Slav ethnogenes and political implications

[Rosacrux redux]

First of all, the link

Alinei's PCT and Slav Ethnogenesis

(It is a .pdf file, btw)

This is part and parcel of the recent Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT), a radical theory propagated by Allinei (a linguist) and several other linguists, mostly south Slavic (mainly Slovenian and Slavomacedonian) and Italian, and a couple (literally) of archeologists.

To outline it in brief, according to this theory there was never an era of invasions or migrations past the paleolithic times and the populations in Europe and Asia have undergone little or no change since that era up until today.

It is a rather radical theory, ommiting all historical sources, using little or none actual facts and and archeological evidence but arbitrary picking bits and pieces to fit into the greater picture that seems apparently pre-made. It is a counter-theory to the (now outdated) Indo-European theory and as such goes waaaaaaay to far just to make a difference. See also for a happy medium between the IE theory and the PCT, the Neolithic continuity theory by Sir Colin Renphrew (the one I ascribe to, btw)

While I am an avid anti-IEist, I really don't see how such a radical theory as Allinei's (for instance, he says Slavs inhabited the southern Balkan since time immemorial and Turkics were already in the Ukrainian and Caucasus area from the Paleolithic) can be credited with anything past its political implications: Allinei is known for close ties with several south-slavic governments and institutions (mostly Yugoslavian, Slovenian and FYROMian) and apparently has received generous funding from sources of the same region. His theory seems constructed just to fit into a vision of Slavic indigenity in the Balkan region and consequently has humangous gaps when you try to expand it past the narrow confinments of eastern europe (to the whole eurasiatic area, for instance).

Please read the pdf in the link (it is rather huge - 57 pages, although you can ommit many - and as such only for those who really are interested in the subject.

[Dromikaites]

Nope, it doesn't make sense: in order to support his theory he says the Thracians were actually Slavs. The problem with this approach is the Romans controlled the Balkan area for almost as much as they've controlled Gaul. However Bulgarians speak a Slavic, not a Romance language. Why? Precisely because of the Slavic invasion of the Balkans.

[Odovacar]

Yes, that's the point. What these people write is just silly. Every source condtradicts them.

[wilpuri]

The actual genetic make-up of peoples' in many parts of Europe may have remained fairly unchanged since the last ice age, but cultures have come and gone, and relatively speaking, Slavs are new-comers.

[Farnan]

How about the Byzantine records of a Slavic invasion...The Arab records of a Turkic Invasion, the Frankish records of an Avar invasion, etc.

[Vash_the_stampede]

How about the Byzantine records of a Slavic invasion...The Arab records of a Turkic Invasion, the Frankish records of an Avar invasion, etc.

All made up by corrupt historians, only in order to make us believe that we are basically all the same and should be therefore brothers. I smell Jacobin cospiracy .

[Farnan]

Weren't the Jacobins just a faction in the French Revolution?

Edit: I know you are being sarcastic.

[antaeus]

logic says to me, that its got to be a blending of many of these theories rather than any particular individual theory. each individual 'migration' may be completely different to another. they are not mutually exclusive theories... this theory has weight, but only once you remove genetics from cultural change.

take for example, the visigoths... (or the element of the goths that fought at adrianople)... numerous historical sources point to the obvious migration of an entire people. they went with a wagon train that stretched out for dozens of miles full of women and children. but there is no way of knowing what percentage of women, children and men were actually ethnic or genetic goths, and what percentage were slaves, and other peoples moving with the goths for what ever reason. they were culturally a germanic dominated people for the most part, but genetically, the goths had been moving for centuries into areas inhabited by others, so its likely their original gene pool would have absorbed that of what ever peoples territories they crossed.

by the time they reached spain, they had been on the road for so long that they had become a group of peoples that probably included hundreds of genetic groups from their journey. this means that their journey could be both a mass migration of an ethnic group that was dominated by germanic culture, but included vast numbers of genetically mixed peoples from as far afield as the ukrane and gaul. they then settled in an area already inhabited by millions of gallo-iberian/roman peoples who would have quickly absorbed the gene pool of the migrating peoples if not the cultural elite. Within a few years, any strong trace of gothic genetic material would literally become just that, a trace.

The cultural heritage would have lasted far longer than the genetic trace, as culture can be transfered without the interference of genetic material. anybody who learns cultural traditions is in effect a part of that culture. eg. a second generation goth living in spain to a spanish mother, who only speaks gothic and knows germanic traditions is genetically half gothic but culturally 100 percent gothic. the same could occur for generations.

on the other hand, other migrations are easier to prove. the migration my ancestors were a part of can be proved because the individual names of the migrants has been archived.

apologies if i am not up to date on genetic terminology, as i am only using common sense as my guide...

[John I Tzimisces]

Turks? In the Caucasus? Before the Armenians? What tripe.

EDIT: I'll go so far to say theories like this are (or will be if they become widely accepted) the foundations of Genocides and Ethnic Cleansings...

[Dromikaites]

Well, Alinei's theory can't really support any ethnic cleansing. He probably started it by trying to figure out why the Southern Slavic languages seem to be the common trunk for both the Western and the Eastern Slavic languages. In other words why do they look "older" than the others if the dominant theory is Southern Slavs are the "newest" people.

I'm not an expert in linguistics but that would not be the first time the newest people has a more archaic language than its older relatives:
1) the French Canadians use words which are less often used in France;
2) the Romanian language is more archaic than the other Romance languages.
In both instances the language of the newest people stayed archaic because being isolated from the main language caused it to "froze" in time. The Southern Slavs were isolated from the rest because the Hungarians, the Cumans, the Pechenegs cut them off from the rest of the Slavic-speaking peoples just like the Slavs themselves cut off the Romanians from the rest of the Latin-speaking world. So the Southern Slavs' languages were frozen while the northern ones evloved into the current Western (Polish, Czech, Slovak) and Eastern (Russian, Ukrainean) forms.

[Odovacar]

I am no linguist either but I don't see why southern slavic languages would be older than northern ones.
The southern slavic language called bulgarian has the most oldest slavic texts. The oldest slavic language the protobulgarian, is called old slavic or something like that. But note, it is not the root of every slavic languages, it is just the oldest slavic language we know. The chechz, russian, moravian, slowakian languages did not evolve from the bulgarian aka old slavic. They evolved from a protoslavic language.
The tribes of liutitci, polabi, polak, checz, morawian, (marahani) sorbi, serbi, sloweni, hrwatska existed
already in the 9th century according to written sourves like the Bavarian geographer, and neither northern slavs nor southern ones came to exist sooner or later. Nations were formed in different times from these tribes though.
For example the slowakian nation was formed as a nation around 1700. Before that the name slowak was used only by that people but the people already existed, in its basic features.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Of course there is a continuity between balkanian peoples and the peoples of today. While the bulgarians are slavic they incoporated turko-bulgar elements and balkanian, illyrian etc. peoples already. The original slavs had an appearance which has more to do with a checz's or russian's appearence today than with a bulgarian. As I have seen most bulgarians are lather small, dark haired, etc. while northern slaves are more nordic types, except those russians who have clearly steppe people or mongolian appearence. (Black hair, not usual european eyes)
Antrophologically it is true that they have some heritage of the non slavic peoples living in that area before them.
But the fact cannot be denied that the speak a slavic language which was not to be found before the so called "slavic invasions" in the 5-6th century and onwards, and the names of peoples like polish are slavic as well as their genetical heritage. It would be difficult to prove that polish people lived in today's Poland since Adam and Eva, and that they are celts, or that the checz are boi's or longobards-vandals...
Despite of that no one call the rights of these peoples in question. This is just a balkanian political problem which evolved into a false theory.

[Dromikaites]

I am no linguist either but I don't see why southern slavic languages would be older than northern ones.

Alinei says that the way the 3 Slavic language gropus are related to each other (both Western and Eastern are closer to Southern than to each other) makes sense only if the Southern group of languages is the oldest and the 2 others diverged from it. It makes sense. However what doesn't make sense is his conclusion: therefore the Southern Slavs have always lived in the Balkans and they were initially known as Thracians.

We can still say the Southern group is the oldest of the 3 without assuming those Slavs always lived in the Balkans. We know they were simply cut off from the rest of the Slavs and thus their language "froze" close to its initial format. Otherwise it would be like saying the French are originally from Quebec and from there they've migrated to France because Quebecois French is slightly more archaic than France French.

This is just a balkanian political problem which evolved into a false theory.

Or more like a scientist's speculative theory being funded by some Balkans' politicians. Even though I fail to see the benefits of such funding: none of the Slav nations of the Balkans can claim pieces of land from the neighbors invoking historic rights. If they are not the dominant population in whatever area they might claim, they won't get it. And if they are the majority, then they don't need this theory. Albanians in Kosovo don't need any historic support for separating from Serbia. The ethnic structure of the population there and the behavior of Milosevic were eneough

[Last Roman]

no, it doesn't work. How do they account for such similar lingustic structure across Europe?

[Odovacar]

You are right, but you seem to forget Dromikaites, that there was/is (?) an issue between Greece and Macedonia.
The greeks demandd the "macedons" to chage the name of their land, because they are -unlike the greeks-not descendants of the original people whose name their country bears. The macedons, of course, denied their demand. I think they think of themselves as heirs of the old macedons, despite of being slavic origin.
Interesting is, that we hungarians pronuonce the new macedons with c- (that is like in "Ticinium") and not with "k" voice. So after all, we make difference between the two, but I guess it not due to the greek demands

[Dromikaites]

You are right, but you seem to forget Dromikaites, that there was/is (?) an issue between Greece and Macedonia.
The greeks demandd the "macedons" to chage the name of their land, because they are -unlike the greeks-not descendants of the original people whose name their country bears. The macedons, of course, denied their demand. I think they think of themselves as heirs of the old macedons, despite of being slavic origin.
Interesting is, that we hungarians pronuonce the new macedons with c- (that is like in "Ticinium") and not with "k" voice. So after all, we make difference between the two, but I guess it not due to the greek demands

Greece's demand is ridiculous for several reasons:
1) There is a piece of ancient Macedonia in the nowadays country called Macedonia so the Slav-speaking population living there (in that piece of ancient Macedonia) can rightfully claim they are also the descendents of Alexander. Just like the French claim they are descendents of the Gauls;
2) There is no such thing as owning a copyright on the name of a country.
3) Most of the nowadays Greeks are also descendents of the Slavs anyway. The Slavs had overrun Greece in the 6th century and it was only some 2 centuries later that the Byzantine emperors got it back and then re-colonized Greek-speaking populations from Anatolia into Greece. So even the Greeks living today on the territory of ancient Macedonia have Slavs among their ancestors, therefore not being "more pure" descendents of Alexander than the other Macedonians (Slav ones).
4) The largest concentration of people believing that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks lives...in Greece. Outside Greece most of the educated people consider ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians as being 2 distinct people. They base this conclusion on the writtings of the contemporary historians (among which we can count Herodotus himself). So outside Greece the Greek government's claim of exclusivity over the name Macedonia sounds slightly ridiculous.*

In any case Alinei's theory doesn't help Macedonia in any way.

---------------------------
* The best way to tick off a Greek "patriot" is to tell him Alexander the Great was not Greek. The second best way is to say ouso was copied after the Turkish raki, but that comes as a distant second (Origins of ouso/raki also works the other way round, with Turkish "patriots". However for them the Armenian Genocide is the best way to bring foam at their mouths.)

[Rosacrux redux]

Greece's demand is ridiculous for several reasons:
1) There is a piece of ancient Macedonia in the nowadays country called Macedonia so the Slav-speaking population living there (in that piece of ancient Macedonia) can rightfully claim they are also the descendents of Alexander. Just like the French claim they are descendents of the Gauls;

Not quite. Ancient Makedonia did not include anything that's now a part of the Slavomacedonian state. Check any map of ancient Makedonia. This part of the world became a part of "Makedonia" only in Roman times, along with another small chunck of what is now in Bulgaria.

2) There is no such thing as owning a copyright on the name of a country.

As a Balkanian I thought you'd know better. Too bad you don't.

3) Most of the nowadays Greeks are also descendents of the Slavs anyway. The Slavs had overrun Greece in the 6th century and it was only some 2 centuries later that the Byzantine emperors got it back and then re-colonized Greek-speaking populations from Anatolia into Greece. So even the Greeks living today on the territory of ancient Macedonia have Slavs among their ancestors, therefore not being "more pure" descendents of Alexander than the other Macedonians (Slav ones).

And here comes the racist 19th century orientalism revived! I am afraid there's been a long time since the creation of this absurdity of a theory and it has been eversinice amply discredited by GENETIC STUDIES. It didn't survive the modern genetics, so to say.

Now geneticists all over know that Greeks are nowhere close on having anything to do with Slavs. The genetic studies show that Greeks are a very distinct group of people, and that everybody around them has a great deal of Greek genes in them - and not vice versa I am afraid. If you want more genetic proof, just ask. I'll get you whatever you need.

The depopulation-recolonization of Hellas proper in Byzantine times is another neat myth propagated by various Slavic sources - quite innacurate.

4) The largest concentration of people believing that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks lives...in Greece. Outside Greece most of the educated people consider ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians as being 2 distinct people. They base this conclusion on the writtings of the contemporary historians (among which we can count Herodotus himself). So outside Greece the Greek government's claim of exclusivity over the name Macedonia sounds slightly ridiculous.*

Up until a few decades ago, no sane person would even think of questioning the fact that the Makedones were Greek. I am quite sure Herodotus (who, despite not being the most reliable source, clearly states in more than one occassions that Makedones are Greeks and I wonder what kind of ridiculous assertion is that you make) hasn't changed anything of his writings in the past 40 years. Nor did Polybious, Hesiod, Isocrates, Aristotle and all the dozens of Greek sources that verify beyond any doubt that Makedones were Greeks. What changed/ Weel, what changed is this: a campaign of propaganda, that used Tito's creation of "Macedonian people" to utilize other plans. After that little campaign, what we have now is half-knowledgeable people like you who believe that most of the educated people considering Greeks and Makedones not the same. Then I guess countless generations of classicists that never posed a single doubt until the 50s, were uneducated morons, huh?

Dromi, I find you rather anti-Greek... it's a widespread syndrome in the Balkans, but I thought you wouldn't ascribe to it. I was wrong, apparently.

[Dromikaites]

Not quite. Ancient Makedonia did not include anything that's now a part of the Slavomacedonian state. Check any map of ancient Makedonia. This part of the world became a part of "Makedonia" only in Roman times, along with another small chunck of what is now in Bulgaria.

Well, I used the Shepherd Atlas from the collection of maps of the University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...herd-c-017.jpg
According to that picture most of ancient Macedonia is inded in Greece but there is the part around lake Prespa and along the Axios river before meeting Vardar river.

As a Balkanian I thought you'd know better. Too bad you don't.

No I don't really. Do you care to explain?

The depopulation-recolonization of Hellas proper in Byzantine times is another neat myth propagated by various Slavic sources - quite innacurate.

Well, I've read about it in Warren Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society ". Treadgold (http://www.slu.edu/departments/history/treadgold.htm) is one of the leading historians on Byzantium in US. I'm not sure his works qualify for the label "myth propagated by various Slavic sources"..

Up until a few decades ago, no sane person would even think of questioning the fact that the Makedones were Greek. I am quite sure Herodotus (who, despite not being the most reliable source, clearly states in more than one occassions that Makedones are Greeks and I wonder what kind of ridiculous assertion is that you make) hasn't changed anything of his writings in the past 40 years. Nor did Polybious, Hesiod, Isocrates, Aristotle and all the dozens of Greek sources that verify beyond any doubt that Makedones were Greeks. What changed/ Weel, what changed is this: a campaign of propaganda, that used Tito's creation of "Macedonian people" to utilize other plans. After that little campaign, what we have now is half-knowledgeable people like you who believe that most of the educated people considering Greeks and Makedones not the same. Then I guess countless generations of classicists that never posed a single doubt until the 50s, were uneducated morons, huh?

Well, let's see Herodotus. More speciffically this episode: the Persians under Xerxes cross into Europe and the Thessalians are the first Greek state to surrender to them. If we look at the map I provided we can see the Persians had to cross Macedonia first before reaching Thessaly. So Macedonia was not considered to be a Greek state by Herodotus himself, who had spent some time at the court of the Macedonian king Alexander Ist while documenting for his book.

Speaking of Alexander Ist, Herodotus mentiones an incident: the Greeks wanted him excluded form the Olympics on grounds he wasn't Greek (the games were reserved only to Greeks). So the Macedonian king has to prove he was a descendent of the Argives (mythical Greek heroes - kind of like Julius Caesar, who claimed he was a descendent of goddess Venus ). In other words, if the king himself had to prove he was Greek, the nation he was ruling counld not be taken for granted as being Greek.
Here are the 2 fragments, and the links to Perseus library for those interested in reading more:
1) Thesalians (not Macedonians) being the first Greeks to surrender to the Persians (Herodotus "Histories" book 7 chapter 130 section 3 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...on%3D%233413):

This he said with regard in particular to the sons of Aleues, the Thessalians who were the first Greeks to surrender themselves to the king. Xerxes supposed that when they offered him friendship they spoke for the whole of their nation. After delivering this speech and seeing what he had come to see, he sailed back to Therma.

2) The Macedonian king having to prove he was descending form some mythical Greek heroes (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ut=&loc=5.22):

XXII. Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history. Furthermore, the Hellenodicae1 who manage the contest at Olympia determined that it is so, [2] for when Alexander chose to contend and entered the lists for that purpose, the Greeks who were to run against him wanted to bar him from the race, saying that the contest should be for Greeks and not for foreigners. Alexander, however, proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek. He accordingly competed in the furlong race and tied step for first place. This, then, is approximately what happened.

So it's not me making ridiculous assertions, it's Herodotus.

Dromi, I find you rather anti-Greek... it's a widespread syndrome in the Balkans, but I thought you wouldn't ascribe to it. I was wrong, apparently.

Oops! So if I claim the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks based on Herodotus writtings I am "rather anti-Greek"? Well, why on earth would I be anti-Greek? My country doesn't even have a common border with Greece and historically Romania and Greece were allies in the Balkans.

[Rosacrux redux]

Well, I used the Shepherd Atlas from the collection of maps of the University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...herd-c-017.jpg
According to that picture most of ancient Macedonia is inded in Greece but there is the part around lake Prespa and along the Axios river before meeting Vardar river.

Upper Lyncestis was annexed to Makedonia during Alexander's I times, it wasn't geographically "Makedonia" before. The rest is all in what is today Greek borders. Even in that map, the lands that are today into FYROM are about 1/10th of whole Makedonia - the rest is in what is today Greece.

No I don't really. Do you care to explain?

Well, the Bulgarians say they are descended from the Thracian and thus "were always here".
The Albanians claim the Illyrians.
The Slovenian and Serbs claim the Phrygians and Veneti (not Jordanes' Veneti, those the Roman sources bring forth, the ones that settled Veneto in the Adriatic).
The Croatian claim Iranian descent (now, they are a novelty, as they don't really fit into the Balkans, but they say they've been here from time immemorial)
Slavomacedonian claim Makedonian descent
The Turks, always aiming high, go for the Sumerian, Etruscan and - in some cases - the Lemurians (Kemal Ataturk was an avid fan of the theory that Turks came into Asia when Mu-Lemuria was destroyed! )
Your people claim Dacian descent.

Of those claims only one (Roman-Dacian connection) has some basis. The rest are either popular misconceptions (the Albanian=Illyrian thing) or just blatant, wild lies or ludicrous fairy tales.

Why all these little nice mythical constructs are being fabricated? Well, you are a smart boy, think about it.

Well, I've read about it in Warren Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society ". Treadgold (http://www.slu.edu/departments/history/treadgold.htm) is one of the leading historians on Byzantium in US. I'm not sure his works qualify for the label "myth propagated by various Slavic sources"..

It is a myth. I'll give you sources too - haven't got them at hand.

Well, let's see Herodotus. More speciffically this episode: the Persians under Xerxes cross into Europe and the Thessalians are the first Greek state to surrender to them. If we look at the map I provided we can see the Persians had to cross Macedonia first before reaching Thessaly. So Macedonia was not considered to be a Greek state by Herodotus himself, who had spent some time at the court of the Macedonian king Alexander Ist while documenting for his book.

Nice. Let's see what you are omitting, shall we? You should read ALL Herodotus and not just a passage provided by the pro-FYROMian sites . Because if you had, you'd know that Makedonia was already subdued in the previous campaign, the one of Mardonious, when also Thrace was subdued. Makedonia was a vassal state of Persia, practically, and the Shahansah has ordered a series of depots to be build in Makedonian land (and in Thracian) to feed his hungry hordes while marching to get to Thessaly.

Here is the exempt from Book Six of Herodotus

At least these towns served as a pretext for the expedition, the real purpose of which was to subjugate as great a number as possible of the Grecian cities; and this became plain when the Thasians, who did not even lift a hand in their defence, were reduced by the sea force, while the land army added the Macedonians to the former slaves of the king. All the tribes on the hither side of Macedonia had been reduced previously.

So, next time read yourself Herodotus and don't take for granted what the Slavomacedonians and their supporters pick as "truth", because otherwise you'll be finding yourself making blatant errors, like that above.

You should then add what Herodotus thought of the Makedones, no? Why not include the passage of Herodotus where he says that Makedones are Greeks?

Now these were the nations who composed the Grecian fleet. From the Peloponnese, the following—the Lacedaemonians with six, teen ships; the Corinthians with the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians with fifteen; the Epidaurians with ten; the Troezenians with five; and the Hermionians with three. These were Dorians and Macedonians all of them (except those from Hermione), and had emigrated last from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis. The Hermionians were Dryopians, of the race which Hercules and the Malians drove out of the land now called Doris. Such were the Peloponnesian nations.

So, the Peloponesians are of Makedonian stock, but the Makedonian are not Greek? Nice logic, once more... there are a few more passages where Herodotus clearly ranks the Makedones among the Greeks (not only their royal house, the people as well - but not all subjects of the Makedonian King were Greek,that's a given and from that a lot of misunderstanding stems).

Speaking of Alexander Ist, Herodotus mentiones an incident: the Greeks wanted him excluded form the Olympics on grounds he wasn't Greek (the games were reserved only to Greeks). So the Macedonian king has to prove he was a descendent of the Argives (mythical Greek heroes - kind of like Julius Caesar, who claimed he was a descendent of goddess Venus ). In other words, if the king himself had to prove he was Greek, the nation he was ruling counld not be taken for granted as being Greek.

So, here we go: the fact that the king of Makedonia had to prove (which... suprise! he bloody did) that he was Greek (to a Greek world that ignored everything past the existence of the Makedones) is a proof that he wasn't???!!!
I mean, what kind of logic is that? It's like another guy who claimed that the fact that only a Northwestern Greek dialect was spoken in Makedonia proper, proves that... Makedonians were not Greek

Well, by that logic I can prove that Bush is the Antichrist, the Arabs descented from Mars and Romanians are one of the lost tribes of Israel

BTW the Argives are not "mythical Greek heroes" but the royal house of Argos, thrown out of it when the Herakleides took control of Argos in the period know as "the Dorian invasion". I am afraid your knowledge of Greek history is rather vague and superficial and your ironic comparisons with J.C. and Venus profoundly innacurate.

So it's not me making ridiculous assertions, it's Herodotus.

So, it is you after all making ridiculous assertions. I can grant you the alleviation of ignorance, but nothing past that, because you seem quite arrogant (despite the aforementioned ignorance).

Oops! So if I claim the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks based on Herodotus writtings I am "rather anti-Greek"? Well, why on earth would I be anti-Greek? My country doesn't even have a common bodrer whith Greece and historically Romania and Greece were allies in the Balkans.

As we have both seen, it's the fact that you pick selected passages of Herodotus that do not say anything besides the first Greeks Xerxes subdued were the Thessalians (which is true, as Mardonius has added Makedonia in the Persian vassals in the previous campaign) while ignoring everything else - Not to mention the snide remarks about copyrighting names, greek nationalists and the rest.

Also, the fact that you ascribe to the Slav=Greeks theory and remain silent when Genetic Evidence comes forth disproving the Slavic myth.

Why's everyone's favorite sport to take a bite off the Greeks nowadays?

[Dromikaites]

Humm, I have nothing against a thread dedicated to the Greekness (or lack of it) of the ancent Macedonians. That's however not the topic of this thread. We've got into this discussion because Odovacar thought Alinei's theory could support Slav nationalism in the Balkans while I expressed doubt about the usefulness of that theory for the Slavs at a time borders are drawn according to demographics. I think I need to make my position clear on some issues:

1) I believe that the part of Greece known as the district/county of Macedonia (and which includes some 90% of ancient Macedonia) is rightfully Greek. Not because of any historic rights but because the overwhelming majority of the people living there want to be Greek citizens, not Bulgarian nor Macedonian ones.
2) I believe that even if all the Slav Macedonians can prove that their ancestors were the ancient Macedonians that still doesn't give them any right over any square centimeter of the Greek territory. That territory belongs to the people living there today. End of story.
3) I believe that the Greek government's reaction to Slav Maceodnia calling istelf Macedonia was stupid for the reasons stated above: no matter how Slav Macedonia is called, as long as the citizens of Greek Macedonia want to be part of Greece, that's where that territory is going to stay.

On the issue of ancient Macedonians being Greeks or not, I believe that their elites were Hellenised but the majority of the population was not. I base this conclusion on the ancient works of Herodotus and Quintus Curtius Rufus (the famous Philotas' trial) not on Slav propaganda. I consider those two sources particularily relevant to the issue because:
1) Herodotus visited the Macedonian court while documenting for his book;
2) Quintus Curtius Rufus used the now lost works of Ptolemy and Aristobul, two of Alexander the Great's generals so his works are based on eye-witness' accounts.
I expect that instead of being accused of something I am not (an anti-Greek) to see documented evidence that supports the claim Macedonians were Greeks.

I do have a thing against fanaticism of all sorts and therefore I do ridicule "patriots" and fundamentalists of any kind, size and in any numbers. If this Apostate is the same Apostate from the RTR forums then yes, indeed, he is a "victim" of mine. Or more likely of his own hot temper and bad manners. That Apostate on the RTR forums was calling the Slav Macedonians all sort of things, including "Malakadonians" (malaka = somebody who :wub:s, in Greek language). Since the moderators were obviously not familiar with the Greek insults, I tricked that Apostate into translating his own insults. Then the moderators were able to see that thread (started by that very Apostate, by the way) was indeed a hate-fest and therefore they closed it.

[apostate]

1) I believe that the part of Greece known as the district/county of Macedonia (and which includes some 90% of ancient Macedonia) is rightfully Greek. Not because of any historic rights but because the overwhelming majority of the people living there want to be Greek citizens, not Bulgarian nor Macedonian ones.

the greeks who live in macedonia rightfully refer to themselves as "macedonians" and can righfully claim historic rights as well

2) I believe that even if all the Slav Macedonians can prove that their ancestors were the ancient Macedonians that still doesn't give them any right over any square centimeter of the Greek territory. That territory belongs to the people living there today. End of story.

OK since u convinced yourself now try yo convince the slavomacedonians too
for a first step u can visit one of forums where such debates take place and find out yourself the amount of respect to our borders and our history that they show

3) I believe that the Greek government's reaction to Slav Maceodnia calling istelf Macedonia was stupid for the reasons stated above: no matter how Slav Macedonia is called, as long as the citizens of Greek Macedonia want to be part of Greece, that's where that territory is going to stay.

yes it was REALLY stupid esp regarding those silly slognans that make no sense ("macedonia is greek" and etc....esp damage it made the involvement of church)

the gornement acted like it wished to lose

On the issue of ancient Macedonians being Greeks or not, I believe that their elites were Hellenised but the majority of the population was not.I base this conclusion on the ancient works of Herodotus and Quintus Curtius Rufus (the famous Philotas' trial) not on Slav propaganda. I consider those two sources particularily relevant to the issue because:
1) Herodotus visited the Macedonian court while documenting for his book;
2) Quintus Curtius Rufus used the now lost works of Ptolemy and Aristobul, two of Alexander the Great's generals so his works are based on eye-witness' accounts.
I expect that instead of being accused of something I am not (an anti-Greek) to see documented evidence that supports the claim Macedonians were Greeks.

dromokaites u are missing that the macs were a unique stock of hellenic people because simple they cannot be something else....
if they were not people of hellenic stock,then WHAT are they since before their rise they were an unimportant and fameless little kingdom?

since they are NOWHERE named as one of the numerous Illyrians and Thracian tribes and since they themselves say they share common descend with greeks and since they share ALL kinds of bondages in mythology,religion,language,names with Hellenism they can be considered a part of Hellenism as well as any Hellenic tribe

i mean whats more likely to be truth?
that they were of Hellenic stock or that they had nothing to do with greeks in the first place? (and were nothing like Hellenic therefore)
its illogical to claim that their nobles only were Hellenic
i mean how would their subjects (the supposed non greek low class Macedonians accept foreign people for their royal house for SO LONG time???)

also its clear that their kings and high class proudly speak for themselves as Macedonians AND as Greek at the same time!
(like Alexandros I says that he is a "greek man second in charge -after great king of persians- ruler of the Macedonians",but also he introduces to the Athenians as being "Alexandros the Macedonian" who is "by ancient descend a greek")

the evidence which come from ancient sources are enouph to be used for someone who wants to back both for and against the macs being greeks
....its easy for me to c/p ALL stuff for both sides!

instead u (and many greeks as well) should try to get closer to the whole picture of the puzzle by accepting some facts that are logical,than skate on ice by claiming all sort of wild things

the macedonians were unique people proud of their hellenic descend and struggled to be accepted as proper and equal greeks in all hellenic constitutions and finally succeeded it and also became hegemons of all the Hellenes.....NO barbarian ever managed to do so and NO barbarian ever tried simple because they were proud of being barbarians and didnt need to be accepted as greeks

I do have a thing against fanaticism of all sorts and therefore I do ridicule "patriots" and fundamentalists of any kind, size and in any numbers. If this Apostate is the same Apostate from the RTR forums then yes, indeed, he is a "victim" of mine. Or more likely of his own hot temper and bad manners. That Apostate on the RTR forums was calling the Slav Macedonians all sort of things, including "Malakadonians" (malaka = somebody who :wub:s, in Greek language). Since the moderators were obviously not familiar with the Greek insults, I tricked that Apostate into translating his own insults. Then the moderators were able to see that thread (started by that very Apostate, by the way) was indeed a hate-fest and therefore they closed it.

u and your failure in speaking with reason along with your audacity is indeed very funny....
i well recall that we tricked u in irc (along with other hatred little persons) and made u confess all about your attitude
...and we tricked u very easily indeed because we took advantage of your evident self conceit!
same as i recall that before i tell u what "malakas" means u thought it meant "gay" :laughing:

as for me accused that "malakas" is a "terrible" and "insulting" word,thats totally untrue since this is an everyday word (used with not its literal meaning) and every greek lad uses it 100 times addressing to his pals when he drinks coffee with them
other than that "malakadonian" is a funny "play" with words which only greeks can understand well,thats why it was in greek speaking thread in rtr forum in the first place
i also well remember how funny u and some other people were when out of sillisness u geniuses had that marvelous idea of accusing me (and other greek lads as well) of being anti-Slav when in fact i myself in our mod have the best relationships from the very beginning with DF and Uranos who are Slav people!

-u cant help yourself with trying to reduce other people by lying and making wild hypothesis out of your ignorance-

as i said before the propaganda is used by weak people who wish to hide their disabilities
so i perfectly understand the reason u tried to propagandise against me (again)

If this Apostate is the same Apostate from the RTR forums then yes, indeed, he is a "victim" of mine

LOL
u have big idea for yourself :laughing:
the circus came in town!i enjoy u well

----------------

but firstly,before u continue with "macedonian issue",u d better try to conform some Romanian people,like your little friend "Makidon" who think those are the real macs or whatever :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: