenses and periodic punitive expeditions over the border were fundamental policy." ".... Macedonians were an essential bulwark to the north of Greece." (F.W Walbank "Hellenistic World" p. 91).

129. "As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think you a man (because you are an assassin), I know why you want him brought forward. It is so that the insult which sometimes uttered against me and sometimes heard from him can be repeated by his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worth of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian [Greek] and does not enjoy the same rights." (Quintus C. Rufus The History of Alexander p.195)

130. "We then come upon Eumenes' second observation that, being a foreigner, he has no right to exercise command over Macedonians. At no point, however, in Diodoros' prior narrative does Eumenes' Greek origin excite animosity among the Macedonians. More important, Eumenes does not see his foreign origin as an impediment to accepting the dynasty' offer of a supreme command in 18.58.4 and he proceeds to exercise that authority in 19.13.7 and 15.5 without any qualms on his part that he is not a Macedonian. Eumenes' foreign origin does become an issue at one point among the commanders of the Silver Shields." (Robert A. Hudley in his paper "Diodoros 18.60.1-3: "A Case of Remodeled Source Materials.")

Until next time…

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104325

[alvarhanso]

Another interesting reed regarding the petition signed by the Greek scholars and few of their colleagues who are not (Greek).


Greece: Hey Bro! Will you sign my petition? We're trying to erase Macedonian ethnicity!


Alexandra Aleksovska June 01, 2009

If you are a Greek historian in a well known university, well actually no, if you are an academic with a Greek surname, or you are a Greek historian from the Droysen tradition (say from a German school), it is likely you received an email on behalf of Stephen Miller in the past few weeks.

He wanted you to sign a petition that was sent to Obama. This petition states that Ancient Macedonians don´t have anything to do with the Modern Macedonians, and therefore the United States should not recognize Macedonia by the name ´Republic of Macedonia´ – its constitutional name. This is the name that America has recognized Macedonia by for the last 5 years, and the name by which 125 countries around the world, including 4 of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members, use. Greece wants the US to use the name "Former Yugoslav" Republic of Macedonia. Greece has about 14 other countries that use that formula, like Cyprus which is a predominantly Greek nation, Australia which has a vocal Greek lobby and the Democratic Republic of Congo – which sided with Greece, it has been reported, because Greece gave them a fleet of old tanks. Despite the Greek nationalism of citizens of other countries, and some politicians who, while elected to represent the country they were elected in, are actually busy working for the Greek foreign ministry, about 90% of countries that have made an official statement in relation to the Macedonian name issue have sided with Macedonia.

Why is this? Why do only 10% of countries that have chosen a side, side with Greece? Because unless we are pandering to our own ethnic Greek voters (who can also vote in Greek elections) or unless we have a new fleet of ex-Greek tanks to commit war crimes with (some DRC leaders are being investigated by the International Criminal Court for using rape as weapon of war, amongst other crimes), why would we care what anybody other than the actual citizens of Macedonia decide to call their own country? Which leads me to another question: If 90% of the world doesn´t seem to have an issue with it, why does Stephen Miller?

First of all, who is Miller? He is a retired archaeology professor from UCLA who spent his life digging up soil in Greece. He is married to a Greek woman and while some may say that in relation to Greece, "you marry the girl, you marry the country" that is not exactly fair. Miller´s position doesn´t stem, as people would like to portray, from a great knowledge of Ancient Macedonia. Miller has only written about the Ancient Greek Olympic Games – not about Macedonia. Many of the names on the list of scholars have not written about Macedonia either – but are minor academics with Greek surnames or Greek historians from the German tradition (who believe that Alexander was a pro-Greek super-hero rather than a political realist who used equal measures of propaganda and massacre to control his empire). Where on the list are respected scholars like Eugene Borza, Ernst Badian or Peter Green, who have written the most respected books on Ancient Macedonia?

The only real names on the list are Paul Cartledge, and of course the celebrity historian himself, Robin Lane Fox. Fox has taken up NGL Hammond´s old position as the Greek Orthodox Patron Saint of ´Ancient Macedonia Was Greece, Despite What Everybody Else Says´. If you aren´t aware, Fox was recently on a Greek TV show ´Great Greeks´ – where Alexander was voted the ´Greatest Greek of All Time´ by a Modern Greek audience. The Ancient Greeks, who hated Alexander, probably wouldn´t have voted the same way. It is the latest in a series of public statements by Fox to the Greek domestic media in relation to Alexander or the Macedonian issue. He is a celebrity in Greece. Of course if you look at Fox´s first book on Macedonia ´The Search for Alexander´ you will see that it was published with the help of the Greek Ministry of Culture. Fox is deemed to be a politically reliable academic by Greece.

You see, you can´t do archaeological work in Greece unless you receive permission from the State Archaeological Service – a Greek government body. If you draw conclusions that the Greek government doesn´t agree with, you can´t do archaeological work in Greece. It is as simple as that! It reminds me of a famous scholar (who will remain nameless – although those that know him will identify him) who had to be ambiguous as to Alexander´s ethnicity in his writing until he left Greece. Now he has left all ambiguity behind in his more recent books.

Given that the petition is written by one of Greece´s ´accepted´ scholars, and recognizing the bias that that entails, what is the reasoning behind the request to change the US policy on Macedonia´s name? Is there anything that he states in his letter that any of Barack Obama´s advisors don´t already know?

Well, unfortunately, there is nothing new there. It is the same old collection of official Greek statements that have been floating around since the early 1990s when the Greek government paid for full page advertisements calling on people not to recognize Macedonia as a state. Many of those points (long refuted) still float around the internet on places like Topix, YouTube and various propaganda sites. The one thing, however, that did surprise me was the tone of the letter. The language of the letter is so vitriolic it is almost cute! It is like he has been hanging out too long on the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council message board. Let me share with you some of the highlights.

Stephen always refers to "the government in Skopje" Why the reluctance to state the name of the country? Most of the world says Macedonia. His preferred term is most commonly used by the Greek media. It kind of reminds me how many Arab governments can´t say the name ´Israel´ – and how places like Iran use "the government in Tel Aviv". Surely a US academic doesn´t need to act like an Iranian state journalist?

Stephen also stated that "(Macedonia) cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth." What stopped Greece doing exactly that? While we are on the subject of historic truth, why don´t we ask about the Macedonians who lived there before the Greek invasion of Macedonia in 1912? Historic ´truth´ is always subject to the perspective of the academic who is evaluating the history. Why does Stephen Miller´s ´historic truth´ mean more than Ernst Badian´s ´historic truth´ (a Harvard Greek Historian who wrote on Macedonia). Given that Badian wasn´t dependent on keeping the Greek government happy to perform his work, I think his ´historic truth´ may be more reliable.

In relation to the Republic of Macedonia looking into the past of its people and recognizing the connection between the ancient and modern Macedonians, Stephen states: "Why would a poor land-locked new state attempt such historical nonsense?" – Gloating about the relative poverty of Macedonia and the fact that it is land locked? How very academic! I guess if we had received EEC/EU aid for the last 30 years and still had the world´s 8th highest debt/GDP ratio like Greece, we might be in a better position to attempt ´historical nonsense´. Greece has really led the way in that respect; just ask any of its minorities.

Because the USA has recognized Macedonia, Stephen feels "It is sad that the United States of America has abetted and encouraged such behavior." Or maybe it is that the United States, like the rest of the world, just recognizes that a nation´s citizenship decides it constitution – not its neighbor´s foreign ministry. The USA recognizing modern Macedonia is a rather odd bone for an Ancient Greek Olympic scholar like Miller to pick. The tone of the letter also seems as if Greece (through Miller) is ´talking down´ to the United States.

In relation to the US policy on Macedonia, let me explain why Macedonia has been recognized. Macedonia has been a keen supporter of the United States, despite its small size – and despite the criticism that the rest of the world throws at the United States. In comparison, Greek media has been a vocal critic of the United States for at least the last decade. The US flag that Macedonian soldiers have fought alongside Americans to protect in places like Afghanistan is regularly burnt on the streets of Athens. In their respect for their own and other people´s freedoms, the Macedonian people are a lot more like the Americans. The Greek government, in its attempts to bully and isolate its neighbors and deny ethnicities is acting much more like the Peoples Republic of China than the United States. Maybe we should lobby countries to force Greece to have its name changed to the People´s Republic of Greece?

America does not owe Greece any favors. Remember according to Eleftherotipia´s poll of the 16th September 2001, 25% of Greeks believed that ´justice was done´ on September 11 2001. A few days after September 11, during a football match between Scotland and Greece, when the Scots held a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11 – the Greek fans jeered and booed and tried to burn a US flag. The most popular book about September 11 in Greece, written by Manolis Vasilakis, if translated into English, would be titled ´They had it coming´. Does Greece really expect the United States to bend to their will on this issue, given the hostility Greece has towards America?

Stephen Miller repeated the old ´Republic of Macedonia is only a small part of Ancient Macedonia´ argument that Hammond used to state in the 1990s. That is somewhat true; however it does neglect one very important detail. The ´elephant in the room´ in this argument has always been the fact that Modern Greece stole Macedonia from the Macedonians in 1913. It is more correct to say rather than "the Republic of Macedonia is only a small part of Ancient Macedonia", that "the Republic of Macedonia is only a small part of Macedonia prior to it being divided up by its neighbors in 1913". Prior to this there was not a single part of Macedonia that was Greek – ever. In stating that they have almost all of Ancient Macedonia, Greece is trying to assert ownership over the identity of Macedonians – all Macedonians.

Of course whatever label you choose to use for the land, there is one thing that cannot be argued – parentage as defined by genetic research. One third of Macedonians, according to the worlds biggest gene lab, have genetic links to the Ancient Macedonians, but only 5% of Greeks (mainly the ethnic Macedonian minority) have these genetic links. Greek pressure on academics or abuse of procedure in NATO or EU cannot change genetic reality. The fact that somebody steals your land and evicts you from it, as Greece did to many Macedonians, doesn´t mean that they also steal your ancestors. I have a house that was previously owned by a Melanesian Australian. His ancestors came from the Solomon Islands in the 19th century as sugar cane slaves. When I bought the house two years ago, he didn´t transfer his ancestors; although I might check the contract – if I got his ancestors too, I might be able to get free accommodation on some beautiful Pacific island.

No matter what Greece likes to think, and no matter what it states through its captive academic mouthpieces like Miller, Macedonia is not something that was frozen in time in the 4th century BC and then defrosted by the Greeks in the 20th century. Macedonians had children and continued to live in Macedonia from the time of Alexander to the present day. This may be inconvenient to Greek nationalists – but with such a bizarre view of the world as they hold – truth never is convenient.

The thing I find most offensive about the whole petition isn´t the tone and the language, it´s the fact that these few academics are prostituting academic position for what is obviously the bidding of the Greek government. The act they are seeking is the de-recognition of the Macedonian´s own name for their own country – something the Greek government has been seeking for 17 years. Why can every other country on the planet choose their name, but Macedonia can´t? Don´t Macedonians have the same human right to self-determination that everybody else has? Greece has sought to attack the Ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia and their own Ethnic Macedonians´ identity. The two are linked – Greece has always argued that calling Macedonia ´Macedonia´ will legitimize the Ethnic Macedonians in Greece. Attacks against the Macedonian name are part of an ongoing campaign by Greece to erase the Macedonian ethnicity. If Miller states that the "US has no business in supporting the subversion of history", we can equally ask what business an Ancient history professor has in trying to help a foreign government erase an ethnicity?

You know what the petition is? It is a list of academics that are prepared to put political ends before academic integrity and human rights. An academic is free to state their opinion – but when an academic tries to use their position to push for political ends at the behest of a state, they are no longer acting as academics. These people, by trying to isolate Macedonia, are aiding the Greek government´s attack on Macedonian ethnicity – a violation of human rights. They are smart enough to know that this is what Greece is doing. If I were a university's board, I would be embarrassed to have these people putting the name of my university on something that is attacking the human rights of a people.

How do we as a society with a conscience that respects human rights, show an academic that such conduct is inappropriate? The list is online with their names attached. Boycott the books of the academics on the list, do not enroll in their classes, and refuse to work or perform research for or with them. If you are on a selection committee for an academic position, disqualify anybody who appears on this list. No student deserves to be taught by someone who condones the abuse of human rights.

So, no Stephen, I will not sign your petition.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104453

Touche Pussy cat!

[Aor]

alvarhanso is there a meaning behind your posts or are you resorting to the usual Goebels tactic of talk , talk, someone will buy to my rants? A large part of the academic community has spoken and guess what they don't buy to your propaganda. So no matter how many times you post articles from your still anonymous author and the same biased propaganda spitting source your position is not becoming more credible. Try holding your breath , that will bring you more. Unless you can find SCIENTIFIC proof from credible, international sources that can refute 200+ other scholars on major American, German and other renown Universities, then as a close friend of mine put it your presence doesn't occupy any space, nor its absence will create any void Please Lock this due to before we get plastered with "proof" on the myth of Atlantis and the presence of Aliens in Obama's nose.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

@alvarhanso PLEASE cut the propaganda! Nobody takes it seriusly.
And HONESTLY did you read all this text that you post ?

[Homer]

Of course he didn't read it all, it's just the same old revisionist nonsense as we have become accustomed to out of FYROM and their backers.
When he(or others) need to they will refer to this nonsense to try back up their arguments.
It will end with a Greek who knows history or a non Greek who knows history, b**ch slapping them into silence for a few months.
Then repeat the cycle again...

Ancient Macedonia was Greek. Slavs had not settled in the region until the 6-8th centuries AD. The majority of people in FYROM are Slavs.
Anyone who can't understand something SO basic, well that's their problem.
There is nothing more to be said.

[Vorian]

Oh, please lock this stupid thread.

We went to ancient Macedonia once more. What you guys don't get is that even if you prove ancient Macedonians were not Greek you are still not related to them in any remote way.

[alvarhanso]

alvarhanso is there a meaning behind your posts or are you resorting to the usual Goebels tactic of talk , talk, someone will buy to my rants? A large part of the academic community has spoken and guess what they don't buy to your propaganda. So no matter how many times you post articles from your still anonymous author and the same biased propaganda spitting source your position is not becoming more credible. Try holding your breath , that will bring you more. Unless you can find SCIENTIFIC proof from credible, international sources that can refute 200+ other scholars on major American, German and other renown Universities, then as a close friend of mine put it your presence doesn't occupy any space, nor its absence will create any void Please Lock this due to before we get plastered with "proof" on the myth of Atlantis and the presence of Aliens in Obama's nose.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, my posts are on topic since this is the second text by the same guy... so if you don't like don't reed it, it's as simple as that. If you read it and you have an opinion about the text you can post it. I bet it'll be a nice reed.
When you talk about the academic community... you mean the Greek academic community, right!? See... that's what i have a problem with. How can you expect for someone to take this letter as a non-bias, well argumented letter, if more than half of the petitioners are Greek or of Greek origin?
And please, would you be so kind to elaborate your friends stance on the existence or extermination of a certain nation. That kinda sounded familiar.

[alvarhanso]

@alvarhanso PLEASE cut the propaganda! Nobody takes it seriusly.
And HONESTLY did you read all this text that you post ?

When a Greek accuses me of posting propaganda... now, i do find myself offended. Since when the truth is not serious?
And honestly... yes i did.


Something fresh out of the oven... It seams the Greek neo-nazis from "Golden Dawn" didn't like the book promotion.
Now, i understand that Greece is the cradle of Democracy an all that... but since when do you barge in on book promotions, threaten people with bike helmets and tear up books!? That's taking the concept of Democracy too far.... even by Greek standards.
Wake up people... this is the 21-st century, the Nazis lost the war!



Greek neo-nazis interrupt promotion of Greek-Macedonian dictionary

Athens, June 3 (MIA) - About 20 activists of Greek fascist organization "Chrysi Avyi" (Golden Dawn) interrupted late Tuesday the promotion of Greek-Macedonian dictionary in Athens, organized by party of Macedonians in Greece "Rainbow".
During the promotion, a group of masked individuals entered the International Press Center in order to cause an incident. They damaged the equipment of the cameramen, destroyed the promotional materials and verbally attacked the promoters, including renowned U.S. Slavist and linguist Victor Friedman.
After receiving information that the police is about to arrive at the facility, "Chrysi Avyi" members ran away and the promotion resumed.
"Chrysi Avyi" was recently registered as a political party and has close ties with the parliamentary nationalist party LAOS of Georgios Karatzaferis.
One of "Rainbow" leaders, Pavle Vaskopoulos told Macedonian TV station "Kanal 5" the incident was a signal that "Greek authorities start to fear the Macedonianism in Greece", adding this is a disgrace for Greece, which cannot be hidden from the European public.
Last night's incident occurs five days before the European Parliament elections in Greece. According to the Greek neo-nazis, the 15,000-word dictionary prepared by Vasko Karadza should not have been issued, because the Macedonian language had not existed. On the other hand, promoters stress it is a testimony on the existence of the Macedonians and a response to the Athens' stance on the alleged non-existence of the Macedonian language.


http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=65144728&lId=2

http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/video.asp?Video=09/recnik-promocija-03-06.wmv&VestID=109496
(http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/video.asp?Video=09/recnik-promocija-03-06.wmv&VestID=109496)You can see the video of the "event" on the second link.... it happened today in Athens.

[SrB-23Q]

Of course he didn't read it all, it's just the same old revisionist nonsense as we have become accustomed to out of FYROM and their backers.
When he(or others) need to they will refer to this nonsense to try back up their arguments.
It will end with a Greek who knows history or a non Greek who knows history, b**ch slapping them into silence for a few months.
Then repeat the cycle again...

Ancient Macedonia was Greek. Slavs had not settled in the region until the 6-8th centuries AD. The majority of people in FYROM are Slavs.
Anyone who can't understand something SO basic, well that's their problem.
There is nothing more to be said.

^^

what he said

[valtrex]

The Struggle for the Liberation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
June 03, 2009, Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
What can be said about the present day situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which could encourage a goal-oriented initiative towards deconstruction of its ultranationalist, parochial and irredentist ethos? The well-know state of affairs created by the overwhelming influence of the ideology of Pseudomacedonism, a patchwork of ideas establishing a several millenia old frame of reference within all levels of domestic discourse has been and still is a phenomenon not noticed by social anthropologists and other relevant thinkers. In the Balkans, where historicism often takes precedence over future-oriented pragmatism, FYROMian oppositional defiance to Greece is one of the key incentives that threatens escalation of conflict of the type typical for the region for much of the 1990´s. While Pseudomacedonian politics, with all of its core component: Hellenophobia and Slavophobia, formulation of "Macedonian exceptionalism" with common leitmotivs of mental and moral superiority based on biological determinism certainly deserves recognition as an academic question, preferably treated on multidisciplinary grounds, the objective of establishment of practical policy, both in form of general principles and practically applied methodology, has failed on multiple grounds. The problem is exacerbated by attempt to analyze the social and ethnopsychological reality of present-day FYROM in terms of "objective", quantifiable parameters, an approach used by such international organization as the European Union and NATO, among others.

While systematic research and cross-comparison of the institutionalized, faceless type may create an illusion of "objectivity" and rationality and while there is no doubt that to a large extent (but with limited potential to portray the situation in all of its picturesque colorfulness) some of these data display accurate parameters of socio-economic affairs in FYROM, these are not much usefulness in deconstruction of the sheer anti-human dimension of the present-day political vector of FYROM. With a strong reflection on the daily, mundane lives of citizen of that small statelet, with a profound impact on psychological links among its citizen and culmination in the construction of a small, isolated world, cut from both the mainstream of trends in Europe and from infusion of alternativeness, the postmodern "nation building" of fascistoid intensity in FYROM is a phenomena with no precedent in the realm of modern politics.

The main premises of the plot are as follows: FYROM, a country which inherited colonial borders set in a mixture of arbitrary decision, de facto post-conflict situations and more than 4 decades of Communist totalitarian rule, is not a product of a natural, usual nation-building in which elite-imposed foresight provides selective continuity and discontinuity with the tradition. Instead, the concrete set of circumstances in which FYROM or "Republika Makedonija" emerged as an established subject of international politics (the Balkan wars 1912-1913, the post-1943 reestablishment of "Yugoslavia" and the bloody dissolution of the later in 1990´s) is indicative of conformism , coupled with dissonance among its elite, which inherited a premodern population, bypassed by the Enlightenment and Rationalism. For the early founding fathers of Pseudomacedonian nationalism, the revolutionaries of the so-called VMRO, the ultimate goal, in whose name much grandiloquence and pathos has been expressed and much blood was shed, was the emancipation of the "Macedonian Bulgarian". The fact of their declared Bulgarian character, which is in harmony with enormous number of testimonies of outsiders intimately acquainted with the ethnological situation on the ground is not an obstacle to local historians-the clergy of current FYROMian ultranationalism, to enlist them into the rank of symbolic figures of alleged "Macedonian ethnicity". This "ethnicity", completely unbeknown to history, is one of the last enduring legacies of the Cold War, having grown in Tito´s Yugoslavia as an organ of the Communist empire specialized in Anti-Greek predatory geopolitics. The choice of the new nation´s name was an adaptation of VMRO nurtured idea that the inhabitants of the geographic region of Macedonia, the form of which is a recent construct unrelated with historic Macedonia in strict sense, while having a Bulgarian ethnic affinity are nevertheless also the only true "Macedonians" in some mystically superior sense excluding other inhabitants of the region, even bordering on parallel ethnicity, non-exclusive and synonymous with the wider Bulgarian one. The Commintern in 1934 and the Communist Yugoslavia took this absurd proposition to its logical extreme, severing the consciousness of the Slavic population of the wider Macedonian region from its Bulgarian core. The massive allocation of funds to creating national institutions: schools, press, universities, museums, academic centers by Belgrade to the southern Yugoslav province in order to sustain the new national narratives provided Yugoslavia safety against Bulgaria, Serbian unitarianism and provided a pretext for expansion into Northern Greece, the most serious attempt of which was the Yugoslav support for Communist combatants in Greek Macedonia (or Macedonia proper, as the present-day north Greek region is nearly identical geographically to Ancient Macedonia) during the Greek Civil War (1946-1949).

The entire social development of the FYROM, as a nominal "Republic" in Yugoslavia, while heavily influenced by application of local version of Communism in political, economic and legal practice, was – quite unlike the situation in other Republics where traditional ethnohistorical narratives were viewed as dangerous to the concept of unitary Yugoslavia - characterized by vivid expression of nationalistic sentiments encouraged by the local leadership and methodically carried through all conventional means of propaganda. TV and radio broadcasts, including documentaries, docudramas, songs of various genres with nationalistic overtones were prevalent form of public entertainment. Maps of "Greater Macedonian Homeland" incorporating Northern Greece and large section of Bulgaria were regular fixture in thousands school classrooms. Impressive body of government-subsidized and obligatory belletristic literature dealing with "national" themes, "national tragedies" in which the image of the "exploited Macedonian" as a tragic hero was central in a social-realist imagery imprinted a sense of victimization and deprivation in generation of Pseudomacedonians. With the complete independence from Yugoslavia in 1992 and inheritance of intact – although quite obsolete – infrastructure, as a result of avoiding inclusion into the series of Yugoslav wars, the young and small Balkan nation would perhaps had promising start if it was not for the fact that in those times of change it was left without national intelligentsia, in terms of intellectuals of non-Communist affiliation. The extermination of the Bulgarian leading strata immediately after the World War II, the expulsion of pre-war Serb colonists and the brain-drain from 1960´s onwards via emigration mostly in the Angloshpere countries depleted the nation from the existence of transitional elite which would redefine and reestablish suitable values and set dynamics of social recovery.

In the presence of such spiritual vacuum, what initially started as an imported speculation – that the origin of the "Macedonian" nation should be sought in unbroken racial, linguistic and cultural continuity with the Macedonians of Philip II and Alexander the Great – became throughout the 1990´s the main integrative trend which unified folklore, pop-culture, the ubiquitous "coffee-shop politics", academia and the public education system. In the image of Ancient Macedonians, a Greek entity which created brief global empire as a substratum of Hellenistic civilization, suddenly the entire nation found itself. No more the colloquial "little Macedonian" ( "Makedončeto") was a passive observer to his destiny as created by his (demonized) neighbors. No more the "Macedonians" just an aggregate of impoverished people in a poor, landlocked Balkan country undistinguished culturally, technologically, being outside the realm of the global trends at the eve of Third millennium. Now they could boast a tradition old thousands of years, not only as a historical narrative, but more importantly – in a naïve, popular biodeterministic wisdom – as an evidence of what may became of his group: a great, mighty people of first-rank international relevance.

From 2006, when the Government of VMRO-DPMNE led by Nikola Gruevski, a man mostly thought of as a obscure economic technocrat, won the popular vote, the entire revolt of people defeated so often in conflicts and competitions in modern times escalated, looking for a symbolic compensation. While it would be impractical to list the protagonists, the chronology, and more importantly, to analyze the causes of enormous popularity the fascist reorganization of society and the complete consolidation of a tribalist, xenophobic, collectivist FYROMian nation guided by pseudohistorical delusions, it is sufficient to say that the very precedent left the international community helpless, since no norms which would be used to extrapolate solution to the problem of this kind exist. There is no known instance that an ethnic group, on apparently voluntary and almost unanimous basis, completely rejected its ethnological nature – in this case of being a Slavic ethnic group originating in medieval times from the boreal regions of Eastern Europe, a fact held in consensus in global academia – and based it entire cultural, economical, educational policies, its "reason of being" on outrageous claims on continuity with an unrelated Greek ancient people with whose territory it has a very tiny overlap. Consequently, for now, Europe is left powerless in dealing with Nikola Gruevski, a brutal, authoritarian dictator who mesmerizes his nation with fables of "ancient imperial glory" in light of total inability to solve real problems faced by FYROM: 40% unemployment, 300 USD salaries, scientific and educational decay, the threat by the Albanian-led Islamic separatist block which accounts for 38% of FYROM´s population. What initially started as – undoubtedly clever in Machiavellian sense – Gruevski´s idea to provoke Greece in order to gain some negative diplomatic feedback and portray itself as the "savior of the endangered nation", galvanizing people around "collective virtues" is now an elaborate fascist ideology, with its thinkers, institutions, manners of manifestation, unwritten codes, popular electoral and activist base and symbolism.

It is certain that this criminal situation won´t resolve out of itself. The manner in which global bureaucracy can act is limited by the aforementioned idiosyncrasy of the way of rule of VMRO gang. As North Korea exemplified, tyranny based on ignorance and fear may propagate itself for a considerable period. The opposition in FYROM itself is relatively negligible and very much bellow the critical mass needed for ignition of a popular revolt. Insofar, the organized political opposition did not offered the most needed solution to the problem: radical rejection of Pseudomacedonism in it´s fabricated entirety. The internal identity debate is on the marginal position outside the spotlight of the wider audience and is being sustained by informal networks loyal to central authorities. In terms of productivity, capability of potential maverick scholars to change the discourse from within is limited due to total financial dependency and certain ostracization. Sustained pressures from outside are necessary in order to implement long-term solution for a prosperous Balkan without VMRO, without Gruevski. While the issue should be reviewed with the scrutiny typical of serious scholarship, such effort cannot culminate in the much needed change in short-term. Politics should follow and align itself with science and practical activism should be supported by external factors in order to bring down the Pseudomacedonism, an ideology that threatens to plunge South-Eastern Europe into war and to help liberate the Slavs of FYROM from the cult of state-imposed grandomania and paranoia.

Vasko Gligorijević

03-VI-2009

Skopje, FYROM

info@macedonian.com.au
Source: americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104778

[chris450]

good to see there are still sane people in FYROM.Isnt this the writer Gruevski's thugs tried to intimidate by locking him up?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/92642

[Rictor]

All historical arguements aside for a second, I have one question:

Why is this country:

Greece
Population: 11,000,000
GDP: $340,000,000,000

afraid of this country:

Macedonia
Population: 2,000,000
GDP: $18,000,000,000

There is no way in hell that Macedonia (or FYROM, whatever) could ever, ever mount a successful attack on Greek territory, much less ever hold it. The people in the Greek province of Macedonia are not, so far as I know, any less loyal to the state than the people living in Athens. They would not tolerate being absorbed into Macedonia, even if such a case were physically possible, which it isn't. No one, not even Serbia, would recognize a secessionist state in Greek Macedonia and besides, Greece's military is incomparably superior to Macedonia's (FYROM), aside from being a NATO member.

[valtrex]

When a Greek accuses me of posting propaganda... now, i do find myself offended. Since when the truth is not serious?
And honestly... yes i did.


Something fresh out of the oven... It seams the Greek neo-nazis from "Golden Dawn" didn't like the book promotion.
Now, i understand that Greece is the cradle of Democracy an all that... but since when do you barge in on book promotions, threaten people with bike helmets and tear up books!? That's taking the concept of Democracy too far.... even by Greek standards.
Wake up people... this is the 21-st century, the Nazis lost the war!


You can see the video of the "event" on the second link.... it happened today in Athens.
Yes, thank God there's no article 179 in our criminal code which states that private historical research is forbidden and any challenge of the official identity dogma is a criminal offense carrying lengthy prison sentence...fortunately our right wing nationalists (Golden Dawn) take 10-15,000 votes in the elections, they don't hold formal office (contrary to others)

[Nickchios]

All historical arguments aside for a second, I have one question:

Why is this country:

Greece
Population: 11,000,000
GDP: $340,000,000,000

afraid of this country:

Macedonia
Population: 2,000,000
GDP: $18,000,000,000

There is no way in hell that Macedonia (or FYROM, whatever) could ever, ever mount a successful attack on Greek territory, much less ever hold it. The people in the Greek province of Macedonia are not, so far as I know, any less loyal to the state than the people living in Athens. They would not tolerate being absorbed into Macedonia, even if such a case were physically possible, which it isn't. No one, not even Serbia, would recognize a secessionist state in Greek Macedonia and besides, Greece's military is incomparably superior to Macedonia's (FYROM), aside from being a NATO member.

The answer is very simple.... WE are not afraid FYROM.

It is a matter of principles, justice, truth, etc, etc.

[valtrex]

All historical arguements aside for a second, I have one question:

Why is this country:

Greece
Population: 11,000,000
GDP: $340,000,000,000

afraid of this country:

Macedonia
Population: 2,000,000
GDP: $18,000,000,000

There is no way in hell that Macedonia (or FYROM, whatever) could ever, ever mount a successful attack on Greek territory, much less ever hold it. The people in the Greek province of Macedonia are not, so far as I know, any less loyal to the state than the people living in Athens. They would not tolerate being absorbed into Macedonia, even if such a case were physically possible, which it isn't. No one, not even Serbia, would recognize a secessionist state in Greek Macedonia and besides, Greece's military is incomparably superior to Macedonia's (FYROM), aside from being a NATO member.
Please, Rictor, spare us this sensationalistic crap. Such sensational statements only serve to Historical Revisionazism. We're not afraid of the people of FYROM, we're here to preserve Historical Truthiness. Thank you

[chris450]

All historical arguements aside for a second, I have one question:

Why is this country:


are you into charity Rictor? coz we aint

would you give up something of value to you (that is part of your heritage) ,just because the person demanding it is 1.50 m and there no way he can deliver on his threats?

as valtrex said you can spare us the sensetionalistic crap ,everybody gets so damn generous when its someone elses pocket

[Rictor]

Sorry, maybe I was misunderstood.

I was responding to earlier claims in the thread by Mencius that part of the reason for opposing FYROM is that they have expansionist tendencies. This is patently ridiculous, since they are in no position to threaten anyone. Hell, the country almost broke apart when Albanian separatists caused trouble in 2001.

[Mencius]

I was responding to earlier claims in the thread by Mencius that part of the reason for opposing FYROM is that they have expansionist tendencies. This is patently ridiculous, since they are in no position to threaten anyone. Hell, the country almost broke apart when Albanian separatists caused trouble in 2001.

Negative.

You're in denial and ignorant before the facts and I did mention WW2.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/balkans/greecewwii.gif

Opportunism abounds in many situations.