Risto Stefov and the falsification of Ancient Macedonian history

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council

October 29, 2008

Dear Editors,I feel obliged to write to you in order to express my deepest concern for the deliberate manipulation of well-evidenced historical events which is clearly reflected in the article “Most modern Greeks today believe the Ancient Macedonians were Greek” written by Mr. Risto Stefov. The specific article is full of unfounded claims, an enmity addressed against Greek people and sophisticated misrepresentations of the ancient Greek history with its main aim to deceive the unsuspected reader by attempting to present false claims, disguised to sound truthful.
Before proceeding through a point by point refutation of the baseless claims presented in article in question, I would like to point out that the title of the article is misleading. Certainly it´s not “Most modern Greeks” who accept the fact that ancient Macedonians were Greek but instead it´s the vast majority of the world today, including the core of the contemporary modern historians who accept it as a fact.
To rephrase the author´s initial question…Why is it so important in general for the Slavic element of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which Mr. Stefov belongs, to believe that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek?

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.”

To help the readers having a more informative view over the issue on stake, I urge them to take a look in the following link. It contains a vast number of excerpts taken by 90 neutral sources, written by travelers, historians, diplomats related to the subject which put an end to the unfounded claims over a so-called “Macedonian “Ethnicity back then. Mr. Stefov, conveniently for his agenda, chooses to ignore all the overwhelming evidence.

http://history-of-macedonia.com/2008/04/28/ultimate-source-list-of-internet-about-the-bulgarian-origins-of-slavs-in-fyrom/Lets return back to the core issue of Mr. Stefov´s article. Namely the ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians. Of course there is no issue at all, whether the modern Slavs

descendants of the Slavic tribes that invaded the Balkan peninsula centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom have any link with ancient Macedonians. Obviously as verified by any serious historian, they haven´t!!!

1. The Ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of the Greek language
Mr. Stefov incorrectly assumes that “This [Koine] was an international language which was used in the Macedonian court and by the Macedonian administration.”. This is simply fallacious and deserves an immediate rectification. Koine became the international language BECAUSE of Alexander´s campaign. Prior to Alexander´s campaign, ancient people like Illyrians, Persians, Paeonians, Indians, Carthaginians, Romans, Thracians, Egyptians, Dardanians did NOT speak Greek. Most of them begun to speak Greek (Koine) AFTER Alexander´s pan-Hellenic campaign to Asia. Therefore Mr. Stefov´s conclusions are entirely wrong since his own premises are erroneous in the first place.

The eminent linguist Olivier Masson states “For a long while Macedonian on mastics, which we know relatively well thanks to history, literary authors, and epigraphy, has played a considerable role in the discussion [6]. 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, characterized 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.”

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.

The worship of the twelve Olympian gods in Macedonia is undoubted

and it is shown explicitly 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” [7].

3. The ancient Macedonians united the ancient Greek city states and spread the “Hellenic” language and culture to the known world.
Mr. Stefov adds further his own misguided perception which is the epitome of misinformation. He states “Macedonia fought and defeated the so called “Greeks” in battle and subjugated them from 338 BC until 206 BC when they were briefly liberated and again subjugated by the Romans”.

This is another terrible effort to create the wrong impression amongst the readers that “Macedonians fought Greeks in Chaeronea”. Contrarily, in Chaeronea the opposing sides were:

ξύμμαχα και υπήκοα

[allied and SUBJECTED]. One line of approach was direct annexation attempted disastrously by Perdiccas II and successfully by Philip.”Prof. Bosworth adds “Lyncestis probably co-operated with the Illyrian invaders as before in the war against Archelaus, the chaos in lower Macedon at the accession of Amyntas was an ideal time to avenge the annexation attempted by Perdiccas and probably by Archelaus”.
Essentially Mr. Stefov just managed with his above wrong assertion to dissolve his own self-made ´construction´ of ancient Macedonian history speaking about a “unified” Macedonian kingdom.
In relation to the spread of Greek language and culture declares quite amusingly that: “As for spreading the so-called “Hellenic” language and culture, there is no evidence that the Macedonians exclusively did this for the sole purpose of honoring the “Greeks”. The Macedonians gave the world what the Macedonians had and considered to be of value”.

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).

It would be essential to complete this reply with numerous excerpts showing exactly how ancient Macedonians felt themselves about their own ethnicity. After all this is what matters mostly.

Side A´
Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia, Northern Phocis, Epicnemidian Locrians*


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)


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]

“The upper kingdoms then had a constant struggle to preserve their independence and fostered alliances with the peoples to the west and north. On the other hand the policy of the kings of Macedon was to make the recalcitrant mountaineers truly “

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

Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]

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”

(Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)

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.

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

4. Alexander The Great and Diogenes

“But he said, ´If I were not Alexandros, I should be Diogenes´; that is to say: `If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things HELLENIC, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, TO PUSH THE BOUNDS OF MACEDONIA TO THE FARTHEST OCEAN, AND TO DISSEMINATE AND SHOWER THE BLESSINGS OF HELLENIC JUSTICE and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and DESIRE THAT VICTORIOUS HELLENES SHOULD DANCE AGAIN in India […]”

5. Alexander the Great dedication to Athena:

Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, from the barbarian inhabitants in AsiaMany more excerpts can be found on:


1] “Pictures From The Balkans” by John Foster Fraser (published in 1906), Page 5
2] “Pictures From The Balkans” by John Foster Fraser (published in 1906), Page17

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)


Conclusion: As it is evident from the extensive analysis of the facts, Mr. Stefov´s article consists of an overall historical falsification and distorted presentation of facts. Of course it´s his and his people right to denounce for whatever reason this may be, their well-attested from all sources Slavic/Bulgarian origin and history but it´s not their right to usurp the history and heritage which rightfully and evidently belongs to Greece. I hope that Mr. Stefov and the people he represents will eventually find a name which represents their heritage - “Macedonia” evidently does not!
By Ptolemy


Related posts:

westclub4 says:

Dear brother Dimitrios and readers,

Indeed, it is the job of professional historians, linguists, archaeologists and anthropologists to provide ‘us’ –i.e. the ‘bewildered general public’, with some –if any at all, significant evidence, and also with substantial information about antiquity; that is, from the far and distant past (i.e. the Spring of early human civilization) to the present date.

As a matter of fact, it is the job of the supposedly and yet so called ‘educated’ professionals of this or that particular scientific field to provide our policy-makers too with scientific evidence and also with either absolute historic facts or with such relevant concluding remarks that would definitively shape our future to the better, so that they would also bring peace and prosperity to our glorious land and to our ancient Greek people, as well.

Nonetheless, our job as ethnically conscious Greek bloggers is to inform the general public to the best of our ability about those matters that might concurrently be of great significance and of an also great importance to them, as well as, to put pressure upon the policy-makers of our country either to produce a unified and an also significant national strategy about these matters or to reform and revise where necessary the already existing national strategy of their choosing, so that our national and foreign policy becomes more substantial and also successful.

To the extent that there is any such national strategy at all, we can expect to see the results of it soon, and yet thereafter we begin to claim what it’s really ours and what should really belong to us as a nation and without ever having to beg for it to our western imperialist ‘allies’, nor to our so called ‘friends and protectors’ in order for them to act on our behalf and do for us things properly, and also do justice while we sit there and wait.

Ancient Greek mythology –and, yet again ancient Greek literature too as well as the many contemporary archaeological findings may provide the so called ‘professionals’ with as much information and evidence they like and need, in order to put forward such a national strategy before the eyes of the Greek public and of Greek politicians and policy makers, so that we finally manage to produce something which might be significant and appropriate too for an ethnic strategy that is worth of the name and which might also become relevant in respect to the ethnic Greek minorities in neighboring countries. Mind you that at present these ethnic Greek minorities might be either conscious or unconscious of their Graeco-Pelasgian and Hellenic ethnic origin, ancestry and descent.

Indeed, had we got particular references and also appropriate quotations that are available to us at the moment would significantly help if we were to elaborate those quotations to our present contributions too. Hence, it is important that we do not fail to produce quoted arguments in order to further stress and support strongly of our point. But, I particularly insist that it is not our job only to produce substantial papers and masterpieces of professional and of academic work at the same time. Nor is it our role to attempt do the job of the ‘missing’ professionals either, in order to take part on an ongoing debate and discussion of this or of either that particular blog. From the labor movement and also from its daily political and economic struggle we know that ‘a single strike is worth more than any of the best, more elaborate and also most detailed documents and Party Programs that are yet ever to be produced by the Central Committee of any of the Labor Parties’.

This also applies to national strategy and to policy-making, as well. That is, in respect to these ethnic Greek minorities in the neighboring countries too. Therefore, on my behalf, I strongly advise and also invite historians and all other relevant so-called professionals to take part to this ongoing discussion and debate about ancient Macedonian ethnic origins and descent. I also propose to extent and also to further this concurrent debate as far as to the historic ethnic roots and origins of all ancient Greek and Pelasgian-Greek peoples that were once habituating to –and, which were also dueling throughout the area of the Hellenic Peninsula, Asia Minor, Italy, Egypt and the Middle East.

I therefore presume that we can all learn something that might prove to be of great significance and also importance to our cause, which is none other than the liberation of all glorious and historic Hellenic lands of our Peninsula, as well as, to assist to the Hellenicisation of either the conscious or unconscious Greek, mix-Greek and also mix-Barbarian Greek and Pelasgian-Greek peoples that are still living to –and also throughout the whole of the Hellenic Peninsula, at present.

Long live Hellenism and the ancient Greek and Pelasgian-Greek cosmopolitismos! Long live Macedonia and Paeonia, Moesia and Thrace, Epirus and Epirus Nova, Illyris and Dardania as well as the rest of historic Greece! For the cultural Hellenicisation of all Hellenic and Pelasgian Greek Peoples and lands throughout the Hellenic Peninsula! Long live the forthcoming Hellenic Republic!

Elias Leon A.
Athens, Greece.

Dimitrios says:

Hi Elias,

Thank you for your information!
I wanted to ask you if there is any scientific prove or any agreement amongst historians on the above mentionend matter.
In general, isn’t it of great importance to put forward any of the proven historical facts to a platform such as Wikipendia for example?


westclub4 says:


The ethnic Macedonian Greek brothers and sisters of the north are neither Slavs nor Bulgars. They are of an equally historic ethnic Greek origin and of an also significant Pelasgian (i.e. ancient Greek and proto-Greek) ancestry to ourselves i.e. the Macedonian Greeks of the south. The concurrently enslaved ethnic Macedonian brothers and sisters of the north comprise of many thousand Graecophone, Vlachophone and Arvanitophone ethnic Greeks and ethnic Pelasgian Greeks too who were once habitating to the southern and also to the eastern and northeastern parts of FYROM. These are the areas which were once populated either by ethnic Macedonian Greeks or by Illyro-Epirotic Greek and Dardano-Paeonian Greek and Graeco-Pelasgian peoples.

There is an also significant Illyro-Thracian Greek and Pelasgian-Greek element to the population of FYROM. In particular, to those areas which lay to the central, northern and western parts of that partitioned state. In ancient and historic times, and also for an almost thousand years before the Avaric Slavs and the Tataric Bulgars ever set foot to the Hellenic Peninsula, those particular regions were laying to the lands of the ancient Paeones, Bryges, Agriannes and Dardanes. The ethnic and historical origins of those ancient peoples were at that time significantly Greek or proto-Greek -i.e. they were of an ancient Pelasgian-Mycenean Greek origin of the particular Thrako-Illyrian cultural branch of the same nonetheless proto-Greek and Pelasgian people and of also the same cosmopolitismos.

To the Greeks of the Classic Age, they seemed as if they were left behind culturaly because they had once coalesced with the Troyan Phrygio-Pelasgian Greeks of Asia Minor and thereafter, they were left outside to the cultural advances made by the southern Doric Greek peoples and of that particular neo-Greek sphere of influence and cosmopolitismos ever since. In other words, most of southern Pelasgian or proto-Greeks ever since the Dorian kathodos onwards had became significantly Doric or Hellenic Greek themselves, though some of them still to that date had yet remained more Pelasgic (i.e. Aeolic) or mixed (i.e. Ionic) Greek and proto-Greek as opposed to the Hellenic Doric and Epiroto-Macedonian tribes of the north and of the northwest who became significantly Hellenic.

At the same time, many Epiroto-Macedonian Dorian (i.e. Hellenic) tribes had also began their expansion northwards and eastwards -i.e. to the lands of the formerly backward Pelasgian Greek remnants. Hence, they expanded (and yet extended their rule) to the lands of the Paeones, Bryges, Thracians, Illyrians, Dardanians etchetera, even prior to the times of Philippe and of Alexander. Moreover, it is ever since the Macedonian expansion to these formerly Pelasgian Greek Brygian, Paeonian, Dardanian and Thrako-Illyrian lands that those proto-Greek (or Pelasgic-Greek) and thus, Thrako-Illyrian Greek tribes became significantly Hellenicised, meaning that they became culturaly equals to the southern Hellenicised Greeks.

Hence, most of the Hellenic Peninsula and definitively all lands that lay within FYROM today were already Greek (i.e. Pelasgian or Thrako-Illyrian proto-Greek) even prior to the historic Macedonian expansion of the Greek Classic Era or became significantly Hellenic (i.e. Doric Greek) ever since, to say the least. Also, even prior to Macedonian (i.e. Doric Greek) expansion the Pelasgian Greeks and proto-Greeks of the north had established significant condacts with the the either Ionian or Aeolian Greeks of the southern Hellenic Peninsula. Hence, they also contributed to their significant Hellenicisation, which must have been conducted at a time that was certainly prior to the time of Philippe and thereby, their substantial Hellenicisation which is well attested throughout the Hellenistic Era has definitively been not only as a result of Macedonian (i.e. Doric Greek) expansion but it is also due to the significant contribution and effort made at past and at previous times by many Ionian and Aeolian Greeks who made colonies into Thrake and Illyria, ever since antiquity and at distant Classical and historic times, which were to follow the Greek Dark Ages right after the civil war at Troy and the destruction of the old and rampant Mycenean Greek civilisation by the southward moving Dorian Hellenes.

However, these peoples became significantly mixed and even romanised after the Roman Conquest and, as a result of their linguistic and cultural mixture their historic Aeolic, Doric or Ionic Greek language got substantially latinized ever since and either to a lesser extend (i.e. Arvanitophone Greeks with the Arvanitic Graeco-Latin language) or to a far greater extend (i.e. Vlachophone Greeks with the predominantely latinized Vlachic language). Nonetheless, those same Vlachophone and Arvanitophone Greeks of the north are the same Hellenes of the old with the rest of us -i.e. with the rest of us, concurrent southern Greeks of the Hellenic Macedonia and of the rest of the southern Hellenic Peninsula, as well.

The slavophone ethnic Macedonian Greeks of the north have adopted the west-Bulgarian dialect as their language, ever since the 8th Century. Nevertheless, we will not find many slavophones who would trade their Macedonism with an either Bulgarian or yet again with a Serbian passport in nowadays, which is very encourraging fact, to say the least. Since we assist this brothering people of ours with historic knowledge and information, we would become able to explain to them that they are definitively neither Bulgarian nor Slavic. The same we must do also with the Arvanitan Greeks of northewestern FYROM as well as with all of the Vlachophone Greeks of Norhtern Macedonia too.

We need to explain patiently to either of them that they are neither Slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Turks, nor Latins, nor Romans, neither anything else that is non-Greek. Insted, we need to explain to them that they are a Hellenic Macedonian people like ourselves who live in the south, though they speak Slavic (i.e. the slavophone ethnic Macedonians), Graeco-Roman (i.e. the Arvanitans and also the Albanian Sqipetars) or Latin (i.e. the Vlachs) and so on.

This is not an easy task either. Indeed, it is a heavy taske for us, modern Greeks of the southern Hellenic Peninsula. Yet, it is the only way available to us at present to restore peace and also to bring prosperity to the southern Hellenic Peninsula. This is the historic duty of each and of every Greek at present who respects, understands and wants to honour of the heavy name and also culture, he or she carries to eternity, under the glorious label of being an ethnic Greek of the rather ancient Pelasgian or Hellenic original and same peoples’ stock.

Long live Macedonia and the rest of Greece! Freedom to all ancient Greek, Hellenic and Pelasgian lands! Freedom to Northern Macedonia, Norhtern Epirus, Illyris, Dardania and Epirus Nova, Moesia, Northern and Eastern Thrake! Long live the forthcoming Hellenic Republic!

Elias Leon A.
Athens, Greece.

westclub4 says:

Indeed, this is a nice article, which also manages to answer to the quite many of the historic misconceptions that are created purposely by the Great Skopjan School of Falsefication of Absolute Historic Facts.

Nonetheless, we shall all be extremely cautious especially when we use ourselves reproduce the many translated texts into English, which might also contain many foggy bits, here and there. Probably, the best thing to do is we ourselves to read and translate those parts from the the original (i.e. from the ancient Greek prototype) or simply to reproduce the ancient Greek text as such. This is so, because there are many mistakes that are of particular importance and of great significance to us all and to our cause.

In particular, it is another thing to say ”Alexander of Macedon” and a rather different thing to say ”Alexander the Macedon”. The Glyxbourgh’s were Kings of Greece and even before them, King Othon has been a King of the Greeks, but none of them were of a Greek bloodline and origin himself.

When we refer to King Alexander the Macedon (i.e. the Macedonian Greek King Alexander) we should stress his Greek Macedonian origin. That is of course another thing from simply saying King Alexander of Macedon (i.e. Alexander the King of Macedonia), which does not stress, nor it specifies his Greek (i.e. Macedonian Greek) ethnicity.

Indeed, Alexander was a Macedonian and a Macedonian at that time also meant a Greek. Alexander was not a Greek King who ruled over Macedonia and Macedonia was definitively not a foreign -i.e. a non-Greek- land, to say the least. Alexander was not a Greek King who ruled another tribe. He was a Macedonian himself. His father has been a Macedonian Greek and his mother an Epirotan Greek. His tribe -i.e. the Macedonians, were also Greek. In particular, Macedonians were of an ancient Dorian Greek ethnic stock -that is, quite similar to the Magnetes, Epirotes and Lakedaemones or Spartiates (i.e. the Spartans of ancient Laconia).

They all shared the same origins because they were Dorian Greeks. They all spoke the same Dorian Greek dialect and they also shared the same culture, customs and religion. In that sense, they all were Dorian Greeks or Hellenes as opposed to those who were Ionian Greeks (e.g. the Athenians and also the Greeks in Chalkidiki to name but a few) and who were of an also ancient though of a Pelasgian Greek (i.e. Ionian) origin and who spoke Attic, which has been a more elaborate dialect of the ancient Greek language.

There were also many more Greek tribes who spoke differernt Greek dialects such as the Aeolians (e.g. the Thessalians and also the Greek colonists near the ancient city of Troy), who spoke Aeolic Greek. Their dialect has also been Greek but of a particularly more ancient (or primitive) form. Aeolic Greek was closer to the proto-Greek or to the ancient Pelasgian language and therefore, it must have been closer to the language of the Pelasgian Paeones (or ‘Upper Hellenes’), Bryges, Dardanians, Illyrians, Thracians, Phrygians, ancient Troyans and Mycenaeans Greeks.

Hence, to prove only that Alexander himself has been a Greek is not enough. We also need to patiently explain that the Macedonians were a Hellenic (i.e. Dorian Greek) tribe even before they conqueer the land of the historic Macedonia. Also, we need to explain that the peoples of the historic Macedonia at the time of Alexander the Great (i.e. the Paeones, Bryges, Dardanians, southern (or the so-called ‘Real’) Illyrians, Pierres, Agrianes, Thracians and so on) were of an also Greek origin too and that they have been Greek (i.e. Pelasgian or Hellenic) either much prior to the Macedonian expansion to neighboring lands, which primarily occured under the reign of Philippe (i.e. Alexander’s father) or from at least, ever since the time of Philippe’s reign and thereafter.

All of the above, either to a Slav or a Bulgar of the contemporary Northern Macedonian region might sound ‘really Greek to them’, to say the least. But, to those who are not only habitants of ancient Macedonian land but who are also Macedonians themselves -that is, to all those who are of a real Macedonian (i.e. Dorian Greek) ethnic origin are all too very important.

Long live the ancient Greek cosmopolitismos! Long live Macedonia and the rest of Greece! Long live the forthcoming Hellenic Republic!