Can we imagine a united balkan peninsula today? Can we expect from the slavophone modern-day ‘bulgarians’ (ie. the thrako-pelasgian greeks and the ancient graeco-macedonians who got mixed/blended with the ‘newcomers’; that is, with the invading avaro-slavic ‘barbarian peoples’ of proto-bulgarian, tatar and/or scytho-sarmatian, indo-persian origin), the various slavophone ‘serbo-croats’ of the former yugoslavia (ie. the mixture of the indigenous graeco-pelasgians and of the graeco-illyrian indigenous peoples with the ‘newcomers’; that is, with the ‘barbaric’ avaro-slavic invaders from the north, who were also of substantial caucasian and scytho-persian and/or scytho-sarmatian origin) to live today side by side with eachother as well as to live in peace with the more ancient and indigenous peoples of the peninsula (ie. the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, some of the so-called modern-day Macedonians, and so on)?

Can we ever expect from the ‘neo-greeks’ (ie. modern-day Greeks) and of the ‘neo ”graeco-latin” peoples’ of the hellenic peninsula (ie. the modern-day Albanians and Romanians and/or Moldovans) to live in peace with their slavophone neighbours, and also accept to much of their most ridiculous propaganda, which somehow claims that Alexander the Great spoke ‘ancient slavic’ and that even Alexander’s horse, Voukephalas, was a Yugo Zastava?

To the extend that the modern-day slavophone-Macedonians remain ‘true macedonians’ who only got slavicized in language but not in spirit, they have to rid off the muck of all these centuries of roman, slavic and of ottoman occupations, and yet again lean on to Greece for guidance and acceptance. Be sure, that like anyone lost or stray child who gets back home to his mother, Greece will accept and take back her all of her lost and stray children; and that, along with the greek people today, Greece will -for once more- open her arms to hug and protect them again, like she did in the distant past of the proto-bulgarian (ie. tataric) and of the avaro-slavic (ie. tataric and caucasian scytho-sarmatian) raids and invasions.

The scytho-sarmatian slavophones are no longer the slaves (ie. ‘slavs’) or the servants (ie. ‘serbs’) of the various tataric and turranic hordes and tribes. They no longer are the southernmost ‘extended arm’ of the Tzarist Russia and of her imperialist foreign policy nor they no longer remain the southernmost ‘invisible hand’ of Stalinist Russia’s diplomacy in the balkans. It is about time for the slavophones of the balkans to find a common ground with the more ancient peoples of the peninsula (ie. first and foremost with the Greeks, then with the Albanians and the Romanians) so that they will soon co-operate, learn how to live toghether in peace, learn how to build stronger intra-national relations so that any part in this accord will benefit, prosper and progress.

The neo-Greeks (of ancient dorian and ionian greek origins), the modern-day Albanians (of ancient graeco-illyrian and of graeco-latin origins), the modern-day Romanians and Moldovans (of ancient thrako-pelasgian greek and daco-roman and graeco-byzantine origins) shall learn to cooperate with the ‘mixed’ in terms of origin, slavophone peoples of the penisnula (ie. with the modern-day bulgarians, serbo-croats, bosniacs, slavophone-macedonians, and so on) and lead them to a united europe of the peoples, and to a united balkan peninsula of all its peoples.

A southern balkan federation could begin very shortly, which would include Greece, Albania and Kosova, Montenegro, FYROM and Bulgaria. Later on, to that federation could also take part the Serbo-Croats, along with the Bosniacs, and the Romanians, along with the Moldovans. An extended balkan federation could also include the Hungarians and the Slovenians to the north, as well as, the Cypriots in the south, the southern-Italians and the Sicilyans in the west, and the western-Turks of ancient Ionia and of Asia Minor in the east. The name of the Federation could possibly be that of Pelasgia or Hellenic Republic, since all the peoples who inhabit those lands today -to a lesser or greater extend- can claim a common unique ancestry, given that they all come from the ancient common genator named Pelasgus and/or from his children, the Hellenes.

Indeed, the peoples of the balkans today look so much alike that, despite of their significant difference in terms of the language they speak today (note, that from all the ancient and indigenous peoples of the balkans, it is only the greeks who have kept their original laguage almost intact until the present day), their -more or less- common culture and their alomost identical physical characteristics, clearly indicate that they have significantly more in common with one another than with any other people in the whole of europe or, as a matter of fact, in the whole of asia.

Long live the united balkan federation, long live Pelasgia and the federal Hellenic republic

Elias Leon Assimakopoulos,
Athens, Greece.

Dear Gallus,

For ancient Greeks, including ancient Makedonians, the word ‘e8nos’ had a quite different meaning. In ancient greek culture, anyone genuine e8nos had to meet 3 criteria.

a) ‘Omaimon’ (and sometimes reffered to as ‘omotropon’), that is for the immense majority of its people to belong to the same ‘race’ or simply to ‘share the same blood’. Because, they could not conduct any significant an8ropological studies (sic!) or accurate ‘blood-tests’ by that time (lol), they had to meet the condition of the ‘omaimon-omotropon’ as the sharing of a common tradition, of having a common culture with a standrardised way of living. That is why they always tried to point to the sharing of common ancestry and they were preoccupied with the construction of explicit and thus, of very detailed ‘family trees’. In a word, they had to share a more or less ‘common’ ancestral blood-line. By that token, ancient makedonians claimed that they were of ancient dorian-hellenic stock and traced their roots back to Argos Orestiko and to the ancient Mycenean greek world.

Almost the same applies further north to the Illyrioi -or, to the Graeco-Illyrians, children of the mythical Illyrios, son of the greek Theban king Cadmos and of the greek royalty Armonia. The graeco-Illyrian kingdom extended from the Mat Valley of today’s N.Albania, well into the Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and much of Serbia. That is, southwards of course of the Celtic city of Singidunum, ie. the ancient Beograd, and up to the land of the Dardanians near today’s Kosovo. Between, the city of Beograd and Kosovo, the ancient illyrian tribe of the Aytariatae lived, which was distinguished to the so called ‘real-illyrians’ of N.Albania, Montenegro and Dalmatia. Many illyrian tribes, feeling that they were either of Graeco-Hellenic (ie, dorian, magnessian, makedonian, north-western greek and/or epirotan, aeolic, etc.) or of Pelasgian (ie, ionian, arkadian, achean, danaian, thessalian, minoan-cretan, arkado-cyprian, graeco-pheonician, cretan-philistinean, cycladean, etc) discent and origin, had the need or simply were feeling compelled to apply for admitance to the olympic games, which by that time were only for greeks of origin. Note that the ancient makedonians were always allowed to compete to the olympic games and that their greekness was more or less taken for granted.

Equally, the Dardanoi in modern-day Kossovo, which by that time Dardania included the cities of Scopje in FYROM and that of Nis in contemporary Southern Serbia, claimed a common ancestry with the ancient greeks, the ionian and pelasgian greeks in particular, through their mythical hero, an ancient Dardanos who has been one of the founders of ionian-pelasgian city of Athens. Many 8rakian ‘fyles’ or tribes also claimed their common ancestry with the southern greeks, including the paeonians of Fyrom and of modern-day southwest Bulgaria, the agriannes, the triballoi, the bryges and the frygians, the bythinians, the lydians, the lykians and the lykaonians, even the kapadokians and the kolcheans, etc. The same is true for the roman and latin tribes of italy which claimed a common ancestry with the mythical graeco-pelasgus and with the trojans of the mycenean era. Not to mention the Tyrsinoi or the tyrrhenoi
(ie, the etrurians or etruscans), the Venetoi, the Istrians, the Messapians, the Japyges and the Japodes, the Liburnians, and so on.

b) The second criterion was that of the ‘omodoxon’ or ‘omo8riskon’; that is, the condition of a common religious dogma, of a system of common metaphysical and spiritual beleifs (and, up to a certain extend, of a system of common social and political beleifs), an exeigesis for the cosmos, for their relationship and for their attitude towards the nature or the ‘physis’, for their common past and their common ancestors, for the devine and for the ‘8eio’, etc. Not only the makedonians had the same religion with the southern greeks, they worshiped the same olympian gods with their southern ‘omoe8neis’ greeks, but also many thracian, illyrian, roman and various other ancient tribes had common religious and cultural beleifs. Hence, the greeks, makedonians included, the other pelasgians, ie. the illyrians, the thracians, the pelasgian tribes of asia minor, the pelasgian tribes of rome, latium and of italy, all of them had more or less the same gods, the same religious systems, they worshiped Zeys and the Olympians, Dionysos, Hercules, Aleksander, and all of their ancestors of various importance, historic or mythical persons of any significance to them like glorious kings, politicians, emperors, ‘stratilates’ or famous army officials of past war expenditions from their glorious and long forgotten past, as well as the nature, the sun and the ouranos, the mother earth and the seas, and so on.

c) The third criterion was that of the same and a common language, the ‘omoglotton’ or the ‘omoglosson’. The makedonians could easily understand and commounicate effectively with the southern greeks and with all the hellenes, and vice versa. The greeks though could not easily communicate with many of the northern-illyrians, with some of the northern thrakians, with the triballoi, the dacians and the mysians, and so on. Some of them could easily understand or even speak the more demanding and thus, more intellect southern ionian or the ‘attic koine’ dialect, which had been adopted by most fo the graeco-hellenic (dorian) and the graeco-pelasgian (ionian) tribes. That language was clearly understood and were spoken among the tribes of epirous and of the north-western greeks, among those tribes throughout the original makedonian lands and even in paeonia and dardania, in the greek epiroto-makedonian area of the ‘illyris’ (extending for the Mat Valley to the Dalmatian coastline and to the Montenegran heartland) as well as in much of the thrake, up to south of the Mt Aemos (today Stara Planina) and the river danube (Istros/Isteros), and southwards to mainland greece and up to the peloponese, crete, cyprus, the greek islands, in much of southern italy and in much of asia minor.

Others though didn’t adopt too quickly, so they left behind and their culture began to defferentiate significantly from that of the pelasgian-greeks or of the hellenic-greeks of the peninsula. Hence, the illyrians in libournia, istria, pannonia, japygia, the venetioi, the rhaetians, the carrinthians in southern austria, the etruscans and the lygurians, the messapians in italy, the aytariatae in today serbia, the triballoi, much of the mysians, as well as the northern thrakians, especially those in dacia (in modern-day Romania) did not adapt too quickly to the southern pelasgian-greek language, up until the era of the hellenistic kingdoms, the era of Alexander the Great and even much later, when they began to adopt the ‘hellenistic koine’ language the peoples from the balkans and asia minor, to the caucasus and the pontic regions, and up to the middle east, in syria and in palestine, and even among the peoples of the tigris and the eyphratis rivers.

Implications: First and foremost, ancient and historic makedonians were found on all three conditions greeks, like those of the south. Ancient and historic illyrians, at least the so-called ‘real illyrians’ of northern albania, montenegro and dalmatia, were also pelasgian-greeks -and, closer to greeks culturally, linguistically and according to the three conditions that were mentioned above, were closer to official ‘greekness’ and ‘greekhood’than to any other culture, spoken language and material civilisation of that particular era. Clearly though, they were not Celts, Slavs or Germans.

Along with the paeonians and the dardanians, and along with most of the thrakians up until the Mt Haemos that shared a common greek and pelasgian culture with the epirotans, the makedonians and with the southern greeks, the so called ‘real illyrians’ can be considered as to be indeed, fully-flegged graeco-pelasgians of the same ancient greek and pelasgian stock of the indigenous peoples of the north-western parts of the hellenic peninsula. From then onwards, this peninsula was homogenious ethnically, racially, linguistically, culturally and religiously up until the roman conquest. A significant and common culture was to be developed among most of the pelasgian peoples from the Mt Haemos southwards, to Dardania, Montenegro and Dalmatia, and yet again southwards to the peninsula into the greek mainland, westwards to S.Italy and Sicely and easternwards to Asia Minor and N.Egypt.

Few centuries later, even more of the peoples of thrake, dacia and up to the depths of asia minor met in full the above criteria and gained their position into the glorious ancient greek pantheon of eternity.

H.L. Assimakopoulos,
Athens, Greece.

The greek nation-state systematically tries for over one hundrend years to convince the whole world that it is the sole and true successor of the glorious ancient greek culture and of the more contemporary ‘byzantine’ cosmopolitismos that sprang out of it. The modern-day greeks claim that the ancient ‘hellenic culture’ is theirs. That, it is theirs the ‘old pelasgian world’ along with all of ‘the sea peoples’, the mythical dorian-hellenes or dorian-greeks of the north-western greek peninsula, the acheans, the argeians, the myceneans, the danaoians, the ionians, the arkadians, the makedonians, the apeirotans or the epeirotai, the acarnanians, the aetolians, the avantes, the thessalians, the magnetes or the magnessians, the aeolians, the greco-illyrians, along with the modern-day albanians, the arvanites and all the arberesh people, the pontians, the colchians, the lazikoi, the bythinians, the frygians and their older ancestors the brygians, the thrakians and the various peoples of romylia, the bulgarians or burgharians of the byzantine empire’s burghs-bourghas (‘pyrgos’, in greek -- which means ‘castle’), the paeonians, the mysians of asia minor and the moesians of the greek peninsula, the dacians and the panonians, as well as the more contemporary to us latin-speaking vlackhs and moldovlackhs, the modern-day moldovans and the romanians, the macedonian-slavs, the peoples of the former yogoslavia, that is the greco-illyrian sub-stratum which evidently has become slavicised and got blended with serbs and with croats, which were originally of scytho-sarmatian and thus, of possible caucasian and/or persian-iranian origin. The modern greek nation-state claims the peoples and the ethicities of the ancient ‘asia minor’, of ionia or of the modern-day turkey, along with those of crete and cyprus, the minoans, the cycladeans and the aegians, the peoples of the ionian sea and of the adriatic, the inhabitants of ‘magna grecia’ and their descendants, the people of sikelia, sardinia and korsika of modern italy and france, and so on.. Don’t you think that such an imperialist ‘dream of panhellenism’ and of ‘greekness’ which still sells well in modern-day greece, is the shorter way for peace to become re-established again in the greek peninsula?

By the way, the modern-day greek nation-state tries for over a century now to convince the macedonian-slavs that they are not bulgarians but, that they too are somewhat.. ‘macedonians’. On the other hand, the greek state tries to convince the bulgarians, they are not tatars and turko-mongols as the proto-voulgarians and the avaro-slavs were in the past but that they too are indeginous greco-thrakians, mixed or blended with a bit of celtic, german, baltic-slavic and miscalaenious ‘noric’ blood, which in general ‘is not a bad thing at all..’ (lol).

Equally, they try to convince the albanians that they too are of ancient greco-italic or greco-latin stock, that is greco-illyrian or simply ‘illyrian’, which historically is more akin to ‘greek’, ‘greekness’ and ‘greekhood’ than to the modern-day italian-papistans or to the slavs and/or to the turks and to the ottomans..

It is funny that the modern-day greeks have somehow succeeded to convince more or less the albanians that they are ‘pure’ greco-illyrians or greco-dardanians, the bulgarians that they are greco-thrakians, the macedonian-slavs that they are not bulgarians but somehow.. ‘macedonian-slavs’, the serbo-croats that they are greco-illyrian and persian-iranian and not slav or baltic and finaly the turks that they are not turanic, yellow or asian but, because of their greek origins and of their glorious past, they too are ‘mikrasiates’, that is greco-ionians and greco-frygians and thus, that they too are a pure white, european and indigenus people.

This is madness, but some people like it! So, keep it up you ‘neo-greeks’ and you modern-day ‘greculoi’ of avaro-slav origin, you people of turano-mongol, tataro-fino-hungrian and of turko-albanian stock. And if you find the true and the pure discendants of the ancient inhabitants of the greek peninsula i will make a ‘spondi’ to Zeus and to all the Olympian Gods!

Hlias Leonidas Assimakopoulos,
Athens, Greece 😉

Hello Dragan…………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!hahahahahah How r u?

The reason I asked this hypothetical question is to elicit your sense of fairness. Please try and understand that other people feel just as Macedonian as the people of Southern ex-Yugoslavia.

By your own admission you’ve said that a Macedonian is someone who has lived in the land of Macedonia for generations (let’s not get on to silly topics of who has been living there the most generations as this is obviously irrelevant). If this is the only requisite of being Macedonian, then all the peoples of this region have an equal right to identifying themselves by this name regardless of ethnicity, race or language.

Would you not therefore agree that the only way forward is for each group to use a disambiguated form of the term ‘Macedonia’ and ‘Macedonian’? A geographic or ethnic qualifier perhaps e.g. Northern Macedonian, Greek Macedonian. This would be fair to everyone.

North Macedonia or New Macedonia or Upper Macedonia can henceforth start to have a normal relationship with Greece, consolidate its place in the world and address the ‘real’ issues facing its existence.

First, my apology for my first paragraph which, when I read it again, sounded to me too aggressive.

I think that we had just a misunderstanding about our concepts of “race” which is obviously identical. Now your question is… I am sorry -- too complicated. Or we differ so much that I even can not grasp your hypothetical answers to your hypothetical question.

Do you want to say that let us imagine, Yugoslavia and its Republic of Macedonia still exist and then a “NEW Macedonia” springs out of the hypothetically dismantled Greece? And that “new” Macedonia claims rights to be exclusive “Macedonia”?

The example does not help much because it is exactly inversed from what we just have! Why should we discuses a hypothetical situation when we have a real one?

My answer would be that it does NOT have EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS, but that a problem appears to be formal: just a problem of the name. The claims of both sides about their “racial ancestry” is void. Culturally Greece has certainly linguistic advantages in spite of the fact that Greek for Macedonians was probably not more then English for us today is: just acquired language of communications. On the other hand, the Republic of Macedonia has territorial claims based on their very long time residence in the region (from the 9th century onwards, while, and this is great disadvantage, Greece acquired it, for the FIRST TIME EVER, in 1914, or more precisely at the end of the WWI.. Etc. There are many arguments for and against on both sides.

The essence of the problem is: the problem is formal. However, the actors (Greece and the Republic of Macedonia – i.e. FYROM) declare their maximal claims with the scope to get more after very hard negotiations. I think this is what we haveas a problem.

Some repetitions, may be, to make it more clear:
As I said the territories are both legitimate “Macedonian” territories, but who are the people – we do not know. They both have rights to claim, I think, to be “Macedonians”. Greek part speaks Greek language, which was obviously official language even after the Roman conquest of Macedonia and particularly after 6th century A.D. The Slave part speaks a Slave language. “Genetically” we do not know what both are. This may be a relevant factor, not because of the “genetics” itself, but because of the values (cultural values) the people attach to supposed genetic characteristics. Greeks attach enormous value to the language problem, forgetting that we in Europe now write and speak English, without being all British! Or in 19 century Russians aristocracy spoke French without being French! The ancient Macedonian very likely did the same. Then they even did not have much choice since writing, that was available, was Greek. So this was quite logical that higher class knew some Greek.

My conclusion would be that the compatible solution must be found that permits both to keep their Macedonian names (North and South , or whatever). The exaggerations of both, the Republic of Macedonia or Greek Macedonia must be levelled.

Sorry, I did not want it to be so long.

Thanks for answering my comment. Although you started badly, but we almost completely agree afterwards. First about your beginning.

You are one of rare “philosophers” who would the affirmation of non-homogeneity of the inherited factors (blood as I use it in this popular text) interpret as a “well defined race”.

I do not know what your logical persuasion is, but the meaning of what I said and you cited is just opposite of what you think it is. Let me repeat it, when speaking of “Macedonians” of today: “These are the people who, some more and some less, have in their veins the blood that the great Ancient Macedonians probably also had.”

The meaning is that “there is obviously no Macedonian race” but they may be some more similarity between these people. May be but who knows… I personally think that there is no Race in principle, as the race was defined in the last century (clades may be, but this is not the subject here). Let us don’t waist our time on these points where we obviously agree.

I am sorry, it is a historical fact that the language that “prevailed in the Eastern Mediterranean right up to the fall of Constantinople (1453)” was – who knows, but a great deal Slave. The state language at first being Latin, in the sixth century and afterwards, was officially Geek. The population spoke all but more and more just Latin, Slave and Greek, the the ONLY languages that have remained up to now! Although, then, in the today’s Vardar, Pirin and Aegean Macedonia the population was increasingly Slave, to be in 9the century almost exclusively Slave (I mean the region of Thessalonica). The language, I mean, was predominantly Slave, Greek, may be some Latin (we still have “Cincar” who spoke Roman), but the population was a strong mixture. As I said nobody knows what is that mixture, but probably there was some “blood” of ancient Macedonia there while in Athens was certainly less. As I explained, the Greece took these regions first time after Alexander, first time ever in fact in 1914 (Greek polisis never reigned over Macedonia, they were just on the coast, while Macedonia was in the north-westward of the Thessalonica (Philip named the city). Then, when Ottomans left, the great masses of the populations moved. Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece forces shared the territory of –Macedonia!!! The people who remained to be there called themselves “Macedonians”. There is a lot of evidence from the solders who took part in this operations.

You say: “becoming fully Hellenised by the time of Philippos and Alexandros.” No friend, the real Hellenisation, linguistic hellenisation, started with Alexaned III. The Macedonans were “Hellenes” as much as the French were Latines, while loving Latin and speaking latin in the “cartier latin” in Paris. (look up biographies of Alexander by Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus)

“They (Macedonians) faded away into the twilight of history, genes and all” Yes, where is the problem although you are talking now of the race!. The last Cleopatra VII (read Shakespeare’s’ Julius Caesar?) was – Macedonian who spoke Macedonian, of course. All Ptolemyes were Macedonians! This was Macedonian kingdom. Macedonia existed throughout the history up to our day (after Alexander under Diadochy, then as Roman provinces of Macedonia which is distinct from Hellene province in the south; as distinct Byzantine provinces of Macedonia (Thema), We have long line of Macedonian dynasty in Eastern Roman Empire (about 300 years). I do not exactly know how Turks Vilayets were constructed, but the Macedonia was distinct region during Ottoman empire also.

“the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom”. No, much, much later, but they entered in the Thema of Macedonia ! All these people considered themselves to be Macedonians, of course, although probably already a strong mixture of various “peoples.

“The question therefore arises as to what gives the New Macedonians a monopolistic right to exclusively identify themselves by this term.” Let us say 10 centuries of residence on the Macedonian land and not having any other identity since their other identities disappeared.

Now, your great misconception:
“ethnic cleansing is as intrinsic to the history of the Balkans” is hardly through. The Balkan people did not move more then 200km away from where they were 1000 years ago. While the other Europeans… o la la, mon ami. DO I have to explain this? Let me rather talk about populations displacements, because these are not always clearly defined ethnic groups. The recent great ethnic cleansing: Palestinians, then WW2 ethnic cleansings all over the Europe, didn’t we ethnically cleansed, just partially may be, all our colonies? I mean displaced populations. Not to talk about American genocide of Indians… Even in the last Balkan wars, the Balkan people have been cleansing some cities, before the NATO arrived to cleanse entire regions (!!!) (in 1995, to cleanse Croatian Kraina of all Serbs, and then Bosnia – what preceded the “Dayton peace”, and then 1999, cleansing Kosovo of all the Serbs also.

The today Macedonians have a conflict with Greece. Yes. There you are right. “alienating its greatest benefactor and friend in the region.” This is true. And your last paragraph is of course true.

Sorry: When I write “the end of 19 century”, I meant „the beginning of the 20th century“. So let me restate and explain: The Macedonia was taken from Turkey after the Balkan wars (1914) to be “occupied” by the Serbs (Vardar Macedonia), Greece (Aegean Macedonia) and Bulgaria (Pirin Macedonia). Only the Vardar Macedonia got its independence after the WW2 (1945, entering the Yugoslav federates state) and the others remained incorporated in the mentioned states.

So just one part of the Macedonia has been incorporated into Greece FOR THE FIRST TIME in the beginning of the 20th century. Evers since the death of the Alexander III in the 323 BC. Appart from their language, it dos NOT have much in common with neither Bulgaria, Serbia nor with Greece.

Gallus

Its a ridiculous argument -- that the Ancient Macedonians were not Ancient Greek ergo they must be related to a self proclaimed Macedonian socio-ethnic group of the modern world. Even if the Ancient Macedonians are ‘ethnically’ worlds apart from the conventional definition of ‘Hellenism’ does this, by reasonable association relate them to the Slavic peoples of the modern nation?

The onus of proof is not on Greeks to show that they have common cultural grounds with Ancient Macedonians but for the Wannabee Macedonians to show what on Earth gave them the idea that their culture is somehow even remotely associated with Alexander’s Hellenic legacy.

If you still don’t know what I’m talking about explain in simple logic how the names of Macedonians regressed into names like ‘Zlatko’?

Thanks, Ntemis G21 (your name is funny!).

This is the section from Anabasis of Alexander, by Arrian, II, 7, 4 and further (sorry, I had to masacre the text: some crazy sighs appeared and I had to replace them; as a result, all accents disapeard!):

Μακεδόνας τε γaρ Πέρσαις καi Μήδοις, eκ πάνυ πολλοu τρυφωσιν, αuτοuς eν τοiς πόνοις τοiς πολεμικοiς πάλai eδη μετa κινδύνων aσκουμένους, aλλως τε καi δούλοις aνθρώποις eλευθέρους, εiς χεiρας nξειν. oσοι τε Eλληνες Eλλησιν, οuχ uπερ των αuτων μαχεiσθαι, aλλa τοuς μeν ξuν Δαρείω eπi μισθω καi οuδe τούτω πολλω κινδυνεύοντας, τοuς δe ξuν σφίσιν uπeρ τnς Eλλάδος eκόντας aμυνομένους.

I gave two emglish translations but have to verify the third, which is so often cited and which mift be wrong. You can verify the Greek text: it is not explicit that the Macedonians and the Greeks are the same group, while is almost certain, as other English translators suggest (I really did not look what Bosswort says?), that Greeks are treated as separate group that while fiting for money (on the Persian side) they fight for their country (on the Macedonian side).
Really all of this is not convincing.

Dragan,

I got the Greek text from Greek wikisource.

http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%91%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BE%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82_-_%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%BF_%CE%92

I dont know why my posts are getting deleted by admins but i suspect it has to do with the links.

I provide the ancient Greek text in Greeklish next to the English translation coz i cant paste here the ancient Greek text. The translation is mine.

(‘ouh yper twn aytwn maheisthai’) —-> all those Greeks not fighting for themselves
(‘Dareio epi mistho’) —-> but for Darius on a salary,
(‘kai oude touto pollo’) —-> and that not that big,
(‘kindyneyontas’) putting in danger,
(‘tous de xyn sfisin yper tis Ellados ekontas amynomenous’) —-> those spontaneously (?) defending on behalf of Greece.. [*]

[*] I wanna check my ancient Greek lexicon about the precise meaning of the word ‘sfisin’.

Well, the FYROM people, or why not, Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia, did a good job giving all these citations. This does not disapprove what I am saying though.

But we should not expect from a 4th century writer or 3rd century writer to say explicitly: “Macedonians who were NOT Hellenes” or “Macedonians who ARE Hellenes”. This would be too much. In the 4th century up to Alexander III and his unifying efforts, apparently nobody doubted that the Hellenes and the Macedonians were two different entities. We of course do not know whether the languages were very close, or completely different. They were Indo-European, this is certain.

In the 20th century we had may be similar situation when Germany took Austria. And Austrian language is German par excellence! And still, these are two distinct people and states. And today Croats and Serbs speak the same language, but nationalistic antagonism is quite clear. Or take other former Yugoslav republics. Or Serbia and Bulgaria: the languages are similar but the antagonism goes back to Byzantine times.

So language does not mean much for that purely political confrontation.
What I want to say is that if the arguments are purely political, they have little to do with the question discussed. Indeed, it is very interesting to discuss history with the people who understand past events, but political connotations make the discussion fails. Please do not spoil this discussion with politics and insults. We do not need this.

Zlatko Ristovski says:

Greeks ansuer me that. If macedanians were greeks why ALL ancient historian say they were just Macedonians (NOT GREEKS)??
Learn the truth. Macedonians are Macedonians. Thessalans were the last greeks at north.

Strabo
Roman Historian

“The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region” [11.14.12].

As Macedonia is located north of Thessaly it is obviously not a part of Greece, nor the Macedonians were Greeks, for the most northerly Greeks were already the Thessalians.

Plutarch
Ancient Greek Historian
The Age of Alexander

[1] “Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down.” [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar]

[2] Alexander was only twenty years old when he inherited his kingdom, which at the moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds, and external dangers on every side. The neighboring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings: As for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustomed them to his authority. 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. [p.263] [Alexander chose the opposite course] Plutarch never said that Philip “united” the Greeks, but he states that Philip “defeated” them in battle.

[3] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. ‘Demosthenes’, he said, ‘call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.’ [p.264]

[4] “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.” [p.264] [The ones who want to liberate Greece against the Macedonian troops]

[5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replied: ‘I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Philip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.’ [p.265]

[6] There is a story that on one occasion when a large company had been invited to dine with the king, Callisthenes (Alexander’s biographer) was called upon, as the cup passed to him, to speak in praise of the Macedonians. This theme he handled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw their garlands at him. At this Alexander quoted Euripides’ line from the Bacchae On noble subjects all men can speak well. ‘But now’, he went on, ‘show us the power of your eloquency by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings and improve themselves.’ Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the picture and delivered a long list of home truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that the rise of Philip’s power had been brought about by the division among the rest of the Greeks, and quoting the verse Once civil strife has begun, even scoundrels may find themselves honoured. The speech earned him the implacable hatred of the Macedonians, and Alexander that it was not his eloquence that Callisthenes had demonstrated, but his ill will towards them. [p.311]

[7] Alexander’s letter to Antipater in which he includes Callisthenes in the general accusation, he writes: ‘The youths were stoned to death by the Macedonians, but as far as the sophist I shall punish him myself, and I shall not forget those who sent him to me, or the others who give shelter in their cities to those who plot against my life.’ In those words, at least, he plainly reveals his hostility to Aristotle in whose house Callisthenes had been brought up, since he was a son of Hero, who was Aristotle’s niece.’ [p.133]

[8] Cassander’s fear of Alexander ‘In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander’s mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.’ [p.331]

[9] ‘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.’ [p.237] [This is how much the ancient Greeks hated Alexander]

[10] Lamian War 323-322 is also known as the “Hellenic War” by its protagonists. The Greeks, the Hellenes, were fighting the Macedonians led by Antipater at Lamia.

[11] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave. ‘Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: ‘If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares’ [p.216]

[12] “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.” [p.212]

[13] 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, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms.” [p.207]

[14] “Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget the wrongs they had suffered from these peoples in the Social War and to dispatch a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a diplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Philip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost all the states into a confederation against Philip.” [p.202]

[15] “The maladies and defects in the Greek scene of the fourth century 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.” [p.8] [In Plutarch The Age of Alexander, noted by J.T.Griffith]

[16] “What better can we say about jealousies, and that league and conspiracy of the Greeks for their own mischief, which arrested fortune in full career, and turned back arms that were already uplifted against the barbarians to be used against themselves, and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of her? I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said that those Greeks lost a great satisfaction that did not live to see Alexander sit on the throne of Darius. That sight should rather have drawn tears from them, when they considered that they have left the glory to Alexander and the Macedonians, whilst they spent all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia.” [Plutarch “Lives” vol.2 The Dryden Translation. Edited and Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough p.50]

Finally somebody normal.
The Philotas case refers to Rufus, 6, 9, 30 and later. The issue about who are (or were) Macedonians is hard and certainly new material will be needed to see this more clearly. Both FYROM people and Greeks take it for granted to be Macedonians.

Arrian never explicitly says that the Macedonians are in fact Greeks (he uses the expression “Hellenes”, of course). There is one place that attracted my attention on this very site where we “quarrel”, that I give below (Anabasis of Alexander, 2, 7, 4-5). There Arrina, in fact, is not clear, although more the context and obvious intention show that the Macedonians and Hellenes are different people. But this is really not stated explicitly. I am talking about Greek text, which you have in Loeb. Now the translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt (Penguin edition, that I have not seen) is certainly wrong -- if it is as it is given at the site. But similarly, the translations of Chinnock and Brunt are inexact also. However, they make explicit what Arrian only implies. I discussed this with some colleagues and they also think that the Greek version is clear, Arrian wants to say: the the Greeks that fight on the side of Darius, fight for money, while the Greeks who fight WITH Macedonians (on their side) fight for freedom and for Greece. But this is ONLY implicit meaning. And contemporary Greeks, of course, hold only to what is explicitly said. (I gave below these translations, from Brunt (1976) just the line. I do not habe Robson from 1929 but believe that Brunt did not deviate too much; original Greek majority of people have, I think and there is no need to type it now (I also do not have Greek fonts here). As I said in some of my messages, in all tertiary biographies of Alexander (5 essential), general atmosphere is that Macedonian and the Greeks are distinct people. It probably changed later, but I am not so well acquainted with the 3rd and latter centuries.
Thanks for your comment.

Here is the site:

http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/what-did-ancient-macedonians-say-or-think-about-themselves/
On the above site we find the Quote:
(…) there are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service – but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for pay— and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for GREECE, and our hearts will be in it. As for our FOREIGN troops —Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia.
(And then, it is stated that this is from: Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.)

However, there are other translations and the original, Greek text (I do not give Greek text):

1. (Alexander speaking to Macedonians about Persian army) He added that their foes were similar to them neither in strength nor in courage; for the Macedonians, who had long been practised in warlike toils accompanied with danger, were coming into close conflict with Persians and Medes, men who had become enervated by a long course of luxurious ease; and, to crown all, they, being freemen, were about to engage in battle with men who were slaves. He said, moreover, that the Greeks who were coming into conflict with Greeks would not be fighting for the same objects; for those with Darius were braving danger for pay, and that pay not high; whereas, those on their side were voluntarily defending the interests of Greece. Again, of foreigners, the Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, and Agrianians, who were the most robust and warlike of men in Europe, were about to be arrayed against the most sluggish and effeminate races of Asia.

(From: E. J. Chinnock, London: George Bell and Sons, 1893.)

2. (…) the Greeks on our side will fight as volunteers in the case of Greece. (…)
(From: P.A. Brunt, London, The Loeb Classical Library, 1976.).

I wish you all the best.
Dragan

Wow. Those are some long comments.

My dear friend,

Since the authors are just repeating thousand times their nonsense, I will have to repeat what I wrote at some other similar places with the aim that we stop with that emty discussion and talk seriously about Macedonian history.

Your text above, without a single citation and with empty references, will fool just a few, I am convibced. I really can not believe that the author so much underestimates the intelligence of the readers! But I understand the reason: If the author would have given the citations, the reader would certainly think that he/she had quite a lot of sense of humour.

But, I think that the reader who would attempt to follow what is said in the text above should know the context. I must say first that, after I started couple of weeks to look for the Internet sites related to Macedonia, on my surprise I found so much propaganda that this really spoiled the pleasure of learning about great Macedonian history.

In a few words only: The author above is trying to prove that the Macedonians were simply – their Greek opponents!!!, i.e. that Macedonians were Greeks. Fantastic idea but here it is. What Alexander wanted was quite different matter: to unite, first the Hellens with Macedonians, and he managed this, i.e. Philip II imposed Macedonian rule over Athens and Hellenic lands following Cheronea (338 BC). And then, to unite the entire world, which was not much more from what he in fact united. Now the “historians” want to prevent even a desire to think of unity!!! I think they would deserve that Albanians take their land as they took Serbian land and that not only Macedonians but all the others Greeks or Hellenes, as you wish, be reduced just to poor remains of a great culture.

Let me make clear: the text above tries to justify something for which Alexander III would certainly crucify the “historian” who would try to spread these or similar ideas.

So. I propose that you read just one book: read Arrian and you will see who were Macedonians. And whether they were “Greek”. But let us come to our comment.
United Kingdom of Great Britain or Spain are today ruled by the German dynasty, similarly as Macedonia was reined by the probably Greek dynasty. If the fact that the Macedonian dynasty was of Greek origin is enough to call Macedonians Greek (!!?), then why don’t we call the British or Spaniards also German?!
I am sorry, the above listed “9 Facts” are, unfortunately, all false. It was quite an achievement to compose such a text that has almost no value. In fact the opposite of all what is said there is true. Neither Alexander nor the Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek. Remember Demosthenes!! Spartans never accepted Alexander! Why don’t you just read Arian or Rufus? Unfortunately, of Macedonian language remained nothing what we certainly know as Macedonian, except of names and may be separate words that are anyway of unknown origin. I suggest you start reading about Demosthenes to understand what the Greeks thought about Macedonians.
Hellenism was in fact Macedonism! And was more expression of the geographical closeness then of tribal belongings. Macedonians, that were not Greeks, the Greeks call Barbarians!!, founded Macedonian empire, adopted Greek language, Greek writings and local culture (that was as much Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian as Greek), so that what we had during 2000 of years was Macedonian or post-Macedonian empire (East Roman Empire). “Roman” culture was later adopted, as it also was of “Greek” steam.
Why we do not call all these people Roman people, all these people that wrote and are still using roman writings? Including you and me?
Why the West in the last century may be, named Macedonian empire to be “Greek” is unknown. In Byzantium nothing was really Greek. The last empire was macedonian. Athens was a province, Byzantium was Constantinople and the capital of the world. The most brilliant period of the today known as Greek world was – Macedonian world. The empire lasted for 3 centuries, to exist inside the Roman empire for another 14 centuries, 10 last centuries as Greek speaking Greek or Macedonian state (Macedonian dynasty reined over 300 years). All what the Greeks have had, until now, has been local but great culture (that we call Geek, but was of Egyptian as well as of Middle East origin as much as Greek). The first Greek state was created FIRST in the beginning of the nineteenth century!!! Macedonian lasted for over 17 centuries!!
When somebody talks about Ptolemaic dynasty and the Egypt and NOT Macedonian state, I realize how much ignorance is still to eradicate.

Then further.
As I said at some other place, discussions of this kind (as these above), if they have for the aim some political benefit for some distinct groups of political lunatics of today, are futile and do not deserve our attention. As a fun discussion, this is all OK, but, unfortunately, does not prove ANYTHING AT ALL.
But, first, I love you all.

Your way of repudiating some of my arguments is decent, and when it becomes really hard it is, sorry, quite funny and, by that, even more friendly and I think we would get along very well indeed and without really hearting each other.
I must disappoint you now.
An imaginary enemy looks most dangerous, I would say: I have to disappoint you, I do not belong to any one of the camps you feel is trying to steel something from you (“FYROM”, Bulgaria, Geek Macedonia, Albania). Your attacks, therefore, which are accusatory in that specific sense (of my “belonging” to FYROM or anything similar) were futile. This shows also that the arguments which are not supported by the facts, but go (on so called) “ad hominem” – pointing at the person and not on the argument -- are bad arguments.

Where to start from the jungle of your misconceptions?
The language argument is very week indeed. All words that Greeks took from other “barbarians” were changed and appeared later to be Greek. (The barbarians did not write so we really do not know what their words were!) These changes of the imported words normally happen still today with, for example, English names when take in French. Or with other various expressions taken from foreign languages into our own language. Read Kalleris’ “Les ancient Macedoniens”, etude lingustique et historique” and you will see how the language argument just do not lead anywhere.
The “barbarian argument” is indecisive either. For the Greeks all who were not Athenians -- were “barbarians”,… more or less. Even Aristotle could not owe property in Athens as one of “barbarians”. If “barbarian” Macedonians were in fact “Greeks”, then “barbarian” Celts were also Hellenes !?. This is all very unclear and no argument at all.
BUT! When Alexander accuses Philotas, or, when his first class warrior loses a duel against Greek wrestler, then his anger shows his belongings and his adherence to the “Macedonian customs”, as he himself sad, as reported for example by Rufus (who reproduced Cleitarchu and Ptolemy –who of course new what happened, or you would disagree?). Alexander hardly had any of the Greeks in command or as his general! And this went on for another 300 years all over MACEDONIAN empire. Macedonians just did not have confidence in the Greeks! Ptolemy married just between themselves, inside their MACEDONIAN family!
I find it… pity. Pity that Macedon impregnated Philip’s and Alexander’s, and post Allexander’s world was -- no, not forgotten, how could it be! -- but displaced and subordinated to something that was given the name “Hellenism” only in the 19th century. By an ambitious German historian who introduced something just for his prestige and made us today be surprised to hear that even Ptolemys was (were) Macedonians. Just ask around: majority of people believe that they were Egiptians, Copts or whatever – but not Macedonians!! Ptolemy (after Soter there were 14 or so!), Alexander’s devoted general and friend and probably brother, and his dynasty including Cleopatra (there were 7!), the most famous woman from the antiquity – were just a Macedonians, no more and no less. They may as well have been Greek for all peoples around, but they new -- and this is so clear from what we know today -- that they were Macedonians first of all.
The Greek knowledge – and it was REALLY immense, but also Eastern and Egyptian knowledge, put together became Macedonian and universal knowledge and culture, from Alexandria onwards. In the 19th century it became “Hellenistic”! No. Give Macedonia its place in history. Do not fight, do what is just. If there were no Alexander – there would have been no Hellenism either. (By the way, Byzantium, unknown as such a that time, and in fact Roman Empire, although adopted Greek language in 6th century, was all -- but not Greece, and this is a fact.
Here is my short comment that I posted somewhere else, on some site that is also so egger to let go some Macedonians just because they do not speak their language any more, and do not speak Greek either.
It is certainly of great academic importance whether the language of the Ancient Macedonians (Makedonians!) was close to the language(s) of the people who lived in the southern regions of today’s Greece. It has however nothing to do with today’s quarrel over the name of the so called „Macedonian state” or region. The people who are at home in the region that were inhabited by the Macedonians in the ancient times, are a mixed population, including Slaves, Macedonian, non-Macedonian ancient Balkan people, as well as all the others that later made up Roman or Byzantine population; and finally, some rests of the Ottoman empire.
The language discussion is displaced. After the adoption of the Greek (Phoenician!) writing in all northern regions (including ancient Peonia, and down the river Margos, probably even as northwards as the Ister) all the words looked like “Greek” and tracing a word back to the Macedonian or other roots is mostly impossible and absurd. Who are the ancestors of the people who are on the “Macedonian” land today? Similarly to the Greek writing earlier, the Slave language was adopted later. But this does not mean that the people were all Slave. The language difference and cultural antagonism between Greeks and Macedonians is too explicit in Arrian and Curtius Rufus and above (in some comments) elaboration on common language and mutual language understanding is simply false. Geek and Macedonian did NOT understand each.
It may be that the Slave predominance in these Macedonian regions is even not as it is thought to be, even not in the northern parts of the Serbia! The Slave arrival to the Balkans did not produce great exodus, since apparently the people from earlier times were less exclusive, nationalistic and intolerant towards other traditions. But this is irrelevant today, although may be of great scientific interest.
We should not be over-enthusiastic, though. The genetics studies may prove not to be conclusive because the population mixing has been so extensive. Some islands of isolated groups are still possible to find and may be that the genetic studies could try to extrapolate some although still -- uncertain hypotheses. The today Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian and Macedonian states would do better if they addressed the question as purely cultural and let people exercise their full subjective national feelings as they please. Because national feelings have just nothing to do with genetics, and this is certain.
After Alexander the World, the “Greek” world (!?), was explicitly Macedonian down to the Roman arrival in the mid of the 2nd century BC. The rulers, the military command, most important administration, were Macedonian. The culture was one that was as much Greek as it was the result of all influences steaming from the enormous varieties of the cultures unified in the kingdom of Alexander III. Injustice of naming the period “Hellenism” instead of “Macedonisme” comes from the 19th century German historians, and is waiting to be corrected. Certainly, not for the benefit of any political party, but for the benefit of the great idea of the most famous Aristotle’s student, Macedonian general, statesman, dictator and the greatest king of all times. The period is certainly much less Hellenic as it is Macedonian, and could probably most justly be named after its ultimate great Initiator: “Alexandrin”. Let us be just.

I would like to see a continuation of the topic