Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they?

[aaminion00]

Togash kje cheka zasekogash."
And just for you to know, that sentence is translated:
"Majka Bulgaria sekogash kje ve cheka." in Macedonian
and "Majka Bulgaria uvek che vas cheka." in Serbian (i'm not sure about this one)

Serbian would be "Majka Bugarska uvek ce vas cekat", so yeah, you got it.

 

[Sir Og]

Well as I listen to you two I am starting to actually feel glad my country was occupied by "Mutes".
Anyway does it really matter so much? Person is a person first and everything else second. And nobody should need separate nationality for separate state. And everybody should be able to call himself whatever he fancies.

I totally agree. Now that Macedonians feel so different from Bulgarians let them call themselves Macedonians.
The problem is though that insted of saying: Our history as Macedonians starts in 1945, some Macedonians make rediculous claims for the history of neighbouring states.

The current Macedonian consesus is that Macedonians were around from 6-7th century when the slavs flooded the Balkans but the problem is nobody heard about them nor did they have a country of their own.

Imagine if the jews for example make claims that since there were a lot of them in Spain or Poland or whereever that the history of those countries is actualy their history.

 

[Srdjan]

Well as I listen to you two I am starting to actually feel glad my country was occupied by "Mutes".

awesome

"Majka Bulgaria sekogash kje ve cheka." in Macedonian
Serbian would be "Majka Bugarska uvek ce vas cekat", so yeah, you got it.

No, this is Bosnijak translation , Serbian would be
"Majka Bugarska ce vas uvek cekati."

 

[Sir Og]

OK, I will simply ignore the non-sense claims and provocations, and answer where you offer somewhat biased historical info.

Bulgars was the name the Byzantians named all the Slavic tribes then. If you firmly believe there has been a nation of Bulgarians back in the 7th-9th century (as they were termed), then I can see no point in arguing any more about that period.
If you wanna know, the name Bulgarians is derived from a Turkic tribe that settled in Bulgaria (VII century) and was assimilated soon. However, the ruler of the Slavic tribes in the area of Bulgaria was still named "khan", up until the IX century (khan Presian, I believe was the last "khan" to rule the tribal alliance) After that they took Byzantian titles. I can easily claim according to the names that Bulgarians were a Turkic tribe, according to your logic.
And since we're getting a bit deeper into medieval history, I can only add that the Slvic tribes that settled on the territory of Macedonia were conquered late in IX and X century by khan Presian, knez Boris and tsar Simeon (just as other Blakan territories) [notice the evolution of the ruler's titles], and the "Bulgarian" state (more in fact a tribal alliance) was created in the VII century without Macedonia in its borders.

The Byzantines controlled the Balkan peninsula by the time the slavs started settling there 5-6th century. The Bulgarians (the turkic tribe after which Bulgaria is named) came on the peninsula in 7-th century and found it populated by slavs. Now it is very interesting how did the Byzantines called the slavs before the arrival of the Bulgarians and why did they decide to start calling all the slavs Bulgarians after that, as you claim.
Let us assume that Byzantines were strange or stupid or both and they had no name by which to call all slavs for two centuries but when a small turkic tribe arrived on the peninsula they decided to use the name of that tribe to call the slavs. Even if that is true it still very interesting why tsar Samuil himself didn't know that he was Macedonian and he is ruler of the Macedonians.

No. Bulgaria is criticized for the current situation with minorities. Here's little something for you:
"One positive development occurred in 2001 with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Boris Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization (OMO Ilinden) vs. Bulgaria on Oct.2, 2001. ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. OMO Ilinden was founded in 1990 to unite Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis and to achieve recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. In 1991 the association was refused registration as the courts ruled that its aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated ethnic hatred and was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. (ECHR Press Release – Oct.2, 2001)
It was hoped that the ruling in favour of OMO Ilinden would pave the way for immediate registration of the organization and a positive effect on human rights developments in Bulgaria in the future. However, OMO Ilinden has still not been registered. The two Macedonian political parties, OMO Pirin and OMO Ilinden PIRIN (the latter was de-registered in 2000 and has initiated a European Court case against Bulgaria), and Sonce, the organization of Islamic Macedonians, have also not been registered. Despite the European Court’s ruling, it is apparent that the Bulgarian government has no intention of registering any Macedonian organization. "
The entire report well-documented is on this link: http://www.florina.org/html/2003/2003_osce_bulgaria.html

This is an organisation that makes some wild claims and states as its goal to take away part of Bulgaria and its supporters are so much that can't even fill a whole bus. I am very curious if Macedonian government, or any other government for that matter would register such an organisation.

That is simply not true. Macedonian intellectuals spoke of Macedonian nationality ever since after the Berlin Congress, and even before then they named themselves Macedonians or Christians at different occasions, but never Bulgarians. In this respect, I can only mention the most prominent intellectual, a linguist scientist, Krste Petkov Misirkov, who wrote his book "Za Makedonckite Raboti" in 1903 where he clearly and directly seperates the Macedonians as a seperate nation, with seperate language and history, different from the surrounding neighbours, and all that is scientifically and systematically supported with facts and arguments.
And according to what you say, because before 1944 Macedonians had no country of their own, that means they didn't exist. And I suppose you'd claim that Basques don't exist also because they have no seperate state.

I have a long but educational article about mr. Misirkov.
There:


And now let us see what happened at the International
Symposium on the life and heritage of K.P. Misirkov.

The symposium took place in Skopje, starting on 27 Nov. and ending on 29
Nov, 2003.



*Account of a participant: what was said about Misirkov*
==========================================================

- I thought that the emotions had run out of steam, bit yesterday, 29
Nov. 2003, a new scandal erupted quite surprisingly, despite the absence
of Katardzhiev. After two rather obtuse presentations, it was the turn
of Rostislav Terzioski to present the results of his latest research on
Misirkov.

Terzioski is specialized on Russia and the USSR and is a very good expert
on the historical Russian archives related to Balkan history. His talk
was titled: *About some opinions of Misirkov concerning the Macedonian
question*.

Terzioski said that he had found in Russia a file of about 80 pages,
written by Misirkov during 1914, consisting mainly of documents,
memorandums and appeals to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
other Russian institutions. All documents were related to the Macedonian
question. Terzioski said that the documents had been known to very few
people until now, and that they deserved to be published because of
their importance.

The words of Rostislav Terzioski follow:
***************
Terzioski:
- The content of these documents is in contradiction with some of the
other writings of Misirkov, notably with his pamphlet "On the Macedonian
Affairs". The documents do not confirm the established opinion of our
historians about Misirkov. Is this a dilemma or is it a "so called"
dilemma?

For example, in a letter to the Russian foreign affairs minister,
Misirkov declares himself to be a Bulgarian, talks about the
unquestionably Bulgarian population of Macedonia, about his own
Bulgarian background, about the Bulgarian people of Macedonia.

Misirkov mourns for San-Stephano Bulgaria (which included all
Macedonia), states that Macedonia is a staunchly Bulgarian land, talks
about the suffering of the Bulgarian people in Macedonia under the
Serbs, talks about the three main ethnic Bulgarian areas: North
Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia.

Misirkov says that 2.5 million Bulgarians were enslaved by Serbs and
Greeks. He accuses Russia for separating Macedonia from Bulgaria and
states that the Bulgarian national rights on Macedonia were
unquestionable. He expresses his desperation from the fact that
Macedonia was torn away from Bulgaria.

Misirkov lashes out against the Serb propaganda which, according to him,
was underway in Russia. He says that after the Bucharest treaty 2 million
Bulgarians were enslaved by the Serbs. Misirkov demands united ethnic
Bulgaria including all Macedonia, Dobrudzha, and Eastern Thrace. He
states that the Serbs plundered lands that were ethnically purely
Bulgarian, and that the Greeks stole Solun (Thessaloniki) from
Bulgarians.

Misirkov also has some...how should I say...some racist opinions about
the Serbs. He states that Serbs are nothing but Shumadian shepherds and
swine herdsmen, that Serbia was created by the swine trader Karageorge,
that Serbia was the main culprit for the suffering of the Macedonian
Bulgarians. He talks about some characteristic feature of the Serb swine
herdsmen as "King killers" and traitors, and says that Serbs were
suppressing and destroying a thousand years old Bulgarian culture in
Macedonia.

Misirkov says that the population of Macedonia is Bulgarian and as such
it must live in a united Bulgarian land. He calls on the Russian
government to stop the assimilation of the Macedonian Bulgarians by the
Serbs.

He talks about the Bulgarian cultural superiority in comparison with the
Serbs, expresses many times his conviction that Macedonia must be united
with Bulgaria, and is worried that there was a danger of most of
Bulgarians leaving Macedonia.

In other documents Misirkov argues against the theories of the Serb
historian Cviich and his theses that the Slavic population of Macedonia
was a "fluid mass of people without a national consciousness". Misirkov
proves that the Macedonian population "is not a mass of pliable dough,
as Cviich alleges, but rather a very thoroughly baked Bulgarian bread,
which belongs to Bulgaria".

In one of his letters from 1914 Misirkov states that the term
"Macedonians" means only Macedonian Bulgarians and can not mean anything
else. He accuses the Russian ambassador Rostkovsky for giving in to Serb
propaganda and accepting the Serb theory that Macedonians were only
Slavs, but not Bulgarians. Misirkov says that this theory is a Serb lie
and that the Russian ambassador was somehow tricked by the Serbs to
accept it.

In all his letters Misirkov expresses his deep sorrow for the fate of
Bulgaria, which was torn and plundered by her neighbors during the
Balkan wars.

******************
(End of Terzioski citation. Narrator resumes his account)


-Terzioski talked about all these things for more than 15 minutes. Most
of the listeners looked as if they had suddenly frozen.

In the end Terzioski simply thanked for the attention, said that all
these facts were not entirely new, that some people had written before
on this topic. He referred in particular to the writings of Cyrnushanov,
who "researched well all the zigzags of Misirkov's ideas". He said that
such data exists in Macedonia too, but the official historians think
that such data must not be published.

Without mentioning his name, he attacked Blazhe Ristovski, who had tried
the previous day to dismiss the allusions of the Polish historian
Jolanta Suiecka about Misirkov being a Bulgarian chauvinist. Ristovski
had tried to brush away such thoughts by alleging that Misirkov
expressed his Bulgarian nationalist ideas only after 1920, when he lived
in Bulgaria: according to Ristovski at that time Misirkov was forced to
conform to the political situation in Bulgaria, his articles were
edited, etc. - All in all a heap of worthless artificial explanations.

So Terzioski reminded the audience about these explanations of
Ristosvki, and rhetorically asked the question: Who forced Misirkov to
write such things in 1914, when he did not live in Bulgaria, and there
was no one to "force him to conform to the political situation"?

Without any applause, Terzioski left the stage and went to his
seat. The audience had sunk in deep silence and gloom.

===========================================
(End of participant's account)

No, Bulgaria is not nationalistic. From what I hear from you, it is as hegemonistic and chauvinistic just as it was in every damn occasion they had to occupy Macedonia (during WW1 and WW2). As you know during WW2 fascist Bulgaria occupated Macedonia, while the Bulgarian communists were in favor of recognizing the Macedonians and granting them their rights.
And just for the record, Bulgaria recognized Macedonia because you named it a 'liberation from Serbian Communist domination', and the 50 rusted tanks you gave us several years ago, are already all melted (and it costs money) because they are not in accordance with the NATO standards, so you easily got rid of them. It's not because your love and compassion, be sure.

I grow tired of your "explanations" of what and why Bulgaria is doing. The FACT is that we were the first to recognise you as a country, you want to tell me that it is not because we feel you are our brothers but for other malicious reasons.

We give you millitary aid you say that it wasn't any good. Tells us who else gave Macedonians something for free. Why did you accept the tanks if they were so bad, I am sure that we would have earned more if we had scrapped them instead of giving them for free.

 

[Alone]

[QUOTE/]And according to what you say, because before 1944 Macedonians had no country of their own, that means they didn't exist. And I suppose you'd claim that Basques don't exist also because they have no seperate state.[/QUOTE]


You're twisting again...(ahm..bad comparation, I mean...)



[QUOTE/]And just for the record, Bulgaria recognized Macedonia because you named it a 'liberation from Serbian Communist domination', and the 50 rusted tanks you gave us several years ago, are already all melted (and it costs money) because they are not in accordance with the NATO standards, so you easily got rid of them. It's not because your love and compassion, be sure. [/QUOTE]


Well, I must agree with you on that one (sorry Sir Og), Bulgaria was among the first one that recognize other Yugoslavian Republics (I'm not sure but I think first for Bosnia at least..). No love/ hate part there just to weakness Serbia as the most influeced "power" in region.



[QUOTE/]Wrong facts my friend. As I said, IMRO started becoming dominated by Bulgarian infiltrated agents and a sharp drift developed within the organization, and this is when the assassinations took place among the two fractions. The Bulgarian nationalists prevailed in 1919 and since then they put the organization in service of the Bulgarian chauvinistic pretensions (they named themselves authonomistic IMRO). An organization, Temporary Representaty of IMRO, appeared in 1919 that was against the division of Macedonia and fought for reuniting Macedonia and its independence, but its leaders (Gjorce Petrov, Dimo Hadzi Dimov, Petar Pop Arsov) were all assassinated by the Bulgarian organization, that fought for "liberation" of the Serbian part of Macedonia. (with this, their declarative claims for Macedonian authonomy were exposed, because although a part of Macedonia was already under Bulgaria, they only were concerned about the authonomy of the Serbian part, but not the Bulgarian) Yet another organization, IMRO United, appeared in 1925 that fought for Macedonia's independence, but they too were hunted by the authonomistic IMRO's agents and in 1936 dissolved in the international anti-fascist movement. Those were the people who killed King Alexander too in 1934, in cooperation with Croatian nationalists. (Even some consider that Nazi Germany was involved, since both organizations shared a fascist ideology)
But that is not to say that King Alexander's rule was wanted in Macedonia. He led a Serbian hegemonist policy and as you say never gave Macedonia authonomy. On the contrary, he considered Macedonia to be Southern Serbia, initiated Serbian assimilatory propaganda, brought over 4,200 families of Serbian colonists in Macedonia and gave them free land, changed the surnames of Macedonians etc. [/QUOTE]



Exept first few sentences, you're right. (And those first are crucialy wrong, I still clame the same, unfortunatly have not enough time to spend at internet right now for some deeper "conversation" about this, maybe latter few weeks). But I doubt 'couse I'm "uncivilized".
Just to add about killing the King Aleksandar, that by my opinion that had the most destruction influence of the fall (thats still continue nowdays) of Serbian nation, simular to assasination of Ferdinand to AustroHugary (by my modest "uncivilzated" opinion). So somebody could say, it was a "God justice.



[QUOTE/]Don't be sorry. You can always learn something new. [/QUOTE]



Yeah, thanks for enlightening me.



[QUOTE/]Macedonian surnames have either "-ski" or "-ov" ending.
I think that you said that Bulgarian's finished with -ov...

...nor Serbs have the "-ski" ending, so that's why they both sparked off such propagandas. Sure, there are sporadic examples of non "-ic" endings in Serbia. That doesn't mean they are not Serb (or maybe they have some specific lineage or something), but it is a notorious fact that the majority of Serbian surnames end with "-ic". (I can post you the list of Serbian parlamentarians if you like ) [/QUOTE]



That would be a long list, no need for that, thank you. My family name is with -ic, like many other South (and other) Slovens, but pointed that IS chauvinism, and that was my small ("uncivilized") point. As I know Lazar Ristovski is Serbian but Johnny Stulic is Macedonian (or they clame that way,maybe they don't know what they are, realy)


[QUOTE/]As I said, I left the medieval history out. [/QUOTE]



hm, I wonder why...



[QUOTE/]And I must say I don't know what you're talking about when mentioning "Arsenie Charnojevich" and certain unknown word for me "seoba".[/QUOTE]



Seoba - english = Migration
Pa sam si rek'o da bolje razumes Srpski od Bugarskog...I start to have doubt about it.



[QUOTE/]Twisted or shaped, I give you arguments, you give me propaganda.[/QUOTE]



I hope you are not accusing me that I'm Bulgarian nationalst (I can here over here Sir Og's irrepressible laught)



[QUOTE/]And I'm not "ashamed" that the Macedonian national ideal was realized in the form of a country during WW2 and thanks to comrade Tito and the rest of the progressive Communists of the time, but most of all the authonomious Communist and Socialist movement in Macedonia. On the contrary, I'm proud of that.[/QUOTE]



That's what I'm tellin you you shoudn't. (Alltough the part with Commies, I don't know...)



[QUOTE/]But you seem to equate nation, ethnicity and country all in one.[/QUOTE]


No, you are doing that, and I did send you a signal but you didn't get it.



[QUOTE/] Until you settle this things in your mind, I'm afraid we can't have a civilized and reasonable conversation.[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry too. Bye bye

 

[Srdjan]

"Without any applause, Terzioski left the stage and went to his
seat. The audience had sunk in deep silence and gloom."

Wonder why.


Ask me where was my grandparents during WW2.
Father of my granfather is use to say about Serbian and Bulgarian rule over Macedonia. " Koga ke si odat, nozete ke im udirat vo gaz. " (ako se dobro secam)

 

[Companiero]

The Byzantines controlled the Balkan peninsula by the time the slavs started settling there 5-6th century. The Bulgarians (the turkic tribe after which Bulgaria is named) came on the peninsula in 7-th century and found it populated by slavs. Now it is very interesting how did the Byzantines called the slavs before the arrival of the Bulgarians and why did they decide to start calling all the slavs Bulgarians after that, as you claim.

Actually the Slavic migrations on the Balkans took place during the end of 6th and the 7th century. The turkic Bulgars came in the second half of the 7th century. Point is, there wasn't much of an established Slavic culture here when the Bulgars came (however, in time the Bulgars were slavicized). The state that resulted from the alliance of all the tribes in the area was a khanate, meaning it was ruled by a khan, a traditional turkic/asian title. That speaks about the susbstantional political role that the Bulgars had in the formation of the state. The lineage of the Bulgarian khans was most likely of Bulgar origin. From here, it is very obvious why the Byzantians refered to the tribes as Bulgarian. And the Bulgar (Asian) character of the state wasn't lost up until the IX century, when the rulers changed their title to more sophisticated knez and then tsar. Possibly because by this time the Bulgars were already assimilated in the local population. However, the name "Bulgar" remained to denote all the Slavs in the Balkan area that were under the Bulgarian state (including Serbia, Albania and Macedonia) for some period, although those outside the territory of Bulgaria had no connection whatsoever with the true turkic Bulgars.

On the other hand, Samuel rised as a ruler, not from the lineage of the Bulgarian kings, but from the ranks of the feudal lords that ruled with Southwestern Macedonia at the time. He founded a new dynasty (which lasted shortly), the core of his Empire was in Prespa (Southwestern Macedonia), far from that of the old Bulgarian Empire, and conquered vast areas of the Balkans (including Macedonia, Albania, Thessaly, Bulgaria, Serbia, Zeta, Bosnia and other regions). Even more, it is important to note that while Macedonia was under Bulgarian rule, the four brothers Samuel, Aron, Moses and David revolted in 969 and created their own state, ruled by the four of them - a tetrarchy. It fell under Byzantian rule in 971, but revolted again in 976, if I recall correctly. And yet another proof for the distinct character of Samuel's state is that when he eliminated his brothers and became the sole ruler in 987, he created a new church also - the Ohrid Archiepiscopy, with the seat in the city of Ohrid, Southwestern and present Macedonia. The Macedonian medieval state lasted shortly, until 1018, when the last ruler of the dynasty, the Empress Maria was dethroned and taken to Constantinopole.
However, as I said, nations didn't exist in this period and all Slavic tribes in the Balkans spoke the same language and shared the same culture, so any notion of the terms Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs indicating any national identity traits I find as completely ignorant. We can only talk about states which in time contributed to the process of forming the national identities.

Here's something about the tanks, since you don't believe me:

"7. Obstacles on Road to NATO: Tanks T-55 Cannot Be Melted Down
The Bulgarian tanks T-55, for which NATO recommended to Macedonia to get rid off if it wants to become a member of the Alliance, started to be melted down in the Maksteel factory, but unsuccessfully because their tops could not be cut off. “In Maksteel they told us that they need another laser; it will be purchased soon and the process will continue”, MoD Spokesman Gurovski said. (Vest) "

And here's the link if you still don't believe me: http://www.afsouth.nato.int/organization/NHQSKOPJE/PRESS REVIEW/2003/December/Dawn_08Dec03.htm

About your "educational" article about Misirkov; I remember when the scandal errupted here. I read about it in the newspapers and there were heated reactions about what that Bulgarian (or pro-Bulgarian) scientist had said. I tired yesterday to find the papers from then and be more informed about it, but we must have thrown them . So, unfortunately I cannot respond to your post with arguments since I don't recall what exactly Macedonian scientists (btw, Ristoski is a member of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences and one of the most respected historians here, unlike that Terzioski, whose name strikes me for the first time) had to say about these claims. But their reaction was rather vigorous I remember, so I find it odd and funny to see that that guy described it as "deep silence and gloom".

Anyway, it's nothing new and shocking for us to see Bulgarian or pro-Bulgarian nationalists passionately preaching some unprooved theories. What stands as a historical fact is that Misirkov in 1903 (earlier than the supposed claims of his "Bulgarian self-identification") in Sofia issued an elaborate book, where he bravely, in spite of the aggressive propaganda roaming the inteligentsia ranks, clearly proclaimed his claims of a seperate Macedonian nation with a seperate language from the rest of the other Balkan languages.
And I forgot to add that Misirkov was only a crown of the process of national awakaning which started in the second-half of XIX, but wasn't elaborated on a scientific and in-depth level until Misirkov. Meaning there were other Macedonians expressing their Macedonian identity far before his work, but quoting all their formal or informal statement would be overaboundant at this moment.

Ask me where was my grandparents during WW2.
Father of my granfather is use to say about Serbian and Bulgarian rule over Macedonia. " Koga ke si odat, nozete ke im udirat vo gaz. " (ako se dobro secam)

lol. Your grandfather was right, although your memory fails you a bit.
Where were your grandparents during WW2?

 

[Companiero]

Having all these additions about Macedonian history, I could add few more and have a complete Macedonian history.
Just keep provoking me.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

This really is a great explanation about macedonian. I always assumed ancient macedonia was a greek city state, not unlike Sparta or Athens. So the macedonians are a entirely different people from the greeks.

 

[Srdjan]

lol. Your grandfather was right, although your memory fails you a bit.
Where were your grandparents during WW2?

Well, I don't speak Macedonian every day. Beside, is hard to switch between Serbian and Macedonian. Clanovanje i padezi ne idu zajedno.

About WW2, unfortunately they were in concentration camps. From father side in Germany, and from mother in Bulgaria.Luckily, they sirvived.

 

[Verbose]

Extremely interesting! Both the article and the following discussion.
Nicely shows up the problems of any kind of assumption about nationality/ethnicity as stable "super historic" entities. They change and evolve constantly.

I wouldn't and couldn't enter into anything on present day Balkan discussions, but as far as the ancient macedonians are concerned, I'd say that your article does show that the became... Hellenes. And they were eventually recognised as such by the Greek city states. They weren't the first to be incorporated either. If Thukydides is to be believed (could be argued both ways I suppose), the Athenians themselves were known to originally have been a non-Greek/non-Hellenic people with a "barbarian" language.

Then again the ancient Greek were well aware of the fact that their own distinction between Hellenes and barbarians was rather recent. Looking at their own "foundational" text, Homer's Illiad (700 BC ca), they did notice that this distinction was absent. Hellene-barbarian seems to have been introduced with the political system of the pólis city-state (600-500 BC or so).

 

[Companiero]

I'd say that your article does show that the became... Hellenes. And they were eventually recognised as such by the Greek city states. They weren't the first to be incorporated either.

Correction. They didn't become Hellenes, they became Hellenized to some extent. And they were never "incorporated" in the Greek world. One could that that from the continual opposition and wars between the Greek city-states and Macedonia after Alexander's death and the fact that they allied with Rome in order to bring down Macedonia.

 

[Kyriakos]

But we should make distinctions between what the ancient macedonians were, and what the fyr macedonians are, which you make yourself It just helps limit confusion.

Btw where is the quote "Solun (Thessalonike) must be the grand window which will bring light to the entire room" from? It RULES!

I hope that in the future the entire region (southestern europe) will be on very friendly terms. I personally would want to see that happen

 

[Greek Stud]

Read the Military Book, "Rome and her enemies" written by a professor an Oxford University in London. England currently stores thousands of classified documents from such areas like the Great Library of Alexandria (Egypt). From this scripts and records, students and teachers at Oxford University study and write about World History.

In this book you will find contradictions from our Slavic educated Companiero.

He talks about the First, Second, and Third Macedonian Wars as recorded by Oxford University; but somehow has incorporated his own theory about Macedonia, Illyria, Epiros, Thessalia, and Aeotolia.

Philip is recorded in history as coming to the aid of the cities in Magna Graecia. Magna Graecia is now Southern Italy. Companiero has made the statement that Macedonia was separate from Greek culture and language yet Thessalia is the origin of Ionic tribes, and Thessalia is recorded in this text as being intertwined not only with Macedonian Royality, but also the Latin tribes in Italy and Illyria and the Celts. The Celts had strong trade routes with Illyria, who in turn traded with the Latin tribes who fought the Romans for autonomy and/or independence. It is your choice here to believe the book from Oxford University that Macedonian Royality came from Greece and that Ancient Macedonia was a multi-ethnic Illyric-Latin-Celtic-Greek Kingdom. The word Greek is a Roman word, Greca, meaning from Classical Greece whereas the Greeks recognize cultural unity from after the debates amoung Greeks that led to a unified military attack against the Persians.

Companiero explicitly stated that the Aeotolians or the Aeotolian League were anti-Roman, when in fact Athens and Aeotolia were the two conspiritors that collaborated with Rome against Macedonia. In the First Macedonian War, Macedonia fought Roman expansionism in Southern Italy and lost. This lead to Macedonia signing agreements with Carthage for protection, and Philip then went on to fight for more land from the Illyrians. In this instance, the Royals of Epiros and Macedonia were related, being Greek. Epirus fought the Romans at Taranto (Tarantum) and won. The name of the leader I will write here when I get the book from downstairs, it is something like: Pyrrhia.

Aeotolia in the Second Macedonian War, was directed by Rome to capture Macedonian land in Thessalia. They gained much land. And in response the Macedonians attacked back and gained back that land. The Romans planned this war to distract the Macedonians from succeeding in Illyria, and fight amoung the Greeks.

The Final Macedonian War, ended in the Romans taking the Macedonian Empire at Corinth. The Macedonian Empire is a reference to all the united Greeks West from Epiros to Byzantion East, North from Paeoria to Peloponessos South. The central power in the Macedonia Empire/Antigon Leagues was the military power and united Leagues at Corinth. The other Empires of the Hellenic World were (2) Pergamon Empire (Pontic Region), (3) Seluecia with seats at Ephesus, Antiochia (Antioch), and Seluecia (Baghdad), (4) Ptolemic Empire (Egyptian) with Alexandria as the center.

For a secret language to be acknowlegable, you would have to believe what Companiero said about Macedonians writing their secret language in Greek phonetics. Macedonians had a unique language by his claims, but decided to write only in Greek yet all artifacts of the Hellenic World can be translated into Ancient Greek. Companiero also states that the Slavic invassions that reached all the way South forced a Slavinization of Byzantine Era Greece. Yet before the Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs, Serbs, and self-determined Macedonians, the Catalonians (as recorded by the Grand Catalan Company) had a free Catalonian (Spanish) country over Byzantium. This also ignores the Latin and Venetian Duchacies and Empires as recorded by the Museum at Vatican City.

Catalonia was self-determined in the Byzantine Empire over: Macedonia at a capital on Chalkis (Mount Athos). It also stretched into Aeotolia, Delpholia, Thessaly, the Hellas Strait (Boiotea, Locris, Phokia, Locris 2, Megara), and it ignores the Catalonian conquest of the Norman Frank Duchacy of Athens.

The Venetians also renamed Peloponessos Morea during an extensive period of Byzantine rule. I am born from the Venetian city in Messene province called Koroni (a major Venetian port during this time). Euboea was renamed Negroponte by the Venetians, as well as Cyprus was taken and governed with an iron fist by the Venetians.

This part of Late Roman history, as documented, is flatly ignored by the Slavic Macedonia cause. How are the Slavs the only ones to be victumized by relocation when no one in Greece today speaks a native Catalonian, Latin, Venetian, Norman Frank, Tartar nor Turkish dialect? The Sephoric Jews of Ottoman Times, are they not less Macedonian than the Slavic Macedonians?

The Slavic cause recognizes the Slavic invasions as legitimacy that they changed the Greeks of today to not be the Greeks of the past. Yet we speak Greek and read ancient artifacts in Ancient Greek. Yet, the Slavs want the name Macedonia, when Catalonia owned Macedonia longer than the Slavs. Comanpiero states Macedonians in one instance is a mixed race, than references a Bactrian tribe as recreating an ethnic Macedonia diaspora different than the other cultures that were there. This blue-eyed, blond hair theory has also displaced the Bactrian Issue when bodies were unearthed in Mongolia of Asian people with blue eyes and blonde hair.

I am not saying to ignore Companiero, all I am saying is that his information is faulty. He says many historians question Hellenic Macedonianism. Yet when you go to an Archaeologist who has unearthed and recorded links to Macedonian history, it is all in Greek. The Romans wrote of Macedonia as part of the Hellenic World. The Sicilian Greeks even recorded the Epiros and Macedonian attacks on Rome, as the Sicilian Greeks sat like the modern Iraq, a field of military terror between the Romans and Carthaginians. The Romans and Carthaginians perfected military techniques in the Punic Wars on Sicily. These Greek city-states of Sicily looked first to the Romans, who betrayed them, then back to the Carthaginians to rid Sicily of the Romans.

So much data and records, yet Alexander the Great, a name more common than the Illiad was never recorded as saying once that his Glory goes to Macedonia. Historians today joyously write of Alexander's bisexuality yet have never mentioned an iota (Greek letter: i ) of him speaking a secret language. In fact the only sources of such unsubstanciated claims (or nationalistic ideas) only come from Communist leader Marshall Tito and Josef Stalin. Those of you that study Communism, you will see propaganda at its finest. Stalin himself wrote in his public journal availble at English and Russian Universities as stating, the Macedonian national identity conveniently emerged in the Balkans at a time when nationalism was introduced from the Western Nations to European Turkey. The sole purpose for nationalism in the Balkans was to split Ottoman Turkey. Stalin wrote of Macedonianism as being Tito's own creation. His record is only acknowledged as reprisal because Tito went to the League of Nations with the idea that he could acheive a stronger offence than Stalin, as the leader of Yugoslavia and his new Macedonian cause that would extend his Communist State into the Ancient Empires of the Hellenic World which he told the League of Nations was only a Macedonian Empire.



Basically, this article is the Slavic position on the Macedonian Issue. The Slavic position also takes battles that are recorded as being Bulgarian battles for boundaries that fit the Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgarian battles fought against the British, French and Greeks near Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki was the first site before WW1 where the Greeks fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire. This revolution was intiated by the Russians and it failed. The second revolution was staged by the British in Petra and succeeded. When the Bulgarians had Western Thrace, displaced Serbian troops would have won against the Bulgarians, but the Greeks did not accept compliance with the Serbs, because Greek Royality was married with German Royality, and it was the Germans that staged the Bulgarian attacks on Greek Macedonia.

Lastly note, the Macedonian Issue has only occurred twice in history: 1944 by Communist Marshall Tito and in 1991 when FYROMacedonia was granted idependence. This Issue is an issue about ideas. You either support the idea that Slavs can self-determine themselves as the sole inheiritors of Macedonia because they do believe that Macedonianism never had origins in Hellenism or you can support the idea that the Ancient Royals of Macedonia were in deed Hellenic as they wanted all City-States to unite as a Hellenic Power including the Doric (Sparta and Epiros), the Aeotolians, the Ionic (Thessaly, Ithaca, Athens, Ionia), the Cycladic, Thracian and the Mycenae (Proto-Hellenes). Demosthene not only argued that Macedonians were not Greek, but he also argued the Spartans were not Greek.

Historians that often dispute Hellenic Macedonianism will also dispute Mycenaen culture as being Hellenic. So does Hellenism exist? Is it a real language? Or do we take the idea that no matter how much the Greek language exist in this region, that Hellenism grew from non-Hellenic people that put forth Hellenism before their true identities.

 

[Companiero]

Btw where is the quote "Solun (Thessalonike) must be the grand window which will bring light to the entire room" from? It RULES!

Yes, those are quotes from the Balkan Wars period, which diplomats from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece expressed in order to illustrate their attitude towards Macedonia. Pretty poetic.

Companiero has made the statement that Macedonia was separate from Greek culture and language yet Thessalia is the origin of Ionic tribes, and Thessalia is recorded in this text as being intertwined not only with Macedonian Royality, but also the Latin tribes in Italy and Illyria and the Celts.

So? That doesn’t make the Illyrians and Celts Greek, does it. It was quite common for Macedonian royalty to have many wives from all over (Philip II himself had seven).

The Final Macedonian War, ended in the Romans taking the Macedonian Empire at Corinth. The Macedonian Empire is a reference to all the united Greeks West from Epiros to Byzantion East, North from Paeoria to Peloponessos South. The central power in the Macedonia Empire/Antigon Leagues was the military power and united Leagues at Corinth.

The “Macedonian Empire” is a reference you just coined. Just how much the Greeks in the period of the Macedonian Wars were united with the Macedonians, shows their bitter anomisity and the fact that they cooperated with the Roman to bring down Macedonia. This area which you describe wasn’t united under one kingdom or League.

Or do we take the idea that no matter how much the Greek language exist in this region, that Hellenism grew from non-Hellenic people that put forth Hellenism before their true identities.

Hmm, i find it an interesting notion. Who should the Greeks commend the most for spreading Hellenism on a world scale? The Macedonians for expansion, the Romans for preservance and the British for rediscovering.

 

[sydhe]

companiero: Was the major move of the Slavs into the southern Balkans after the assassination of Maurice in 602?

 

[Greek Stud]

Hmm.. the Macedonians are Greek so, they fought on the lines and won all their victories.

Romans didnt preserve Greek or Hellenism, they choose not to garrison Praetorians and Legions in Hellenic lands because the gave our kingdoms autonomy. The Late Roman period or Byzantine period is a measure when Greek political influence controlled the remaining empire. So I dont see where Romans influenced preservation, the Greeks preserved themselves as a separate culture from Romans as we are so closely related.

The British discovered Greece? Do you know anything of the Fanar and the Renaissance? Greeks in the Ottoman Empire persuaded the West that the Hellenistic world and lifestyle was the elitest way of life. In Italy, Greek scholars influenced important philosophers and started the Renaissance, or a return to Greek lifestyle. And in Ottoman times, the Greek of the Fanar, or the lighthouse, controlled the Royal change in Maldavia (today Moldova), then lead to the Keiving conversion into Orthodoxy which caused all Rus peoples to follow. Look at Maldavian history and Ukraining or Keiving Rus history. It was the Greek elites at the Fanar that caused this. And as for the British supplying us with arms for the founding of Modern Greece, it was done first by Russia in Macedonia. The first Greek revolution against the Turks was in Macedonia, and the second in Petra, which we were pursuaded by Britain, France and the United States. I'm not sure what relavence your comment has as seeing that Hellenism is an idealism that is global and worthy of aspiring to culturally adapt. Are you suggesting that Hellenism is not Greek? Of course you are, because you still believe Macedonians are not Greek, but lived nexted to Greece and was always separate from Greeks, but the Latin cultures have no problem saying that what they acheived was because of the Greeks. Because they recognize the truth. They give credit from where it came.

How can so many people belive that Italians are Greek and Greeks are Italian, yet suddenly a Slavic nation, which we all know the Slavic culture is new to Europe, is more related to an Ancient culture than the Ancient Greeks. Yes you are correct, this new age culture of half SLavs half Bulgarians are more closely related to the Ancient Macedonians than the Ancient Greeks, in which we can still speak Ancient Greek and teach it in Greek schools 4 days a week. I tip my hat to the Slavs who we Greeks manipulated, and I will ignore the fact that the rest of East Europe is Slavic and that I guess Macedonia now integrated to East Europe, I dont know, make up a story for that too. This is dumb.

I read a briefing on the Macedonian-Greek negotiations, yet Companiero can quote two points as being false. As if suddenly those points were not brought up in the briefing? Ok, Companiero, you are noblely not refering to the Ancient Macedonians when you say you are Macedonian, yet you will bring arguments to your case that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greek, and you will argue that Ancient Macedonian symbols should be included in your NEW nation...

I am so happy that you said the Macedonian Empire is a coined name!!! Because FYROM is the ones instigating this term to the US State Department about the Ancient Hellenic Empires. On the State Department's website, FYROM has requested that any reference to the past of the regionally history of Alexander's conquests be called the Macedonian Empire. So thank you, in this case you support the fact that you government is coining new ideas, such as Macedonians are one ethnicity, with a secret language and understood that Hellenism was separate from them. The truth is that it was not separate. The Leagues you describe as being divided, is the main arguement to federal governments. Each League functioned as a State of a Federation with-in the European Empire of the Hellenic World. And even though the Empire was divided in Civil Wars, it did not mean they were not one Empire. The Leagues cooperated as one Empire, but fought wars for autonomous powers, for Empirical powers, and for regional power. The Aeotolian Greeks no much trusted the Macedonian Greeks and they trusted the Corinthian Greeks or the Spartan Greeks. Doric regions were seen as far more barbarous than the Macedonians. So saying that the statements that Macedonian Greeks were not Hellenic does not stand up if you believe the Spartans are Hellenic. And the Phil-Hellene argument does not make since. I am a Phil-Hellene and can join any program that supports Phil-Hellenic Issues as I am Hellenic. Phil-Hellenism began by Greeks in Italy and started the Renaissance, and just because you have a view that these are separate does not mean that they did not function any different than how they truley functioned. The Renaissance was persued by Greeks to have a cultural revolution. Another example is the Black Power Movement. Cultural revolutions occur from within.

The Illyrians and Celts have a differrent history than Macedonia. Celts have merged with all European cultures. Mycenaen villages are identitical to Celtic villages. So Greeks have borrowed Celtic characteristics. So Greeks could be Celtic in origin. Illyrians are obviously Latin in origin, and Greeks and Illyrians have much exposure to each other. In fact most recordings show the groups as enemies, so of course dramatic cultural influences didnt occure until the Greek Byzantine Empire enthrowned Illyrian Emperors. And now, Illyrians have transparently vanished. No event can mark their last day, yet they werent massacred, unless by the Turks.

And you keep arguing the fact that Slavic names drapped the Macedonic region, yet so have Latin names? and Spanish names? and Turkish names? Yet the name Thessaloniki is still the origin of the name of the woman the city was name after. Translate the name Mary into as many languages as you want, the root of the name will always remain at its root.