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

The following collection of Macedonian Newspapers is what Skopjans hate most since it completely shatters their illusions that “Macedonia was a term forbidden in Greece” prior to 1988. Contrarily Macedonian Newspapers were in use  from 19th cent. even prior to the invention of the Skopjan fictitious “nationality”.

Newspapers like:

- Echo tis Makedonias

- Dytiki Makedonia

- Makedonikos Epinohr

- H Pammakedoniki

- Makedoniki Enosis

- Makedoniki echo

- H Makedoniki

- Makedonikos Astir

- Makedoniki foni

- Elliniki Makedonia

- Makedonika Xronika

- Makedonia

- Makedonikos

- MAkedonika Salpismata

- Makedonia

- Makedonomachos

- Makedonikos Typos

- Makedoniki Echo

- Makedoniki

- Chronika Dytikis Makedonias

- Makedonikon Vima

- Makedonis Gh

- Makedoniki Floga

- Makedonika Themata

- Makedonika Spor

- Makedonika Nea tis Thessalonikis

- Makedoniki Neolaia

- Makedonikes selides

- Makedonopoulo

- Makedonika grammata

- Makedonika

- Makedonikon hmerologion

- La Macedoine

are the best evidence against FYROM’s misinformation and Lies.

Congrats to Samios Makedonas for his collection!!

A couple of days ago, in an article entitled ´Australian Macedonian Advisory Council and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history Part 1″ signed by Risto Stefov http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/79623, we had the opportunity to witness once more the same desperate attempts by the same author with compilations of isolated phrases from authors which in reality contradict his main claims, aimed to somehow assist the mythology disseminating by FYROM´s Slavonic people upon unsuspected readers.

In general, it is productive to cite as a supporting evidence someone who has specialized knowledge of the specific field in question, and even more if he appears to be one of the leading authorities. What is counter-productive though, is the selective quotation applied blatantly in the article of Mr. Stefov, while simultaneously it is omitted completely anything which doesn´t fit the author´s political agenda.

Apparently, since the works of Eugene Borza - the so-called “Macedonian specialist” are overwhelmingly accepted, promoted and invoked as quasi-sacred documents by the Slavs of modern FYROM, then I guess Mr. Stefov and his people should also accept Borza´s account which rebukes their self-made erroneous assumption/myth upon their own ´identity´. The clearest relevant statement is to be found by Prof. Borza in his “Macedonian Redux” [1] : “Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and “Macedonians”, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity.”. Essentially the same authority used previously by Mr. Stefov, has managed to contradict and debunks his allegations in his own articles, attempting to link Slavic people with antiquity. At least now we meet a couple of people who belong to these “most radical Slavic Factions”!!

In another instance, Prof. Borza adds further ” During medieval and modem times, Macedonia was known as a Balkan region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks.” Sadly there goes shot down the myth of “ethnic Macedonians” promoted by the Slavs of modern FYROM in Macedonia during medieval and modern times.”[2]

“the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians.”[3]

From the same source we read: “The emergence of a Macedonian nationality is an offshoot of the joint Macedonian and Bulgarian struggle against Hellenization. With the establishment of an independent Bulgarian state and church in the 1870s, however, the conflict took a new turn. Until this time the distinction between “Macedonian” and “Bulgarian” hardly existed beyond the dialect differences between standard “eastern” Bulgarian and that spoken in the region of Macedonia.”[4] In essence Eugene Borza accepts the testimonies of the vast majority of contemporary scholars, travellers, diplomats and other eye-witnesses who identified the ancestors of FYROM´s Slavs plainly as Bulgarians.

Therefore, I shall limit myself to restate the American´s scholar main conclusions in regards to the Slavs of Modern FYROM:

1. Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and “Macedonians”, CANNOT establish a link with antiquity.

2. During Medieval and Modern times, there were NOT any “ethnic Macedonians” but merely Macedonia was “a region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks”.

3. The emergence of a Macedonian nationality is an OFFSHOOT of the joint Macedonian and Bulgarian struggle against Hellenization.

4. Until the 1870s, there was HARDLY any distinction between the terms “Macedonian” and “Bulgarian” beyond the dialect differences between standard “eastern” Bulgarian and that spoken in the region of Macedonia.”

How is it possible then that so many and superbly competent scholars verify along with the massive amount of testimonies by self-witnessing contemporary accounts the Bulgarian origins of Slavs from modern FYROM, but they shamefully insist on denying the reality?? Simply because all these accounts hit upon uncomfortable truths.

It is depressing that the average citizen of FYROM is bombarded daily with such flagrant fairy tales of an alleged connection with ancient people, instead of tackling the most pressing problems of this state, namely unemployment, corruption, poverty, etc.

So, please, Mr. Stefov and others who frequently adopt and treat Prof. Borza´s work as having undisputed diachronic ´value´, at last make up your minds and stop your hypocrisy and double standards. Its you who always find it so easy to distribute ad naseum over and over Prof. Borza´s work as being essentially beyond any criticism because they originate from an “authority”, as commonly stated by the ‘Slavic internet warriors of FYROM’. You cannot simply selectively isolate and use only what fits your political agenda.

Furthermore, before we have an extensive analysis on the nature of ancient Macedonians, I have to highlight the striking inconsistencies in the specific text used by Risto Stefov. The claim in the beginning “From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins” is partly correct but appears a little misleading. The surviving literary sources points out ancient Macedonians being Greek. For instance, Professor NGL Hammond, an eminent historian, generally accepted as foremost authority in ancient Macedonian history, convincingly mentions about Hesiod: “Hesiod first mentioned ‘Makedon’, the eponym of the people and the country, as a son of Zeus, a grandson of Deukalion, and so a first cousin of Aeolus, Dorus, and Xuthus; in other words he considered the ‘Makedones’ to be an outlying branch of the Greek-speaking tribes, with a distinctive dialect of their own, ‘Macedonian’.” [5]

To say the least, it is quite comical indeed for Mr. Stefov to insist the promotion of the outdated – today - account of R.A. Crossland [1982] when in the meantime there is more certainty and the specialists classify Ancient Macedonian as a dialect of Greek; specifically North-West Greek, as already been attested by most recent accounts like of the eminent linguist’s Olivier Masson [6]. Obviously R.A. Crossland´s account lacked knowledge of the major recent archaeological discoveries like the Pella Katadesmos which shed more light among specialists to the Ancient Macedonian language question and force them to consider it now as a Greek dialect.

Essentially based on the literary available evidence we can conclude the following:

1. Alexander the Great was Greek

Alexander´s Greek descent, and in general Argead Greek lineage went unquestioned by ancient Greek and Roman writers, revealing a widely belief in ancient Greek and Roman world (including of course Macedonians themselves), the Argead royal house were Greeks descended from Argos of Peloponnese. The founder of their house belonged to the royal house of Argos, the “Temenidae”, descendants of Temenus, whose ancestor was Heracles, son of Zeus. (Diod. 17.1.5, 17.4.1; Plut, Alex 2.1-2, Fortuna 1.10 = Moratia 332a; Justin 11.4.5, 7.6.10-12, Theop. (FGTH US F3SS - Tzetzes, ad Lycophr 1439); Paus. ´Description of Greece´ 1.9.8, 7.8; Velleius Paterculus: “The Roman History” Book I.5; Isocrates: ´To Philip´ 32; Herod. 5.22.1-2, 8.43; Thuc. 2, 99, 3; Curt. 4.6.29)

2. Earliest accounts verify the earliest Macedonians as Greeks

The earliest literary accounts like Hesiodus (700 BCE) identified the earliest Macedonians as part of the greek world thus greek-speakers. Obviously if Macedonians werent Greeks but foreign people to Greeks, they wouldnt be part at all in Hesiodus´ account as Greek. After all its really irrational to have a supposedly ´non-greek´ people while migrating to rename existing foreign toponymies into Greek, like the renaming from the earliest Macedonians of the original Phrygian place-name ´Edessa´ to the Greek ´Aigae´.

3. Ancient Macedonians considered themselves as Greek

The surviving literary and archaeological evidence during Classical and Hellenistic Ages shows clearly that Macedonians considered themselves to be Greek, carriers to spread the Greek language and civilization to Asia while revenging Persians for their “crimes against Macedonia and the rest of Greece”.(Herod. 9.45; Diod. 16.93.1; Arrian 2.14.4, 3.18.11-12, I.16.10, “Indica” XXXIII; Plut- Alex. XXXIII, Moralia 332A; Curt. 5.6.1, 5.8.1; Joseph 11.8.5; Polyvius 7.9.4, 18.4.8; Liv. XXXI,29, 15; IG X,2 1 1031)

4. Ancient Greeks viewed Macedonians as Greeks

Ancient Greeks considered Macedonians as Greeks and specifically of Dorian stock. In fact ancient Greek accounts attributed some of the most patriotic Greek sentiments ever expressed to Macedonian rulers (Herodotos), described memories of the Greekness of the Makedones (Hesiodos, Hellanikos, Herodotos), mentioned their participations among Greek troops and folk, membership of Macedonia in the associations of the Greeks, namely the Delphic Amphictyony which had long been an important Panhellenic (Herodotos, Thucydides, Aichines). Hence they all verify the same conclusion. Greeks viewed Macedonians as Greeks.

(Polyb., IX.35.2 (Loeb, W.R. Paton), IX.37, 38.8; Isocr, “To Philip”, 5.139, 5.140, 5.8; Callisth. ´Oration of Demosthenes´ 2.3.4.-5, 2.4.5, 2.4.7-8 ; Curtius 3.3; Arrian ´Anab. Alex´ 2.14. 4, 3.27.4-5; Pausanias, ´Phocis´ VIII.4, Eleia VIII, 11 [Loeb]) ; Strab. VII.Frg. 9 [Loeb, H.L. Jones]), VII. Fr 7.1, 10.2.23; Herod. VIII.137. 1 [Loeb]), I.56.3 [Loeb, A.D. Godley]); Hesiod, Catalogues of Women and Eoiae 3 [Loeb, H.G. Evelyn-White])

5. Foreign nations considered Macedonians as Greeks

The ancient Roman, Persian, Indian, Jewish, Babylonian and Carthagenian testimonies are listing Macedonians among the other Hellenes, speaking the same language and in general Macedonians are portrayed as Hellenes fighting the Barbarians. (Curt. 3.3.6, 3.7.3, 3.12.27, 4.1.10, 4.5.11, 4.5.14, 4.6.29, 4.8. 13-14, 4.10.1, 5.6.1, 5.7.3, 5.7.11, 6.9.35, 7.5.36, 7.6.1, 7.6.35; Liv. XXXI.29.15, XLV, 32.22; Cicero Orations; Ceasar ´Civ. Wars´ 111.103.3; Vel. Patercul. ´Roman history´ I.5; Justinus Un. History 7.1, 11.3.6; Aelian ´Var Historia´ VII.8, 12.37(39); Pliny ´Natural history´; Tacitus ´Annals of Imperial Rome´ Chap. 8 pg 221; Persian inscr. of ca 513, Persian story of Zulqarneen, Bahram Yasht 3.34; Edicts of Ashoka V & XIII; Maccabees 1:10, 8:18, Megillah 11a, Dan 11:2, 10:20, Isiaiah chap. 19.20, 19.23, Joel Cahp 3.v6, Habacoum cap. 2.v5; Josephus ´Antiquities of the jews´ Book 11 par 337, 109, 148, 184, 286, Book 8 para. 61, 95, 100, 154, 213, Book 10 para. 273, Book 12 para. 322, 414, Philo of Alexandria, Maimonides; Babylonian Diaries Diary No -168. A14-15)

6. Ancient Macedonian names are Greek

In contrast with all their non-greek neighbours (Illyrians, Thracians, etc) ancient Macedonian names are either Greek or derive from Greek roots in a percentage of over 95%. According to the encyclopaedia Bolsaya Sovetskaya “In 200 names born from Macedonians born before the ascent of Philip II (359b.C.), hardly 5% are of non-greek origin. Non-Greek names in small numbers can also be found in other Greek tribes. We know some names of Gods and Heroes worshiped by the Macedonians. Among them, 39 are either pan-hellenic or worshiped by other Greek tribes, either purely macedonian, but with a Greek etymology [root]. 2 come from names of cities with a non-hellenic root but with a greek termination syllabe 3 are Thracian 1 is Egyptian All of the names of Macedonian Feasts that we know are Greek. Regarding the names of the months, 6 are common with other Greek calendars, and at least two more are also purely Greek. The idea that the Macedonians took the names of the months during their ´hellenisation´ is out of the question, as in that case they would have taken an integral Greek calendar instead of creating an amalgam of different greek calendars and, more important, they would never invent themselves two Greek names of months. ” All these of course are taking place at a time where the Illyrian and Thracian names have in their vast majority non-greek etymologies.

7. Ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect

According to the eminent linquist, Olivier Masson, writing in 1996 for the “Oxford Classical Dictionary: ´Macedonian Language”. “For a long while Macedonian onomastics, which we know relatively well thanks to history, literary authors, and epigraphy, has played a considerable role in the discussion. In our view the Greek character of most names is obvious and it is difficult to think of a Hellenization due to wholesale borrowing. ´Ptolemaios´ is attested as early as Homer, ´Ale3avdros´ occurs next to Mycenaean feminine a-re-ka-sa-da-ra- (´Alexandra´), ´Laagos´, then ´Lagos´, matches the Cyprian ´Lawagos´, etc. The small minority of names which do not look Greek, like ´Arridaios´ or ´Sabattaras´, may be due to a substratum or adstatum influences (as elsewhere in Greece). Macedonian may then be seen as a Greek dialect, characterised by its marginal position and by local pronunciations (like ´Berenika´ for ´Ferenika´, etc.). Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet (4th cent. BC) which may well be the first ´Macedonian´ text attested (provisional publication by E.Voutyras; cf. the Bulletin Epigraphique in Rev.Et.Grec.1994, no.413); the text includes an adverb ´opoka´ which is not Thessalian. We must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that Macedonian is a dialect related to North-West Greek.”

(Pausanias Messeniaka XXIX.3; Strabo 7.7.8; Plutarch Pyrrhus II.1, XI.4; . Livius XXXI.29.15, XLV; Curtius VII.5.29, VII 9.25 - 11.7)

8. Alexander´s campaign Pan-Hellenic character

Alexander the Great launched a Pan-hellenic campaign against Persia and through his conquests spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Near East and created economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Greece to the Punjab in India with Greek (koine) as lingua franca. He built a network of almost thirty Greek cities throughout the empire, a building program that was expanded by later Hellenistic rulers. These became enclaves of Greek culture. Here gymnasia, baths, and theaters were built. The upper classes spoke koine Greek, wore Greek dress, absorbed Greek learning, adopted Greek customs, and took part in Greek athletics. Ancient sources reports as such and the pan-hellenic character of his campaign were the definitive statements of the Macedonian royalty and nobility. (Aelian ´Varia Historia´ 13.11; Arrian I.16.7, I12.1-2, Plutarch Ages. 15.4, Moralia I, 328D, 329A, Alex. 15, 33, 37.6-7; Diod. 16.95.1-2, 17.67.1; Callisthenes 2.3.4-5, 2.4.5, 2.4.7-8, 3.1.2-4; Arrian “Indica” XXXIII, XXXVIII, XXIX, ´Anab.´ Arrian I.16.7, II, 14, 4, 3.18.11-12 ; Polybius IX.35.2, IX.34.3, 17.4.9; Curtius 3.3.6, 4.1.10-11, 4.5.11, 4.14.21, 5.6.1, 5.7.3, 5.7.11, 8.1.29)

9. Macedonians shared the same religion as the rest of Greeks

Nowadays historians agree that Macedonians had the religious and cultural features of the rest of the Hellenic world. Like other Greek regions, regional characteristics have also to be noted especially near the borders.

It is quite interesting then, the fact that Macedonians also gave these deities the familiar Greek epithets, such as Agoraios, Basileus, Olympios, Hypsistos of Zeus, Basileia of Hera, Soter of Apollo, Hagemona and Soteira of Artemis, Boulaia of Hestia, etc. The worship of the twelve Olympian gods in Macedonia is undoubted; and it is shown explicitely in the treaty between Philip V and Hannibal of Carthage “`In the presence of ZEUS, HERA and APOLLO…and in the presence of ALL THE GODS who possess Macedonia AND THE REST OF HELLAS”. (Arrian I 11.1-2, I.11.6; Diod. 16.95.2, 16.91.5-6; Pausanias 6.18.3, 9.39.3; Ath. Deipnos. XII.537d-540a, XIII 572d-e; Diogenes Laert. 1.8; Curtius 3.7.3, 3.12.27, 4.13.15, 6.10.14, 8.2.32, 8.11.24, Plutarch ´Alexander´ 33; Polybius 7.9.1-7)

As it is evident through the surviving archaeological evidence and literary accounts, the Greek nature of ancient Macedonians is undoubted. Even if the vast majority of modern historians accept the latter as a fact, there may have been some modern historians who are still sceptical due to the scanty evidence available prior to Roman times, but there is no controversy later on. The entirety of historical community accepts as a fact that the Macedonians were indistinguishable from the other Greeks during Roman times. They also share the same notion that the Slavs of modern FYROM are totally unrelated to Ancient Macedonians. Unfortunately none shares the views of some extremist “radical Slavic factions” as Prof. Borza put it nicely, that quite comically think that if they can prove the non-Greekness of ancient Macedonians their mythical link to ancient Macedonia will be somehow validated. As one of their favourite writers which is quoted always selectively, namely T.J Winnifrith [7], states, “Macedonia was also an attempt at a multicultural society. Here the fragments are just about holding together, although the cement that binds themis an unreliable mixture of propaganda and myth. The Macedonian language has been created, some rather misty history involving Tsar Samuel, probably a Bulgarian, and Alexander the Great, almost certainly a Greek, has been invented, and the name Macedonia has been adopted. Do we destroy these myths or live with them?”. Apparently these “radical Slavic factions” decided to live with their myths and lies for the constant amusement of the rest of the world.

Footnotes:

1] “Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors, p. 255

2] “Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors, p. 252

3] “Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors, p. 259

4]”Macedonia Redux”, Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors, p. 253

5] N.G.L.Hammond, “Oxford Classical Dictionary”, 3rd ed. (1996), pp.904,905

6] “Oxford Classical Dictionary,” 3rd ed. (1996), pp.905,906

7] T.J Winnifrith. Shattered Eagles Balkan Fragments, Duckworth 1995

by Ptolemy

for MacedoniaOnTheWeb

info@macedonian.com.au

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council

Source: American Chronicle

Source : Ellinas133

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council

October 29, 2008

The answer is simple and plain. Because somehow they live under a misguided notion. Particularly, they believe that by disassociating Greeks from ancient Macedonians, this will mean in their illusionary point of view, they, the descendants of the Slavic and Bulgar tribes that entered the Balkan peninsula in the 6th and 7th centuries, are the historical heirs and descendants of the ancient Macedonians who lived a thousand or more years earlier and who were Greeks by their own testimonies. One can hardly go further in Orwellian double-speak. This absurd notion supported increasingly among the Slavs of FYROM, makes as much sense as asserting that if someone manages to prove a car´s color is not white, this would surely mean it is black!

Furthermore Mr. Stefov embarks on an clumsy effort to spread mendacious disinformation as regards to the events of the early 20th century. Incorrectly he states “Didn´t Greece in 1912, 1913 invade and occupy a fully populated Macedonia?” while the truth is that nobody has invaded Macedonia in 1913 but instead during the first Balkan war, the Balkan coalition between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece invaded Ottoman Empire, for the liberation of the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs who lived there. Sadly for the author´s empty claims there was not back then, any ethnicity called ´Macedonian´. The term was used merely as a geographical indicator.

To quote some accounts of contemporary self-witnesses that shatters Mr. Stefov´s unfounded claims and deliberate misinformation:

John Foster Fraser in his “Pictures from the Balkans” verifies: “But who are the Macedonians [5]? You will find Bulgarians and Turks who call themselves Macedonians, you find Greek Macedonians, there are Serbian Macedonians, and it is possible to find Rumanian Macedonians. You will NOT, however, find a single Christian Macedonian who is not a Serbian, a Bulgarian, a Greek, or a Rumanian. They all curse the Turk, and they love Macedonia. But it is Greek Macedonia, or Bulgarian Macedonia, and their eyes flame with passion, whilst their fingers seek the triggers of their guns”. He further adds “I have some hope that in years to come the inhabitants will think less of their Turkish, Bulgarian or Greek Origin and a great deal more with the fact that they are all Macedonians”[2].

Edmund Spencer in his “Travels in European Turkey, in 1850…”writes “The population of Uskioub [Note: Modern Skopje], consisting of Arnouts, Jews, Armenians, Zinzars, Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, amounts to upwards of twelve thousand” [3]. Again another clear evidence there was no “Macedonian” ethnicity back then but instead it´s a modern “invention”.

Additionally, John Van Antwerp Fine gives us a realistic portrait of the situation in the Macedonian region by writing: “Until the late nineteenth century both outside observers and those Bulgaro-Macedonians who had an ethnic consciousness believed that their group, which is NOW two separate nationalities, comprised a SINGLE people, THE BULGARIANS [4]. Thus the reader should IGNORE references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle Ages which appear in some modern works. In the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century, the term ´Macedonian´ was used ENTIRELY in reference to a geographical region. Anyone who lived within its confines, regardless of nationality could be called a Macedonian.”.

Furthermore, Arthur Douglas Howden Smith in 1908 adds: “It should be remembered, to begin with, that there is NO Macedonian race, as a distinct type [5]. Macedonians may belong to any of the races of Eastern Europe or Western Asia, as, indeed, they do. A Macedonian Bulgar is just the same as a Bulgar of Bulgaria proper, the old principality, that in October, 1908, at Tirnova, was proclaimed independent of Turkey. He looks the same, talks the same, and very largely, thinks the same way. IN SHORT HE IS OF THE SAME STOCK. There is no difference, whatsoever, between the two branches of the race, except that the Macedonian Bulgars, as a result of their position under the Turkish government, have less culture and education than their northern brethren.”

2. The ancient Macedonians prayed to the same Greek gods as the ancient Greeks.

The poorly-chosen argumentation reveals Mr.Stefov´s inconsistence with ancient history. His lack of evidence subsequently forces him to produce irrelevant anachronistic analogies with…Christianity even if it is more than obvious we are talking about issues having to do merely with classical ages. Mr. Stefov, for your discomfort, it is only Greeks which gave their deities the familiar Greek epithets, such as Agoraios, Basileus, Olympios, Hypsistos of Zeus, Basileia of Hera, Soter of Apollo, Hagemona and Soteira of Artemis, Boulaia of Hestia, etc and naturally Macedonians as being Greek themselves, were doing similarly which certainly is not the case for non-Greek people. Furthermore nowadays historians agree that Macedonians had the religious and cultural features of the rest Hellenic world.

ξύμμαχα και υπήκοα

I will briefly analyze the falsification of the author´s assertion, before presenting an enumeration of ancient sources [9] proving that Alexander launched a Pan-Hellenic campaign against Persia and through his conquests spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Near East. Furthermore he created economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Greece to the Punjab in India with Greek (koine) as lingua franca. He built a network of almost thirty Greek cities throughout the empire, a building program that was expanded by later Hellenistic rulers. These became enclaves of Greek culture. Here gymnasia, baths, and theaters were built. The upper classes spoke koine Greek, wore Greek dress, absorbed Greek learning, adopted Greek customs, and took part in Greek athletics. Ancient sources reports as such and the pan-Hellenic character of his campaign were the definitive statements of the Macedonian royalty and nobility. We find Greek language, poleis, architecture, and art expand As far east as India. Even in Judaea of Roman times, there was a group of Jews called “The Hellenists”. The Greek language survived in the Indian region as late as about AD 120, when the Kushan king Kanishka, who ruled western India, Bactria, and Sogdiana (in an inscription) declared that Greek was to be replaced by “Aryan” (the Bactrian language).

Vs

Side B´

Athens, Beotian League (Thebes, etc), Euboean League, Achaean League, Corinth, Megara, Corcyra, Acarnania, Ambracia, Southern Phocis.

Neutral sides

Sparta, Argos, Arcadia, Messene. The three last had alliances both with Athens and Philip but their pro-Macedonian activity of 344/3 BC showed they were leaning towards Philip. However they didn´t sent aid to Chaeronea in Philip´s side because of the blocking in Isthmus by Corinth and Megara. Sparta had withdrawn almost entirely from Greek affairs in 344 BC.

Elis had an alliance with Philip though they didn´t take part in Chaeronea but showed their pro-Macedonian feelings by joining their forces with Philip in the invasion of Laconia in the autumn of 338 BC.

In other words, we find on both sides Greeks!!! We are dealing apparently with a Greek civil war!!

If this is translated to Mr. Stefov´s illusionary world that “Macedonians fought Greeks” then following the same irrational line of thought, we have to assume in Coronea “Spartans also confronted Greeks”.

Battle of Coronea (394 BC)

Combatants

Sparta Vs Thebes, Argos, and allies

In addition, the author adds “So, according to “Greek” logic, the Macedonians united the so-called “Greek” city states by subjugating and subordinating them under Macedonian control. By the same “Greek” logic we can conclude that Hitler too, in WWII, united the Europeans by subjugating them and placing them under German control.”

Here we get a trustful and genuine proof of the author´s selective quotation and hypocrisy. If we are to take his assertion as truthful, then the author ignores conveniently the fact that even the “Unification” between Lower Macedonia and the Upper Macedonian kingdoms by the Argead Royal house was forceful. In fact the annexation of Upper Macedonia took centuries to be successful.

According to the eminent historian prof. A. B. Bosworth [8]

2. Alexander The Great:“Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did US great harm, though WE had done them no prior injury […] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks”

3. Alexander the Great speaking to his troops: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.

 4. Alexander The Great and Diogenes

 5. Alexander the Great dedication to Athena:

 Notes:

3] “Travels in European Turkey, in 1850: Through Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thrace,…” By Edmund Spencer, page 28, Published 1851

4] The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century By John Van Antwerp Fine, Page 37

5] Arthur Douglas Howden Smith, “Fighting the Turk in the Balkans: An American´s Adventures with the Macedonian Revolutionists”, 1908, p. 4-5

6] Olliver Masson, 1996, “Oxford Classical Dictionary: ´Macedonian Language”.

7] Polybius 7.9.1-7; Treaty of alliance between king Philip V of Macedonia and Hannibal

8] ´Philip II and Upper Macedonia´ by A. B. Bossworth, p.100

9] (Aelian ´Varia Historia´ 13.11; Arrian I.16.7, I12.1-2, Plutarch Ages. 15.4, Moralia I, 328D, 329A, Alex. 15, 33, 37.6-7; Diod. 16.95.1-2, 17.67.1; Callisthenes 2.3.4-5, 2.4.5, 2.4.7-8, 3.1.2-4; Arrian “Indica” XXXIII, XXXVIII, XXIX, ´Anab.´ Arrian I.16.7, II, 14, 4, 3.18.11-12 ; Polybius IX.35.2, IX.34.3, 17.4.9; Curtius 3.3.6, 4.1.10-11, 4.5.11, 4.14.21, 5.6.1, 5.7.3, 5.7.11, 8.1.29)

info@macedonian.com.au

In Europe there are many place-names which have strong historical associations, but none more so than Macedonia [1]. It is a measure of the fame of the ancient Macedonians, that their name has survived for over 2,500 years to describe a corner of the Balkan Peninsula, long after they themselves ceased to play any important part in European history.

Today the geographical boundaries of Macedonia are difficult to define, however, little is known about the new ‘Macedonian question’. For instance: How well known is it in the world that in the Balkans there are two Macedonias, separated by a common frontier?

How many people know that the northern small landlocked Slavonic Macedonia, known officially as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), has a seat at the UN, whereas the historical Greek Macedonia does not, because it is not a state but only a province of Greece?

How many people know how and when this multi-ethnic state was created?

In order to forge a new nation-state from a population, various parts of which possess a different national / ethnical background or consciousness, you need three key elements: a political motive, fabricated history and a fabricated language.

Let’s examine how the state of FYROM was created. The geographical area which makes up FYROM today did not appear as ‘Macedonia’ on any map before the Second World War. Its population is mainly Slavonic and Albanian. In 1944 Tito announced the creation of the ‘People’s Republic of Macedonia’ in order to provide a launching pad from which to lay claim to Greek Macedonia and the warm-water port of Thessaloniki [2].

While the Western Allies were busy planning the future of the Balkans, others had already shaped it. By the last quarter of 1944, the communists were the indisputable rulers in Yugoslavia and were working hard to become so in Bulgaria too. POLITICALLY Tito had turned the old “Southern Serbia” (named as Vardarska Banovina) into the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”, without taking the trouble to consult his Bulgarian or Greek comrades as he entertained designs for the incorporation of all parts of geographical Macedonia into his new federal unit [3].

The ‘People’s Republic of Macedonia’ was a political creation only, since its population, a polyglot conglomeration of nationalities, had no substantial “Macedonian” national consciousness. Tito’s Macedonia, with Skopje as its capital, was created in the same manner as Stalin’s Belorussia after the end of the Bolshevik revolution.

ETHNOLOGICALLY, Tito’s new “Macedonian” republic was to be forged out of a population with ethnic and linguistic ties to Albania, Bulgaria or Serbia. The 1940 official Yugoslav census recognized only two large ethnic groups in Vardar Province: Slavs at 69% and Muslims at 31%. In 1945, three years after the formation of the ‘People’s Republic of Macedonia’, the Slavs disappeared from the census and were replaced by 66% ‘Macedonians’! By recognizing the existence of a separate ‘Macedonian’ nation, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was able to gain control of Vardar Macedonia and justify retaining it as part of the Yugoslav federation [4]. In order to accomplish this it was necessary to eliminate the sense of Bulgarian national identity shared by many inhabitants of the area. Since this was clearly not in the interests of Yugoslavia, and since the inter-war policy of Serbianization under the Yugoslav Kingdom had failed, the only alternative was to recognize the Slavs of Vardar Macedonia as neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, but as something else as………..”Macedonians”.

Recognizing the ‘Macedonian’ nation and establishing the ‘People’s Republic of Macedonia’ was the most effective way for Yugoslav officials to integrate Vardar Macedonia securely into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Another motive behind the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’s decision to recognize the existence of a separate Macedonian nation was its desire to extend Yugoslav control over Bulgarian and Greek Macedonia as well [5].

LINGUISTICALLY the new nation needed a language and script. Initially the spoken dialect of northern geographical Macedonia was chosen as the basis for the “Macedonian” language. To sever the linguistic bonds between the “Macedonians” and the others slavic speakers (Serbs and Bulgarians), this new language was fabricated and touted as a separate Macedonian language, the language, it was said, of Alexander the Great!

Hupchick explains: “The new ‘Macedonian’ literary language intentionally was based on a dialect spoken in the central Vardar area (Prilep-Bitola region) to remove it geographically as far as possible from Bulgarian and Serbian linguistic ‘contaminations’. A separate ‘Macedonian’Cyrillic alphabet (including wholly new letters & a few Serbian

characters) was devised to make the language different from Bulgarian.

‘Bulgarianisms’ were replaced by folk substitutes, and modern Bulgarian, Serbian or Russian technical words and modern expressions intentionally were avoided in favor of Western (including American) terms. Literary Macedonian was as different as humanly possible from other slavic languages, being a veritable linguistic hodgepodge approaching the French meaning of macedoine when referring to a mixed salad” [6].

To complete the charade, Tito’s regime commissioned the linguist Blago Konev (he changed his name later to Blaze Koneski) to devise an new alphabet. Koneski modified the Serbian version of the Cyrillic alphabet and called it the “Macedonian alphabet”. Koneski and his linguistics also modified the Old Church Slavonic, (now named in the FYROM as “old Macedonian”), and fabricated the lexicon of the “Macedonian” language from a mixture of Bulgarian, Serb, Croat, Slovenian, and other Slavic languages. The alphabet was accepted on 3 May 1945 and the orthography on 7 June 1945.

The writing of a history for the ‘People’s Republic of Macedonia’ had the same goal as the creation of the language - to de-Bulgarianize the Slavs of Vardar Macedonia and create a separate national consciousness. Since Marx claimed to have discovered the immutable laws of history, communists have considered the “correct” interpretation of history as the foundation of all social science and a key element of nationality. As usual in the Balkans, history is a primary ingredient in the development of national consciousness. Hence, the Yugoslav communists were most anxious to mould the history of the Macedonian region to fit their conception of Slav-Macedonian consciousness.

In the 1960s and 70s, the Yugoslavs established committees to concern themselves with the “Macedonian” language and ethnicity in Yugoslavia and abroad, trained teachers in the language, and sent linguists to America, Canada, and Australia to teach the language and present lectures on the existence of a special Slavic race, related to ancient Macedonians.

According to a 1944 U.S State Department Airgram, the U.S considered, “talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonia “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece” [7].

What has changed so that the USA and the Bush administration, through its recognition FYROM as ‘Macedonia’ in 2004, now supports these aggressive intentions against Greece?

To be continued……..

by Akritas

for www.macedoniaontheweb.com

http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/

1] http://www.etymonline.com

. English term of “Macedonia” derived from the Latin Macedonius “Macedonian,” from Gk. Makedones, lit. “highlanders” or “the tall ones,” related to makednos “long, tall,” makros “long, large”

(see macro-).

2] International Organization, Vol. 1, No. 3, (Sep., 1947), pp.

494-508. Appointed under the Security Council resolution of December 19, 1946, the “Commission of Investigation Concerning Greek Frontier Incidents” on May 27, 1947 submitted a report, to the Security Council.

The general conclusion of the UN Commission as about Macedonia issue, was that Yugoslav and Bulgarian Governments themselves revived and promoted a separatist movement among the Slav minorities in Macedonia.

In making this finding, the Commission pointed out that some 20,000 Greek citizens had fled to Yugoslavia and some 5,000 to Bulgaria — most of them Slavs — and that the treatment of this group by Greek officials had “provided fertile breeding ground for separatist movements.” In Yugoslavia, Macedonian separatism was the special goal of an organization called the NOF (National Labor Front) which had its headquarters in Skopje and Monastirion(Bitola).

3] The Macedonian Question, Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939-1949, Dimitrios Livanios, page 245.

4] Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question, Palmer and King , page 199.

5] The Macedonian Conflict, Loring Danforth, page 66.

6] Dennis Hupchick, The Balkans from Constantinople to Communism, 2002, p.430.

7] US Department, CircularAirgram(868.014/26 Dec. 1944)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/78775