|
| Thread: Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted August 19, 2004 02:52 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they?
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.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted August 19, 2004 02:56 AM |
|
|
Part two
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 (XIV century).
Additional read: More on medieval history, the origins of the Macedonian state can be traced to the X century, when Samuel forged a new state with the historical territory of Macedonia as its core. Samuel rised as a ruler from the ranks of the Salvic feudal lords that ruled with Southwestern Macedonia at the time. 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. 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. He then proclaimed the country an Empire, and himself a tsar (Eperor), with the blessing of the pope. He founded a new dynasty (which lasted shortly), the capital of his Empire was in Prespa (Southwestern Macedonia), and conquered vast areas of the Balkans (including Macedonia, Albania, Thessaly, Bulgaria, Serbia, Zeta, Bosnia and other regions). The Macedonian medieval state lasted shortly, until 1018, when the last ruler of the dynasty, the Empress Maria was dethroned and taken to Constantinopole.
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.
Additional read: 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 on the Balkans ever (sort of like a imitation of the Paris commune), 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.
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.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 19, 2004 02:58 AM |
|
|
Part three
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.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted November 25, 2004 08:38 PM |
|
|
My modest contribution
They also have great music and wine! 
____________
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 04:18 AM |
|
|
So, is anyone going to see Oliver Stone's new movie "Alexander?"
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 10:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So, is anyone going to see Oliver Stone's new movie "Alexander?"
Wrong thread!
____________
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 04:38 PM |
|
|
Wasn't Alexander Macedonian?
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 10:15 PM |
|
|
Depends on who you talk to...
Anyway, the Greek Government have rather interestingly decided to sue Stone for claiming that Alexander may have been bi-sexual.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 10:19 PM |
|
|
Lol. Wasn't all men of a certain standing "bi-sexual" back then? I kinda got the impression it was the "norm" back then...?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted November 28, 2004 12:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lol. Wasn't all men of a certain standing "bi-sexual" back then? I kinda got the impression it was the "norm" back then...?
I kinda got the impression it is the "norm" nowadays...
Anyway, yes, Alexander was Macedonian, but not this kind of Macedonian. *HINT* Read Svarog's post!
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 28, 2004 11:43 AM |
|
|
Been awhile since I studied this topic but if I remembered Alexanders father was Macedon & his brother was the king at the time.(Perdiccas)
Macedonia was in Northern Greece.
His mother father was king Neoplotemus from Southern Albania I think if I rememeber she was an orphan also.
With this fact if I remember correctly yalls can judge for yourselves & then say to yourself Duh  .
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 28, 2004 12:10 PM |
|
|
Macedonia was thier own country they had thier own people, they spoke thier own language & were at constant war with Greece for many many yrs.
Thier own cultures & customs Wonder like the Carthiginians & the ROmans hmmm.
Macedonians did some major conquering in Greece with thier ancient history if I remember.
Under Alexanders command he Set foot & burned the Persian Capital of Persepolis with the death of thier king Xerxes,in mean while still in war with Greece.The tide of Greece was like a seesaw so to speak.
Way after Alex death going further to when Greece joined with the ROmans to finally defeated Phillip the V army & finally Macedonia lost Greece after many yrs.
Last but certainly not leastabout probally a little yrs later After a rebellion & losing thier Macedonian King Persues the ROmans proclamied Greece,Macedonia & Carthage as part of thier empire for now on.
Manu hundred yrs later The ROmans split empire the Macedonia & Greece become east Roman empire now.
How I rememeber when I read about it I hope I was on topic enough but heh, People say I have a bad memory lol.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 29, 2004 01:30 AM |
|
|
Very good, Acu. Most of it is correct.
Quote:
Thier own cultures & customs Wonder like the Carthiginians & the ROmans hmmm.
Hmm, Age of Empires is indeed an interesting game, but it was a bad choice they made here. Macedonian culture belonged to the regional cultural group of the Ancient Balkan tribes, with heavy influxes of Greek culture in the latter period.
Other than this, some coerrections would be:
-The Persian ruler that fought Alex was Darius III, not Xerxes. And the last Macedonian king was Philip V
-Macedonia had already lost Greece when the Romans came.
-Carthage was a Roman province long before Macedonia was.
Anyway, I dont expect anything more than a Hollywood cliche from "Alexander", put into American highschool context. Kind of like they did with Troy.
Beside that, homosexual outlets were indeed a normal thing those days, but it should be far from the main points in the movie.
thanx @ Vlaad for the compliments bout the wine and the music. Its all a nation needs.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 29, 2004 06:09 AM |
|
|
I missed a couple but close enough & yea it is true.
The high Pitched Alex was a taker let me see
S----------------------------_-----------------X--------G
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 11:18 PM |
|
|
branching off from the Macedonia-Greece debate
@ Consis:
Quote:
The very last stage of this "Hellenistic period" is the reign of the Macedonian empire under Alexander(III) the Great. My unending question is: Why is this final period of the Greek empire so sought after/valued/important by the Macedonians of today?
Because they [ethnic Macedonians] are nationalistic bastards, and are no better than nationalists in neighboring countries trying to own the great legacy of Alexander and his empire.
Quote:
He had no ideals, only the talent of conquering through the devastation of war. Great wars can do great things for one person but wars do not make one great.
As for this sentence, please research a bit more about Alexander. Concerning his ideals, the Hollywood crappish film is not far from the truth. His ideals were to have a united world where everyone will live free (he was extremely tolerant to different religions and cultures, and always awarded them autonomy). Though he was a “bit” Machivellian in this approach, as he chose no means (including burning cities, slaughtering entire populations) to achieve that goal. The egoistic need for self-affirmation as a living God is also what has made him so bold in pursuing his goals. I can write on and on about his legacy and the legacy of his empire, but its gonna be off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
Also, more on Alexander, PH wrote:” The campaign against Persia was to a degree made a crusade by Alexander to avenge the ravages of the Persians in the past in Greece.”
Not at all. That was used as one argument in order to get the Greeks on his side, while some of they were plotting against him. Revenge is seldom a legitimate motive in history. More likely, the aspirations of the Macedonian aristocracy werent to be neglected.
@ Lith:
Quote:
lets talk history ...Herodotus himself says that Alexander I was allowed to take part in the olympic games as he proved to be greek and not a barbarian (using the original meaning of the word, all Stronghold lovers back off)
Actually, if you read up there, you’ll see that I provide the same thing as proof against the Macedonians being Greeks. The Greeks wouldn’t allow Alexander I to compete in the Games because they clearly denied him being Greek. Only after he proved his lineage from the Greek city of Argos Orestikon (in Macedonia), he was allowed to participate (if one is to believe Herodotus, as he isnt the most reliable source out there).
@ SIlverblade
Quote:
P.S. I am no ethnikist nationalist racist or whatever. Just curious
I very much hope you’re not. You seem reasonable enough.
“Let's suppose that Alexander wasn't Greek.
Then why he send 3000 Persian armour plates as a tribute to Athens while he had previously conquered Greece and could just send them to somewhere in Macedonia?”
Although, I’m not familiar with the particular dispatchment, the reason is not very hard to guess. He had Athens as his ally, and it was very important for him to keep matters on the home front stable, as he strongly needed their support, in order to hold the supply lines for his army in the Mediterrenian.
“Why did he consulted the Oracle of Delphi in Thessaly before beginning his campaign against the Persian Empire and in fact he didn't send a messenger as the others would have done and went there himself?”
Because he was very much involved in Greek matters and the Greek world altogether. Macedonian culture was to a large degree Hellenized. However, distinction isnt made on the basis of similarities but differences.
In fact, my Macedonian hero is Phillip II in fact, as he was a master diplomat, and I’ve studied his history extensively, so I can tell you that the way he achieved his feat of granting Macedonia an important position in the Greek world and a key player in Balkan matters is truly amazing, and an excellent example of master diplomacy combined with effective political/military/economic decisions.
”Why did he ever campaigned against the vast and powerful Persian empire?Was it just to claim new lands?And if so why wouldn't he attack northen regions or moving towards Italy?”
I believe PH answered this for me. Persia was very much the most powerful country in the world then, and the Macedonian Empire being the main challenger, simply had to turn to the east.
”Where was Alexander born, where that place is located (as many details as you can please - don't search google or any map), 'Alexander' what does it mean and from where it's originated? All with as many Details as you can. These are quite easy questions I believe you won't have problem to answer in none of them”
Is this a test or what? Unless you have a point in your questions (and give me that) I wont waste my time answering whatever you may desire.
Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia. Its located near modern-day Thessalonica (or Solun, as Macedonians call it).
As for “Alexander”, it means “protector of men” in Ancient Greek (maybe even modern, i wouldn’t know).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted April 18, 2005 04:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact, my Macedonian hero is Phillip II in fact, as he was a master diplomat, and I’ve studied his history extensively, so I can tell you that the way he achieved his feat of granting Macedonia an important position in the Greek world and a key player in Balkan matters is truly amazing, and an excellent example of master diplomacy combined with effective political/military/economic decisions.
Fillip II...
He took the works of Xenophon, right? And built on them in order to create a military force that didn't just consist of the usual Greek/Macedonian phalanx, but also deployed artillery (heavy and light missiles), cavalery and lighter infantery?
And it was this military reform that Alexander III was able to base his policy of conquest on?
This is the way I've learned things happened - dunno about the veracity, though...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 18, 2005 04:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe PH answered this for me. Persia was very much the most powerful country in the world then, and the Macedonian Empire being the main challenger, simply had to turn to the east.
Also it's arguable that invading the central and western Med would be much harder than engaging Persia in what was originally thought to be a short campaign of revenge for earlier Persian destruction (at least by his Greek troops, generals and politicians if not by Alexander). Crossing over into the Persian empire was relatively easy, but invading Rome or Carthage much less so. Realistically any invasion of either was reliant on naval supremacy which would have been difficult to obtain. As I said, it also was a popular campaign in Greece due to the Persians being the old enemy, they weren't just the biggest, they were the most unpopular enemies of Ancient Greece. Obviously Alexander's talents may well have overcome the difficulties of invading the mid-med area, as proven by his ability to destroy Persia. Whether those talents could have overcome naval problems though is anyone's guess.
Michael Wood's excellent work on Alexander points out that Alexander was extremely charismatic and had a good understanding of the Greek world he controlled. At least at first he was more than able to manipulate events and people into supporting him. Witness for example his visits to the Greek Heroes tombs from the Trojan war, or his visits to various oracles to gain the support of the gods. I personally don't believe that was entirely about manipulation, but he certainly understood the power that could come from such events.
So in answer to your denial that Alexander was after "revenge" against the Persians, I would say probably worded that wrong in that I meant that he was using it as an excuse in the main, but probably had no great objection to revenge either. It would certainly have been a Greek aim, and he could not entirely ignore their wishes. It also begs the question as to if Alexander wasn't overly interested in revenge as to why he'd burn the Persian capital if not in order to avenge the Persians destruction of Athens, because I've never entirely bought the theory that it was a drunken rage (though that wouldn't be entirely out of character for him). I also tend to think that a man that slaughters around 1/4 of a million civilians on purpose, sometimes with next to no cause is someone with the kind of temper that's entirely suited to running a free empire. That's certainly judging him by our modern standards, but I'd argue that placing such a high moral motivation on Alexander is also attributing our modern standards onto him.
I would add though that he was not tolerant of all religions, after all he was quite intolerant of the ancient Persian religion Zoroastrianism. Their descendants certainly don't speak highly of his religious tolerance to say the least. I'd agree on cultures though, but I'm more of the thought that he did this out of politics than any particular wish for a great "free" empire. Autonomy was not something he could afford to refuse, he simply could not manage such a vast empire without Persian support. After all, towards the end of his life some of his own generals were becoming increasingly worried by his dictator-like approach.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 21, 2005 05:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Also it's arguable that invading the central and western Med would be much harder than engaging Persia in what was originally thought to be a short campaign of revenge for earlier Persian destruction (at least by his Greek troops, generals and politicians if not by Alexander).
Hmm, I don’t know why you continue to push this thesis. It was clear back then that Alexander simply had nothing to do in the West. Rome was far from a threat then, and much less a serious threat. It was simply few villiges more than a city, compared to the median of civilization, the Eastern Mediterranean. I don’t know where this dilemma about which direction Alex campaign should have been directed, came up in the first place. All indications point that Persia was the only option. But not out of revenge (if any relevance, the Greeks hoped Alexander only to liberate the Greek coastal cities in Ionia at best, which gave him a hard time “liberating” them on the other hand), but motivated from imperialistic idealism to see the world united where all nations live free under his benevolent guidance of course.
@ Silverblade
Quote:
Why nowhere is written that Alexander's army spoke 2 different languages?
This is where you are wrong. There are many historical sources which say that Alexander often spoke with his generals in macedonian (although the debate is about whether this was a separate language or dialect, and how separate it was). There’re also hundreds of other indicators that the language that the Macednians used was other than Greek. I gave some of them in the initial article (which u obviously havent read, which brings up the question why are you afraid to), and I can give more if you want as well.
Quote:
How about the greek writng inside the macedonian tombs. I have been inside 4 of them (king Phillips too) and we have with greek letter the word "Macedonia" curved in the tomb's walls.. How did that happened ther should be at least something written in macedoniac shouldn't it?
Macedoniac? Is that some Macedonian alphabet? You should know that the Macedonians were less culturally advanced people compared to the Greeks (or “barbarians”, in the words of Demosthenes), and the alphabet they used was Greek. It was also the case with all the Balkan peoples at that time (at least those who “discovered” writing). Written sources from the territory of Macedonia are extremely scarce. Most of what we know comes from Greek historians who wrote about Macedonia. Also, it is possible that the Greek language was similar to the Macednian in some ways, but historians-linguists claim that the Macedonian language was more similar to the Brigian, which is confirmed by the simillarities between those Macedonian words that were preserved (and they are not much) and the Brigian words. One thing’s also sure, in the later (Classical) period, increasing Hellenization of Macednian culture and language changed the Macednian culture and introduced a strong Greek cultural influence.
Quote:
Or the Macedonian kings decided "we comand the greeks now let us toss everything from our civilization and keep only what the greeks have wrote besides in that way we can show them that we are truly Philellen?
Hehe. Funny that you mentioned “Philhellen”. That was how the Macednian king Alexander I was called (meaning Greek-loving), which as you see yourself by the context in which you put it, expresses that he wasn’t by all means a Hellen (Greek).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 21, 2005 12:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm, I don’t know why you continue to push this thesis
If you'd paid attention (Hard given that you didn't quote me and pulled it from another thread entirely but...) you'd have noted that I never agreed with the thesis, in fact I argued that Persia was the obvious choice. I wasn't pushing anything, I was merely speculating on some of the reasons he didn't go west rather than east. I've already "pushed" what I believe to be his main reasons, so kindly don't make my post into something it's not.
Quote:
I don’t know where this dilemma about which direction Alex campaign should have been directed, came up in the first place
Someone raised it some time ago, I put forward a number of reasons why he did not, of which that was merely an afterthought. Mostly it was a speculation on what might have happened had he chosen to go west more than the actual reasons to do so.
Whilst it's still relevant to say he had no desire to invade the west when he began his campaigns, it's also relevant to say it would have been much harder at that stage. Saying it was not in his interests whatsoever is probably untrue given that some believe him to have been considering such an option had he survived (some think Arabia also). Alexander was not above crushing enemies that posed a military threat of some sort either. I think I also pushed the point on Carthage and Rome not just Rome, and both were going to become quite powerful in their own ways by the end of the 4th century, so had Alexander survived they would both have been potential opponents.
I also think you have a rather blinkered opinion of the man's aims and goals.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 02:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I also think you have a rather blinkered opinion of the man's aims and goals.
Why is that?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
