Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they?

[Companiero]

Ancient Macedonians​

Was Alexander the Great Greek? Well, most scholars that have been lively in contact with the heritage of Alexander and his Empire would deny that fact. They are explicit on the view that Alexander was Ancient Macedonian (the adjective ancient being added to make a distinction with present-day Macedonians, that are mainly Slavic).
Ancient Macedonia consisted of present-day Aegean Macedonia (part of the Greek Macedonia), the southern part of present-day Republic of Macedonia, and a small portion of the Bulgarian part of Macedonia. This means that historical Macedonia is another term, and Republic Macedonia is also another term. Completely confusing, I know, but just continue reading without prejudices and will get to the point where I'll make the distinction between all of them. However, the largest part of the territory of Ancient Macedonia is in fact the Greek part of Macedonia. This is all, strictly geographically speaking.

Ancient Macedonia

Macedonians came to prominence as a key-player in the Balkans somewhere around the 7-6th century BC with the establishment and strengthening of the Macedonian Kingdom (it's first ruler being Perdicas I). He and the long line of his successors, menaged to strengthen and expand the kingdom to the neighbouring lands of the various Balkan tribes (Ilirians, Thracians, Dardanians, Paionians, Greeks etc.)
When talking about the ethnic origin of Macedonians, one has to know that Macedonians didn't have a written language of their own and most of what we know comes from the Greek sources that were written by Greek historians. From archeological evidence, we can say that there are many artifacts from the Archaic period of the Ancient Macedonians (from the end of prehistory to the contact with the Persians) that connect them to the other Balkan peoples, and very little to the Greeks. In addition it is considered that Macedonians' origin can be traced to the Brigian tribe (an Indo-European people that could have migrated from Asia Minor), just like the origin of other Balkan tribes, but the Greeks.
If one also looks in the religion of the Macedonians as reference there are also facts that undoubtly show their distinctivness from the Greeks. (the spelling is probably false ) Their supreme god was Dion (renamed =Zeus) and was considered the father of the mythological predecessor of all Macedonians - Macedon; Athria (=Athena) was the goddess of the light and the mother of Macedon; Zyrene was an equivallent of the Asian goddess Cybelle whose cult was inherited from the Brigians; then we have Arethos (=Heracles) Patriosos (meaning "native"); the goddess Ma (solar and war nature); Vedi, the life-giving air, Bacchus (=Dyonisus) and many others, whose name escapes me. The common thing for all of these is that they have much in common with the dieties of the other surrounding Balkan tribes, but not the Greeks, as they all have a common origin, the Brigians. However, due to the fact that written source is scarce, the information that we have comes from Greek writings that always changed the name of the dieties to the one they most closely resemble in the Greek mythology. Still, some writings have been preserved in the original names.
The same can be said about the language. Ancient Macedonian language was spoken, but never written. Today there are only about 100 words ("glossae") from that old language from some stone engravings (with the Greek alphabet of course), and scientists still work on their encryption. Most have little in common with the Greek language however.
Another ethnographic element would be the customs and symbols which were many and unique. You already know the Sun with sexteen rays of Vergina that used to be on Macedonian army shields, then the lion as the symbol of royal power (did you know lions existed in the Balkans that time?), the custom of confesion, the custom when the army would cleanse itself by passing between the two halves of a cut dog (ick! I know ), eating while lying a privillage you get by killing a bear (how rude!) and others. Also, distinctive elements of the Macedonian society point out the distinctiveness of the Ancient Macedonians, such as the constitutional monarchy (term? the king didn't have to be bloodly related to his predecessor) as a governing form, a distinct chalender, coins (starting from Alexander I), their own Olympic Games organized in Dion (a Macedonian city) when they were forbidden to participate etc.

All in all, one is basically right when they say Ancient Macedonians were a "barbarian" tribe, that had little in common with the Greeks.
Macedonians were not really allowed in the Olympic Games. There was a case when the Macedonian King Alexander I, wasn't allowed to participate, but he proved his lineage to the city of Argos Orestikos (a Greek city in Macedonia), and in the end he was allowed to participate (because after all he was the king) and won. And hence, why there were Games organized in Dion by Macedonians.
Alexander I was also known as Alexander I Phillhellen (meaning "loves Greeks"). If he was considered a Greek, they wouldn't have called him Greek-loving, don't you think? He ruled in a time of great hellenization of Macedonian culture (more in the following paragraph).
All this said so far, is absolutely true about the Archaic period of Macedonian history (up until the Greek-Persian War, V century BC), after which the Classic and Hellenistic periods took place.

With the increasing contact with the Greek colonies on the Macedonian coast and the strong, amazing and influental Greek culture (which I personally admire btw), came the more and more massive hellenization (becoming Greek) of the authentic Macedonian culture. Greece was a centre of the world at the time and it's understandibly enough why the Macedonian Kings wanted to mingle in Greek affairs. As much as the Macedonian Kings conquered many of the neighbouring Balkan tribes, they could never truly call themselves superior without conquering the Greek city-states too. They became increasingly dependant on Greek well-manufactured imported goods, culture and recognition. The Macedonian Kings transfered the capital from the mountainious city of Aegaea to the more coastal Pela. They also brought famous Greek thinkers to the court, the most notable being Aristotle, brought by Phillip II to tutor his son Alexander (later the Great). Alexander's most beloved book was Homer's classic "Illiad". All Macedonian aristocracy could speak Greek, and probably the commoners too. The Greek language introduced new words for many things the poorly-educated and technologically backwarded Macedonians didn't have names. Even the names of the dieties became Hellenized, just as it happened with the dieties of the other Balakn people. This is the time when temples and other Greek-exlusive culture marks began to take hold in Macedonia. Before (during the Archaic period) there was no such culture or Greek architecture in Macedoania. The Classical period is the epoch from which the biggest amount of sources comes from, and that's why it was long ago thought that Macedonians were Greeks, i.e. of Dorian or Achaean origin. (In fact it's a matter of policy as well as misinterpretation)
An evidence of the Greek resentment towards Macedonian rule is the hatred with which Athenian statesmen spoke of Phillip and his intentions to conquer /unite (as pro-Macedonian parties in the Athenian assembly spoke) Greece, in order to fight against Persia. Demosthenes was the most prominent anti-Macedonian and Philip II hater and one of his most famous work is the Philipics, a series of speeches aimed to attack Phillip and his policy as well as nationality and personality. In one of his speeches he says: "The Macedonian King has nothing in common with Hellada (Greece), nor with her culture. He is barbaros (meaning "alien, non Greek"), despot and tyrant that won't save Greece." He organized an alliance against Philip, but that didn't save the Athenians, because with the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) all city-states, but Sparta fell under Macedonian rule. The following year, Greece was united under the patronship of Macedonia and Philip declared war on Persia. However, soon he was killed by some Macedonian aristocrats, and Alexander was appointed king by the army. After he consolidated his position, both interanal with the generals, with the naighbouring Balkan tribes and the Greek city-states as well, he set to conquer Persia itself, and soon thereafter the world. And then is blah, blah, blah... you know the rest.
(It should also be noted that when Philip was killed the Athenians were overjoyed. They offered a sacrifice to Athena and praised the men who killed him.)

The next period is the Hellenistic period (from the death of Alexander, 323 BC, to the coming of the Romans). This wasn't a uniquely Macedonian period, but a global one. It was characterized with mixing the Greek culture (and to a small extent the hellenized Macedonian culture) with the Middle Eastern cultures. A new culture was created, called Hellenistic, with a strong Greek cultural and linguistic influence. It was then when many MIddle Eastern cults spread to Greece and Macedonia and were in a way re-introduced in Macedonia, who had already much forgotten her Brigian origins. However, this was not a rediscovering of some kind, but an introduction to a whole new culture - the Hellenistic. By this time, art and crafts were widespread in Macedonia, and they were largly influenced by the Hellinistic Age, just as in other parts of Alexander's Empire.
Still, the Macedonians in Alexander's army remained truthful to their mother language, and it can often be heard from ancient sources that often the Macedonian generals used Macedonian in their internal communication, as well as that Alexandar often spoke Macedonian when he lost his temper. This undoubtedly prooving that Macedonian was not the same language as Greek, since it was so obvious to make a distinction and seperation between the two.
The Hellenistic period historically was characterised by the wars of the Diodochs (the Seleucids, Ptolemids, Cassandrids, Antigonids, Lysimachids, Bactrians, Atropatinids, etc.); Carthage; the emergence of Rome, Kushan and Parthia; and the last stand of the ancient Greeks (the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues struggle to remain free of Rome and the Diodochs.
The Diodochs were the Macedonian generals from Alexander's army and powerful members of the Macedonian aristocracy. They all wanted to take Alexander's place, but instead they only menaged to seperate the empire into seperate pieces. The most important were Egypt (ruled by the Ptolomeids; that would mean Cleopatra was Macedonian), Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor all ruled by the Seleucids, and the region of Macedonia and Greece ruled by the Antigonids.
Needless to say, instead of being grateful for all that Alexander did for their culture, the Greeks were happy when Alexander died and they immediately rebelled against the Macedonian rule (more precisely Antipater, the chief general of Alexander; not an Antigonid, that dinasty was formed later.). The ensuing Lamian War (a liberation war for the united greek city-states) ended with them being defeated. However, later things got messy and they gained their independence. Their following leages and alliances were aimed against the Macedonian kings, and in this respect did the two leages (Achaean and Aetolian) functioned, i.e. allied with Rome to fight the Macedonians. But the Roman moto: "Divide et impera." prooved itself one more time, and they were soon conquered by the Roman army as well as Macedonia. The last Macedonian King to fight the Romans in the Roman-Macedonian Wars (3-2rd century BC) was Philip V and after that Macedonia was turned into a Roman province.

That was all on Ancient history. No politics in here. From all this we can conclude that Alexander's origin is debatable to the very least (and most facts obviously point to him being non-Greek).
However, the latter part is a terrible mess and it would be hard for me to explain it without writing a whole novel, so I'll try and add only the info necessary for you to understand the general idea.

 

[Companiero]

Present-day Macedonians​

The Slavs settled on the Balkan c. 6-7 century AD, and when they came they found a largely romanized population. The question is what happened then with the Ancient Macedonians. They already lived on the land when the Slavic tribes arrived, and it's true that they were very hostile to the natives. The Slavs pillaged the countryside, but were much more peaceful than the other barbaric tribes of the age. They settled in the area (which was then already Byzantia), formed new places to live or slavicized the old. The entire area of Macedonia was populated by various Slavic tribes. They layed a siege to the city of Thessaliniki, and although they never conquered it, the city was entirely slavicized by the 9th century. Its Slavic name being Solun. The Ancient Romanized Macedonian population might have been exterminated, moved someplace else, or assimilated by the newcomers. Or probably all three happened.
The area was restored to Byzantian control soon thereafter, then fell to several Slavic Kings' rule, and finally to the Turks.
The Turks assigned new meaning to the term Macedonia. They made it to be a Turkish province consisting of present-day Greek province of Macedonia (50%), and the other half encompassing the whole territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia and a small part of Bulgaria. This is the hitorical territory of Macedonia.
The important thing to know is that in the XVIII and XIX century prior to the Balkan Wars, the population of Macedonia, was more or less multiethnic, but with Slavs consisting a great majority of the area. Limited to the Greek province of Macedonia solely, the Slavs, according to relevant indicators, composed more than 60% of the population, the rest of it being Greeks, Turks, Armenaians, Jews, Vlachs and others. The territory of present-day Macedonia and the Bulgarian part of Macedonia was populated by Slavic-speaking people with a precentage as high as 90%.
Back to the Greek part of Macedonia, the names of most geographical places were purely Slavic. The villiges were almost exclusively Slavic, with the cities being more multicultural. How is then possible that today Greece claims a whole 1% of non-Greeks?! And they are named non-Greeks because the census doesn't provide them with the opportunity to declare their nationality. I'll tell you how that's possible, but a bit later. Just to keep you interested.

Historical Macedonia (the part that remained under Ottoman control)

The Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was terribly weakened both internaly (the various people under its rule) and externally (was known as the sick man of Europe at the time). Nationalist movements started to emerge and Turkey had to make concessions in order to give each a greater authonomy. Most got their independance at the Congress of Berlin (1878), with Greece as the only exception (1830). The area and peoples that remained under Ottoman rule were Macedonia (with the Slavs as the majority) and Albania. The Slavs that inhabited Macedonia were slower than the other more powerful neighbours in their emergance of the nationalist self-awarenenss. There were intellectuals at the time that expressed their views of authonomy for Macedonia as a distinct region, and there was an organization that openly fought for this - VMRO (Internal Revolutionary Macedonian Organization) which was founded in 1893, which was much belated compared to the already established and powerful neighbours. Each of these neighbours (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria) had extreme nationalist governments in power and they all launched vigorous propaganda in Macedonia (in spite of it still being under Turkey) in order to indoctrinize the local (Slavic) Macedonian population with awakening Macedonian identity. They all claimed that the Macedonians in the historical region of Macedonia are Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks respectively. The Serb and Bulgarian propaganda was gravior than the Greek (performed through the Orthodox church), because these two were after all Slavic people and had more in common with Macedonians than the Greeks. The Bulgarian propaganda even infiltrated the ranks of VMRO, the only Macedonian organization fighting for authonomy. It was a period of spies, intelligence and assassinations for many notable Macedonian revolutionarues. Many were killed and soon the organization was overtaken by the Bulgarian authorities (those people who worked for them: such as Todor Alexandrov and Vanco Mihailov). The Bulgarian propaganda almost totally destroyed the Macedonian liberation movement during one period, with its inteligentsia either being shot or indoctrinated.
However, there were some very notalbe intellectials in the period, that continuasly struggled for Macedonian independance and for the cause that claimed that Macedonians (the Slavic people living on the territory of Macedonia) are a seperate nation, with seperate history (I didn't remarked on Middle Age history at all; it's already big enough, but I can only say that it confirms the trend of distinct historical developement of the territory of Macedonia), language, culture and geographical wholeness. Unfortunately, the population was mostly rural and they didn't seem affected on large scale by either of the causes. However, the important battle to be won was on the behalf of intellectuals. Those who would have won there, would have the opportunity to lead the uneducated.
The tensions errupted in the First Balkan War (1912-1913) when the alliance of the four Balkan states (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro) declared war on Turkey, with the excuse they want to "liberate" Macedonia. They won the war, but right after that, a Second Balkan War errupted because the winners couldn't agree on how to share the spoils of war, i.e. Macedonia. After the Second Balkan War they signed the Bucharest Treaty (1913), without any participation of representatives from Macedonia, to divide Macedonia territorialy according to their own interests. That's how the present borders of Macedonia were formed and the homogenity of Macedonia destroyed. The presnt-day Rep. Macedonia being in fact only the Serbian part of the true Macedonia at the time.

Division of Macedonia with the Balkan Wars (Among Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria and a tiny fraction to Albania)

Now, what did the conquerors do with the prize from the war? Needless to say, they immediately initiated campaigns with which they would assimilate the local Macedonian population. After WW1, Greece signed contracts with Bulgaria and Turkey for "voluneerly" transfering of poeple between the countries. With the Ney Agreement, around 90,000 Macedonians were forcely removed from Greece to Bulgaria, where they became subjects of Bulgarian propaganda, or Serbia. Also 350,000 mulims (icluding Turks mostly, but also Macedonian muslims, Albanians) were deported to Turkey, and in their place around 1,160,000 Greeks from Asia Minor were colonized in Macedonia. Also, Greeks from other parts of Greece colonized Macedonia (about 53,000). In Serbia too, Serbs (c. 100,000) were being given free land in order to populate Macedonia. In all parts of Macedonia an aggressive assimilatory policy was implemented. Schools, laws, papers, religion, all was in favor of this propaganda. The surnames of the people were changed from the traditional Macedonian "-ski" ending to the Serbian "-ic", Bulgarian "-ov" and Greek "-is" (and Greeks changed the names too; my grandad was renamed from Iovan to Ianis, and my granmom from Milka to Agapi). In Greece, the names of the geographical locations were changed from Slavic to Greek, and Macedonian language was even forbidden to speak in homes. There were people cruising the coutryside and whoever was cought speaking Greek, was given to drink ritsinus (an ugly-tasting oil that casues illness). The opression was especially fierce during the time of Ioanis Metaxas, a right-wing dictator supported from USA and UK. All these events, dramatically changed the ethnical composition of the Greek part of Macedonia, as well as the other parts.
In these dark times, the Macedonian intellectuals turned to Communism as the only viable movement that could bring a change. Almost all intellectuals supporting the cause for independent and now united Macedonia were either Socialists or Communists. The Communist Parties of both Serbia (now Yugoslavia), Greece and Bulgaria at first had reserves to this question, but later they all admitted the existance of Macedonians as a seperate nation, and the fact that they should enjoy the rights to freely practice their culture and religion and use their language. However, to what extent they were prepared to realize this promises is debatable, cos there's the possibility that they only supported the Macedonian cause in order to put the Macedonians in the party's ranks to fight for the revolution. Only the Yugoslav Communist Party approved Macedonians the right for a seperate state as a constituational state of federal Yugoslavia (1944, after WW2), which they earned themselves thanks to the Communist anti-fascist movement and the Communist Party of Macedonia, founded 1943, that rose from the ranks of CPY. The Greek Communist Party lost the Civil War (lead after WW2), to Metaxas (supported by USA and UK) and with that the terror done upon the Macedonians was enourmous. Many emigrated (again!). In fact I personally am half from the Greek part of Macedonia (from my mother's side; her parents emigrated to USSR first and then came to Yugoslavia). Those who stayed in Greece are either not aware that their parents were Macedonians and they can speak only Greek (i.e. assimilated), even some Macedonian, or are too afraid to openly declare their nationality because of discrimination. It is a sad thing to see indeed how the cradle of democracy, Greece, is an ugly face to its glorious tradition. Greece is often criticized from the European institutions (European Council for e.g.) for presevnace of minorities and human rights groups, but she's a member of the EU after all, and the Macedonian government isn't powerful enough diplomatically, so these people still can't declare their nationality openly. Only this year they were allowed to form a party, but after very strong resistance was displayed in the media. Also the Macedonian refugees from Greece are not allowed to claim their abandoned possessions from the Civil War. The Greek official data claim that only 1% of non-Greeks live in Greece (Turks and Albanians are also discriminated). All this assimilationist and emigration policy brought Greek Macedonia to the point where there are roughly about 100,000 Macedonians presently in Greece, but this data is only a guess, since they are not allowed to state their national identity. How else could one explain the fact that there is not a single Greek villige in Rep. of Macedonia, and neighbouring Greece officially has 99% Greeks?
In Bulgaria, after Tito (the Yugoslav Communist leader) seperated from Stalin, the Bulgarian Communist Party (under Soviet influence) continued to press the negatory policy and to assimilate Macedonians there too. There was a brief period in Bulgaria, (right after WW2) under Georgi Dimitrov, who granted Macedonians the rights for self-determance, but he was progressive and wasn't favored by the conservative parts of Bulgarian communist hierarchy. After his rule, Macedonians were again hunted. Today, there are still Macedonians in Bulgaria that declare they're Macedonians (the government denies it), but the consequences of two centuries long propaganda were disastrious.
Only the part of Macedonia conquered by Serbia, that the Serbs recognized as seperate entity (not Southern Serbia, as was and is still spoken by Serb nationalists), menaged to become an independent country, thanks to the progressve Communists of the time.

 

[Companiero]

The Political perspective​

Presently, there are serious disagreements about the name of Rep. of Macedonia caused by Greece. They object Macedonia using the name that the Macedonian people have used to name themselves. Instead, currently Macedonia is officially recognized as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the UN. Greece had put an economic embargo on Macedonia right after its independence from Yugoslavia (1991) and we were simply forced to accept the ultimatum avout the name. There are undergoing negotiations. And why is this so important for Macedonia and Macedonians?
This might be an odd concept for you to grasp, but as you saw from what was said, could you not see how crucial was the national identity and its affirmation in all conquered parts of Macedonia and how it reflected to the destiny of the people who lived there? By questioning the name of our country (from Greeks), the identity of our people (Bulgarians), even our church (from Serbia), our national identity and country are seriously at stake. You see what foreign prpagandas did to the Macedonians that lived in Greece and Bulgaria. Greece must understand how crucial is our name for us, for if our existance as a nation is brought into question, it will be very easy for our neighbours to destroy Macedonia once and for all. Thank God (and the International Community) they didn't intervened (and probably never will, but who knows?) during the conflict we had here along ethnic lines (with the Albanians). Macedonia, although historically disabled, has none whatsoever territorial pretensions toward Greece (as they claimed they feared) or Bulgaria or any other neighbour. We never have, never will have. We only want Greece to show some more sense for the historical moment that we live in and give us the right to call ourselves by our own name.

The connection between the Ancient Macedonians and present-day (Slavic) Macedonans​

The point to which the Ancient Macedonians were assimilated by the Slavic tribes that settled in the area is unclear. One thing is clear, present-day Macedonians have very little in common culturaly and linguistically with Ancient Macedonians. (some accounts of customs and few words, but nothing serious) Genetically, who knows?
Whether or not Ancient Macedonians have something in common with the present-day Greeks is also unlikely, but one thing is for sure, they are not Greeks. They never were, so they can't be. Also, the fact that present-day Greeks have also accepted other influences (notably from Slavs, since Slavic tribes in 7 century settled all the way to Peloponez) drives them away from cultural connection with Ancient Greeks and even further from Ancient Macedonians. But you could say that minor Slavic genes were assimilated in the Greek nation, while the Ancient Macedonians were assimilated in the Slavic tribes. At the present day, I cannot say (nor anyone can) whether Greeks or Macedonians have more in common with Ancient Macedonians. But they are not either of those two. We only borrowed the name, and the Greeks conquered their territory (from us). Their culture and genes were lost somewhere in the long hitory of the turbulent Balkan lands.
However, there have been some researches recently that lead us to Afghanistan, where there is one culturally hermetically closed and distinct tribe from those around them. They have blue eyes (an alien thing for the local population there) and are thought to be the reminants of the Macedonians in Alexander army who settled in the area. Linguistical scientists say they have a grammatical system that has a lot in common with the Macedonian language (the translation from their language to Macedonian has an almost natural flow), some words indicate a Balkan origin, their music shares elements with the Macedonian music (the richest music tradition on the Blakans ) and many toponymes have similar names to ancient Balkan ones (it is thought that they got nostalgic in the steppes of Afghanistan and they started to rename the place so that it reminded more of home). However these cultures are not still explored and studied enough, so a lot of time may pass before we know a glimpse of the truth.

 

[mrtn]

A great read!

 

[aaminion00]

I haven't read it all but it seems a very interesting read and I'll make sure to get to it. One question though: is Theasolinka part of Historical Macedonia.

 

[Vrylakas]

Companiero, this is one of the best synapses of Macedonian history I've seen anywhere. Excellent job, and great English skills for a non-native speaker!

There is a snide belief in Eastern Europe that developed around the late 19th century (and still persists today) of "historical nations". This belief essentially says that only those nations who have spent a substantial portion of their history as independent (or at least semi-independent like Bohemia) states can really make successful countries today. This then means that modern peoples who have rarely or never had their own state - the Slovenes, Slovaks, Macedonians, Ukrainians, etc. - are really just waiting to be taken over by a more "responsible" and established state. Poles today for instance support Ukraine vigorously not because we like the Ukrainians but because we want somebody between us and the Russians. Poles still condescendingly look at the Ukrainian state as a rinky-dink peasant mafia, dependant on outside (i.e., Polish and Western) help.

This is very unfortunate because it is an extension of the beliefs many Western Europeans have about all of us in Eastern Europe: that we can't build a proper state, that our current independence may just be fleeting, and most damagingly that our current states lack legitimacy. Western Europeans have no idea what it's like to have other peoples and states doubt the very right of your country to exist. In World War II Hitler for the most part retained Western European countries in their current form but in Eastern Europe he completely obliterated the states in his way and ultimately tried to eliminate a few peoples as well. We - our histories, our struggles and our cultures - were expendible.

Welcome aboard, Companiero!

 

[NeoDemocrat]

Those Crazy Greeks

So in the end you all want to simply be called "Macedon(ia)"?

 

[Sir Og]

First of all I want to state again that I respect the desire of people in present day Macedonia to define themselves as Macedonians and not Bulgarians or any other nationality.

I also want to make some comments on what you wrote.

Firs of all I appreciate that you haven't made any of the rediculous claims that present day Macedonians are somehow direct descendents of Alexander's Macedonians or that some Bulgarian tsars were Macedonian.

You mention the Congress of Berlin but you did not mention that the reason for assembling it was the war between Turkey (not using Ottoman Empire because Turkey is shorter) and Russia that ended with the treaty of San Stefano from 1878. As you know according to that treaty the newly formed Bulgaria had most of Macedonia in its borders. The treaty did not just give all the lands that Turkye lost to Bulgaria. Mostly Greek teritories went to Greece, some teritories went to Serbia and what is present day Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Thrace had to be the teritory of the new Bulgarian state. If Macedonians are different than Bulgarians than why did they place them in one country instead of creating Macedonian and Bulgarian state.

You also mention VMRO. AFIK it has always been an organisation fighting for the liberation of Macedonia and reunification with Bulgaria "where it belongs". You however are saying that it was originaly an organisation that fought for an independent Macedonian state but Bulgarian propaganda managed to somehow turn it into an organisation that wanted to join Macedonia with Bulgaria. It only makes sence to support the fight of the Macedonians if you belive that they are your Bulgarian brothers, otherwise it would have been better to use this "powerfull Bulgarian propaganda machine" to infiltrate some other country . Unfortunatly you are correct that there was a time when the Bulgarian government betrayed the Macedonian cause.

It is interesting that you mention the census in Greece. Last time I checked the Macedonian governments are not any better with respect to giving the opportunity of people in Macedonia to declare themselves Bulgarians. At the same time the number of requests for Bulgarian citizenship from Macedonians is dramaticaly increasing every year. So there must be some Bulgarians in Macedonia after all .

In conclusion I can say that I live in southern Bulgaria in Stara Zagora and I don't think that the people in Macedonia are any differen from the people in northern Bulgaria for example. Thay are also slavs, speak the same language and we share the same history. I know that all slavic languages are simmilar but I strugle with understanding Serbo-Croatian (the closest of the slavic languages to Bulgarian) while I have no problems with the language that Macedonians speak. I think that the main differences are due to 50 years of being part of Yugoslavia.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

SO you think teh two should be one country or just that they don't really have a distinct culture

 

[Sir Og]

I think that they should be one country and that Macedonians are basicaly Bulgarians.
Although most of them don't agree with me .

 

[NeoDemocrat]

It's a shame when two countries or regions which are so closely linked are split apart

*cough* Ireland and Northern Ireland *cough*

 

[Companiero]

One question though: is Theasolinka part of Historical Macedonia.

Yes. You can see it on the map just west of Khalkidic Peninsula (the three-fingered hand)

Companiero, this is one of the best synapses of Macedonian history I've seen anywhere. Excellent job, and great English skills for a non-native speaker!

Thanks for your compliments (though i know you are exaggerating). I gave my best to be objective and cover all the different points of view, even those that I don't agree with.
But, this wasn't much about Macedonian history. It was about the relation between modern Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians, and I included only the part necessary to explain it. I skipped entire sections and didn't concentrate on the Bulgarian and Serbian connections as much as I would have in a normal article about Macedonian history.

Firs of all I appreciate that you haven't made any of the rediculous claims that present day Macedonians are somehow direct descendents of Alexander's Macedonians or that some Bulgarian tsars were Macedonian.

I suppose you mean about tsar Samuel here. I didn't mention him only because I left the medieval history out. But, all I can say about him is that he was a Slavic ruler, not Bulgarian, since there were no Bulgarians at the time (10th century). Having in mind the area he originated from and the way he became tsar, he is considered a Macedonian ancestor, just as your tsars are considered Bulgarian ancestors.

[with the San Stefano treaty] Mostly Greek teritories went to Greece, some teritories went to Serbia and what is present day Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Thrace had to be the teritory of the new Bulgarian state. If Macedonians are different than Bulgarians than why did they place them in one country instead of creating Macedonian and Bulgarian state.

Is that really your dilemma? Do you think that Macedonians had any say in the negotiations that took place in San Stefano? The San Stefano treaty was effectualized by Russia, and you know who was Russia's biggest ally in the Russo-Turkish Wars. Bulgaria. Like big powers ever cared about what smaller nations wanted. To illustrate the atmosphere how Macedonia's neighbours felt about the notion for her authonomy and independence, I can offer you these quotes:
"Bulgaria's whole future depends on Macedonia, without her our State will be without importance or authority. Solun (Salonika) must be the main port of this State, the grand window to illuminate the entire building. If Macedonia does not belong to us, Bulgaria will never be firmly based".
"Macedonia is the lung of Greece, without it the rest of Greece would be condemned to death. For Greece to become a greater power she must expand into Macedonia."
"We (Serbia) are ready to enter into any combination if necessary in order to prevent the Macedonian Question being settled in any way that harms our vital interests, without which Serbia cannot survive".
LOL. I have nothing more to say..

AFIK it has always been an organisation fighting for the liberation of Macedonia and reunification with Bulgaria "where it belongs". You however are saying that it was originaly an organisation that fought for an independent Macedonian state but Bulgarian propaganda managed to somehow turn it into an organisation that wanted to join Macedonia with Bulgaria.

I don't know how much details you are familiar with concerning IMRO (International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization), but I can tell not much.
IMRO developed two fractions, one that was supported by the Bulgarian government and that fought for unification with Bulgaria, and the other that fought for authonomy and liberation of Macedonia without outside "help" (not even from Bulgaria). The members of the latter were assassinated and killed. Is that how the Bulgarians dealt with their "brothers"?

It only makes sence to support the fight of the Macedonians if you belive that they are your Bulgarian brothers, otherwise it would have been better to use this "powerfull Bulgarian propaganda machine" to infiltrate some other country .

What other country? Macedonia was the only one without national government and prone to foreign propaganda. If you can't see the sense in conquering a historically and strategically (maybe even economically ) important territory, then I can't tell you more, can I?

It is interesting that you mention the census in Greece. Last time I checked the Macedonian governments are not any better with respect to giving the opportunity of people in Macedonia to declare themselves Bulgarians. At the same time the number of requests for Bulgarian citizenship from Macedonians is dramaticaly increasing every year.

First, let me inform you that the reason why Macedonians apply for Bulgarian citizenship is because of the travel difficulties they have, while recently Bulgaria was released from some of the Visa restrictions. I have friends that did that and to tell you the truth, theyprefer to sacrifice the national pride and be pragmatic about it. We are only lucky that the Bulgrians are buying it and are thrilled to respond to these peoples' requestes (in fact all it takes is one signature that you feel yourself like a Bulgarian and you get your new passport right away).
Second, I can ensure you that Macedonia has the most liberal laws concerning minorities on the Balkans and even in Europe from the single-nation states. Anyone can declare Bulgarian if they want, the problem is there are almost no people feeling Bulgarian here.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about your country. It is there that Macedonians are not allowed to voice their identity (and in a census right after WW2, there were 250,000 people that declared themelves as Macedonians), are put to pressure and discrimination for doing so, and as you know (or don't maybe) Bulgaria has been criticized for those actions by the European Council. The same would go for the Turkish minority living there.

Thay are also slavs, speak the same language and we share the same history. I know that all slavic languages are simmilar but I strugle with understanding Serbo-Croatian (the closest of the slavic languages to Bulgarian) while I have no problems with the language that Macedonians speak. I think that the main differences are due to 50 years of being part of Yugoslavia.

Ummm, no. 50 years under Yugoslavia had their role mainly in the establishment of gevernment institutions, infrastructure, economy etc. You can't build an entire culture in 50 years. We don't speak the same language. I personally and other Macedonians have more trouble understanding Bulgarian than Serbian (although grammatically Bulgarian is closer to Macedonian). They are similar, like all South Slavic languages, but I ensure you that a man from Ohrid (Southwestern Macedonia) won't be able to understand a man from say Varna (Eastern Bulgaria) without much effort. I've been to Bulgaria and many Bulgarians had real troubles understanding me, so I had to repeat or translate several times. I'm not much into linguistic science, so I can't talk much about cases, tenses, articles or so, but the factual situation is as I stated. However, my position is that all over the Blakans the cultural differences were regional, and they became national just after the formation of the nation-states. But still, Macedonian music has a distinctive spirit (and you should know that; it's often played in Bulgaria ), same for the general differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian customs etc.
And also histrory. Starting from ancient history and going up until the present, the region of Macedonia had a very different history than that of Bulgaria. True, there were period when they shared the same destiny, but it was in accordance with all the other Balkan people (i.e. Roman, Byzantian, Turkish dominance). The region of Macedonia had a common history (as distinct from the other neighbouring regions) until the Balkan Wars, when it splitted in three divergent ways. And that (the distinct history), my friend, is why a Macedonian national identity developed in the first place. Internally, spontaneously, without outside interference.

I think that they should be one country and that Macedonians are basicaly Bulgarians.

I'm sorry to see that Bulgarian nationalism and chauvinism are still live and kicking, in spite of the reality we now live in.

Regards.

 

[Companiero]

It's a shame when two countries or regions which are so closely linked are split apart
*cough* Ireland and Northern Ireland *cough*

I'm afraid that comparisson is highly inappropriate, due to the distinct cultural and historical conditions in Ireland and the Balkans.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

Well obviously, I was just bringing up a point that at times two countries who are "brothers" refuse to be with eachother over barely differing religions or (seemingly for you all) languages

 

[Alone]

VMRO was ALWAYS Bulgarian nationalistic organisation! FACT
What does it mean Macedonian family name traditionaly - ski ending. (and Bulgarian -ov and Serbian -ic) So Darko Pancev, Kiro Gligorov are Bulgarians. I know so many Serbs with ski and ov ending names not to menton Tesla or simular examples. Rubish (sorry to say).
Your way of looking is in many parts ferry tail that you would like to be. Most of your text is true, but you attentionally (or by mistake) missed some important part of the history of region.
If Vrylakas or others bite your story you can fool me.
..some assasination.. You mean killing the king Aleksandar Karadjodjevic..
Were are the parts of XIII century when macedonia with Kosovo was the centar of most powerfull Serbian midages state with capitol in Skoplje.(before that was only Bulgarian and Byzantin teritory) Were are the facts that Serbs flee the region anther Arsenie Charnojevich and in great "seoba" leave to AustroHungary. Exept the "capitol" church in Skoplje (the only one made in Tito's comunist regime) who build the rest of the churches in present Macedonia: Byzantian, Bulgarian and Serbian kings.
I have nothing against independent republic of Macedonia (just don't like that you don't want to addmit that it is new nation start from 1945 by Tito to find the solution for Bulgarian Separatism. And it's nothing bad beeing NEW. I don't see the reason to be ashemed of that. It's much better than twisted the history and shaped how you'd like to be. In some points nation become or stop to exist, that's a life and how it is.

regards to you companiero and wellcome to Civ Fanatic site.
PS My best friend in private life is Macedonian. Pozdrav za mog drugara Vlatka! (Kavadarci / London location)
edit: and don't fool yourself that the ONLY reason to take the Bulgarian passport of so many Macedonians is becouse of easier moovment...

 

[Sir Og]

I suppose you mean about tsar Samuel here. I didn't mention him only because I left the medieval history out. But, all I can say about him is that he was a Slavic ruler, not Bulgarian, since there were no Bulgarians at the time (10th century). Having in mind the area he originated from and the way he became tsar, he is considered a Macedonian ancestor, just as your tsars are considered Bulgarian ancestors.

Samuil WAS our tsar.
I only need to say is that when Basilis 2 (sp?) delivered the final blow to the Bulgarian state (rulled by Samuil) he called himself BulgarSlayer (Bulgaroubiec). Don't you think that people back then new who were they fighting against.
And what's that nonsence about no Bulgarians in 10th century. You mean that there were Bulgarians from 7th century until 9th century, then they somehow dissapear during the 10th century and reaper later again.

You are right however about the fact that Samuil was your ancestor, after all Macedonians are also Bulgarians.

To illustrate the atmosphere how Macedonia's neighbours felt about the notion for her authonomy and independence, I can offer you these quotes:
"Bulgaria's whole future depends on Macedonia, without her our State will be without importance or authority. Solun (Salonika) must be the main port of this State, the grand window to illuminate the entire building. If Macedonia does not belong to us, Bulgaria will never be firmly based".
"Macedonia is the lung of Greece, without it the rest of Greece would be condemned to death. For Greece to become a greater power she must expand into Macedonia."
"We (Serbia) are ready to enter into any combination if necessary in order to prevent the Macedonian Question being settled in any way that harms our vital interests, without which Serbia cannot survive".
LOL. I have nothing more to say..

These quotes are deffinately not from the San Stefano period. And at that moment the fate of the newly liberated lands was definately not being decided by Serbia and Greece.
By your logic I am also not Bulgarian because the Berlin Congress separated southern Bulgaria (East Rumelia). This however does not make me a Rumelian or Thracian. The same aplies for the Bulgarians that were left in Mcedonia. They didn't magicaly turn into different nationality.

What other country? Macedonia was the only one without national government and prone to foreign propaganda. If you can't see the sense in conquering a historically and strategically (maybe even economically ) important territory, then I can't tell you more, can I?

What exactly historically important teritory means. And strategically and economically we could have went for Romanian teritories.

First, let me inform you that the reason why Macedonians apply for Bulgarian citizenship is because of the travel difficulties they have, while recently Bulgaria was released from some of the Visa restrictions. I have friends that did that and to tell you the truth, theyprefer to sacrifice the national pride and be pragmatic about it. We are only lucky that the Bulgrians are buying it and are thrilled to respond to these peoples' requestes (in fact all it takes is one signature that you feel yourself like a Bulgarian and you get your new passport right away).
Second, I can ensure you that Macedonia has the most liberal laws concerning minorities on the Balkans and even in Europe from the single-nation states. Anyone can declare Bulgarian if they want, the problem is there are almost no people feeling Bulgarian here.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about your country. It is there that Macedonians are not allowed to voice their identity (and in a census right after WW2, there were 250,000 people that declared themelves as Macedonians), are put to pressure and discrimination for doing so, and as you know (or don't maybe) Bulgaria has been criticized for those actions by the European Council. The same would go for the Turkish minority living there.

I didn't know that Bulgaria was criticised by the EC for something that the communist regime did 50 years ago. It definately sounds strange. I have heard however various western institutions praising us for the so called Bulgarian ethnic model.
It is also very intersting that instead of answering my question why presend day democratic Macedonia doesn't give it's citizens the option to declare themselves Bulgarian, you start talking about something (I am also not sure that what you are saying is the complete story) that happened 50 years ago. What you are saying about the Turkish minority is also very strange, I wander what are your sources. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria has the same rights and freedoms as every other citizen.

And also histrory. Starting from ancient history and going up until the present, the region of Macedonia had a very different history than that of Bulgaria. True, there were period when they shared the same destiny, but it was in accordance with all the other Balkan people (i.e. Roman, Byzantian, Turkish dominance). The region of Macedonia had a common history (as distinct from the other neighbouring regions) until the Balkan Wars, when it splitted in three divergent ways. And that (the distinct history), my friend, is why a Macedonian national identity developed in the first place. Internally, spontaneously, without outside interference.

I'm sorry to see that Bulgarian nationalism and chauvinism are still live and kicking, in spite of the reality we now live in.

Regards.

As you said it yourselve during the Ottoman rule the different ethnicities were not consolidated in clearly distingushable teritories in the empire. What is also true is that due to relatively low level of communications there were differences in language, customs, music etc. between people of the same nationality. For example the music in northern Bulgaria is as diffrent from the Thracian folk music as Macedonian music it is also as hard for me to understand someone from Vratsa(north western Bugaria) as someone from Macedonia. So what I am saying is that the people living in Macedonia are not any different from the people living in Bulgaria. You however, probably as a result of reading Serbian history books, think that the Macedonians are different people. The bigest problem with that is that the Macedonians as you see them appered after 1945. Before that nobody spoke about Macedonian nationality, not even the Macedonians.

And Bulgaria is deffinately NOT nationalistic. If we were what you say we are, than we wouldn't have been the first to recognised the new Macedonian state without any demands. We wouldn't have given you free millitary aid, etc.

Maybe after 10 more years you will settle down as a country and you will start looking back at your history and recognise your roots.
Maika Bulgaria vinagi shte vi chaka .

 

[Srdjan]

Samuil WAS our tsar.
So what I am saying is that the people living in Macedonia are not any different from the people living in Bulgaria. You however, probably as a result of reading Serbian history books, think that the Macedonians are different people. The bigest problem with that is that the Macedonians as you see them appered after 1945. Before that nobody spoke about Macedonian nationality, not even the Macedonians.

Maybe after 10 more years you will settle down as a country and you will start looking back at your history and recognise your roots.
Maika Bulgaria vinagi shte vi chaka .

What do You wan't to say? Macedonian nation is a Serbian creation? As far as I know, Macedonian volunteers
was fighting against Austrian army in WW1 with Serbian soldiers. King Alexander was so pleased with them, and promised them autonomy for Macedonian people in kingdom of Serbia. Unfortunately, this promise was forgotten when Yugoslavia was created.

Companiero

Where is Ilinden and events in 1903? Can You post something about that?

 

[Companiero]

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

I only need to say is that when Basilis 2 (sp?) delivered the final blow to the Bulgarian state (rulled by Samuil) he called himself BulgarSlayer (Bulgaroubiec). Don't you think that people back then new who were they fighting against.
And what's that nonsence about no Bulgarians in 10th century. You mean that there were Bulgarians from 7th century until 9th century, then they somehow dissapear during the 10th century and reaper later again.

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.

These quotes are deffinately not from the San Stefano period. And at that moment the fate of the newly liberated lands was definately not being decided by Serbia and Greece.

True. The fate of the newly "liberated" lands was decided mostly by Bulgaria. And the quotes are prior to the Balkan Wars, but it still doesn't change the meining they bear, that always Macedonia has been a dream of the hegemonistic policies of its neighbours (and as I see from your attitude still is).

By your logic I am also not Bulgarian because the Berlin Congress separated southern Bulgaria (East Rumelia). This however does not make me a Rumelian or Thracian.

I don't think you understand my logic here. I don't claim that Macedonians aren't Bulgarians on the basis that they were seperated from Bulgaria, but on completely other more essential reasons, which you clearly fail to understand (or don't want to).

I didn't know that Bulgaria was criticised by the EC for something that the communist regime did 50 years ago. It definately sounds strange. I have heard however various western institutions praising us for the so called Bulgarian ethnic model.

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

The bigest problem with that is that the Macedonians as you see them appered after 1945. Before that nobody spoke about Macedonian nationality, not even the Macedonians.

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.

And Bulgaria is deffinately NOT nationalistic. If we were what you say we are, than we wouldn't have been the first to recognised the new Macedonian state without any demands. We wouldn't have given you free millitary aid, etc.

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.

Maika Bulgaria vinagi shte vi chaka

"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)
So, the differences and similarities are obvious as you see.

Where is Ilinden and events in 1903? Can You post something about that?

Sure, if you want. That is even more messy from all of this, but perhaps explains the situation the best. Basically, the two fractions that arised in IMRO (the left and the right wing) declaratively, both fought for authonomious Macedonia. That's why the people belived them. However the right wing was under direct influence of the Bulgarian Supreme Cometee (an external organization formed in order to infiltrate IMRO and lead Bulgarian propaganda inside Macedonia). Their goal was to libarate Macedonia and then unite her with "Mother" Bulgaria. They were in favor of provoking a war with Turkey, so that Bulgaria can step in and conquer Macedonia.
The left wing, on the contrary, fought for authonomy of Macedonia as a country of all different cultures that existed within its borders and didn't want any outside intervention, because they knew their (the neighbours') hidden intentions. Goce Delchev named the right wing intentions during one occasion a "Trojan Horse" that should not be trusted.
The rivalry between these two increased dramatically in the following years and a serie of massive exterminations, assassinations and spying started, culminating with the eventual victory of the hegemonistic Bulgarian aspirations and the right wingers.
Back to the 1903 events, the right wing persuaded after a long time the leaders of IMRO that the time for a general uprising against the Turks has come, in spite of the differiating opinions of some notable members (among which Goce Delchev) that it was too early and that it would be the end of Macedonia. On the Smilevo Congress in 1903, prior to the Ilinden uprising, Dame Gruev said: "Better an end with suffering, than suffering without end."
And so, the Ilinden uprising started on 2nd August 1903. A Manifest was issued calling upon all the nationalities in Macedonia (Muslims, including Albanians and even Turks) to join the fight for independent Macedonia). The first Republic of the Balkans, the Krusevo Republic, was created, that lasted for 10 days, but the Turks bloodily put the insurrectiuon to an end. The West reacted to the turbulences by urging Turkey to grant the Macedonians their rights, but the situation only got worse, with the opression and taxes only increasing.

VMRO was ALWAYS Bulgarian nationalistic organisation! FACT

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.

What does it mean Macedonian family name traditionaly - ski ending. (and Bulgarian -ov and Serbian -ic) So Darko Pancev, Kiro Gligorov are Bulgarians. I know so many Serbs with ski and ov ending names not to menton Tesla or simular examples. Rubish (sorry to say).

Don't be sorry. You can always learn something new.
Macedonian surnames have either "-ski" or "-ov" ending. However, neither Bulgarians 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 )

Were are the parts of XIII century when macedonia with Kosovo was the centar of most powerfull Serbian midages state with capitol in Skoplje.(before that was only Bulgarian and Byzantin teritory) Were are the facts that Serbs flee the region anther Arsenie Charnojevich and in great "seoba" leave to AustroHungary.

As I said, I left the medieval history out. And I must say I don't know what you're talking about when mentioning "Arsenie Charnojevich" and certain unknown word for me "seoba". Which period is that? Perhaps you can enlighten me a bit about the period

Exept the "capitol" church in Skoplje (the only one made in Tito's comunist regime) who build the rest of the churches in present Macedonia: Byzantian, Bulgarian and Serbian kings.

If you use that logic, you can as well say that Turkish sultans built most of the churches.
The money for the churches were collected by the people, and who ruled with Macedonia at the time for me is irrelevant. But, if you insist, OK, all the churches were built under foreign patronship in Macedonia (except those built by the Macedonian feudal rulers or during the brief period of Samuel's rule). Like I care.

I have nothing against independent republic of Macedonia (just don't like that you don't want to addmit that it is new nation start from 1945 by Tito to find the solution for Bulgarian Separatism. And it's nothing bad beeing NEW. I don't see the reason to be ashemed of that. It's much better than twisted the history and shaped how you'd like to be.

Twisted or shaped, I give you arguments, you give me propaganda.
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.
But you seem to equate nation, ethnicity and country all in one. You and that Bulgarian guy. Until you settle this things in your mind, I'm afraid we can't have a civilized and reasonable conversation.

 

[Gladi]

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.

 

[Companiero]

And everybody should be able to call himself whatever he fancies.

Self-determination, the crucial right for every person and nation.
Tell that to Bulgarians and Greeks.

[Check out the Political Perspective part; there it's explained why this thing's so important. An odd concept to grasp for countries without these stupid, yet detrimental problems.]