By Kostas68

The Macedonian Issue is one of most significant and yet least understood cultural conflicts in modern Europe. It involves concepts which differentiate it from being a classic geopolitical crisis, many of which are easily, if not completely, explained by their economical aspects coupled with the archaic, recurring themes of expansion as augmentation of the assertive side’s space and resources. The Macedonian Issue of modern type demands other approaches towards rational its understanding. In brief, the conflict emerged from the dissolution of Yugoslavia in early 1990’s when the young Balkan nation which gained recognition in the United Nations as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia challenged the integrity of neighboring Greece. This is a continuous pattern of behavior practiced not via direct, military confrontation or hostile action in terms of economic and other forms of pressure but through attempts at creating fake historical narratives as a reason d’ etre of the entire social life within FYROM. This mentality is also evident in a more pronounced manner within the Slavic part of its diaspora (it should be noted that while “Slavic” correctly designates the ancestry and the language of FYROMian, all affinity towards Slav ethnic heritage as well as self-recognition as a part of the Slavic group of peoples are almost completely extinguished).

The basic concepts of the Pseudomacedonian irredentism may be reduced to following political and cultural policies:

1. The “Macedonian” people have unbroken cultural lineage with Ancient Macedonians, a Paleobalkan group whose Hellenic ethnocultural quality is zealously denied, which came into worldwide prominence in the era of Phillip II and Alexander III with creation of the first truly global empire. This idea had no precedent in the cultural and education policy of Yugoslav federation from 1944 to 1991 which favored  Slavic ethnogenetic narrative, although within the a historiographic context based on communist ideology, 19th and 20th century military and economic history was favored. In today’s FYROM, the hardline advocates of this idea surpassed the “fusionist” theory according to which Slavs “took the torch” by obtaining the ethnic name and folklorist traits from the Ancient Macedonians. Indeed, one has to wonder, if Slavs truly amalgamated with the Macedonian population (which was, 900 years after Alexander, completely homogenized regarding the language, identity and way of life under high Byzantine culture of Greek type). Any erudite observer of this ethnogenetic theory is left to wonder: “if such ethnic fusion occurred, how came that neither Bizantine contemporaries registered the process, nor the presence of a new, “Macedonian” ethnic group, north of one of greatest political, economic and cultural centers of the Empire, Thessaloníki”?

How come that such “Macedonian” ethnic groups failed to instill itself in the memory of peoples from surrounding ethnic groups prior to the XXth century? All this given the fact that the areal of Slavic people of FYROM until quite recently in terms of Balkan history overlapped with all of its neighbors which had no reasons not to include “Macedonians” into the corpus of their documents and literary works if there was such population with which they would obviously have interaced.

The silence of history regarding the existence of a “Macedonian” group of Slavic-speakers in their alleged formative years speaks volumes. Consequently, the narrative in which leaps are made from ancient history of the neighboring Greek region to 19th century speculations of the first Protomacedonists is a prevailing form of contribution to the identity discourse.

2. The second point, with quite recent origin, on which the Pseudomacedonian historiography is based, is that the migration of Slavs, an event from 6th and 7th century CE attested by history and archeology as well as th evident linguistic Slavization of the geographical names throughout most of the Balkan peninsula, never took place. Instead, Pseudomacedonian historians claim that “Slavic migration” was actually a fabrication from Communist Moscow and Belgrade designed to keep the least developed Yugoslav republic in a political status quo. The persistent urban myth that the Yugoslav regime “forbade” archaeological and historiographic research of Ancient Macedonia is easily refuted by simple bibliographic research.

The inability by Pseudomacedonian thinkers to explain the existence of other Slavic nations which use languages that have a great degree of mutual intelligibility with standard FYROMian forced them to invent bizarre theses: one of them holds a position that Slavs are descendants of deserters from the Macedonian army in Alexander’s time, another theory states that a wholesale conversion of Slavs to “Macedonian” language as a result of Cyrilo-Methodian and other missions took place, then there is a theory postulating genesis of Slavic-speaking areas in situ  and so on. Once a result of  spare-time activity by extremist elements of the diaspora, its status changed with the proclamation during the recent ordination of FYROM’s top prize for scholarship, the “23. October” awards, that today’s language of Slavs in that state has Ancient Macedonian language as its ancestral form. Such stance became official with this act and will determine the future allocation of human and material resources in the relevant scholarly disciplines. Undoubtedly, such regressive, anti-scientific attitude will lead to further deterioration of the already minuscule credibility of entire culture-contemplating intelligentsia in FYROM.

What would be in another context just an exercise in quasimythological ramblings by small and marginal group of sensationalist authors, a genre belonging to the counter-cultural movements which are to a certain degree found everywhere, since 1992 became a dogmatic credo, criticism of which is halted by the oppressive social conditions prevalent in VMRO-DPMNE’s FYROM. Needless to say these theories were never considered as a welcome alternative to the current state of knowledge in relevant peer-reviewed journals outside FYROM, let alone taken as plausible. The decisive action undertaken by the ruling political party regarding the propagation and subsidizing the process of building identity framework via manipulation of history, public education and creation of symbols caused understandable reactions in Greece. These are in turn locally articulated in the progovernmental media as displays of Greek extremism against which only a rightist, “defiant” political option can provide consolidation.

What has been until quite recently only a relatively lucrative niche business, by a small number of amateur authors without any relevant education, slowly rises as a trend designated to impose itself as a pattern of self-legitimation. The Cominterne-created ethnocentric, national-communistic model could have been liquidated in the first years of independence of FYROM and replaced with restitution of the traditional and well-attested Bulgarian, as well as Serbian identities. Instead, it became a developed, robust system of popular self-identification. Being upgraded from the methodologically flawed explanation of cultural development by Titoist theoreticians, the ideology of Pseudomacedonism  became a secular religion based on blind faith. Its defeat will not depend just on diplomatic pressures from abroad but on energetic confrontation from inside based on might of the facts and  plausible opinions formed in accordance with them.

Vasko Gligorijević

Skoplje, FYROM

If the source in question disagrees with their position, FYROM’s propagandists will try to diminish the validity of the source or instead they will present quotes which allegedly suggest that this source is supportive of their own position. Material that allegedly uphold this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured. In summary, we have a plain misrepresentation of the source’s position created by FYROM’s propaganda machine for the purpose of having a deliberate overstatement of the actual position to their own favour.

This common practise can be found on the series of articles signed by Risto Stefov in regards to the ancient Macedonian history. For instance, in one of his latest article ironically titled “Australian Macedonian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 8” we are becoming witnesses to the quite amusing attempt of the author to provide deliberate misrepresentations from the writings of the Ancient Greek historian, Polybius. In essence his whole attempt is proved to be unsuccessful and quite comical.

In this article we will present a number of “mis-interpreted” ancient quotes to prove how the Slavs of FYROM exploit the ancient sources to dispute the Greek identity of the Ancient Macedonians.

1. “(Book XVIII. 5) Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands:”

Firstly, note the intentional distortion of the truth committed by the author through the line “ Philip V from Macedon responds to the Greek and Roman demands.“ Of course Polybius refers in the first case solely to the demands of the Romans’ allies and not “the Greek” ones as the author’s wishful thinking. The Roman allies were namely the representative of Attalos, the Rodian, the Achaean and finally the Aitolians. Note also among the Roman Allies the presence of a representative of the…Attalid Macedonian Dynasty.

2. Furthermore, through the few quotes isolated, the author proves himself quite ignorant of Polybius works by emphasizing alleged differentiations between Macedonians and Southern Greeks. To understand any issue clearly, one must understand all the important factors that enable one to give a precise account of what is at stake. Obviously, the author ‘accidentally’ missed all the series of “differentiations” which Polybius appear to use a lot namely with Greek people as Mantineians [2], Epirotans [3], Eleans [4], Byzantines [5] , Spartans [6], Achaeans [7], or even Greek individuals as Eumenes [8], Gelon [9], Hieron [10], etc.

3. Another important point we have to deal more is the use of the term “Hellas” in Polybius. Contrarily to Risto Stefov’s allegations, Polybius account shows Macedonia was part of Hellas.
In the treaty of Alliance between the Macedonian King Philip V and Hannibal of Carthage we read:
in the presence of the Genius of Carthage; …and in the presence of all the gods who possess Carthage; and in the presence of ALL THE GODS who possess MACEDONIA AND THE REST OF HELLAS; and in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath.” [11]

4. Certainly, the usual habit widely used by FYROM’s propaganda machine (which is to omit critical parts of an ancient source) could not possibly be absent from Risto Stefov’s articles. An example of this is in this very same passage, which is deliberately taken out of context; even Philip V of Macedon verifies he is Greek [13]:

“Then, turning again to Alexander, “You ask me,” he said, “Alexander, why I annexed Lysimachia. 6 It was in order that it should not, owing to your neglect, be depopulated by the Thracians, as has actually happened since I withdrew to serve in this war those of my troops who were acting not as you say as its garrison, but as its guardians. 7 As for the people of Cius, it was not I who made war on them, but when Prusias did so I helped him to exterminate them, and all through your fault. 8 For on many occasions when I AND THE OTHER GREEKS sent embassies to you begging you to remove from your statutes the law empowering you to get booty from booty, you replied that you would rather remove Aetolia from Aetolia than that law. “

And although it must be very frustrating for the Slavonic people from FYROM, the facts are that the Ancient Macedonians are indeed referring to themselves as Greek.

5. Throughout this outrageous falsification of history, the author also ‘missed’ (possibly on purpose), Polybius’s views about Ancient Macedonians. It is quite evident that Polybius indeed considered the Ancient Macedonians as Greeks:

“The 38th book contains the completion of the disaster of the HELLENES. For though both the WHOLE of Hellas AND her several PARTS had often met with mischance, yet to none of her former defeats can we more fittingly apply, the name of disaster with all it signifies than to the events of my own time. …In the time I am speaking of a COMMON misfortune befell the Peloponnesians, the Boiotians, the Fokians, the Euboians, the Lokrians, some of the cities on the Ionian Gulf, and finally the MACEDONIANS. ” [14]

6. Moreover, anyone who has read Polybius’s account, would witness a constant differentation being made between Macedonians and Barbarians; revealing that another widely used blatant assertion of Risto Stefov, that is: “Macedonians were considered as Barbarians” is completely inaccurate. Macedonians are constantly juxtaposed to Barbarians.

In fact, through Polybius’s work we note that Macedonians “never cease from fighting the Barbarians for the sake and security of Greece”. Specifically, Polybius says [15]”:

“While you have no defence to offer for any of these acts you pride yourselves on having resisted the attack of the barbarians on Delphi, and say that the Greeks ought to be grateful to you for this. But if thanks are due to the Aetolians for this single service, how highly should we honour the Macedonians, who for the greater part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Greece? For who is not aware that Greece would have constantly stood in the greatest danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honourable ambition of their kings?”

Or even:

“Antiochus traversed the worst part of the road in the manner I have described, safely but very slowly and with difficulty, only just reaching the pass of Mount Labus on the eighth day. 2 The barbarians were collected there, convinced that they would prevent the enemy from crossing, and a fierce struggle now took place, in which the barbarians were forced back for the following reason. 3 Formed in a dense mass they fought desperately against the phalanx face to face, but while it was still night the light-armed troops had made a wide detour and occupied the heights in their rear, and the barbarians, the moment they noticed this, were panic-stricken and took to flight. 4 The king made every effort to restrain his men from continuing the pursuit, summoning them back by bugle-call, as he wanted his army to descend into Hyrcania unbroken and in good order. “

A thourough analysis of Polybius leads to the conclusion that Risto Stefov has made many erroneous assertions. It is blantantly obvious from the following excerpt from Polybius account where Lyciscus, the Acarnanian envoy is speaking about the Pan-Hellenic campaign of Alexander to enslave the barbarians where “he made Asia subject to Greece” [14]:

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

Lastly, another passage from Polybius [15] where we have undoubted evidence on the Greek ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians, is the following excerpt where we find a clear distinction between the Romans, (who are called clearly a foreign race), and the Macedonians as Greeks, being from “the same Race of the Achaeans and Spartans”:

“Far from being similar, the circumstances are now the reverse of what they formerly were. 7 Then your rivals in the struggle for supremacy and renown were the Achaeans and MACEDONIANS, PEOPLES OF YOUR OWN RACE, and Philip was their commander. But now Greece is threatened with a war against men of a FOREIGN RACE who intend to enslave her, 8 men whom you fancy you are calling in against Philip, but are calling in really against yourselves and the whole of Greece.”

Alexander the Great

In summary and contrary to Risto Stefov’s incredibly falsified version of ancient History in order to fit his political agenda, we can conclude from Polybius account:

1. Polybius verifies ancient Macedonians are Greek, sharing a common misfortune with the rest of Greeks

2. Polybius verifies ancient Macedonians viewed themselves as Greek which is explicit from the words of Philip V, king of Macedon.

3. Polybius verifies Ancient Greeks viewed Macedonians as being Greeks and particularly being part of the same Race with other Greek people like it is evidentially documented by the account of Lyciscus.

4. Polybius verifies ancient Macedonians are entirely differentiated with Barbarians, shattering the main argument of FYROM’s propaganda while he adds that “Macedonians never cease from fighting the Barbarians for the sake and security of Greece” and their king was the “Benefactor of Greece”.

5. Polybius verifies Alexander’s campaign was a Pan-Hellenic campaign where in essence Alexander “made Asia subject to Hellas”

6. Polybius verifies ancient Macedonians shared the same religion as the rest of Greece as is explicitly shown even by treaties of ancient Macedonians themselves.

By Ptolemy