I am doing my term paper on Alexander, and I want to know. His father was the king of Macedonia, but Civilization has him as ruling the Greeks.

He was the king of Macedonia and he or his sucessors could never completely digest the city-states.
Nevertheless his army as the armies of his followers relied a lot on mercenary hoplites from Greece as well as philosophers, actors, strateges (generals) or "administrators".
Macedonia itself had become really hellenized (Alexander's tutor was Aristotle himself) in the early IV century BC and spoke mostly Greek. The era that follows Alexander's campaigns and death is called hellenistic, hellen meaning Greek because it spread the Greek language and culture all over the former Persian Empire. The language was Greek, not "Macedonian", the troops were Greek mercenaries, the gymnasiums appeared in many cities as a show of Greek culture, as well as theaters,....
Alexandria was considered a Greek city (for a long time Egyptians were not allowed to settle there, albeit Jews could in the delta neighborhood. And to get control over definitely foreign lands, the heelenistic monarchs called for settlers from mainland Greece to establish cities, often with their own laws, walls and soldiers to control the countryside and spread the culture of the winners, the kings keeping (when they could) the overall diplomatic and military powers.

So in one sentence, Macedonia was not Greek but was hellenized so much that throughout its victory it is the Greek culture that became dominant. This is something the city-states, limited in size and power and constantly fighting among themselves for a limited hegemonia or to protect their independance could never have done by themselves.

Hope it helps. If you need precise answers about the system after Alexander's death I can definitely be of help provided you ask me precise questions ;)

Macedonian. It was never 'Greek' (the Greeks absolutely hated Alexander, and would have probably been insulted if had been called the Greek Empire) but like LouLong said, the Greeks were brought in to build cities to keep control of the empire. The Greek mercenaries he brought with him on campaign were only a token force, they had no real numbers or importance against his Macedonian troops. The Greek cities he built didn't remain Greek for long either, the native populations moved in (unless they were forced out like in Alexandria-on-the-Nile).

Alexander was despised, especially by the Greeks, in some way because he tried to style himself Greek, while the Macedonians were very clearly not Greek.

Why have I always heard Alexander made a Greek Empire? Why did Civilization make him the leader of the Greeks? They could have used Pericles or Lysander.

unlike my fellows, I think the exact "un-greekness' of macedon is being vastlyl overstated- particurlaey that of Alexandrian era macedon- for by then it, or at least its Capital had become the safe heaven for a great of ex-Athenian scholars, after the basic rebuffing of all that free thought which wa sblamed for losing Athens the peloponseian war...

now, that said, the greeks themslevs considered the macedonians semi-greek, they were even allowed to partake in the Olympic games- somthing that only one forign nation to the greeks ever achienved, and even then, incredibbyl begrudinglly- that nation would be Rome ;)

Macedon had been invloved int he politics of southern greece in some way since the peoplonisan war, when it threw its lot in with the Spartans, thus giving an even greater presedence for being Greek-aprticurlay when comapared to the Thracians, who really were only heallinized barbarians...

I would have said the the transition of Macedon into changing from 'Thracian' to 'Greek' occured over a period stretching from King Archelaus (who led Macedon in the Peloponessian War) to Cassander. Alexander the Great I would put at the half-way milestone.

Alexander the Great's empire was Macedonian was was composed of Greek politicians, mathematicians, scientists, and warriors/mercenaries. Macedon was little more than an outside province of the old Greek empire that had gradually become somewhat seperate over the years.

I was always under the impression thet the Macedonians were ethnically Greek, but were considered barbarous and uncouth by their "proper" Greek cousins.

And calling the empire "Hellenistic" is in essence the same as calling it Greek. Am I wrong on that account?

'Hellenic' would be calling it Greek. 'Hellenistic' seems to refer more to the Macedonians, the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Lysimachids, Cassandrids, Bactrians, Medians, etc. who founded their own kingdoms after Alexander and his heirs died.

His empire was Greek. He was Macedonian.

Alexander was Macedonian, he spoke macedonian which is a language very similar to the one it is spoken today in the county Macedonia, but the ancient history was changed alot about this country in advance to Greece of course. After the macedonian empire has fallen, they paid a lot of money and other resources to write the history of Macedonia as greek.

Alexander's empire would, politically speaking, have been the Macedonian Empire. Culturally, Greek, most particularly Hellenistic, culture was predominate. This is where the dispute usually arises. The Macedonians were an ethnically non-Greek people who adopted much of the Greek culture do to ghe fact that the Greek culture was so domintant. A way to think about it might be to think of it in terms to the early Russians and the Byzantines. While the cultural diffusion here is to a lesser extent, the message is pretty much the same. The Byzantines were the dominant culture and power to the south and the Russians were the "babrarians" to the north. Through trade and the spread of religion, the Byzantine culture came to be defining of the Russians, despite the fact that the Russians were of a completely different ethnicity and political body. The Macedonians were the same thing. They adopted the dominant Greek culture through trade and religion, but they were still a seperate political and ethnic body. There is, of course, another reason why you will sometimes here the Alexandrian Empire refered to as the Greek Empire. Some, in fact many, historians, fo the sake of simplicity, lump Macedonia together witht the Greek city states as a Greek political body rather than a seperate, Macedonian political body with a hybrid mainly Greek Greco-Macedonian culture. Actually, the comparisions between the Alexandrian and early Russian empires could make an interesting paper. Well, I hope that helps.

The Kingdom of Macedon was considered unequal to Classical Greek City-State structured civilizations. The word Greek comes from a tribe in Southern Italy that was a colony of Classical Greece. The resentment against the Kingdom of Macedon was because of its structure as a Kingdom. It was undemocratic and therefore uncivilalized. Both the Macedonian citizens and people of ethnic Doric tribes are written as being not Greek, which means unequal to the civility of the Greeks.

Hellenism is not an ethnic word. Hellenism is consistently written throughout all time as being a state of mind, superior mind. Those who are Hellenes, were those who strived to be unified under one nation as living like the Greeks. Scholars have also documented the name Hellene as being derivative from a tribe in Thessaly. The tribes considered to be 'Greek' are all from Thessaly, directly below Macedonia. The Aeotolians, Achaians, Ionians and Doric tribes are considered to be the first Greeks, as in these tribes are responsible for Classical Greece. With the union between the Greeks and Macedon, these peoples are considered to have fostered a "new identity" separate from Classical Greece. Their idealism was to be like the Greeks, this quality was called Hellenism and therefore the Empire is Hellenic. That is why none of Alexander the Great's capitals were in Macedon (as an Empire).

In Empires, you have Imperical Capitols and Capitals of Kingdoms. For instance, skip to the Hellenistic Age and look at the Seluecian Empire. It's Imperical Capital was at Seluecia across the Tigris from Babylon. The Empire had Capitals in Kingdoms, such as: Antiochia, Ephesus, and many Alexandria's across the Middle East.

One point to add about the claim from Slavs that use information from Communist regimes is that they believe they have ethnic lineage to the Ancient Macedonians even though Slavic culture has an Eastern European identity. Somehow the archeological findings have been written in Ancient Greek in Macedonia. But Slavs claim that Cyrillic which is a documented language that was established well into the 6th and 7th centuries, that it is somehoe an Ancient Macedonian language.

Spiritfly's claim is that the Greek Government has had the power and influence to change archeological finds throughout the Middle East and North Africa. That Greeks have conspired to change what they dream is a Macedonian Empire into an Hellenic Empire. So you can choose to believe that all the excavations throughout the Hellenic Empire were fixed by the Modern Greek State, or that Greece's neighbors Egypt, Turkey, Lebannon, Lybia, Israel, Cyprus, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are victim to the Modern Greek State and that we have the influence to infultrate their countries and place false findings in their mountains like Cappadocia, Turkey and Petra, Jordan where Hellenic influence is documented, but the Slavs want you to believe this is a Slavic (Macedonian) influence but just written in Greek because we suppressed ALexander who conquered Greece.

Oh, and here is the difference between 'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic'. Hellenic is pre-Alexandrian Greek and comes form the period of Greek history when Athens was the center of culture. Hellenistic is post-Alexandrian Greek and comes form the Alexandria dominated Greek world. Hellenic society was more dominated by philosophers while the Hellenistic was more dominated by astronomers and mathemeticians. Hellenic art is charicterized by the idealization of the early teen-age male nude while Hellenistic art seeks to portray realism, right down to hagard old woman. Hellenic politics were dominated by the city states and their governmental systems of mainly Aristocracy and Democracy while the Hellenistic politics were dominated by the Macedonian concept of hereditary rule, the Monarchy. The Hellenic world was much more inward looking and self reliant for new ideas while the Hellenistic world was out looking and flourished in the ideas trade. The focus of the Hellenic world was in Greece, while the focus of the Hellenistic world was in Alexandria and in Persia. There's some more stuff, but I would have to go back through my notes from, like, a long time ago to find what I need.

Greek Stud- You forgot to mention several Slavic countries in the Balkans.

Israelite9191, although I love that you are interested in both the Ancient Greeks and the Byzantine Greeks, the reference actual proves the point that Macedonian as an ethnicity was as ethnic Greek as the Vlachs, who I assume you are reffering to as they are who spread the Byzantine Orthodox Church to the Keivian Rus (Ukrainian) who had their dominance taking by the Slavs of Moscow.

There is strong evidence that Ancient Greeks not only lived in the Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, but that the royal families of Macedonia interrmarried with Greek families (from Epidamnos, Argos and so on). As you will notice in Civilization 4, the first name to Thessaloniki (a female Greek name, which many Greek women have today) was Argos Oreitiki. There is no doubt that the royals of Macedon are related to the royals of Greek City-States.

Greeks were not a world power. The Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians and Axumites were the world powers in that era. The Greek unity between all city-states and the Kingdom of Macedon made them a world power. And even at that, they are always listed as having a far smaller sized army than their opponents (ie battles at Tyre and against the Persians and Babylonians).

Remember the Greeks never called themselves Greeks. This is a label we give to them in hindsite. Their only invissioned unity was in Hellenism.

The references to Greeks hating Alexander must be documented on here. This would only have served momentarily after the City-States being captured by the Macedonian Kingdom, otherwise Greek enlistment and migration into the Hellenic Empire would have never occurred. Greeks were known for not wanting to leave their homeland, and only did so in the honor of Hellenism, and in the Hellenic vision of conquering the world. In one reference where Alexander asks to marry a Bactrian princess, you will see another spark of confusion in saying Greeks hated Alexander. They saw him as the icon of Hellenism, being like a Greek God marrying a tribal princess. Alexander's status as being Greek is tested in this very instance. The generals yell at him, asking why he would not marry Greek? It is against his own people. Just as this is seen in Modern Greece as being anti-Greek, the generals point this out in this instance too.

The Byzantine Empire's only involvement in the Russian region was in Crimea. The Byzantines also fought with the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and the Dacians north of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantine Greeks did not acheive Byzantine dominance in the multi-ethnic Empire until after the 4th Crusade. And the politics of the Byzantine Empire after the 4th Crusade was mostly domestic.

During the Ottoman Era, the Greek elites at the Phanar (the Lighthouse), intermarried with ethnic Vlachs living in Maldavia (Moldova). Before the Vlachs, this area above Thrace was an emerging Civilization of Dacia (present-day Romania and Moldova). The royal intermarriage with the Vlach Kingdoms brought Orthodoxy to this region under the Ottoman Empire. Eventually these Kingdoms were conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and the Orthodox influence poured into Kiev. The Keivian Rus (Ukrainian Kingdoms) were then free to control the politics of the Orthodox Church locally instead of by the Phanar in Constantinople, Ottoman Empire. The Orthodox identity grew in this area indepently and separate from Constantinople. In fact, the elites in the Phanar had once financed a revolution in Maldivia, Ottoman Empire for an indepent Greek State. Under the Ottoman Empire, ethnicity was based on religion, and Ottoman Turks placed all Christians under the Rum Millet. The Vlachs were classified as being under the Rum Millet, yet personally they related more to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church more than the what was then the Rum Millet, Byzantine Orthodox Church.

Its a hard comparison, because this Byzantine Orthodox influence into Moldova had never completely united with the Byzantine dream. Whereas, the Ancient Macedonians were actively free and open with the Ancient Greek polis. Macedonia, do not forget fell to the Romans near Corinth. The Macedonian region, as classified was never attacked by the Romans. The Macedonian Wars were a response by Rome with the Macedonian leadership becoming allies to Carthage. Rome paid the Aeotolians and Athenians to fight with them, as you must remember that Kingdoms act independently from their Empire. As did Pergmon when it surrendered its land to Rome before Macedonia fell.

Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek as Illyrians spoke Latin. I will laugh soon when everyone on these boards start asking if the Albanians are Illyrian. And ALbanians will say their language was hidden and is derived from Illyria. Albania has become emboldened by the fact that there is international talk of the future of Kosovo. Albanian leaders in FYROM are already refering to an independent (Albanian) Kosovo and they plan to attack FYROM. Albanians have stated that they believe they are the descendants of Illyria, but not to the nationalistic extent of the Slavic Macedonians.

Balkan People today view themselves as part of a nation and also part of a state. Nationhood is a combination of ethnicity, religion and language. When the west encouraged civil strife within the Ottoman Empire, the nationalistic dreams were linked to Nationhood. The Slavs that are no doubt had been an intrincate part of the Byzantine Macedonia, the independent Kingdom of Thessaloniki, and Ottoman Rumelia lived in this area. But they have been instilled with an idealism that they are the "sole" descendents of Macedonia, a Macedonia which has always been multi-ethnic. And the arrangement to discredit the connection between Ancient Macedonia and the Hellenistic World, is for their national dream, not their State dream. State dreams, are the modern view of citizenship within a democratic State. As in, I am ethnically Greek, but live in the USA, therefore I am an American citizen with Greek ethnicity. Macedonians not only have "self-determined" themselves to be Macedonian citizens, but also say they are nationally, ethnic Macedonians. And therefore, they will politically always fight diplomatically, or as one Macedonian said on this board (we will have so many babies and get you Greeks back for this) where I dont know how to classify this cohersion of future stability. The main difference between Greeks and Slavic Macedonians is language. They are the same religion, and as they say they have inherited Macedonianism then no doubt they have inherited Hellenism, in which Greeks are Hellenes. Slavic Macedonians are good people, but the idealism of Macedonism is the falsified case. They are a community that is one social structure, one language, one religion, but just like the Greeks, Serbs, ALbanians, Bulgarians, and Turks have this "GREATER" national view of themselves. And they use the word Macedonia for a nationalistic interest in Pirin Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. Otherwise they would recognize the region as Greek Macedonia because that is what Greece calls it, and the FYROM calls it Aegean Macedonia because they believe they are a seperate ethnicty. As if Greeks did not live in Macedonia or as the Turks called it Rumelia during the Ottoman Empire.

Basically, for your report, in Ancient Macedonia, the Kingdom was multi-ethnic and the royal families of Ancient Macedonia not only all have Greek names and Greek last names; but they are also documented as intermarrying with Greeks, being tutored by Greek scholars, and having similar Greek Gods. Not only did Greeks live in Macedonia in Ancient Times, but they also lived in Thrace, Southern Italy (Magna Graecia), Kyrene (Africa), Aegypt, Georgia (Colchis), Pro-Pontus (Byzantion, Lampsakos), Troy, Lydia (Phildelphia, Dionysiopolis, Sardis), Ionia (Ephesus, Melitus), Cyprus, Iberia (Spain), Monaikos (Monaco), Massalia (France), Alalia (Corseca), Caralis (Cagliari), Sicily and also are documented as having intermarried with indigenous Lycians both before and after Persia dominance over Lycia at cities like Halicarnassus and Tarsus and Issos.

Ancient Greek Scholars equally spoke against the Kingdom of Macedon as they did Sparta and Lycia. Even the question of Troy only points to the answer that the Trojans were a part of the Greek world, but just as we dont know where the Greeks came from, we dont know why the Trojans spoke Greek, nor that the Spartans spoke Greek?

Do not mix up the Ancient Macedonian question with the Modern Macedonian question. They are two different questions.

Alexander was Macedonian, he spoke macedonian which is a language very similar to the one it is spoken today in the county Macedonia, but the ancient history was changed alot about this country in advance to Greece of course. After the macedonian empire has fallen, they paid a lot of money and other resources to write the history of Macedonia as greek.

You are talking nonsense. The language that Alexander spoke is completely different from the language spoken today in Macadonia. The today's Macadonian is a Bulgarian dialect.

Greek Stud- Sorry if what I said was mistaken. I was not saying that the ancient Macedonians where Slavs, only that they were from an Indo-European group that can not be classified as completely being Greek. Because of proximity, however, and the dominance of the Greek culture, the ancient Macedonians did absorb much fo the Greek ethnicity. The Macendonians came from the wave of Indo-Europeans that invaded the Greek peninsula while the Greeks are a mix of that wave and the original inhabitants. What I was trying to say is that the ancient Macedonians were ethnically tied to the Greeks, but not completely of the same ethnicity, and that the Macedonian culture, while for hte most part Greek, maintained many influences of living on the border of the civilized world. If you notice, I said there were similarities between the two instances, but that the macedonian case was much more extreme. The differences that you point out are what would make it a very interesting topic of a paper if you ask me.

Israelite9191- I totally agree with what you are saying, dont be sorry. I think I wrote my post wrong. In addition to your discription of the ethnic differences, it must also be stated that the influences of Macedonians and Greeks between each other were also intermarriage. This is the same case with every group that the Greeks are composed of. Greekness is not in likeness as to what radicals look to as a pure race. Greeks consistently say that we are a mix of many tribes. Minoan from Crete, Mycenae as the first major tribe, then the Achaian-Aeotolian-Ionian invasions from Thessaly, next were the Doric, and then the Macedonians.

We also see the history between our colonies as another cultural mix between peoples into the Greek identity. The Trojans, the Ionian Colchis, the Ionian Lycians, the Mycenaen Philistines. And into the Byzantine Empire, the continued identity of Greekness was in the Roman name and the Greek tongue. Slavs were Byzantine invaders who later became a part of Byzantine culture. Seljuks were in the Byzantine Empire but separated themselves from the Byzantine identity, thus beginning the path to the Ottoman Empire. Thracians in the Ancient World spoke Greek and were influenced by the Greek colonies, such as the story of Sparticus in Magna Graecia, he speaks of his Greek family. In the Ottoman Era, Armenians, Pontian Greeks, Nestorian Persians, Orthodox Assyrians, Vlach Greeks, Serbians, Bulgarians, Croats, Montenegrin, Cyprians, Maronites and Copts were part of the Rum Millet. Those who chose to identitify as Greek did so, as they had to attributes to the Greek identity, religion and language. Those who didnt know the language feared being a party to the Greek identity and you can study their minority groups today as we all feel victim to persecution before and during WW1.

The Greek position on Macedonianism is one of multi-ethnic and intermarriage whereas the Slavic Macedonians claim to be the sole inheritors to the Macedonian identity, and even if they do not state that, the name issue is at the UN for this very reason, because it gives the impression alongside some Macedonian schoolbooks that they view themselves in that way. And the stories of how they inherit the Ancient Macedonian language and ethnicity and say the Greeks were never a part of the trangression gives furthur evidence of this nationalistic view of what Macedonianism really is.

Very well put. As a Jew, I have nothign but the best to say about the Greeks as a people. They did there best to save us during the Holocaust, the never persectuted us, Alexander himslef liberated us for heaven's sake! Read my signature, I think that somes it up. The whole Macedonia problem is quite problematic. While it is certain that the modern Macedonians are not the same as the ancient Macedonians do to the Slavic migrations, they do have much inherited. However, they need to recognize the Greek influence, on there nation and people.

Well, obviously Macedonian language is slavic. That doesn't mean, however, that the people are necessarily of predominantly slavic origin. It seems very unlikely to me that the numbers of slavic immigrants in the Byzantine empire could possibly have been large enough to overwhelm the indigenous populations. I would guess that the majority of the people speaking serbian, croatian, macedonian and bulgarian would turn out tbe ethnically more macedonian, dacian and illyrian than slavic. For that matter, I expect much of the population of western Turkey would be ethnically greek. Actually rereading your post, maybe you agree with me on this--the notion of pure races is kind of silly.

I don't understand your comment about "Illyrians" speaking Latin, though. In Roman Empire times, I'm sure the educated people did (which proves nothing about the languages spoken by the masses), but the ancient Illyrians could not possibly have spoken latin before the foundation of Rome. Illyrian writings that are preserved don't appear to have much similarity to modern Albanian. However, on linguistic grounds, Albanian is so distinctive that it simply has to be very old. Somewhere (and there doesn't seem to be a better candidate for location than modern Albania) there must have been people speaking a language ancestral to Albanian two thousand years ago.

On the subject, my understanding has always been that the Greeks tended to refer to Macedonians (pre-Alexander, at least) as barbarians, though they were culturally heavily Hellenized. No doubt educated Macedonians spoke Greek, but there was an earlier ancient Macedonian language that may or may not have been a close relative of Greek. People have argued for affinities with Thracian, Illyrian and Phrygian as well. I think the distinction drawn by Israelite that the Macedonian empire was Hellenistic but not Hellenic is appropriate

It is not accurate that macedonians didnt take part in the olympic games. They were banned at times, but at other times (obviously before the conquest of southern greek states by Macedonia) they were sending athletes. Their athletes were of noble blood, but that is reasonable; the poor couldnt travel to Olympia, and Macedonia at that time was just a poor region in the north. The hosting 'nation' of the games was Elis, with Olympia being a sacred city in that nation, and Elis at times banned athletes from other greek nations, like Sparta. One Spartan-Elian war was triggered also due to such a ban iirc.
I do not see any reason for anyone to claim that slav macedonians are more likely to be ancient macedonian in origin than bulgarian or serb. I live in greek macedonia and i do not consider myself more related to the ancient macedonians due to that. Obviously due to the language i am always related to the ancient greeks, although no race is pure.

My thinking on this is simply that unless the population of slavic immigrants exceeded the local population, or there was a massive genocide campaign against the original inhabitants, most people who live there today would be descended from the people who lived there two thousand years ago. Most people in the Europe for the past two thousand years have been peasant farmers, and they tend not to move around very much. Similarly, most people in England are probably of largely Celtic origin, even though they happen to speak a Germanic language today.

Admittedly, by the time the slavs arrived, it's doubtful whether a Macedonian ethnic identity still existed. Macedonia and Greece had been functionally part of the same political unit and speaking the same language for a thousand years. That doesn't mean, however, that they were a genetically identical mix.

Alexanders empire was neither Greek nor Macedonian... it was Persian, just like Kublai Khan's empire was not Mongolian but Chinese.

Actually, in England, most people are descended form the Anglo-Saxon invaders. THe reason is that when the Romans first invaded they not only pushed Celtic political control to the extremities of Britain in Wales, Scotalnd, and Cornwall, but they also pushed the people out. So when the Romans retreateated, they left a vacuum not just of power, but of people in England. The Anglo-Saxons, crafty as they were, got there before the Celts and pushed back to the old Roman borders. This would not have been possible if not forthe fact that the Celts could nto maintain as large populations in Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall as the Anglo-Saxons could in Germany and Denmark. This is an extreme case of population redistribution, but this is similar to what happenedin other areas. As new peoples moved in, not only did the native political spheres get replaced, but the people often got pused aside as well. It is quite fun to draw parallels in histroy.

Ray Patterson- Ridiculous, ridiculous, and did I mention, ridiculous? It is true that the majoritiy of the population would have been from the former Persian empire, but that empire was itself only in the minority ethnically Persian with other groups, like Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chalcedians being larger. But ethnic make up does not define the characteristic of the empire. What defines an empire is its culture and political ruling, which is what makes categorizing the Alexandrian Empire so difficult. The Alexandrian Empire was definately Hellenistic, wihich is a term I described in a previous post. To suggest that a nation is the same as its largest ethnic group is ridiculous. If that were true, then America would be Germany (Germans are the single largest ethnic group in America). The Mongol Empire was not the Chinese Empire, it was the Mongol Empire. It was ruled differently, the political forces ruling it were different, and the culture that was spread was different, although admittadly heavel Sinoized. I am sorry to say, but there is no way to describe you rpost other than ridiculous.

Actually, in England, most people are descended form the Anglo-Saxon invaders. THe reason is that when the Romans first invaded they not only pushed Celtic political control to the extremities of Britain in Wales, Scotalnd, and Cornwall, but they also pushed the people out. So when the Romans retreateated, they left a vacuum not just of power, but of people in England. The Anglo-Saxons, crafty as they were, got there before the Celts and pushed back to the old Roman borders. This would not have been possible if not forthe fact that the Celts could nto maintain as large populations in Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall as the Anglo-Saxons could in Germany and Denmark. This is an extreme case of population redistribution, but this is similar to what happenedin other areas. As new peoples moved in, not only did the native political spheres get replaced, but the people often got pused aside as well. It is quite fun to draw parallels in histroy.
The Roman conquest of Britain had no large scale effect on the ethnicity of the population before any of the Germanics arrived. The Roman occupation merely supplanted the leadership of the population with a foreign elite class that concentrated themselves in town and cities. The British Celtic population was not pushed back by the Romans at all.

According to Potter and Johns the population of Roman Britain was around 2,500,000. Only 200,000 to 320,000 lived in towns or cities where around 80 - 95 % of the population was Romano-British but the countryside, and the vast majority of the total population, was almost entirely British celtic.

As for England being mostly descended from "Anglo-Saxons", that is also not entirely true. Southern Scotland was also to a large extent populated by Germanics but large parts of Britain were clearly populated by "Germanised" Celts. The kings Cenwealh and Caedwalla are quite obviously of mixed race due to the use of British, not "Saxon" names.

However, I don't agree with some of the more modern interpretations which try to portray the vast German migrations as having as little effect on the population as the Romans had. There clearly was a vast population change on the eastern coast of what became England and the vast majority are of Germanic descent but certainly not the pure breed "Aryans" that some English like to think.

OK, you got me. But still I think the asian influence should not be discounted. Hellenism is not greek - it's greek/minor asian. And Kublai Khan is actually quite a different story, my equivalence was wrong but so is yours. He was simply a Chinese emperor who happened to have a Mongolian posse.

Ray Patterson- Ridiculous, ridiculous, and did I mention, ridiculous? It is true that the majoritiy of the population would have been from the former Persian empire, but that empire was itself only in the minority ethnically Persian with other groups, like Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chalcedians being larger. But ethnic make up does not define the characteristic of the empire. What defines an empire is its culture and political ruling, which is what makes categorizing the Alexandrian Empire so difficult. The Alexandrian Empire was definately Hellenistic, wihich is a term I described in a previous post. To suggest that a nation is the same as its largest ethnic group is ridiculous. If that were true, then America would be Germany (Germans are the single largest ethnic group in America). The Mongol Empire was not the Chinese Empire, it was the Mongol Empire. It was ruled differently, the political forces ruling it were different, and the culture that was spread was different, although admittadly heavel Sinoized. I am sorry to say, but there is no way to describe you rpost other than ridiculous.

There is a difference between Kublai Khan's Mongol Empire and Genghis Khan's. Genghis and his immediate seuccesors were much mroe Mongol than Chinese. Kublai was the one who moved the capital to Beijing, Genghis and his successors had the capital in Kharakorum and other cities throughout Mongolia. Kublain Khan was barely a Mongol, so please, don't use hsi empire as an example of the Mongol empire. As for Hellenism, you are very far off. Hellenism refers to the concept of Greek unity, just read Greek Stud's posts on the topic. I also should point out that Alexander's empire was Hellenistic, not Hellenist. Read my post on the difference between the two, it's on the first page, I think it is the last post.

So Alexander was a Greek wannabe, just like Napoleaon claimed to be french?

Alexander wasn't a Greek wannabe. The Greek contigent he brought with him on campaign was only token, and was not trusted at all. They were eventually sent back to Greece whilst Alexander was still campaigning in the east.

You need to understand that what "Greek" is today is not what "Greek" was in ancient times. Strictly speaking, in modern times most Macedonians are Slavs and Vlachs, remnants of the serb and wallachian invasions and migrations of the 7th - 12th Centuries. Heck, after the 4th Crusade there was even a kingdom in Thessaly known as "Greater Wallachia" (Wallachia is one of the three main regions which make up Romania). But most of the Slavs now live in FYROM, and the Vlachs (known by a different name which escapes me) have claimed to be and have been accepted as Greek.

There's some heavy nonesense and country-bashing here in this thread, what for people who are unfamiliar with the problem might give a distorted image (i'm referring to Greek Stud's post, especially where he's commenting about present (Slavic) Macedonians). For this already many times debated issue see:

Balkan Wars: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105330
Macedonians: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91174

Reply to Mongloid Cow: most Macedonians (as in the people who live in Macedonia) were Slavic (also Vlach) during the period VII-XX, but today thats not the case (see Balkan Wars). Vlachs are considered to be reminants of the Romanized population of various peoples who lived on the Balkans. They themselves havent adopted Greek identity (or identification with Greek), rather a seperate one. Gradually though they are subject to passive as well as active assimilation (such as in Greece, i.e. the very rhethoric that the Vlachs are ethnic Greeks, as we see here). Vlach language and culture is very different from Greek, and the closest it gets is Romanian language, although still pretty different.

Companiero...

Your claim to macedonian citizenship is solely territorial.

How can you possibly claim to have any cultural, historical or other links with the ancient inhabitants of that region?

Are you not proud of you slavic past, culture and history?

No one is arguing Vlachs are Greeks; posters are pointing out that Vlachs have mixed with Greek culture both in Moldova and Greek Macedonia. Vlachs were recruited by Hitler's Nazi regime to infultrate Greece in WW2 because they knew the language and culture, and in a British Intelligence report this operation failed, the Vlachs involved in the operation were sent into Peloponessos to be spies and ended up become residents.

I have given some well deserved Slavic Macedonian bashing towards the idea of Macedonianism. Slavic Macedonians are good people that in the case of their national identity in the region need to respect Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks and cooperate on the true identities of national heros such as those who fought for Bulgarian national ideas and are stolen into a new ideaology of Macedonian freedom fighting? That is blatantly false and your threads that support these ideas are propaganda, and give readers the wrong picture of how the Balkan Wars were fought, and what they were fought for. As well as perceptions on WW1, WW2 and Skopje's involvement with Communists in the Greek Civil War. Greek Communists and Slavic Communists worked together in the Civil War and the Greek Communists tripped into idea that they were no longer fighting for Communism but were also supporting the Communist dream of a new Communist State that would stretch the length of Alexander the Great's Empire.

Once again, FYROM is not in Macedonia nor Ancient Macedonia. FYROM is in Ancient Peoria, above it was Pannonia, West of it is Illyria, and South and East was Ancient Macedonia and further East is Thrace, in which FYROM also depicts as being part of their ethnic Macedonia.

Slavic Macedonians do not have to only look at Slavic culture, they have a connection to Greek Macedonian culture, the Rum Millet (Ottoman Christian identity), and the Byzantine Slavic culture (and Cyrillic alphabet). The Greek position is not to exclude them from that historical past; it is the Slavic Macedonian case that Greeks are not a part of Macedonian culture, and should also not be a part of Macedonian territory. They persistently make claims that Greeks were separate from Macedonian culture, yet have to use archeological evidence from the region that have Ancient Greek insciptions. Slavic Macedonians and the global community are very well aware that awarding the name Macedonia to FYROM gives the allusion that they are the sole heirs to Macedonianism.

Is there any point in negating just about every word written up there? No, he'll write it again. Theres no point in debating anything with religious and natinionalist fanatics, because what they believe doesnt come from reason but from emotions.
This person, Greek Stud, just six months ago in a thread in this forum had no idea that the country with the name Macedonia (north of Greece) exists and had no problem naming the country so, and knew nothing about its history whatsoever, and now suddenly he's an expert.
And I have much too precious time to lose it unproductively like this. Sorry guys.

Whatever! Ive always knew about this country, and I have said on this thread and still believe that they can call themselves: "New Macedonia" and be "New Macedonians". But not Macedonia.

I have also always known where Kosovo is too, and in fact have given presentations on the issue at schools in Arizona.

Well...i thik that the truth is that the country of Macadonia was created by the communists.

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong that someone registers, bumps one thread for a troll post and disappears again?

First of all, modern Macedonia has nothing to do with Ancient Macedonia. Nothing. The people are different, the region is different, everything is different.

Personally, I think it's fine that FYROM wants to be Macedonia---don't see what the big deal is--FYROM does hold some of the modern region of Macedonia (as does Bulgaria and Greece). So they can be Macedonia, whatever.

The "nationalist" Greek position on this thing is untenable and self-contradictory (and I'm Greek). If you a) believe that ancient Macedonia of Alexander was Greek than believing b) that today's Macedonia has some special historical significance and cultural importance ends up weakening your a) position---if the historical significance of ancient Macedonia matters so much than the casual observer will link Alexander to Macedonia. Greece already has all the "good" parts of Macedonia (i.e. Thessaloniki and all the capitals of ancient Macedonia)---can't see why it matters---but it's some inherently irrational nationalistic thing (not necessarily wrong at all but in the end unexplainable logically), so whatever.

However, the argument that Alexander was Macedonian doesn't even make sense. There was no Slavic culture at the time so it's not as though Slavs can claim him----he spoke Greek and naturally looked to Greece for culture, thus, Alexander was a de facto Greek---that's the only thing that makes anyone American or French or Greek, one's culture. That's all there is to it---Corinthians were Corinthians first and "Greeks" second. So Alexander was Macedonian, but he's not a Slav or a Vlach----he might have had northern blood in him but that's besides the point. Frankly, the constant raising of this discussion of whether Alexander was Greek seems to me to only be raised by those who grabbed onto one thing in 4th Grade history class---the same sort of person who thinks Cleopatra was gorgeous or that the U.S. Civil War was caused by that pat answer "slavery". It's childish history to even discuss whether he was Greek and really quite revealing of one's lack of understanding of the nature of culture and civilization. Civilizations and cultures have nothing to do with placement on a map (Civilization IV notwithstanding) or blood lines---that's getting into nationalities (and even mentioning a Greek nation is silly at this time). Alexander spoke Greek, used Greek history as his inspiration, lived according to Greek customs (he broke a lot too but he realized that that was "wrong"), worshipped Greek gods and spread Greek culture.

Yep, it is wrong, and I fell for it. The idiot that I am, I didn't notice that the posts before were all from freekin' April! Sorry to all people who are now deeply involved in this thread thanks to my idiocy.

Who got bumped? And what was from April?

And by the way, it is a huge deal to change history and make an historical leader for Greece (Hellenic Republic) an historical leader for a Macedonian Empire (FRYOM). There is no archeological proof for this 'secret language' that the Slavs no longer speak. They believe they are pure descendents and accuse Greece of oppression, cohersion and diplomatic lies. That is where the Macedonian Question should be a concern for the Hellenic Republic as it is not only an offense on the legitimacy of Greece but also a legal offensive on our legal ties to artifacts that are found from Ancient Greece and Hellenic Age artifacts.

Another fact is that the world is not certain of how the region will progress in the coming years. Albanian leaders within FRYOM are calling for civil war in FYROM. They speak of an independent Kosovo, and a breakaway region in FYROM for ethnic Albanians. The Slavs and Greeks, despite the name issue are friends. But there have been operational Communist groups from Skopje and Northern Greece. When behavior and political activity give impressions of what their intentions are, most likely those are their intentions. When FYROM has never compromised not even in the slightest on the name issue, it brings suspicion. When textbooks mark stories of Ancient Macedonia being places far beyond the normal boundries of Ancient Macedonia, those facts are wrong. When the textbooks teach that the Greek government are responsible for erasing an ethnic Macedonian history, which is well beyond its power, that is propoganda. And when phrases refer to the plight of Slavs not being recognized as Macedonians as being equal to the plight of natural rights, then you look at such quotes such as the day will come when Macedonians will be liberated in 'Aegean Macedonia' and 'Pirin Macedonia' you cannot act ignorant and say that the name will not spread fuel on such fire, because it will.

Alexander's life had been about Hellenism.

Macedonians today do not want compromise. They have never offered anything other than Macedonia as their name, and their falsified historical facts about the suppresion of the Macedonian identity.

You are all off-topic here, and some mod should intervene. This thread is not about Fyrom or the balcan history at all.

It is about FYROM, the question directly states if Alexander the Great was Macedonian or Greek.

It is about FYROM, the question directly states if Alexander the Great was Macedonian or Greek.

And you fell right into the trap of making it a fyrom issue.
Most non greeks dont really care about anyone who is slav that claims they are descendants of ancient macedonians. We shouldnt care either.
That said, as i wrote before, i do not see myself as 'related to ancient macedonians' due to the fact i live in Thessalonike. Perhaps we should worry more about modern Greece than ancient Greece; it would have benefited us greatly.

If you choose not to care, that is your option. Ive choosen that when Slavs bring issues to the US State Department and bring a legal suit on the desk of a State Legislature in Michigan, that the Hellenic Republic is an undemocratic state and should have the United States place UN mandated sanctions on Greece even though the name issue is still at the UN, I have choosen to speak public and continue to research all actions taken by such an offense against Greece. The Slavs and Greeks are suppose to be friends, and only Greece will defend FYROM against an attack by Albanian terrorists groups and Kosovar Albanian terrorist groups that have worked with Al-Queda in the September 11 bombings and throughout the 1990s have burned down ethnic Serb and Slavic homes, churches and raped Orthodox Christian monks and nuns. The Macedonian Issue is an idealogy that has separated us yet the Greeks have given comprise to a Macedonian name while the Slavs stand still with no compromise.

What self-detemined interest does a country outside Macedonia have with having the name Macedonia?

They have written a new history of a Macedonian Kingdom isolated and separate from Classical Greece. History determines the paths towards our future and it is careless to ignore history. This debate could even bring into light the Trojans, who for people who you categorize as non-Greeks that dont care whether Trojans were a part of Ancient Greek history, they were. It is also fake to brand the history of the Hittite Kingdom, Phrygia, Cappadocia and Armenia as being the study of Ancient Turkey as Turks were not in that region. From careless attitudes about what is written about history and what is written into law I am happy to know that carelessness has no place in history nor in international law.

Well, I feel that this thread is like discussion on whether Genghis Khan was Chinese. :p

It was Greek, because he conquered all of Greece before taking on Anatolia and the other masses he conquered.

:)) greek guys, you really make me laugh. What happened, your government washed your brains? First of all tell me what happened with the ancient Macedonians. Because you claim that we have nothing in common with them, and acording to you, the slavonic tribes came to this land and inhabited it, after which they took the name Macedonia..yeah right. Next, if you know a bit of history you wouldn't say nonsence about the origin of today's Macedonian country. We are former yugoslav republic, as much as you are former turkish republik of greece. Btw, greece got the agean part of Macedonia with the threaty of Bucharest in 1913-th, that's why 70% of the people that live today in aegaen Macedonia speak Macedonian. Let's not forget that you have changed the Macedonian names of the cities into greek ones in 1920's. My point about the thread...was Alexander Macedonian? Yes! And Macedonia always belonged to the Macedonians. Bottom line, im proud MACEDONIAN citizen.

I am doing my term paper on Alexander, and I want to know. His father was the king of Macedonia, but Civilization has him as ruling the Greeks.

Macedonians had adopted much of Greek culture by Alexander's time, so the two are virtually identical.

I recall the original question being whether Alexander's empire was Greek or Macedonian. Well, brace yourselves, the answer is neither. It was Persian.

Alexander started his campaign as a contiunation of his father Phillip's Panhellenic crusade against the barbarian Persians. But that was more or less just an excuse to keep the Greek city states happy, who had been forced together into the League of Corinth. Once Alexander had won Gaugamela his intentions became quite clear: he was seeking to re-establish the Persian empire, however he was also seeking to fuse the cultural identities of the Macedonians and Persians into one. He adopted all the trappings of an Oriental monarch, and attempted to introduce Persian customs such as proskynesis. This was the most efficient way to control his empire: retain the previous culture to prevent turmoil. Of course he had to go slowly as not to offend his Macedonian veterans. However, the ones which opposed him, such as Parmenio, Cleitus or Callisthenes were removed. In essance Alexander's empire was Persian, with some Macedonian elements retained.

My understanding is that the Macedonian language at the time was essentially Greek (albeit with a heavy accent) and that the Macedonian royal line legendarily was descended from Achaeans of some sort, though the Macedonian people were not necessarily so.

My understanding is that the Macedonian language at the time was essentially Greek (albeit with a heavy accent) and that the Macedonian royal line legendarily was descended from Achaeans of some sort, though the Macedonian people were not necessarily so.

This is the case from my understanding too. The names of all of the generals, Alexander, and Phillip, are clearly greek at any rate.

Phillip (Phillipos) comes from the greek 'Philos' (friend) and the greek '(h)ippos' (horse). It means friend of riding, horses etc.
Alexander (Alexandros) comes from the greek 'Alex' (indestructible by; immune to) and the greek 'andras' (man), so it would mean indestructible by men.
Demetrios, the so called 'Poliorcetes', also is clearly a greek name; the male version of the name Demetra, the godess of agriculture. Poliorcetes means besieger. He was given that name during the siege of Rhodes.
Macedonian athletes have taken part in the olympic games long before any rise of Macedonia to power, which only happened with Phillip; only a few decades before that Macedonia was a vassal of the Persians, with the southern part (colonised by Chalkis, in Euboea, central Greece) under the control of the Athenians during the era of the Athenian empire (ie up to the Peloponnesian war).

Very well put. As a Jew, I have nothign but the best to say about the Greeks as a people. They did there best to save us during the Holocaust, the never persectuted us, Alexander himslef liberated us for heaven's sake! Read my signature, I think that somes it up. The whole Macedonia problem is quite problematic. While it is certain that the modern Macedonians are not the same as the ancient Macedonians do to the Slavic migrations, they do have much inherited. However, they need to recognize the Greek influence, on there nation and people.

Alexander "liberated" Jews? Funny, I was under the impression that Cyrus freed the Jews, and Jews were very well tolerated in the Persian Empire during its entire length. That's the main reason why so many important Jews lived and dies in Iran and Iran, throughout history, have had Jewish populations with minimal persecution in all ages. And Iran did the same protecting Jews during the Holocaust. Yet, somehow Alexander "liberated" Jews??? I hope pretty soon you explain yourself...

Also this website might be interesting:

http://www.gate.net/~mango/Jews_in_Greece.html

Some comments regarding this topic:

1. Alexander fought Greeks on many occasions during his expeditions. Reference:

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/

It's a good site with plenty of articles, although pretty bias. In one of the articles it mentions the first point. As such, I don't consider his empire at all Greek.

2. Hellenistic culture was defined by a merge of Persian and Greek culture. I've heard some people say that it's characterized by the spread of Greek culture onto Persia, and that's wrong, because it happened both ways.

3. Alexander absorbed many Persian customs, clothing, and even personnel. The majority of his soldiers in his final campaigns were Persian and the clear majority of all administrators and treasurers were Persian. His wife was Persian...and I can go on. In the end, he was as much Persian as he was Greek. In someways he treated Persians better, like forcing a large amount of older Greek/Macedonian soldiers to retire to make way for Persian recruits, and someways Greeks better, the burning of Persepolis....

The article seems very biased. Remember that Greece was at war with Germany in ww2, and was conquered, and then it was in resistence along with allied forces. Many anti-greek war-crimes happened by germans at that time. German collaborators couldnt have been more pronounced than in any other occupied country. Also the book leaves out the jewish communities in Thessalonike, and Athens, which effectively makes it irrelevant, since almost all of the jews in Greece lived there :hmm:
I havent even heard of the nazi newspapers it speaks of, but keep in mind that far right parties in Greece never got into parliament, and currently the 'nationalistic' party got 2% in the last elections, which is comparable to other european nationalistic parties percentages.
As for the pogroms in southern Macedonia at the times of the balcan wars: the area was a minefield, and everyone used pogroms. To not use them would almost definately mean defeat. Definately pogroms are apalling, but in the early 20th century balcans they were a reality for all.

From a Civ POV, perhaps the developers wanted to add both Greece and Alexander, but did not want to make them separate?

EDIT - clarification: I mean that combining Alexander with Greece would leave room for an additional civ.

Alexander the Great married a Bactrian Princess, she was not Persian.

I suggest if you want to discredit the overall good relations between Greek and Jewish cultures you'll have to go against history itself. The only two Greek groups that shamefully fought against the Jews are discredited by Greeks in the Greek Orthodox Church, namely the Greek Syrians under Antiochas and the Mycenae Philistines such as Goliath.

"The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization: 4000 years of history" by Josephine Bacon

is a detailed historical reference book that has the true viewpoint from the Jews themselves. I think it is best to judge relations between the Greeks and Jews by the word of Jews themselves. As proof, in the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms of the post-Alexander Greek World many cities were built across these empires that were Judeo-Hellenic. The biggest city in the world is Alexandria, Egypt, measured by land area and infrustructure. Many other complements of Judeo-Hellenic endeavours scale of Egypt, Nabatea, the Middle East, and the founding of Christianity itself under the Roman Empire. When Saint Paul, once Saul as his Jewish name, as he visited Lystra, Troy, Maronea, Philipi, Athena, and Corinth it is well documented that even deep into these main-stream Greek polis that he also appealled to the Jewish communities and their leaders. The most receptive group of Judeo-Hellenes were the thinkers gathered at the Acropolis in Athens.

In Modern history, the sacrafices of Greek families in Greek Macedonia to hide the Jews from the Nazi forces resulted in the execution of hundreds of Greek men and their families. My cousin's Grandmother comes from a village north of Thessalonica where her husband was killed execution style in a line of Greek men, elders and teenagers because their village attempted to hide Jewish families in secret rooms throughout the village.

The disconnect between statements that discredit the existance of the Hellenistic World to the actual reality and fact will always serve as proof that both the Greekness of Macedonia and that Jews and Greeks having such a strong tie between culture cannot be altered by random haters and anti-Greek thinkers.

Only weeks ago it was all over the international Press that a tomb from 400-200 BC was discovered. And once again all the apparel, gifts, inscribings were all Greek. Where are the Slavic Macedonian inscribings that date back to 400-200 BC? That was the height of the Hellenistic Empires.

Can I have a moment to counter this Communist Slavic Macedonia propoganda?

:)) greek guys, you really make me laugh. What happened, your government washed your brains? First of all tell me what happened with the ancient Macedonians. Because you claim that we have nothing in common with them, and acording to you, the slavonic tribes came to this land and inhabited it, after which they took the name Macedonia..yeah right. .

So are you ignoring the existence of the Byzantine Empire? Byzantine Romans documented well its wars with the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Dacians (all Romanian) before and Slavic speaking people existed in the region. Even after that, you neglect the existance of the Thessaloniki-Avar wars, Thessaloniki-Cuman wars, and the Thessaloniki-Slavic wars. They are all recorded in Byzantine records in which Latins (Romans), Illyrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbians have all held governing powers in the Macedonia region, documenting the existence of such conflicts.

Why would the Slavs invade Macedonia, if they were Macedonian?

And the burden of proof is to look at a map of "Greater Macedonia." Today, the cities of Dyrrachium (Epidamnos) and Apollonia are both Macedonian through history, but today they do not serve Albania with claims against human rights against Macedonians. They have not been served Tito's Communist propoganda because then the "Macedonian Idea" would not make sense. If Slavs are Macedonian and the Greeks of Albanian knew their heritage to the region, why then do they still speak Greek and have never heard of this Slavic Macedonian language? This is because those cities were both out of the reach of the Bulgarian Empire and the Communist Yugoslavia.

Next, if you know a bit of history you wouldn't say nonsence about the origin of today's Macedonian country. We are former yugoslav republic, as much as you are former turkish republik of greece.

FYRMacedonia became a Socialist Republic under a Yugoslavia with autonomous powers before it was awarded independence. Greece fought for its own independence and created a Constitutional Monarchy. Therefore, Greeks are not a former autonomous nation under Ottoman Turkey. In fact, the Ottoman Turkey plan was to repopulate its province Yunanstan (meaning land of the Ionians, which refers to tribe that the Athenians, Ephesians, Miletians, Smyrnese, and Cycladic Islanders derive from). During the time of Yunanstan, (which is still the named used by Turkey for Modern Greece) the Ottoman Turks effective transported 30,000 Peloponessian Greeks (equavilant today to approx. 1 million because of delinage possibilities and city capacities through-out time) out of Peloponessos and landed them in Central Asia; whereas to be replaced with the Ottoman Turk allied Tartars and other Mongoloid tribes so as to distrupt the idea of forming an alliance against the Ottoman Empire.

Btw, greece got the agean part of Macedonia with the threaty of Bucharest in 1913-th, that's why 70% of the people that live today in aegaen Macedonia speak Macedonian.

Really? 70% of Greek Macedonia (as is internationally recognized as the name; whereby it is comically dated that the word Aegean Macedonia comes from the Communist leader and friend to Stalin, Mr. Tito) speaks a Slavic language with a Cyrillic alphabet that dates to the Byzantine Era?

With all the posters on this site that actually live in Greek Macedonia, can you please clarify if you speak Greek or Slavic? We all know you speak English because Greece was rated 1st amoung the European Union for its citizens being able to speak either 3 or more languages fluently. Amoung those, Greeks spoke the most clear diction in their second or third languages which included English, German, French, and Ancient Greek.

Let's not forget that you have changed the Macedonian names of the cities into greek ones in 1920's. My point about the thread...was Alexander Macedonian? Yes! And Macedonia always belonged to the Macedonians. Bottom line, im proud MACEDONIAN citizen.

If it pleases you, we could call international cities by their colonial names? That way not only will the names through all of Macedonia be Greek, but the entire Mediterranean Sea. Only if it pleases you kind sir.

:)) greek guys, you really make me laugh. What happened, your government washed your brains? First of all tell me what happened with the ancient Macedonians. Because you claim that we have nothing in common with them, and acording to you, the slavonic tribes came to this land and inhabited it, after which they took the name Macedonia..yeah right. Next, if you know a bit of history you wouldn't say nonsence about the origin of today's Macedonian country. We are former yugoslav republic, as much as you are former turkish republik of greece. Btw, greece got the agean part of Macedonia with the threaty of Bucharest in 1913-th, that's why 70% of the people that live today in aegaen Macedonia speak Macedonian. Let's not forget that you have changed the Macedonian names of the cities into greek ones in 1920's. My point about the thread...was Alexander Macedonian? Yes! And Macedonia always belonged to the Macedonians. Bottom line, im proud MACEDONIAN citizen.

IT HAPPENED AGAIN! Another person registered here and made only one post bumping this thread! CAN'T WE CLOSE THIS BLOODY THREAD? This is nothing but a nationalist flame thread from Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and whoever else thinks he's got a right to talk about this. Please close this thread before it dies down and gets bumped again from some Balkan-national.

The Macedonians are acknowledged by some as something between (both ethnically and in the degree of civilization) the Greeks and the Thracians. The MAcedonians were the hereditary enemies of Greece, and the Greeks despised the Macedonians as barabarians.

@greek Stud: it´s not Magna Graecia, it´s Megale Hellas if you´re Greek!

IT HAPPENED AGAIN! Another person registered here and made only one post bumping this thread! CAN'T WE CLOSE THIS BLOODY THREAD? This is nothing but a nationalist flame thread from Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and whoever else thinks he's got a right to talk about this. Please close this thread before it dies down and gets bumped again from some Balkan-national.

Um...sorry :( ? I did have some points, and I really don't classify posting my opinions as bumping. What all of these threads and opinions on Greece miss is a pro-Persian perspective, and I gave it. More over, IMO, based on the effects of the invasion of Alexander (aka none), I find the entire period overplayed in importance. It was a short period of conquerings which really did nothing for the West, and only produced setbacks with respect to Persians. Why it's still focused on in the West is a mystery to me...

It was Greek, because he conquered all of Greece before taking on Anatolia and the other masses he conquered.

No not really:

During hes initial persian invasion the greek cities only provided a small fleet some 60 tiremes (due to the high maintance cost) for the crossing into asia minor after that the were sent back the athens. The vast military force, compaion calvary, compaion foot, slingers and aux were almost entirely macedonia

Later on Alexander would defeat and employ "Greek mercaneries" into hes army some 8000 of them, Greek and macedonia reinforments during hes march west would boalster hes army serveral times. At most thou greek continguent would be some 15,000, Macedonia officers and generals were used by alexander instead of greek officers most of the time.

Very late he would dismiss the entire greek section of hes army and be replaced with some 40,000 persion foot companions. the macedonias he would keep but manpower shortages would mean there numbers were alwasy limited at this stage.

The Macedonians are acknowledged by some as something between (both ethnically and in the degree of civilization) the Greeks and the Thracians. The MAcedonians were the hereditary enemies of Greece, and the Greeks despised the Macedonians as barabarians.

@greek Stud: it´s not Magna Graecia, it´s Megale Hellas if you´re Greek!

hehe The overall Hellenic acceptance of unity was a Hellenistic cultural feature. Even though the Greeks of South Italy revolted many times, they acted much like the Greeks of the Hellas Strait and Peloponessos. They resisted Hellenistic unity or Roman unity but in the end war, trade, religion, language, and social unity brought our part of the Mediterranean closer together. Greek inventions from Sicily became Roman inventions, Greek Paganism became Roman Paganism. This made it simple for the Greek speaking world to call themselves Romans after the collapse of Rome herself. Because the character of the Roman world was just as much as part of the Greeks or Hellenes :-D as was being Greek.

Um...sorry ? I did have some points, and I really don't classify posting my opinions as bumping. What all of these threads and opinions on Greece miss is a pro-Persian perspective, and I gave it. More over, IMO, based on the effects of the invasion of Alexander (aka none), I find the entire period overplayed in importance. It was a short period of conquerings which really did nothing for the West, and only produced setbacks with respect to Persians. Why it's still focused on in the West is a mystery to me...

I agree that CyrusIII85 should be able to write his opinion and not have to be locked out of this discussion just because he found it later. People that have the time to complain about shutting down threads should probably have spent their time not reading threads theyre not interested in reading.

To Cyrus: What you seem to over-looking about the West and how Hellenic Historians have classified the Pre-Hellenistic Empire with the Hellenistic Empire is that Persian culture was an influence on the West. When I did my research on the "Pontic Greeks" of the regions Troas, Mysia, Bithyna, Paphlagonia and Pontus they are identified as having qualities of Persian culture and Persian descent. As for Lydia, Ionia, Caria and Lycia the Ancient Greeks especially of the Athenian Empire diverted the regions attention towards the Persians because the Asia Minor states once acted with sovereignty over their people and nationhood. While the other Leagues that were competing for their own Empirialistic goals found the Persians way ahead of their goal.

The West studies the Persian governmental structure in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia just as much as it studies the Conquests of Alexander the Great. It should not be a surprise that the West identifies the Battle of Salamis between Greeks and Persians as the turning point and birth of Western Civilization. The majority of Western Civilization thought, theories and social exibitions come from thinkers or philosophers of Ancient Greek. But this does not mean that it ignores the structure of the Greek Empires of Pergamon (the Pontic Empire) and of the united Seluecian (Mesopotamian) Antiochian (Greek Syrian) and Ephesian (Ionic) peoples who all refer to Persian government structures such as the satraps at Armenia and so on.

The struggle between Greeks and Persians does not mean the West separates itself from Persian thought and culture. It is hard to validate the claim that the Ancient Greeks were not important to Western Society today, but you should also remember that the Persian identity is a part of that idealism and not separate from it.

The foundations of the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms by the armies of Alexander the Great introduced a philosophical revolution into Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor that paved the way to unite the region under the Greek language, Greek education, and sometimes forced conversion of Greek religion as it had failed in Israel but occured (ie the Temple of Solomon having forced a statue of Zues inside of it). Remember that all the conquests of the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Israelites, Persians and Egyptians occured with overall resistance (although sometimes accepted). But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.

So there is no doubt that the Conquests of Alexander that you deny ever happened, laid the foundation for a society that functioned as a whole in that region. And even if cities and cultures separated themselves from being Hellenistic (as many indigineous people complained of being treated as lesser people if they did not speak Greek or study Greek education) or Roman (and the effects of its architecture, law and later Christianity) they still enjoyed the luxuries of being a part of such a structure. I cannot think of any city that lived outside of the trade network set-up by Alexander the Great and his entourage. Nor were there any trade networks that existed without the reliance on the Byzantine Silk Trade Route which followed the same route set-up by Alexander the Great.

The reprisals that Alexander took on Persepolis did not set back the cultural identity of Persia and the Persians. It crippled their ability to rise against the successors of the Hellenistic World. Persians under Seluecian's Empire participated in its government and fought with the Empire against Asoka. The constant raids from Central Asia that occured afterwards may had produced a mindblow, but it was not long after that the Persians joined the Parthians (Scynthians) and reestablished themselves in their dominate role.

No not really:

During hes initial persian invasion the greek cities only provided a small fleet some 60 tiremes (due to the high maintance cost) for the crossing into asia minor after that the were sent back the athens. The vast military force, compaion calvary, compaion foot, slingers and aux were almost entirely macedonia

Later on Alexander would defeat and employ "Greek mercaneries" into hes army some 8000 of them, Greek and macedonia reinforments during hes march west would boalster hes army serveral times. At most thou greek continguent would be some 15,000, Macedonia officers and generals were used by alexander instead of greek officers most of the time.

Very late he would dismiss the entire greek section of hes army and be replaced with some 40,000 persion foot companions. the macedonias he would keep but manpower shortages would mean there numbers were alwasy limited at this stage.


Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

A strange footnote at then end of Alexanders legacy.

Hes commanders and persia subjects had gathered to discuss terms. None of them could even stand being in the presence of the others. Until it was suggested they meet under Alexanders empty throne, hes hearld and amour. There under the presence of there deceased king they could talk as equals.

Alexanders vast empire was neither fully greek, macedoina, persion, egyption,. but alexander had saddled and united all cultures. Foremost of course hes macedonians. it is unknow if Alexander would have abandoned hes macedoina army contigients for persion trained army in greek fashion.

After hes death it was another matter, the expansion of greek culture and desire to emulate it would remain centuries later.

My point was that Alexander presented Greek ideas himself, he was the one that insisted that education spread across his Empire in Greek in the same format that he was educated by Aristotle, that all people should be privilaged to that. Alexander the Great was the leader that promoted equality with the Persians, Bactrians and Egyptians.

My question is that it is mentioned often that Alexander's Macedonian Army is separate from Greekness, yet Antiochias, Seluecius, and Ptolemy the BIG 3 of Alexander's Empire who followed him, why did they continue this Greekness or Hellenization if they were not a part of it? Why not consentrate on Macedonism which all of a sudden in todays world is separate from Hellenism. This debate never happened during the Renaissance. Why would a group of ethnic Macedonian's fight for control of Alexander's Empire yet all be in accord that the official language would be Greek, and religion. Ptomely and his descendants allowed the Egyptian cultism stand beside the Greek cultism, until the times of Cleopatra when the two religions became more confrontational because of the massive conversion to Greek Paganism. As well as the Jews of Israel, who were fought from the Jewish Priests to not forget who they were and abandon Judaism for this cosmopolitan Greek religion, lifestyle and language.

When Macedonism is segregated from Greece or the Hellenes in which we believe Macedonians to be a part of, why do these people who segregate Macedonians and Greeks never mention how the Greeks over-powered the Macedonians when a majority of migrant settlers came from Greek Macedonia and secondly from the Hellas Strait since the Ionic Anatolians in Asia Minor strengthened there prescense in an independent and growing Ephesian centered Empire that competed with Pergamon, the farming communities in northern Lycia, and Antiochian Cilicia at Tarsus.

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

To Cyrus: What you seem to over-looking about the West and how Hellenic Historians have classified the Pre-Hellenistic Empire with the Hellenistic Empire is that Persian culture was an influence on the West. When I did my research on the "Pontic Greeks" of the regions Troas, Mysia, Bithyna, Paphlagonia and Pontus they are identified as having qualities of Persian culture and Persian descent. As for Lydia, Ionia, Caria and Lycia the Ancient Greeks especially of the Athenian Empire diverted the regions attention towards the Persians because the Asia Minor states once acted with sovereignty over their people and nationhood. While the other Leagues that were competing for their own Empirialistic goals found the Persians way ahead of their goal.

The West studies the Persian governmental structure in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia just as much as it studies the Conquests of Alexander the Great.


Um...I seriously doubt that. Alexander's invasion, by the sheer number of times it has been written about, studied, and overall told, would lead me to believe that Westerners study Alexander's administration far more than Persian administrations. Of course, I could be wrong, but it's a pretty good guess when I hear John Curtis, an Iranologist, say that even most Western scholars don't have much breath in Persian history.


It should not be a surprise that the West identifies the Battle of Salamis between Greeks and Persians as the turning point and birth of Western Civilization. The majority of Western Civilization thought, theories and social exibitions come from thinkers or philosophers of Ancient Greek. But this does not mean that it ignores the structure of the Greek Empires of Pergamon (the Pontic Empire) and of the united Seluecian (Mesopotamian) Antiochian (Greek Syrian) and Ephesian (Ionic) peoples who all refer to Persian government structures such as the satraps at Armenia and so on.


They certainly had it, but I'm saying people have a tendency (based on what I've read) to downplay everything Persian inspired and focus on Greeks. This, of course, is a cruel result of the history of Persia written by Greeks who typically weren't too fond of Persians. Alas, if only our records survived...


The struggle between Greeks and Persians does not mean the West separates itself from Persian thought and culture. It is hard to validate the claim that the Ancient Greeks were not important to Western Society today, but you should also remember that the Persian identity is a part of that idealism and not separate from it.


Agree as above.


The foundations of the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms by the armies of Alexander the Great introduced a philosophical revolution into Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor that paved the way to unite the region under the Greek language, Greek education, and sometimes forced conversion of Greek religion as it had failed in Israel but occured (ie the Temple of Solomon having forced a statue of Zues inside of it).


There certainly was a great presence of Greek language in all of the kingdoms. However, as I recall, there wasn't an actual change in the spoken language of the common person in any area. Greek language was merely present in governmental affairs (aka on coins, etc). But, again, you can tell me if I'm wrong. "Greek education" may have been isolated to the upper classes as well. "Greek religion" could have gained momentum, and since it would seem to me logical that the Islamic armies would have destroyed such artifacts that made such a presence evident. It's hard for me to know whether or not Egyptians, for example, converted to Greek religion. It seems to me that Egyptian and Greek religions sort of paralleled each other. In Mesopotamia, Arabia, and other places inside the Middle East, I'm only aware that old Semitic, polytheistic religions existed. In Persia, Zoroastrianism continually lived despite Alexander's actions.


Remember that all the conquests of the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Israelites, Persians and Egyptians occured with overall resistance (although sometimes accepted).


Cyrus's conquerings were typically not resisted by the populous in individual nations. A clear example would be the conquering of Babylon and the unification of Persians and Medes. I 'm not sure about Ionians and Lydians, and I know that the C. Asian nomads were certainly antagonistic to the Persian Empire.


But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.


I'm not sure what you mean by "is alive" because, based on what I know, Greeks and Turks have been generally antagonistic and that sort of contradicts what you say. Overall, I would think that the Islamic and Ottoman conquerings certainly preserved Greek texts and translated them; they overall led to a decline in actually using Greek in everyday life.


So there is no doubt that the Conquests of Alexander that you deny ever happened, laid the foundation for a society that functioned as a whole in that region.


I didn't DENY the conquerings; I merely said the conquerings (which did occur) had little overall impact directly over the historical outcomes of Eurasia ("aka none" was supposed to mean "aka little" with more strength) save for Greeks, since I believe without Philip Greece could have eventually fallen to Persia. Now, the way I interpret the Byzantine Empire, was that it was not "Hellenism" in the pure sense, although it turned out to have the same characteristics. Basically, after Alexander, soon all the territories were conquered by Romans, except for the Secludian state. The Romans, by conquering the area, basically reverted the entire area to Western culture over Eastern by shifting the focus to Rome and more Westernly pursuits. However, as the Western Roman Empire decayed, the E. Roman empire was able to strengthen and revert to more Greek and Eastern rule. This, in turn, led to a "new" mergence of Greek and E. thoughts (although by far more Greek, which may lead me to think it isn't Hellnistic because it wasn't "half-half").


And even if cities and cultures separated themselves from being Hellenistic (as many indigineous people complained of being treated as lesser people if they did not speak Greek or study Greek education) or Roman (and the effects of its architecture, law and later Christianity) they still enjoyed the luxuries of being a part of such a structure. I cannot think of any city that lived outside of the trade network set-up by Alexander the Great and his entourage. Nor were there any trade networks that existed without the reliance on the Byzantine Silk Trade Route which followed the same route set-up by Alexander the Great.


Okay here is where you make a clear mistake. Persians, throughout history, have been responsible for the Silk Road and it's upkeep. The personnel, the routes, nearly everything about them operationally were done by Persians. Without Persians, it would have fell apart completely. And, of course, this was all before Alexander's time. So I don't, in any way, credit Alexander with anything done concerning the Silk Road.

Um... alot of cities were actually started up by Iranians. Cestphion, Baghdad, Bam, Herat, Hamadan, Siraf, Samarkand (maybe...I'm not sure if it was done by Iranian population), but these were all maintained by people independent of Alexander.


The reprisals that Alexander took on Persepolis did not set back the cultural identity of Persia and the Persians. It crippled their ability to rise against the successors of the Hellenistic World. Persians under Seluecian's Empire participated in its government and fought with the Empire against Asoka. The constant raids from Central Asia that occured afterwards may had produced a mindblow, but it was not long after that the Persians joined the Parthians (Scynthians) and reestablished themselves in their dominate role.


Oh it was certainly symbolic of his attempt to set back the cultural identity. He engaged in many efforts, especially antagonizing Zoroastrian life and even, at one point, portrayed himself as Ahriman in a coin by appearing as Hercules :lol:. Certainly he did alot of things to incorporate Persians into the new empire, but he did it with some attempted crippling. The reason they failed, in my view, was due to the nationalism of Iranians.

The Secludians, however, weren't always a basic foreign element. As with all foreign peoples ruling a certain land, they gradually become assimilated. Certainly later on Secludians did become that way, however, they became very weak and acted like figureheads in the end (like all dynasties end).

Finally, since you had to refer to Asoka, I will simply state that in my readings of Middle Persian history I have NEVER seen anything on Asokian-Persian interactions. AKA, if there were events, they most probably were minor and involved more "spheres of influence" than actual conquerings.


Even with these numbers his Empire still promoted the Greek language, Greek philosophical thought, Greek literature, Greek art, Greek architecture, and Greek religion. I mean there are religions today that base themselves off the fact that they resisted the inforcement of become Greek pagans, like the Maccabe (spelling?) Jews. But just because all this spread of Hellenism struct the Middle East did not mean that movements like Zoroastrianism did not occur. In fact, there is right to believe that this Persian lineage led to Judism and Christianity.

I'm not sure about philosophical thought. Persians did embrace certain Greek philosophies, but they did it in the Islamic time period. I would think, if they truly were exposed to it before, they would have assimilated the thoughts and not discover them in later times.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree, through the importance of Persia to Jews, that it played a pivotal role in developing the Judeo religions. Such a shame it had to fall...

Overall, I think you are far more knowledgeable about these eras concerning Greeks and more W. Middle Eastern areas, but I, through my studies, generally have some suspicions about what you say. Maybe I just need to do more studies. Whatever...I really don't have time :( :cry: :mad:.

My point was that Alexander presented Greek ideas himself, he was the one that insisted that education spread across his Empire in Greek in the same format that he was educated by Aristotle, that all people should be privilaged to that. Alexander the Great was the leader that promoted equality with the Persians, Bactrians and Egyptians.

My question is that it is mentioned often that Alexander's Macedonian Army is separate from Greekness, yet Antiochias, Seluecius, and Ptolemy the BIG 3 of Alexander's Empire who followed him, why did they continue this Greekness or Hellenization if they were not a part of it? Why not consentrate on Macedonism which all of a sudden in todays world is separate from Hellenism. This debate never happened during the Renaissance. Why would a group of ethnic Macedonian's fight for control of Alexander's Empire yet all be in accord that the official language would be Greek, and religion. Ptomely and his descendants allowed the Egyptian cultism stand beside the Greek cultism, until the times of Cleopatra when the two religions became more confrontational because of the massive conversion to Greek Paganism. As well as the Jews of Israel, who were fought from the Jewish Priests to not forget who they were and abandon Judaism for this cosmopolitan Greek religion, lifestyle and language.

When Macedonism is segregated from Greece or the Hellenes in which we believe Macedonians to be a part of, why do these people who segregate Macedonians and Greeks never mention how the Greeks over-powered the Macedonians when a majority of migrant settlers came from Greek Macedonia and secondly from the Hellas Strait since the Ionic Anatolians in Asia Minor strengthened there prescense in an independent and growing Ephesian centered Empire that competed with Pergamon, the farming communities in northern Lycia, and Antiochian Cilicia at Tarsus.

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

Okay well...I could try to answer it. Basically, while Alexander's force was completely Macedonian, the people he had in high positions were quite Greek and Persian. And even his force, originally Macedonian, gradually became Persian to the point that Persians outnumbered the Macedonians. So both of these factors aided in the gradual decline of Macedonian control.

Then, of course, comes the time of civil war. With such a big one especially, and after Alexander's long battles, most probably the Macedonians left to home or were simply too exhausted. The only ones left were the administrators who didn't move too much and were mostly Greek and Persian. Now, there were attempts by Persians to gain power during the civil war. However, based on the superiority of Greek soldier training and general technologies (as I have discussed in the "historical inaccuracies of Persia's article" thread), they all pretty much failed and Persians need to wait to gradually weaken the influence and power of the Secludians by participating in more discreet rebellion via the clergy, etc. . Anyway, that's a side note.

So, as a result, Greeks got the empires and basically with the head comes the body. At the time, there was such a strong power vaccum that they basically couldn't be removed nor persuaded towards pursuits other than what they wanted.

Alexander the Great married a Bactrian Princess, she was not Persian.

I suggest if you want to discredit the overall good relations between Greek and Jewish cultures you'll have to go against history itself. The only two Greek groups that shamefully fought against the Jews are discredited by Greeks in the Greek Orthodox Church, namely the Greek Syrians under Antiochas and the Mycenae Philistines such as Goliath.

"The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization: 4000 years of history" by Josephine Bacon

is a detailed historical reference book that has the true viewpoint from the Jews themselves. I think it is best to judge relations between the Greeks and Jews by the word of Jews themselves. As proof, in the 4 Hellenistic Kingdoms of the post-Alexander Greek World many cities were built across these empires that were Judeo-Hellenic. The biggest city in the world is Alexandria, Egypt, measured by land area and infrustructure. Many other complements of Judeo-Hellenic endeavours scale of Egypt, Nabatea, the Middle East, and the founding of Christianity itself under the Roman Empire. When Saint Paul, once Saul as his Jewish name, as he visited Lystra, Troy, Maronea, Philipi, Athena, and Corinth it is well documented that even deep into these main-stream Greek polis that he also appealled to the Jewish communities and their leaders. The most receptive group of Judeo-Hellenes were the thinkers gathered at the Acropolis in Athens.

In Modern history, the sacrafices of Greek families in Greek Macedonia to hide the Jews from the Nazi forces resulted in the execution of hundreds of Greek men and their families. My cousin's Grandmother comes from a village north of Thessalonica where her husband was killed execution style in a line of Greek men, elders and teenagers because their village attempted to hide Jewish families in secret rooms throughout the village.

The disconnect between statements that discredit the existance of the Hellenistic World to the actual reality and fact will always serve as proof that both the Greekness of Macedonia and that Jews and Greeks having such a strong tie between culture cannot be altered by random haters and anti-Greek thinkers.

Only weeks ago it was all over the international Press that a tomb from 400-200 BC was discovered. And once again all the apparel, gifts, inscribings were all Greek. Where are the Slavic Macedonian inscribings that date back to 400-200 BC? That was the height of the Hellenistic Empires.

Um...it would be good if you quoted who you were refering to. I missed this reply as a result. Anyway...

1. I didn't try to COMPLETELY discredit the elationship you guys put up, merely give a tiny fact about Jews in Greece that contradicted the general idea you guys put up. Honestly, I don't know about the history that well at all...but I still would like to hear Israelitie comments on his post.

2. Bactrian, Persian... whatever. Iranians don't even create nearly as many names for all of the people within Iran. Iran has been a very diverse country with strong connections between each people. As far as I'm concerned, if you are Iranian, you are Persian. Those words are basically only separated by time, and all true Iranians first view their affilation to Iran and then their specific ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, simply because she was Bactrian princess, doesn't mean that she wasn't Persian. Persians adminstered alot of non-Persian areas and a Bactrian, based on the definition of "Persian" in the West, could become Persian if she spoke Persian and affiliated herself with Persia.

It was Greek, because he conquered all of Greece before taking on Anatolia and the other masses he conquered.

Um...that is the most flawed logic I've seen. First, Alexander didn't conquer Greece. Secondly, Philip "conquered" Macedon, in order to become king, before he conquered Greece. So that flips your logic right back at you...

How do arrogant Generals with strong egotistical self-ideas give up their Macedonianism (as I believe it to be a fabricated tale) for the idea of being Greeks? In your words, the Macedonians won these battles. What do the Macedonians owe the Greeks (who you say they are separate from) to make their Empires Hellenistic?

It does not compute.

Of course valid points. On the other hand alexander had troublesome macedoinians assasinated or sent home for refusing to adopt persian customs.
Alexander himself adopted mix of persian and macedoina clothing, adopted other cultures religon .......

hmm I think were talking about different thing. Alexander and greeks were very similar in culture, similar dialetcs of laungage, similar God. The fact that Greeks idea of independent city states also being seperate yet inexplicably Greek.

One can argue the differences and similarities between, Athens, Sparta, Thebes (?) and Macedonia. same yet different.

But the Greek language remained, and gave the Eastern Roman Empire an identity that surpassed the West. For over 1,000 years the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantine Empire functioned as a strong identity that enjoyed wealth that surpassed the wealth that Rome herself had ever experienced, and even today exists (is alive) in the region.Then why were the Greeks so Greek that they called themselves (up to the 20th century) "Romaioi" instead of "Hellenoi"?

It's my understanding that the ancient Macedonians were hellenized Thracians, of some other paleo-Balkan ethicity related to the Thracians.


BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU. Just because the Greeks whine and b*tch about the official name of Macedonia doesn't give you a right to invent nationalistic nonsense. the modern Macedonians are Bulgarians for all practical purposes, QED. The Slavs were stuck up in Poland and Belarus at the time of Alexander.

It's my understanding that the ancient Macedonians were hellenized Thracians, of some other paleo-Balkan ethicity related to the Thracians.


BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU. Just because the Greeks whine and b*tch about the official name of Macedonia doesn't give you a right to invent nationalistic nonsense. the modern Macedonians are Bulgarians for all practical purposes, QED. The Slavs were stuck up in Poland and Belarus at the time of Alexander.


Now you are talking nonsense. According to my understanding Bulgarians are not even slavs, if the slavs really existed.. There is a point of view that slavs never really came to the regions of today's Macedonia in the first place and these are the original ancient Macedonians, many historians wrote about the region without even being here at all or just once, formally at that time so I do not beleive history until a time machine is invented. It is all for political reasons.

This has to be the oddest thread ... what's happening in the 3 months between posts here?

The problem with saying that Alexander's empire is Greek or Persian is then you're forced to divide the Roman empire similarly, with Gallic and Hellenized components. On the other hand, saying it's a Macedonian Empire would be like saying Napoleon's Empire was a Corsican one. It's not exact, obviously, but close. Personally, I prefer Greek, but I can understand the arguments against.

BTW, the people spouting the "ancient Macedonians were Slavs" BS need to STFU.

Skopje need a historical identity, that's why they're so desperate and teach to their schools they're the descendants of Alexander the Great(what to say, they were part of Yugoslavia, and since it exists no more, they haven't no history?).
Yes, they teach all that to their new generations, and come to think, they can prove bull about what they're claiming. It's a nice fable for kids, and fables don't need to prove themselves in any way.

As for the name "Macedonia" itself, Greece has every right to deny it, and in accordance to international laws: it's the same thing Germany did against Austria some decades back, and France against "Great Britain"(that's why that name isn't officially used).

btw: Greece wasn't united back then and the name "Greece" wasn't in use by anyone, so, for example, Athenians and Spartans weren't Greeks but just...Athenians and Spartans. They only used the terms of "Greece" and "Greek"(meaning, they used their common origin) under only special ocasions.
In fact, "Greece", in a way, came to life only when Alexander conquered and united it, and when our people got rid of the Turks(in later history).

Edit1:
As for the question, was Alexander's empire "Greek-Macedonian" or "Persian", what kind of question is that? An empire is named after those who own/run it, don't you think? It was part of "Greek-macedonian" empire if you wish, but that didn't mean that empire didn't had multiple ehtnicities: it wasn't as the "Persian" empire only just had...Persians, but over a few dozen ethnicities.
I didn't see anyone asking "Was the Roman empire" Roman or Mediterranean or...Karthaginian or whatever".

I have a proposition to Skopje: if they feel they want to be part of the ancient Macedonians, why don't they join with Greece, to unite it once more, as their ancestors did? If they feel they are a Greek tribe, they're welcomed, but...I'm afraid, they reject something even their...imaginable, and proud ancestors wouldn't: refuse their Greek origin(it must feel awful to be that paranoid).

Old thread, sorry!

Skopje need a historical identity, that's why they're so desperate and teach to their schools they're the descendants of Alexander the Great(what to say, they were part of Yugoslavia, and since it exists no more, they haven't no history?).
Yes, they teach all that to their new generations, and come to think, they can prove bull about what they're claiming. It's a nice fable for kids, and fables don't need to prove themselves in any way.


I was thinking that this thread is closed. My mistake. :cry: I don't know how anybody can compare former yugoslav republic Macedonia and Alexander Macedonia. Today Macedonians are south Slavs who came in Balkans together with other Slav tribes and Avari tribes in V or VI century. I think no one can change that historical fact. If somebody is trying to do that... lets just say.. :lol: :lol: :lol: