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 19th, 2018, 04:56 PM   #31

Drini's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Germany
Posts: 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbil View Post
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.
Pretty accurate point of view.
Drini is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 20th, 2018, 02:27 AM   #32
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Netherlands
Posts: 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drini View Post
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.
It could be that many Vlachs are Thracians biologically. It could also be that Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarians and Romanians are also in part Thracian. However, no one in fact speaks Thracian and has thereof some sort of Thracian consciousness. There is no continuous literary tradition connecting these people with Thracians. Neither do Greeks and Turks in Thrace consider themselves to be ethnic Thracians. In that respect Thrace only has a geographical connotation.

Now in the case of Macedonia, we have a group of people claiming to be ethnic Macedonians. This complicates the whole issue since one group monopolizes the name and other people feel robbed of their identity. It raises a lot of historical and economic questions. I.e. Macedonian wine, Macedonian church, tourism etc. Why should Greece agree to the fact that the language is named 'Macedonian' while it obviously is not? On what scientific basis?

And the issue of irridentism is of course more complicated and a matter of geopolitics. Surely the country of FYROM is no threat to Greece. It never was. But historically the Macedonian issue was always used as a threat to Greece in combination with another country or institution. I.e. Yugoslavia or Bulgaria. From a Greek geo-political perspective the future is uncertain, and one does not know who can use this pawn against Greece in the future.

I agree with you that there should be some compromise for safety in the region and for the bilateral relations between two nations which can potentially become very friendly. I am very well aware that for many outsiders this issue may seem childish. Frankly, I certainly wouldn't blame them. In a way the may be right.

But needless to say for some of the aforementioned reasons and many more, no Greek government is going to recognize FYROM as Macedonia. Much less a Macedonian ethnic group or language. Frankly, I think no Greek government wants to wrestle with this issue. They rather keep it in the freezer. But at some point it is in both parties interest to find a solution. Perhaps the solution lies in small incremental steps from both sides.

Last edited by Dianatomia; January 20th, 2018 at 02:39 AM.
Dianatomia is offline  
Old January 20th, 2018, 04:18 AM   #33

Drini's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Germany
Posts: 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianatomia View Post
Perhaps the solution lies in small incremental steps from both sides.
I keep and I support your last phrase and I wish it was there a more peaceful Balkan peninsula.
Drini is offline  
Old January 20th, 2018, 04:56 AM   #34

Solidaire's Avatar
ou solitaire
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,235
Blog Entries: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbil View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drini View Post
Pretty accurate point of view.
What's accurate about it? I find it completely false. There is no connection whatsoever between Slav Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians. Different languages, cultures, peoples, timelines. Even geographically, the territory of FYR Macedonia lies in the periphery of ancient Macedonia, the heartland of which was in Greek Macedonia.

Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe that spoke a Doric Greek dialect, and later adopted Attic and Koine Greek. Though at first peripheral to the Greek world, they spread Greek language, culture and civilization as far as India through the conquests of Alexander the Great. FYR Macedonians are Slavs that speak a Slavic language, highly mutually intelligible with Bulgarian, and settled in Macedonia during the 6th and 7th centuries AD. They and their contemporary descendants of ancient Macedonians (who were Greek speakers) were completely different ethnic groups, with different cultures, languages, ethnic heritages. How can the newcomers claim not only the lands they invaded back then, but also the historic heritage of the people they antagonised for those lands? And even if some genetic interbreeding between local Macedonians and Slav Macedonians occurred, the original, Greek-speaking descendants of ancient Macedonians did not disappear; their vital space shrunk, but they were still there, coexisting in Macedonia with Slav-speakers. Up to the modern era.

It is one thing to claim lands and geographical regions, a common theme in human history. But to also claim the historical heritage of the traditional inhabitants of those lands? Especially when these continued and continue to exist, and when the claimants are a completely different ethnic group? We're talking about historical doppelgangers here, historical impersonation and falsification of stupefying magnitude.
Solidaire is offline  
Old January 21st, 2018, 05:01 AM   #35
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Europe
Posts: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valens View Post
Is there any historical basis for the modern Macedonian claims on Alexander's heritage and the kingdom of Macedon in general?
I am afraid not.

And although it is funny to prove the same for the Greek side, I post some stuff.

After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent back 300 Persian armours as a votive offering to Athena under the inscription "Alexander, son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians, present this offering from the spoils taken from the barbarians inhabiting Asia". ("The Anabasis of Alexander" by Arrian of Nicomedia). He wanted to mark Spartan's absence but it could be "Alexander, son of Philip, Macedonians and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians" yet it wasn't.


There is also Alexander's letter to Darius III, an answer to the preceded Darius III's letter that referred to friendship and alliance between Philip and Persians. Alexander's letter to Darius III - Livius
Quote:
[2.14.4] Alexander drafted a reply to this letter and sent Thersippus to accompany the envoys from Darius, with instructions to hand over the letter to Darius but not to engage in any negotiations. Alexander's letter read as follows: "Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors.
He didn't write "Macedonia and Greece", he is referring to Macedonia as a part of Greece. No political reason to write this, only Darius III and maybe some of his people were supposed to read it.


And also Pella curse tablet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet
An ancient tablet containing something like curse/magic spell written in poor vocabulary according to scholars. These two facts show the low status level of the woman who wrote it and yet it is in a form of a Doric dialect. Meaning that this dialect was common in the area.
This is the answer for the argument that only the elit of ancient Macedonians spoke ancient Greek.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbil View Post
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.
But we do talk about history. Would you like to comment the answer above, I have posted the links. Or would you like to prove what you claim using historical facts? What are your historical arguments?
FYROM carries this name arbitrarily after WWII. Tito just decided to change the name. And during Cold War era, any kind of diplomatic conflict could end up fatal so it was not allowed. Before WWII, the name was Vardarska Banovina.

Last edited by Third wish; January 21st, 2018 at 05:18 AM.
Third wish is offline  
Old January 21st, 2018, 09:45 AM   #36

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,991

There could be links, but all those antic nations transformed themselves. To say some are worthy than others is a like relative as the dna interpretations! I don't think is realy worthy for a nations to claim direct ancestry from an antic civilization, but is worthy to clarify ethnogenesis. Otherways is not quite a crime, for english, for example, to glorify Boudicca heroism, even english come mainly from anglo-saxons. Of course, excesses are not recomended...
Perix is offline  
Old January 21st, 2018, 10:06 AM   #37

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,292

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
There could be links, but all those antic nations transformed themselves. ...
The English word "antic" means "grotesque or "bizarre"

Is that the meaning you wanted to convey?
Lucius is offline  
Old January 21st, 2018, 10:12 AM   #38

Shtajerc's Avatar
last real Windischer
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Lower Styria, Slovenia
Posts: 5,835

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
How can the newcomers claim not only the lands they invaded back then, but also the historic heritage of the people they antagonised for those lands?
I sure don't support anyone claiming the history and culture of others, but what do you mean how can they claim the lands they invaded? Everyone does that. They settled there and live there ever since. Whoever was there before got assimilated. The Greek tribes didn't live in Greece since time immemorial either, they came from somewhere else and dispersed or assimilated someone who lived there before. As did pretty much everyone in Europe and elsewhere (not everywhere in the globe, I'm aware of that). By this logic no nation has the right its land.
Shtajerc is online now  
Old January 21st, 2018, 10:32 AM   #39

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The English word "antic" means "grotesque or "bizarre"

Is that the meaning you wanted to convey?
Antique actually (probably)
TupSum is offline  
Old January 21st, 2018, 10:32 AM   #40

Solidaire's Avatar
ou solitaire
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,235
Blog Entries: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
I sure don't support anyone claiming the history and culture of others, but what do you mean how can they claim the lands they invaded? Everyone does that. They settled there and live there ever since. Whoever was there before got assimilated. The Greek tribes didn't live in Greece since time immemorial either, they came from somewhere else and dispersed or assimilated someone who lived there before. As did pretty much everyone in Europe and elsewhere (not everywhere in the globe, I'm aware of that). By this logic no nation has the right its land.
Of course Shtajerc, I think I clarified that below the phrase you mention. I think it is clear what I mean in the passage you quoted as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
It is one thing to claim lands and geographical regions, a common theme in human history. But to also claim the historical heritage of the traditional inhabitants of those lands? Especially when these continued and continue to exist, and when the claimants are a completely different ethnic group? We're talking about historical doppelgangers here, historical impersonation and falsification of stupefying magnitude.

Last edited by Solidaire; January 21st, 2018 at 10:35 AM.
Solidaire 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 02:03 PM
Macedonia name issue and cultural claims. Aleeacerix the Gaul European History 18 October 25th, 2014 11:00 AM
Gods of ancient Macedonia Salah Ancient History 2 January 31st, 2013 11:57 AM
FYROM and Ancient Macedonia Ari European History 95 October 23rd, 2008 03:33 AM
Ancient Macedonia Ari European History 47 May 16th, 2008 10:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.