If Macedonians aren't Bulgarian then what?

[bekiristein]

. In any case, a discussion for another time and place.

Indeed.

[TheHarazzer]

There s a thing called dialect continuum, and it's a heritage of all Slavs once speaking one language, but diverging over time. Read about it. If there are Macedonian words which sound like archaisms to you, that is because those are original Slavic words which Bulgarians replaced with foreign borrowed words or with neologisms.

I agree with you, but for example, understanding Serbian is far harder for me than understanding Macedonian. They are both neighboring countries, so the difference shouldn't be that great, right ? For me Macedonian is a Bulgarian dialect, that has changed a little, but the differences are minor. So I will continue to insist that the people of FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect. (excluding the Albanians).

It's the same if you argue that the Austrians speak Austrian not, German. Yeah, I know they have different words and the two languages are not exactly the same. But in the end the Austrians speak German, not Austrian.

[neoptolemos]

I bet that a Bulgarian can more easily understand Slavic Macedonian than a mainland Greek could understand Cypriot Greek or Romeika (Pontic Greek).

[TheHarazzer]

I bet that a Bulgarian can more easily understand Slavic Macedonian than a mainland Greek could understand Cypriot Greek or Romeika (Pontic Greek).

I'm pretty sure you are right.

[Aru]

I agree with you, but for example, understanding Serbian is far harder for me than understanding Macedonian. They are both neighboring countries, so the difference shouldn't be that great, right ?

Wrong. Try understanding Serbian from southeast. Torlakian. I can understand Vojvodina and Belgrad Serbian perfectly, but South Serbian dialects and especially Torlakian are hard, it's almost like Macedonian and Bulgarian. It's because Torlakian is transitional dialect between Serbian,and west Bulgarian and Macedonian.

I bet that despite some difficulty you and I could have a conversation. But you wouldn't understand a thing from west Croatian (kajkavian) speaker. It is because my dialect is closer to Bulgarian dialects.

For me Macedonian is a Bulgarian dialect, that has changed a little, but the differences are minor. So I will continue to insist that the people of FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect. (excluding the Albanians).

And for me there are no languages among south Slavs. Every neighbor can understand each other perfectly, regardless of borders and nationalities. It just to happens that Bulgarians and Slovenes are on the extreme points of that language. [/QUOTE]

It's the same if you argue that the Austrians speak Austrian not, German. Yeah, I know they have different words and the two languages are not exactly the same. But in the end the Austrians speak German, not Austrian.[/QUOTE]

See how the conversation between an Austrian and a German from north-west Germany oes. One might say those Germans speak Dutch. You still don't understand dialect continuum and languages.

Languages are not easily defined. So politics defines them, because standarized languages are needed for states to function.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

the first European mention of the Bulgars, the Anonymous Latin Chronographer from 354, already places them in Europe, considering the aforementioned Pontic-Caspian area is within the boundaries of the European continent. Furthermore, some Armenian sources potentially push the date back a couple of centuries earlier, again in the same area

If you're referring to alleged 4th century Armenian references to "Huns" in the Derbent region and the area north of the Caucasus that was a theory invented by ex-soviet scholars in the 1990's that used a massive amount of propagandized soviet "sources" and "archaeological finds" that assumed the Mazguts recorded in Armenian sources was actually Turkish Bashgur (or Bascur) and is incorrect. The Mazguts the Armenians were referring to were not a Turkish people but the Alans/Late Sarmatians (Massagetae). The Bulgars at this time were still in the Region east of the Aral sea when the megadrought of 355-370 was about to spur the beginnings of the Volkerwanderung. The people who came up with this had no clue when it came to Entomology.

In any case, the Bulgars, part of the Kutrigurs in particular, were a part of Attila's forces (be it voluntarily or not - we can't say, but they were probably the ones reported to have fought with Agilmund's Langobards), remaining after Attila's death in Pannonia (where they remained for centuries under Gepid, Langobard and Avar rule, some of them moving with Alboin's Langobards to Italy), while his son Ernakh is reported to have taken command over the Utigurs in the east. Anyway, there's a difference between "Vulgares" and "Burgarii" and I certainly do not claim connection with the latter.

The theory was based off of bad Latin transliteration into Greek (V- and B- often get switched around) so "Burgarii" was "Vourgaroi" (Bulgarii would have been Voulgaroi).

As for what you said, not quite correct. The Huns of Aranak (Ernakh) which became the Kutrigur Huns retreated East of the Dniester, while the Utrigur Huns were one of the new groups incoming in the 460's. Danizik's Huns (Dengizich's) were the Tongur, Bittugur, Bardor, and Ultinzur Huns (The latter being the Huns of Ultzin (Uldin) and Charaton, and possibly Rua and Attila as well) and they ended up as Roman Foederati in the provinces of Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor.

I highly recommend you read "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe" (2013) by the Australian Professor Hyun Jin Kim. I haven't even read it all yet and it's completely reformed my understanding of the Huns, which we now have evidence to support they DID have some sort of connection to the Xiongnu (although I still highly doubt they WERE the Xiongnu).

Although not all of the information provided above comes from Hyun Jin Kim, a lot of it is from the recent works of Peter Heather.

[Sir Adrian]

You mean in ERE vulgar latin were used as lingua franca ? You undertsand that in ERE were living populations which were speaking different languages? Which language these populations were using in order to communicate inside ERE?

Yes, just like we use English today to talk to each other on TWC people in Greece used latin to talk to non-greek speaking foreigners. Greek only became the official language of the ERE when the Comnenoi came to power, before that latin was the main language alongside the native one.

Here is what lingua franca means

A lingua franca (English pronunciation: /ˌlɪŋgwə ˈfraŋkə/^[1]) also called a bridge language, or vehicular language, is a language systematically (as opposed to occasionally, or casually) used to make communication possible between persons not sharing a native language, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both native languages

Sorry i cant understand your post for which period you are talking about for the ERE period or for the unified empire? Also can you source the part of your post which claims that vulgar latin were the lingua franca in Greece up to the 11th century?
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek

I don't have to because it's common sense but if you want a source you can use Procopius History of the Wars who writes that Ant (probably a slav or Avar) learned latin north of the Danube and managed to pass as a citizen in the Greek speaking regions which proves that it was indeed lingua franca in those regions.

Koine, the greek spoken by Macedonians, was all but exitinct by 300 AD and was only used as lingua franca in the successor kingdoms. SDee the definition I posted above.

I am afraid you are wrong in many aspects

Neither of those links contradicts anything I've said, in fact the one about language supports what I've said about the elites being the only ones who spoke Greek, so how am i wrong?

[neoptolemos]

Neither of those links contradicts anything I've said, in fact the one about language supports what I've said about the elites being the only ones who spoke Greek, so how am i wrong?

greek was not the language of trade, mostly because there no single unified greek language.

Koine Greek (from κοινή "common", also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity.

Contradiction 1 you know what common and supra-regional means right?Actually koine is the first unified form of Greek ,a lingua franka and the tool for the spread of Christianity.

greek was not the language of trade,

and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries.

Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire. The international use of Greek was one condition that enabled the spread of Christianity, as indicated for example by the choice of Greek as the language of the Epistles of Paul^[8]

contradiction No2.
Greek was the Lingua franka and in consequence the language of Trade and diplomacy.

Latin was the lingua franca of the empire, vulgar latin to be precise, including in Greece right up to the 11th century.

Wrong.Latin was the administrative language of the Eastern empire up until the 7th cent

In late antiquity, a Greek-speaking majority lived in the Greek peninsula and islands, major cities of the East, western Anatolia, and some coastal areas.^[37] Greek continued as the language of the Byzantine Empire, and developed into a distinctive medieval Greek that gave rise to modern Greek.^[38]

In the Eastern empire, laws and official documents were regularly translated into Greek from Latin.^[47] Both languages were in active use by government officials and the Church during the 5th century.^[48] From the 6th century, Greek culture was studied in the West almost exclusively through Latin translation.^[49] Latin loanwords appear liberally in Greek texts on technical topics from late antiquity and the Byzantine period.^[50]

Administrative usage of Latin persisted until the seventh century, when it was ended by Heraclius. Scholarly Latin would rapidly fall into disuse among the educated classes although the language would continue to be at least a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture for some time.^[202] Additionally, Vulgar Latin remained a minority language in the Empire, and among the Thraco-Roman populations it gave birth to the Proto-Romanian language.^[203]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag...e_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

[Roma_Victrix]

For all intents and purposes, Justinian I (r. 527-565 AD) was the last "Roman emperor" to speak Latin as his native language.

Heraclius (r. 610-641 AD) was the first Eastern Roman Emperor to make Greek the official language of the ERE.

Anyways...back on topic! Macedonians and Bulgarians and such, you guys...

[Cyclops]

Latin did continue in the East Roman Empire as the language at the time of Justinian but I think even then there were handbooks in Greek for judges.

[Edelfred]

Latin did continue in the East Roman Empire as the language at the time of Justinian but I think even then there were handbooks in Greek for judges.

Interesting as some, probably, hidden Greek patriots in Syria,Egypt,Constantinople have managed to create
Neo-Platonism ,which turned to be official Cristian philosophy on Greek ? Even Bible has not been translated to Latin first but to Greek , by 70 Jewish translators,living
in Alexandria . Means no one really cared about Latin in those areas .

Morale is Romans have created roman province Macedon ,expanding it into not really default Macedonian areas . 4% of that Roman province,
exactly the part not originally belonging to Macedon landed into Jugoslavia ,whose communist leaders haven't missed the chance for making
a base for claim - naming claim in the beginning and possibly land claim follow would FYROM have managed to lie their way through to get international recognition .

[The Noble Lord]

Indeed, our grandfathers have witnessed the birth of a new nation a lifetime ago (though I'd say it was mostly after WWII, as that's when the Macedonization campaign started; before that the Serbs only tried to convert the people to "straight Serbs", which was eventually unsuccessful). Today the Macedonian identity is already well-established and unrefutable, and with time I imagine the differences between us would grow. Though I hope accord between us will grow as well. If only we could settle the historical issue between us, we could become more like the Austrians and Germans f.e.

I agree with the majority of this post, because historically it is true that today's "Macedonians" from FYROM are ethnically and linguistically Bulgarians and they were always part of
Bulgarian ethnicity. It is also true that separate Macedonian ethnicity was invented and started by the Yugoslav and Bulgarian communists under the auspices of the Comintern because
Communists believed in "self-determination" and "self-nationhood" believing that giving nationhood to certain groups then they would be more susceptible to Communist rule and ideology
and in the long term when Communism prevails and becomes world-wide the nations and borders will disappear anyway, so they thought. It goes back to the origins of Marxism-Leninism
and it was later formulated more by Stalin as commissar of the nationalities where countless new nations and ethnicity groups were invented and given their "autonomous regions" and such.

As for the part of the post I disagree with is the one which says how "Serbs tried to convert people" and such. The thing is that everyone was opening up schools in Macedonia at the
time and trying to win more support, Serbian claim is a valid one, the "Old Serbia" was the name given to Macedonia and Kosovo since the medieval Serbian state and nationhood was
really born in these areas and not in the northern areas, for the small states such as Serbia and Montenegro in the 19 century they needed a national ideology, and being small and underdeveloped
it was important to lay claim to the old glories of medieval Serbia and old capitols of Serbian state like Prizren and Skoplje and to revive old glories, every European state in 19 century did that!

Majority of the real Serbs emigrated from these areas during the forced migrations and upheavals during the Ottoman rule, but those small number that were left knew who
they were and kept Serbian idea going, especially in areas of the northern Macedonia, Bitolj and such. Serbia did what other Balkan countries did at the time, no more and no less.
It propagated its national ideas to the last Ottoman province where people were still living in the dark, where people still suffered under the medieval archaic misrule of the Ottomans.
Therefore it would be unfair and historically incorrect to blame the Serbs for the invention of the Macedonian nation, like so many Bulgarians do. It is not rue, in 1912-1913 thanks to
the great victories in Balkan Wars, Serbia liberated this territory and that was that. The separate Macedonian nationhood was created later, after 1945 by the Communists where sixth
Yugoslav republic was created and with it the Macedonian nationhood, after the 1948 Informbiro resolution it was made even more urgent to construct separate macedonian entity as to counter-weight
to the Bulgarian threat on the eastern borders. That is why you have Macedonians today, not because of some sinister Serbian plans, but because of number of historical events.

All Balkan nations did that, except the Albanians of course which were non-entity at the time, they were just Ottoman attack dogs and nothing else, Ottomans considered them like
that because they didn't even see fit to give them right to educate and to have schools since they thought of the as Turks and non-nation. Albanians only became a "factor" in the last 10-15
years whereby encouraged by the International elements and because of the EU blackmail, they started to make problems and to get noticed.

And finally, like you said the effort of the current FYROM government to portray the Macedonians as heirs to the Greek Macedonians of Alexander the Great is pathetic and totally unnecessary!
It has become grotesque even, with all the money they spent on the project 'Skoplje 2014' and such. But also the urge such a desperate urge to show themselves as everything else but
Bulgarians makes the whole thing even more pathetic and nonsensical! All "Macedonian" heroes and fighters for the national liberation thought of themselves to be Bulgarian, people like
Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Hristo Tatarchev, Yane Sandanski and so many others, some were leftists some were rightists but they never had any doubt who they were, they were Bulgarian!

I have to tell you the truth, I had this argument with many from FYROM where I was just trying to tell them that in reality they are Bulgarian, we had big arguments in Australia, and ironically
it was few times that I talked to Bulgarians in person and on the Internet and they categorically blame the Serbs for the Macedonia and such. I argued with them too, I told them the same thing I
told you now, and also how it was wrong of the Bulgarian historians never to acknowledge Serbian participation in the conquest of Edirne/Odrin in 1913, the fact that Shukri Pasha who surrendered
to Serbian officers and how later Serbian military cemetery in Edirne/Odrin was being ruined and nohow surnames were changed into Bulgarians sounding ones.

[NikeBG]

It was also Mafia-free at a time in Bulgaria even the ice-cream street vendors had to buy "insurance" from VIS-2 or SIC (two "insurance" companies which were actually racketeering groups) and a common occurrence in the foreign currency exchange offices were guards armed with AK-47s.

In that context, the Bulgarians leaders, under whose rule the Mafia was flourishing to the above-mentioned levels, were not exactly well received when they pressed too hard and too quickly for unification.

Hmm, I might have been too young then, but I don't really remember any of those things. Sure, I remember the "insurance" companies, but guards with automatics and especially an official push for unification with Macedonia - nope. Of course, I'm sure we wouldn't have minded if it happened, Macedonia is still Bulgaria's "bleeding wound" after all, but considering we were the first to recognize their independence, it would've been silly to press for unification. Unless you mean just a few spare suggestions on that topic?

However a war-of-words had started back then (the Macedonian reluctance to join what was a Mafia-paradise back then was labeled as "betrayal" or "brainwashing"), which forced the Macedonians into emphasizing why they are different from the Bulgarians instead of what they have in common. "Bulgarians are Tatars" is one of the examples.

The ongoing dispute with the Greeks and the tensions with the large Albanian minority (~ 1 in 4 is Albanian there) further contributed to fuel a "siege mentality" which would probably go away only after Macedonia joins the EU and spends some time there.

The animosity of the Macedonians towards the Bulgarians (though lately the reverse is true as well, as we finally seem to realize Macedonia is lost to us)
certainly didn't start, nor was it seriously strenghtened, because of a war-of-words in the 90s, but quite before that, during Yugoslavian times, ever since the split between Tito on one side and Stalin (and his sidekick, Georgi Dimitrov) on the other. The infamous "Bulgarians-Tatars" slogan was propagated exactly in those times and you can occasionally still see it mentioned even by some of our Serbian members here (though, I believe, without the original ill intent). And this separation was understandably needed by the ruling elite first of Serbia (rather unsuccessful) and later of communist Yugoslavia (extremely successful; the commies are masters of creating new nations) in order to gain better control over the area and end all bonds between the Macedonians and the rest of the Bulgarians. That campaign lasted for nearly half a century, as I said, quite successfully, and the result is visible today - the Macedonians don't need any war-of-words to feel separate from us. Of course, as I said, that is their right, and by this post I have no intention to deny that - I'm posting just as a historical remark, from the Bulgarian perspective.
And, yes, I fully agree that the naming dispute with Greece (and the underlying, somewhat hidden historical aspects as well) has further helped foster a "siege mentality" among the modern Macedonians. Something which isn't that hard to do, considering all of our Balkan nations already have a "victim mentality" and there's a small step from one to the other. Thus, I also hope the EU (or if not the EU, then any other potential democratic union, encompassing all Balkan states) can help them (and us) bridge the gap between each other and between us and the rest of Europe.

Ι am sure that he has read Pinelopi Delta.

Hmm, I see his first book was also for children (I didn't know that before), so I wouldn't be surprized if you're right.

A lifetime ago? Not with IMRO ?

The IMRO (nor the IMORO before it) didn't create the Macedonian nation, so no. Although at one point they indeed took a course of fighting for an independent Macedonia (while another branch continued fighting for direct union, which IMO was a less realistic idea), they never fought for a "Macedonistic Macedonia", if I can call it so, i.e. to claim that the Slavic Macedonians are a separate ethnicity from the Bulgarians. Only the modern IMRO parties in Macedonia claim so, whereas our own IMRO party naturally doesn't.
In any case, as I think I mentioned before, Macedonism as an idea started more than a century ago, in the late 19th century, but it was limited to a very small circle of intellectuals, of whom I'll mention a bit more below. During the interwar period, as part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the government didn't follow a Macedonistic policy in Macedonia, instead following a rather unsuccessful Serbification policy, considering the Macedonians "pravi Srbi" (straight Serbs). It was only when the communists took power that the Macedonistic policies actually gained power, and a great one at that, and led to the birth of the Macedonian nation. So we could say modern Macedonia was conceived in the late 19th century and born in the mid-20th. By that time (mid-20th century) the IMRO had already pretty much died out.

Why they think Bulgarians are Tatars ?

From one side, because of the Turkic theory of the origins of the Bulgars, which in communist times had turned into an absolute dogma. And from another - because of not understanding the difference between Turkic and Mongolic peoples, I guess. And, of course, because of the view that the Tatars
are "primitive, bow-legged, nomadic savages" - a view which existed even in communist Bulgaria itself about the early Bulgars.

It is kinda racist slur though.I don't know where this racism comes from but there was a video aired by the FYR Macedonian state television some years ago.
4:30 "Your mother Earth was inhabited by Me ( I assume it is the God or Christ speaking) with 3 races :The white Macedonoids, The Yellow Mongoloids and the Black Negroids.The rest all are mullatoes".
I reckon that this would be the view of the "Macedonianism" knuckleheads who they are, in my view, similar with the Greek fascists of Golden Dawn and not ordinary Slav Macedonian people views.

Hah, yeah, that was quite the hit in the comic-shows here, particularly because it was sanctioned by the Macedonian national television. Though I find this vid (non-official, I think) more amusing, especially when they reach Korea and Japan.
Though you are right, of course - the ordinary Macedonians definitely do NOT follow such nonsenses. And idiocies like these can be found among all Balkan nations as well, with me personally being (too) painfully familiar with a load of Bulgarian such things. Fortunately, it's usually just a few nationalistic idiots chyming in, although I am indeed worried that their numbers seem to be rising (probably because of the financial crisis leading to even more uncertainty in people's lives, who in turn grasp straws such as these to feel themselves better).

It's the same if you argue that the Austrians speak Austrian not, German. Yeah, I know they have different words and the two languages are not exactly the same. But in the end the Austrians speak German, not Austrian.

Well, as the differences widen with time, I'm sure one day Austrian will become fully separate from German (though still part of the Germanic languages, of course; I'm not sure if Swiss German is still considered German as well, btw, considering it's even more hard to understand for most Germans than Austrian), just as well as American will one day become an independent language of its own. I just think it will take more time, compared to the separation of Macedonian, due to various reasons...

Wrong. Try understanding Serbian from southeast. Torlakian. I can understand Vojvodina and Belgrad Serbian perfectly, but South Serbian dialects and especially Torlakian are hard, it's almost like Macedonian and Bulgarian. It's because Torlakian is transitional dialect between Serbian,and west Bulgarian and Macedonian.

Languages are not easily defined. So politics defines them, because standarized languages are needed for states to function.

IIRC, Torlakian was closely related to Shopish, so it should be indeed easier for a speaker of a Western-Bulgarian dialect to understand you. A bit less so for an Eastern-Bulgarian speaker, though it should still be easy enough.
And, indeed, languages and dialects move gradually in space, just like culture.

If you're referring to alleged 4th century Armenian references to "Huns" in the Derbent region and the area north of the Caucasus that was a theory invented by ex-soviet scholars in the 1990's that used a massive amount of propagandized soviet "sources" and "archaeological finds" that assumed the Mazguts recorded in Armenian sources was actually Turkish Bashgur (or Bascur) and is incorrect. The Mazguts the Armenians were referring to were not a Turkish people but the Alans/Late Sarmatians (Massagetae). The Bulgars at this time were still in the Region east of the Aral sea when the megadrought of 355-370 was about to spur the beginnings of the Volkerwanderung. The people who came up with this had no clue when it came to Entomology.

Uhm, no, I'm referring mostly to Movses Khoranatsi and Anania Shirakatsi, and the Ashkharatsuyts in particular. Respectively, on the Bulgarian researches upon them, not on ex-Soviet ones.
Though I do wonder how certain you can be of the location of the Bulgars at that time, considering there's absolutely no reliable information on the Bulgars before they first appeared in the Pontic-Caucasian area. Of course, there's plenty of speculation, ranging from Western Siberia to the Hindokoush, and from Mongolia to Tocharia. But, as I said, that's just speculation. Whether the Bulgars got their name from the Bulodzi of the Chinese chronicles, f.e., or from the Balkharans of Bactria - there's plenty of wild guesses. That's why I personally consider the Pontic-Caspian area as the Bulgar Urheimat, since that's where they are first recorded (both historiographically and archaeologically) with enough certainty.
Of course, this isn't the topic for the origin of the Bulgars, so if you want to continue the discussion, we can revive some of the old threads (or make a new one). I would personally recommend against it though - it's an extremely messy topic and I myself have given up on it long ago.

Greek only became the official language of the ERE when the Comnenoi came to power, before that latin was the main language alongside the native one.

I know this is off-topic as well, but I do hope you're joking (or if not - that you can provide contemporary sources in your favour, in regards to the time period between the Heraklids and the Komnenids).

Interesting as some, probably, hidden Greek patriots in Syria,Egypt,Constantinople have managed to create
Neo-Platonism ,which turned to be official Cristian philosophy on Greek ? Even Bible has not been translated to Latin first but to Greek , by 70 Jewish translators,living
in Alexandria . Means no one really cared about Latin in those areas .

The Septuagint was written down in Ptolemaic times, before the Roman conquest of Egypt, under the *Greek* Ptolemaic dynasty. You are right that Hellenistic Greek was dominant there and then, though you can hardly blame Latin for not having reached that area yet.

As for the part of the post I disagree with is the one which says how "Serbs tried to convert people" and such.

Well, I'd say there are several reasons for why we (Bulgarians) generally tend to blame Serbia for our loss of Macedonia (although I personally find the Comintern and communism in general to be far, far, far more responsible).
From one side, there's the obvious political loss of Macedonia after the Second Balkan War (and we blame Serbia for that as well, and Greece, too ).
From another side, more psychologically and ethnographically speaking, we, as Balkaners, need someone else to blame. And Serbia is the perfect candidate, considering you're our neighbours (Balkaners stereotypically "hate" neighbours), while Russia is still largely seen as our "bratushki", "grandpa Ivan", "Tsar Liberator" etc., so most of us shy away from that direction (especially those nostalgic of the commie times, which, alas, aren't a few).
From a third side, more historically speaking, it's because the concept of Macedonism is considered to have been born in Serbia and we have Stojan Novakovic to blame for that, and his infamous quote, "popular" in the Bulgarian historical circles:
"Since the Bulgarian idea, as is well known to everyone, has taken deep roots in Macedonia, I think it's more or less impossible for it to be fully shaken, simply by bringing out just the Serbian idea against it. This idea, I'm afraid, would not be in the capability to drive out the Bulgarian idea, as its pure and stark opposite, and thus the Serbian idea will need an ally, which would stand firm against the Bulgarianism and which would include elements that could draw the people and their feelings towards it, separating it from the Bulgarianism. This ally I see in the face of Macedonism and in certain wisely placed boundaries, a reflection on the Macedonian dialect and the Macedonian specifics. There is nothing more contrary to the Bulgarian tendencies than this - there's no one else with whom the Bulgarians would find themselves in a more irreconcilable situation than with the Macedonism."
Of course, my opinion is somewhat different, as stated above - Novakovic and others among the Serbian elite of the late 19th century might have seen a possible good tool in the face of Macedonism, though they neither invented it, nor did they actually manage to use it well. The ones we have to thank for the rise of Macedonism are the communists (of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and the USSR), as they are the ones who actually rose it to the highest grounds. Furthermore, Macedonia certainly wasn't their only "experiment" in that regard - Stalin is f.e. infamously regarded with this quote: "That there is no developed Macedonian awareness among the people, that doesn't mean anything. There was no such awareness in Belarus when we declared it a Soviet republic either. But now it turns out that there are indeed Belarussian people." A similar attempt was made, btw, to create also a Shopish, Dobrudzhan and Thracian identities in Bulgaria alone (fortunately, unsuccessful), and they've had similar dealings in Moldova and elsewhere as well.
My only (or at least main) concern, however, is that in order to justify the creation of these new, artificial nations, their creators tend to manipulate and falsificate history into the degrees of sillyness, which only totalitarian regimes can reach (Viva la North Korea). It further saddens me when we have better examples to compare them with, of natural, newly-arisen national identities, like the Slovaks f.e. (then again, I may simply not know enough about those examples' history). In any case, as long as they don't falsificate history and instill antagonism, I have no problems with the new nations. After all, our own nations were born in not-so-different birth throes as well...
Also, I agree with you that our own, Bulgarian, historians have plenty of "errors" as well. And if we look at the amateurs - I've seen "theories" which indeed prove we and the Macedonians are one - in the enormous and astounding absurdities of those claims.

[BosnianKnight]

Strange ..I thought Vardariotae were Magyar captives settled in Andrianople (know also as "Turks" by middle ages Romans)...
Read Alfread Rabaud's "Studies over Byzantine Empire" and you will find out WHEN Bulgarians first "claimed" the Macedonian legacy as "owners" and qonquerors of the "Lands Of Alexander the Great".

Also read 10th and 11th century Islamic manuscripts of who were "Macedonians" and what kind of race was Alexander belonged to...

Reading is harmless you know....

Bulgarians are NOT entirely slavic people ...
The ONLY fully slavic races came in to balkans i 6th century AD were the following:
Antes and Sclavenoi devided to :
a) Serbs
b)Chrovates (later known as Croats)
c) Dalmatians
Bulgarian homeland in Volga and Don rivers had a huge number of :
Slavic tribes such :
a) Smolens
b) Severins
c) Dregovitci
Steppe people
Iranian tribes
So Bulgarians (when they migraded in Balkans were a mix of all those people).

How people that came from Volga river in late 6th and early 7th century AD (AFTER CRIST'S BIRTH) can be descentens of Alexander the Great???

Dalamatians are not slavic.

[Hobbes]

Dalmatians? You mean Croats?

[neoptolemos]

Dalmatians? You mean Croats?

No, he is referring specifically to the people called Dalmatians, an Illyrian stock people who was latinized and later slavicized. They form a part of the population who constitutes modern Croats though.

[Hobbes]

The present tense confused me; I thought he meant ancient Dalmatians still exist or something.

[The Noble Lord]

No, he is referring specifically to the people called Dalmatians, an Illyrian stock people who was latinized and later slavicized. They form a part of the population who constitutes modern Croats though.

Then why did they called them "MaroVlachs" for centuries?? The masses of people of the Dalmatian hinterland and the interior was called "MaroVlachs" by the Venetians, Ragusans, Italians and French during their occupation of the strip of the Dalmatian coast??!!..

@NikeBG
Yes, I understand what you mean. But the entire idea of "Macedonism" can't be put only on Stojan Novakovic's shoulders, he was just proponent of such idea, never its executor and someone
who implemented it. During that time or the "Scramble for Macedonia" the official policy of the Serbs was to win more people to the Serbian cause, they were not really that much into converting
people to this new idea, it came later thanks to the Yugoslav state and CPY with the tacit approval of the Bulgarian Communists and Socialists, that is after 1945!

[AnthoniusII]

Alfred Rabaud in his "Studies over the Byzantine History" mention the Slavic sub tribal branches...
As "Dalmatians" he refers to slavic people that settled in Dalmatic coasts and became notorius pirates that did not recognise the authority of no state....
All the 1st wave slavic people were devided in to two branches (Sclavinoi or Ventoi and Antes) and from those branches major slavic people emerged like Serbians, Croats, Ergegovinoi,Raskoi and Dalmatians (like Neretvani Pirates).
The two major branches though devided in hundreds of minor tribes espesialy those that settled in the "greek" part of the balkan penissula!
Those settlements known as slaviniae or sclaviniae created by minor slavic tribes that did not follow the major stream in the northwest corner of the Roman Empire in late 6th century.
Tribes like Ezerites,Millinges,Berzites and Belligosts .
The Dalmatians YOU refer of were part of the Daco-Thracian branch of the Pellasgian Tribal leaque!
Later they had -like many north balkan people-Celtish immigrants from the settled Celtish tribes on the south coasts of Danube river!
In the same branch with THOSE Dalmatians were tribes like Mesians, Dardanians, Haones and propably Paeones...
All part of the great Pellasgian Tribal Leaque (like the Celtish leaque etc) that Hellenic and Thracian tribes belonged also!!!!!!
EDIT: I always mention that we should let people of the past "speak" for them selves.
Question: Lets supose that "Macedonians" were NOT Greeks.
Then why there are still villages/local tribes in north east Afganistan (not to mention those in north Pakistan that still worship Apollo and other Hellenic Gods), that they "claim" tw things:
One that they are decentens of Alexander's troops
Two that they are JUNAN.....
If Macedonians were NOT Greeks then why in Islamic Holly texts Alexander is described as a young JUNAN Prince?
Why from Egypt to India those people that led by Alexander and settled in those regions ARE STILL described as JUNAN???????????
Were Prophet Mohamed or the great Islamic scholars from 8th to 13th century part of a huge conspiracy to hide the real identity of macedonians?????

He's wrong ... whoever thinks that Alexander the son of Philip is the bicornuate who built the dam, because the output word is Arabic and bicornuate are the titles of the Arab kings of Yemen. while he (Alexander) is Giounani Rum .. "

Al Razi about the origin of Dull Carnein in the Islamic Mythology.

"... The first king of the Greeks that mentioned in the book of Ptolemy (the geographer) is Philip. meaning one who loves horses .... When Alexander ibn (son) of Philip took over, who was the first king of the Greeks, as we said Ptolemy, immediately Darius king of Persia sent emmisaries. . . asking him to honor the agreement of tax payment, Alexander replied, but I've kill that chicken, which engendered the golden eggs, and ate it. Then wars began between them ... "
"... he ( Alexander) built cities in each campaign. His teacher was Aristotle. the wise of the Greeks. He (Aristotle) was the author of books: Logic and Metaphysics and was a student of Plato, student of Socrates ... And when Alexander fell ill instructed (things) to the Head of his army and his military successor, Ptolemy .. "

Al Masudi (10th century) "News and info of old world and nations". Chapter "Kings of Greeks and Romans"!

[Kyriakos]

[...]
Question: Lets supose that "Macedonians" were NOT Greeks.
Then why there are still villages/local tribes in north east Afganistan (not to mention those in north Pakistan that still worship Apollo and other Hellenic Gods), that they "claim" tw things:
One that they are decentens of Alexander's troops
Two that they are JUNAN.....
If Macedonians were NOT Greeks then why in Islamic Holly texts Alexander is described as a young JUNAN Prince?
Why from Egypt to India those people that led by Alexander and settled in those regions ARE STILL described as JUNAN???????????
Were Prophet Mohamed or the great Islamic scholars from 8th to 13th century part of a huge conspiracy to hide the real identity of macedonians?????

That is easy to answer. Just notice how Albanians in MaceFyrom always cause troubles and a civil war, and forced the poor other race there to accept Albanian as a co-founding ethnicity of the state. It is clear that the muslim world always hated Mace's, cause of the old defeat of the achaemenid dynasty, so the hatred translated to a united conspiracy with the Byzantine Empire despite the endless wars between the two.
It is pretty solid Macelogic