The dependence on wikipedia

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,112
Portugal
It's the grecophiles who have problems with borza's views.
So? That means that at your eyes I am not a "grecophile"? But that also is to deflecting the things, again.

So, what revelations does Borza make in the end of the book? As you insinuated. Or I am beginning to think that you didn’t read the book that you recemented.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,360
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Borza is not sure, he cannot state with certainty this or that thesis [Greek or not Greek origin]. This is a honest stance and we should consider it. When in historiography you meet two options and there is a lack of primary sources to sustain that one of them is correct ... the question remains open [like a coin flip ... 50% - 50%]. He simply remarks the absence of archaeological evidences and that we know the early Macedonian history thanks to later Greek works. This is rather problematic for a historian who wants to find out the real origin of that people.
 
Mar 2013
1,047
Breakdancing on the Moon.
Borza is not sure, he cannot state with certainty this or that thesis [Greek or not Greek origin]. This is a honest stance and we should consider it. When in historiography you meet two options and there is a lack of primary sources to sustain that one of them is correct ... the question remains open [like a coin flip ... 50% - 50%]. He simply remarks the absence of archaeological evidences and that we know the early Macedonian history thanks to later Greek works. This is rather problematic for a historian who wants to find out the real origin of that people.
It comes down to a philological problem: Do the sound changes attested for the Macedonian dialect (assuming our hyper fragmentary sources are correct in their testimony!) make Macedonian a dialect of Greek or simply an incredibly close relative? That's all we need to know to ascertain ethnogenesis.

From an external, historicising, POV, it doesn't matter. The differences are small enough that we can take them as Greek. Even if slightly divergent.
 
Aug 2019
571
North
Borza is not sure, he cannot state with certainty this or that thesis [Greek or not Greek origin]. This is a honest stance and we should consider it. When in historiography you meet two options and there is a lack of primary sources to sustain that one of them is correct ... the question remains open [like a coin flip ... 50% - 50%]. He simply remarks the absence of archaeological evidences and that we know the early Macedonian history thanks to later Greek works. This is rather problematic for a historian who wants to find out the real origin of that people.
50%-50%? It seems more like 90 to 10 to me (I'll allow it).
He doesn't know anything about the early macedonians, but does know that they weren't recognized as greeks.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,360
Italy, Lago Maggiore
50%-50%? It seems more like 90 to 10 to me (I'll allow it).
He doesn't know anything about the early macedonians, but does know that they weren't recognized as greeks.
From an ancient Greek perspective ... but then he doesn't exclude that the Macedonians could have had a Greek origin. But entering in deep in the matter he notes that historically this or that cannot be sustained with certainty.
 
Oct 2012
856
50%-50%? It seems more like 90 to 10 to me (I'll allow it).
He doesn't know anything about the early macedonians, but does know that they weren't recognized as greeks.
This is increasigly absurd. Can you name any historian , who ,in your opinion, knows the hidden truth about the early Macedonians?
 
Jun 2017
2,988
Connecticut
If you took time to think, you'd come to conclusion that I didn't mean about the books, but about the discussion about the books. You mentioned discussing the books first.

Borza doesn't in any way say that macedonian was connected to greek.
Yet another thread derailed by someone with a regional only perspective who insists everyone else from everywhere else on the planet is wrong.
 
Aug 2019
571
North
From an ancient Greek perspective ... but then he doesn't exclude that the Macedonians could have had a Greek origin. But entering in deep in the matter he notes that historically this or that cannot be sustained with certainty.
And from whose else's perspective? Finaly, the book's called what it's called - the shade meaning lack of sunburst. [ancient macedonians may have wanted to belong to the ancient greeks. That is the 10% I allowed, but I'm probali wrong on this one].
 
Last edited: