Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:09 PM   #21
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Netherlands
Posts: 179

Two important points should be made regarding the Ancient Macedonians and Slavic Macedonians.

1. The habitat of Ancient Macedonians lies in what is today Northern Greece (Greek Macedonia). Not in the FYR of Macedonia. Those lands were inhabited by other peoples. Even in Ancient times.
2. There is no cultural/linguistic link which can be made between Slavic Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians.

Essentially we are talking about two entirely different people in two different localities. So an attempt to link Ancient Macedonians with Slavic Macedonians is futile. This is unfortunate since there is not even a historical basis for sharing this heritage.

However, the naming issue is more complicated. Since the geographic connotation of Macedonia has changed numerous times throughout history and it encompassed many regions (like FYROM) who had nothing to do with Ancient Macedonians. In the same way, even Albania, Bulgaria and Turkish Thrace can also find reason to name its territory Macedonia.

Last edited by Dianatomia; January 2nd, 2018 at 03:30 PM.
Dianatomia is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:17 AM   #22
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 126

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
Two important points should be made regarding the Ancient Macedonians and Slavic Macedonians.

1. The habitat of Ancient Macedonians lies in what is today Northern Greece (Greek Macedonia). Not in the FYR of Macedonia. Those lands were inhabited by other peoples. Even in Ancient times.
Just a small nitpick here. The Pelagonia region of FYROM was part of Ancient Macedonia. The rest of FYROM was inhabited by Paeonians though.
Dzmeka is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 12:12 PM   #23
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Netherlands
Posts: 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzmeka View Post
Just a small nitpick here. The Pelagonia region of FYROM was part of Ancient Macedonia. The rest of FYROM was inhabited by Paeonians though.
The Pelagonian region was part of Upper Macedonia indeed. But even that region was not inhabited by Macedonians. The people inhabiting Pelagonia belonged to the Mollosian tribe from Epirus. These people were conquered by Alexanders father, Philip.

The Macedonians themselves lived further South. Even the Greek province of Macedonia today encompassed more tribes than just Macedonians in antiquity.

Ironically, the Southern edge of FYROM was indeed inhabited by Greeks, but they were not Macedonians.
Dianatomia is online now  
Old January 9th, 2018, 11:53 AM   #24
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Thessaloniki
Posts: 2

The ancient Macedonian people where Greeks, with Greek names and culture but they hadn't close relationships with the other Greeks. We know very little before Philip II.
The Slavs came down to Balkans in the 6th century and mixed up with the native people.
In this point I would like to say that Skopje need to establish they ambitions for independent state with the connection to Alexander the Great. They need to awake their national confidence through history. Think it as exactly as Alexander I of Macedonia connect his family to Argeades, in order to gain recognition from the Greeks and participate in the Olympics.
Historianis is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 05:31 AM   #25

Drini's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Germany
Posts: 28

This theme has been the first news title in media in both countries (Greece and Macedonia) for about a moth till today. The reason why this problem came to surface lies in recent intention for negotiation between the sides.

Although I do not not support any side, in my opinion this theme is really exaggerated and there is not point of this.

According the Greek side the modern Macedonia has not historical connection with the ancient Macedonia which undoubtedly was a Greek tribe so it should not claim any version of Macedonia in their name. However the argument of historical connection it is not something to discuss or to dispute. The history is written and it is impossible to change.

Nevertheless the way we name today most of cities and countries around the world should not follow soever the historical connection of the owner but mostly the geographical connection. For instance London was founded by Romans, Strasbourg was a German city, the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. In these cases and in many more the names have followed geographical characteristics and this is something the Greek side does not take in consideration in this case. Moreover this phenomenon happens also inside the modern Greek territory. Greece has named his northeast part of the country "Thrace" while this name was taken from the ancient Thracians, a non-greek tribe which lived there and the modern Bulgaria that existed in the same time with the ancient Macedonians.

On the other side the modern Macedonia (how the world know it or FYROM officially) it is a young country which is consisted of many different ethnicities, recently with two official languages, pour and powerless politically. In a country with so many differences and difficulties the necessity of national consciousness is extremely huge. As it is connected partly geographical then there is not grater national symbol than the ancient Macedonia and the Alexander the great. Keep in mind there is a greater importance of national consciousness for the stability inside the country rather than the historical truth.

The same time both countries fight diplomatically for this issue for decades and the hole world call the FYROM Macedonia without any confusion of the Greek origin of the Alexander the great and the ancient Macedonia. That is a truth of today history and will not change regardless the name modern Macedonia will have. So for a more peaceful Balkan I would suggest to create more bridges between the countries instead of destroying these that remain.
Drini is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 04:01 PM   #26
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
From: Republic of Macedonia
Posts: 616

This is history forum and for sure not forum for today political issues. Today Macedonians are connected with ancient Macedonians as much as are connected Bulgarians with Bulgars, Turkians with Tyrks, Greeks with ancient Greeks, Russians with Russ, Hungarians with Huns, Romanians with Romans. Best way to percive the stupidity of this issue is connection between Frenchmen and Franks as well as Britishmen and Brits.
We carry this name name with generations and imagine someone to tell you: you dont know who you are, I will tell you.
As i said, this is history forum.
bilbil is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 04:35 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,068

What's the difference between Russians and Russ?
mariusj is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 08:23 PM   #28

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 697

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
What's the difference between Russians and Russ?
Rus (one s) were a scandinavian tribe part of the Varangians.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rus

The norse theory is of course rejected by all "patriotic" russian historians for obvious reasons.

Anyway they were not slavs, but ruled over the slavs and basically organized the whole bunch into a state and provided the ruling dynasty, namely the house of Rurik.

Russians are the modern citizens of the Russians federation.

There is a manuscript the so called "primary chronicle", which is heart breakingly funny how the slavs basically went to the scandinavians and begged them to come and rule them, because they cannot do it

Quote:
They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to the Law." They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus'. … The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Ves then said to the Rus', "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us". They thus selected three brothers with their kinfolk, who took with them all the Rus' and migrated.

— The Primary Chronicle[34]
http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf

Last edited by TupSum; January 18th, 2018 at 08:31 PM.
TupSum is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM   #29
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Netherlands
Posts: 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drini View Post


According the Greek side the modern Macedonia has not historical connection with the ancient Macedonia which undoubtedly was a Greek tribe so it should not claim any version of Macedonia in their name. However the argument of historical connection it is not something to discuss or to dispute. The history is written and it is impossible to change.

Nevertheless the way we name today most of cities and countries around the world should not follow soever the historical connection of the owner but mostly the geographical connection. For instance London was founded by Romans, Strasbourg was a German city, the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. In these cases and in many more the names have followed geographical characteristics and this is something the Greek side does not take in consideration in this case. Moreover this phenomenon happens also inside the modern Greek territory. Greece has named his northeast part of the country "Thrace" while this name was taken from the ancient Thracians, a non-greek tribe which lived there and the modern Bulgaria that existed in the same time with the ancient Macedonians.
This is not so much about Ancient Macedonia. I agree with you that history can not be changed. The previous prime minister of Macedonia (FYROM) put its country in an embarrassing position by taking such a dogmatic line on Ancient Macedonia.

Yet the comparisons you gave are somehow mute. I.e. Egyptians (aside from the Copts of course) do not claim to speak Ancient Egyptian. There are no people who claim to be Thracians or claim to be speaking Thracian (even if they do not) and be recognized as such. If any group of peoples would take such a position, it would instigate a political crisis in the region. In any case, every neighboring country would have good reason not to recognize a Thracian ethnos. Now, in the case of Greece/FYROM, imagine that historically this whole idea of Macedonism has been actually used as a means of irridentism towards Greek territory in the 20st century. So we have to put things into perspective and take into account recent historical events. I think this is an issue Greek politicians actually don't want their hand to get dirty with.
Dianatomia is online now  
Old Yesterday, 05:52 PM   #30

Drini's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Germany
Posts: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post

Yet the comparisons you gave are somehow mute. I.e. Egyptians (aside from the Copts of course) do not claim to speak Ancient Egyptian. There are no people who claim to be Thracians or claim to be speaking Thracian (even if they do not) and be recognized as such. If any group of peoples would take such a position, it would instigate a political crisis in the region. In any case, every neighboring country would have good reason not to recognize a Thracian ethnos. Now, in the case of Greece/FYROM, imagine that historically this whole idea of Macedonism has been actually used as a means of irridentism towards Greek territory in the 20st century. So we have to put things into perspective and take into account recent historical events. I think this is an issue Greek politicians actually don't want their hand to get dirty with.
Hello Dianotomia. According to my example of Thracians and the name of the Greek region I think you lost my point. I tried to express that the geographical names of cities and regions survive as the centuries go by, no matter the new owner. It is well known that the Thracians were no Greek but they lived there. According to some scholars, the Vlachs are the descendants of Thracians but it is not important in my argument. The same nomenclature rule that exist in this Greek region can also explain the name of Macedonia.

To be honest I am aware of these means of irridentism that you describe but you give the impression of a kind of fear from the Greek side for Macedonian territorial expansion. This is today something technical impossible taking into account the political and the military power between these countries. Also the latest wars in Balkans proved exactly what I am saying. Moreover the reason why the Macedonian side is now positive for negotiation for their name of the country aims for an approval of Macedonia in NATO. This is something that secure with the most efficient way the territorial limits for every membership.

As I explained it earlier the reason of naming FYROM, Macedonia, apart from geographical rules, is important for self balance and national consciousness inside the country. These two things can determine their existence.

Everyone outside their borders knows what the ancient and what the modern Macedonia is. It is at least too late for these countries to keep their diplomatic conflict for something that the hole world it is yet used to it.
Drini is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
ancient, claims, fyr, herritage, macedon, macedonia



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How trustworthy are ancient sources (e.g., claims about invincibility)? Fenestella General History 4 October 16th, 2016 03:03 PM
Macedonia name issue and cultural claims. Aleeacerix the Gaul European History 18 October 25th, 2014 12:00 PM
Gods of ancient Macedonia Salah Ancient History 2 January 31st, 2013 12:57 PM
FYROM and Ancient Macedonia Ari European History 95 October 23rd, 2008 04:33 AM
Ancient Macedonia Ari European History 47 May 16th, 2008 11:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.