Ghost on the throne by James Romm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nexus
    Junior Member
    • Oct 2012
    • 73

    #31
    Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
    No credible historian has ever connected the modern Slavic-speaking nation of Macedonia with the ancient world, neither linguistically, culturally or geographically. If you have any proof or evidence to the contrary please post it. It will be greatly appreciated by many. Macedonia (the real one) was, as we said, an intrinsic and essential part of the Greek-speaking world and today, some two million Greeks also identify themselves as "Macedonian" so there is no animus to be had, far from it. In Greece, "Macedonian" is another word for "Greek." Similarly, I presume that in Bulgaria, "Macedonian" is another word for "Bulgarian" so you might begin to see the problem.
    We don't say that Macedonia was part of the Greek-speaking world, it's your personal opinion. And about thoses two million Greeks who identify themselves as "Macedonians", are you talking about the descendants of the christians turks refugees who settled in Macedonia after the World War I ?

    Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
    You are right that the Gruevski government is your greatest threat. The present government in Skopje has antagonised and made enemies of all of Macedonia's neighbours: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Who are your allies? Oh, yes, I forgot, The Turks are, aren't they? You're in safe hands there, alright. Good luck with that.
    The problems with Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania don't have began with the Gruevski government. Look at the events of the XIX-XX centuries and you will understand a little bit more why Macedonia has problems with his lovely neighbors. You can inform yourself by visiting the Forum, and i recommend you that.

    Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
    Macedonia has yet to join the community of nations in the EU or in the Atlantic alliance. More, the present government has created in Skopje what a Sacramento, California newspaper called "The capital of Kitsch" by spending tens of millions of euros erecting giant plastic statues and follies of figures and buildings belonging to other cultures. In every country with roots in the ancient world, in Greece, in France, in Italy in Turkey and others, the monuments and their remnants are real, only in Skopje is there a kitschy Disneyland of phoniness. No, wait a moment, there is another place full of phoney statues and buildings: Las Vegas, Nevada where you can visit "Caesar's Palace" or "The Colosseum" or "The Eiffel Tower" or "The Pyramids of Egypt."
    Macedonia has also roots in the ancient world, for examples, look at the Kokino observatory, the antic theater in Ohrid, Stobi and there is many other historic places all over Macedonia, more than you think. Why are you just focused on the central place of Skopje ? Maybe you don't like the few statues ? Personally, i have a mitigated opinion about theses statues, but i think that they achieved their goals very well, they have send a clear message. Also tell me why Alexander of Macedon, Philip II, Tsar Samuil, Cyril and Method do not belong to the Macedonian culture ?

    Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
    Of course, in the Foreign Ministry building of Skopje, you can see giant statues of those great Macedonians, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. Gruevski's government will have a lot to answer for to the mortified future generations of Macedonia.
    It's the Foreign Ministry building, maybe this explains the presence of theses statues representing foreign historical figures. And theses statues are not really giant ... By the way, why are you so obsessed with statues man ?

    Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
    It is not immediately obvious why you and others see the present (and transitory) decline of the Greek economy as a celebration and boon for Macedonia. It is nothing more than Schadenfreude and, unfortunately, you cannot take Schadenfreude to the bank. But I hope that works out for you as well.
    I hope for you and your "country" that the present decline of the Greek economy is transitory. I don't hide that the actual situation of Greece pleases me, it reveals the true face of this state. This country is in bankrupt since his creation two centuries ago, and survives only by international drip-feeding.
    Last edited by Nexus; 11-21-2012, 11:26 AM.

    Comment

    • Nexus
      Junior Member
      • Oct 2012
      • 73

      #32
      Don't forget that the greek language has only survived because it was used for the religion, liturgy, and the greek alphabet for writing. Otherwise about the greek culture, only the ancient texts, objects and buildings has survived. The greek world ended after the rise of the Roman Empire, and it's funny that today's greeks pretend that there is a continuity between Ancient and Modern Greece, theses two "Greece" are completely different, their peoples too. Today's Greece is composed of hellenized turks, albanians, vlachs and slavic-speaking peoples, and this country was born only by the will of western powers, with their distorted view about Ancient Greece.

      About the ancient macedonians, the ancient authors clearly defined their non-greek origin and nature, but maybe "they are wrong" like you said. Don't forget also that the greek alphabet and language was used by the Illyrian and Thracian royalty, does that make them "greeks" ? By the way there are several evidences that the language of the barbarous macedonians was not greek, and was related to the illyrian and thracian language.

      And the macedonians today are definitively connected with the ancient world, linguistically, culturally and geographically. The macedonian language, who's belong to the Balto-Slavic group of languages today, have his root in the Balkans. Look at the threads talking about the similarities about the Paleo-Balkan languages and the Balto-Slavic languages, especially the connection between the Thracian and today's Macedonian language.

      I want to know something, what are your views about the theory of a Slavic "migration"? Do you believe in it?
      Last edited by Nexus; 11-27-2012, 11:41 AM.

      Comment

      • Nexus
        Junior Member
        • Oct 2012
        • 73

        #33
        Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
        To answer your question, what connects the modern and ancient "Greeks" is the Greek language itself, unbroken and continuous since the first Mycaenians descended into the peninsula in the 17th century B.C, the Greek language Greek has, like all living language, changed, evolved, morphed but remained the same root language through some 4 thousand years. A language contains everything, history, culture, emotion, triumphs and defeats. The blood, sweat, and tears of those whose mother tongue it is.
        A language is just a language, and the fact that you speak greek doesn't connect you to the ancient greeks. Are the native americans connected to the British civilization? No.

        Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
        One more thing connects the modern Greeks to the ancient world. The ancient Greeks were full of vices: perversion, jealousy, treachery, cowardice, duplicity and corruption to name a few. The modern Greeks share all the same qualities.
        Haha.
        Last edited by Nexus; 11-27-2012, 11:41 AM.

        Comment

        • TrueMacedonian
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2009
          • 3810

          #34
          Originally posted by Mistracona View Post
          Bill77 writes: "pffft this is some funny shit man. lol Since ancient times the Greeks have been against the Macedonians and today nothing has changed except the labellings."

          No credible historian has ever connected the modern Slavic-speaking nation of Macedonia with the ancient world, neither linguistically, culturally or geographically. If you have any proof or evidence to the contrary please post it. It will be greatly appreciated by many. Macedonia (the real one) was, as we said, an intrinsic and essential part of the Greek-speaking world and today, some two million Greeks also identify themselves as "Macedonian" so there is no animus to be had, far from it. In Greece, "Macedonian" is another word for "Greek." Similarly, I presume that in Bulgaria, "Macedonian" is another word for "Bulgarian" so you might begin to see the problem.

          You are right that the Gruevski government is your greatest threat. The present government in Skopje has antagonised and made enemies of all of Macedonia's neighbours: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Who are your allies? Oh, yes, I forgot, The Turks are, aren't they? You're in safe hands there, alright. Good luck with that.

          Macedonia has yet to join the community of nations in the EU or in the Atlantic alliance. More, the present government has created in Skopje what a Sacramento, California newspaper called "The capital of Kitsch" by spending tens of millions of euros erecting giant plastic statues and follies of figures and buildings belonging to other cultures. In every country with roots in the ancient world, in Greece, in France, in Italy in Turkey and others, the monuments and their remnants are real, only in Skopje is there a kitschy Disneyland of phoniness. No, wait a moment, there is another place full of phoney statues and buildings: Las Vegas, Nevada where you can visit "Caesar's Palace" or "The Colosseum" or "The Eiffel Tower" or "The Pyramids of Egypt."

          Of course, in the Foreign Ministry building of Skopje, you can see giant statues of those great Macedonians, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. Gruevski's government will have a lot to answer for to the mortified future generations of Macedonia.

          It is not immediately obvious why you and others see the present (and transitory) decline of the Greek economy as a celebration and boon for Macedonia. It is nothing more than Schadenfreude and, unfortunately, you cannot take Schadenfreude to the bank. But I hope that works out for you as well.

          I relish the obsession (possibly a Freudian fetish) with Greece that one finds on these expat Macedonian sites. Greece is the largest country in the world; more populous than China and more powerful than the United States. Greece is the only thing standing between the Great Macedonian Nation and its return to imperial glory and the resurrection of your heroic ancestors (with the Greek names), so I can understand why it occupies so much of you time, your energy and your spleen. Good luck with that, and I hope that, too, works out for you.

          Amitie,

          M.

          P.S. Is the door still, open, Bill?
          What I find amazing about your posts are the following things you conveniently leave out.
          1) The part of Macedonia occupied by modern greece since 1913 had name changes throughout the land.
          2) Modern greece has only occupied that part of Macedonia for under a hundred years.
          3) A migration of different ethnic groups were settled all over Macedonia by your government to create the poor illusion that Macedonia is indeed greek ethnically yet they all spoke Turkish.
          4) Modern greeks have more in common with their neighbors in Albania than they do with the dead ancient race of Hellenes.
          5) Modern greece is bankrupt financially, morally, and historically and is the proverbial basket case of Europe.
          6) 18th and 19th century grk enlightenment figures thought ancient Macedonians were not Hellenes.
          7) Modern greece has had as many Albanian presidents and prime ministers as Albania.
          8) Modern greeks are not culturally, and most certainly not ethnically, related to anything Hellenic in the antiquated sense. The language was forced upon a population who largely spoke many different languages in what is known today as hellass.
          9) Peloponnese was known as "Morea" a very Slavic word. In fact modern greece was riddled with Slavic names so much so that she would rival Russia.
          10)Not to long ago the greeks were knee deep in Turkish culture (as she still is today yet the coffee is still called "greek" lol).
          Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

          Comment

          • TrueMacedonian
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2009
            • 3810

            #35
            Here's a map from Ghost on the Throne which is pretty accurate;

            Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

            Comment

            • TrueMacedonian
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2009
              • 3810

              #36
              Here's Eumenes displaying his "Greekness" to some Macedonian Generals so as to prove to them that he cannot go after the throne.


              Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

              Comment

              • TrueMacedonian
                Senior Member
                • Jan 2009
                • 3810

                #37


                Babylonian Dreaming
                by Peter Green

                Late in the afternoon of June 11, 323 B.C., Alexander III—King of Macedon, world-conqueror, self-styled Lord of Asia—died in Babylon at not quite 33 years of age: whether of an unidentified disease (helped by war wounds and alcoholism) or as the result of deliberate poisoning is unknown. There were certainly many who wished him gone. During his last few months, he had purged a majority of his provincial governors—in some cases with good reason—and his always lurking paranoia saw treachery everywhere.

                The previous season, after 11 years of campaigning, his battle-weary troops, faced in India with the prospect of a never-ending pursuit of conquest and Homeric glory, had mutinied and forced him to turn back. Undeterred, Alexander at his death was planning fresh conquests: first of the Arabs, then of the whole North African coast as far west as the straits of Gibraltar, and after that back home, picking up Spain, Sicily and Italy on the way.

                Thus to paranoia was added megalomania. Alexander designed for his father, Philip, a tomb rivaling the Great Pyramid. He devised plans for racial mingling that involved the wholesale transfer of populations. The most conspicuous symbol of this project had been the mass weddings at Susa in 324, in which large numbers of Alexander's officers were married off to Persians. He also issued a proclamation demanding recognition of himself as a god. None of this, to put it mildly, appealed to the Macedonians he led, but his power and charisma were such that no one dared put up any concerted resistance, while huge cash bonuses from the looted Persian treasuries helped keep his seasoned veterans quiet.

                It is thus a striking fact, and one that neither James Romm's "Ghost on the Throne" nor Robin Waterfield's "Dividing the Spoils" sufficiently stresses, that the moment Alexander was dead, almost literally overnight, every single one of his plans was shelved. The campaigns were canceled, the monuments were never built and the Macedonians almost to a man abandoned their Persian wives, along with the whole idea of racial fusion. Nothing shows more starkly what a gulf separated the visionary leader from those he led.

                Still, the idea of Alexander as a god did come in handy when his successors, well schooled in suspicion, refused to take orders from one another: the king's regalia and robes were set up in the council chamber so that Alexander was, in effect, raised from the dead to preside as the "ghost on the throne," in death still the dreaded authority that he had been in life.

                Throughout Babylon the night of his death all lights and fires were extinguished, an alarmingly vivid symbol of the trouble that would confront Alexander's veteran commanders in the morning. Alexander had ignored pleas to sire an heir before leaving Macedonia for Persia, while chronic suspicion had also led him to eliminate just about all viable rivals for the throne of Macedonia. The sole survivor, perhaps because mentally retarded, was Arrhidaeus, Alexander's half-brother, now in his mid-30s. Roxane, Alexander's Bactrian wife, aided by one of his generals, had done away with the two Persian wives that Alexander had acquired at Susa; she herself was pregnant, but the resultant child might well prove to be a daughter.

                That first fraught meeting of the generals set a pattern: unworkable public compromises and vicious private machinations. Perdiccas, at the time of Alexander's death his second-in-command and the recipient before witnesses of the dying king's signet ring, proposed waiting for Roxane to give birth. If the child was a son, they had a legitimate heir. Meleager, speaking for the infantry, argued that this meant a half-Asiatic king: Why not Arrhidaeus—grown, not foreign and, best of all, there? No, said Alexander's childhood friend Ptolemy; both these candidates meant a long regency: in the one case for a child, in the other for a mental defective who would need a guardian. Better to appoint a council of generals to meet in the presence of Alexander's empty throne (as they were doing then). This, as Mr. Romm points out, was a hit at the authority of Perdiccas.

                In the end, Perdiccas's proposal was accepted. Roxane's child, if a boy, would be king, with four regents: Perdiccas and Leonnatus (a member of Alexander's inner circle, who had once saved his life) in Asia; the veteran (and well-loved) general Craterus, then en route home with his troops; and old Antipater, viceroy in Macedonia throughout Alexander's campaign, in Europe. Ptolemy, being regarded as dangerously ambitious, was left out of the regency arrangement. But in the distribution of territory, he got Egypt and, by limiting his ambitions to this wealthy and near-impregnable fief, both founded a dynasty and—almost alone of the successors—died in his bed.

                Neither Craterus, Antipater (whom Alexander, ominously, had ordered replaced by Craterus), nor several other key figures were present at this meeting. And the meeting itself, run by aristocrats of the cavalry, who held all the key positions in Alexander's military command structure, was quickly given a dose of reality by the reaction of the foot-soldiers. Monarchists to a man, they wanted a successor of the blood royal, and for them that meant Arrhidaeus, whatever his mental state. Informed by Meleager of what had been decided, they stormed the palace. The cavalry elite got away and cut off supplies to the palace. An attempt to have Perdiccas killed fizzled. Eumenes, a clever Greek who had been Philip's confidential secretary before taking on the same job for Alexander and thus knew—sometimes in a very literal sense—where all the bodies were buried, mediated between cavalry and infantry. A compromise emerged: Both candidates would become king. A surer recipe for disaster could hardly have been found.

                The story that Alexander, dying, was asked to whom he left his kingdom and replied, "To the strongest," may be apocryphal but was certainly to the point. The resultant struggle among Alexander's immediate Successors (Diadochoi) lasted 40 years and was, in Mr. Waterfield's words, "filled with high adventure, intrigue, passion, assassinations, dynastic marriages, treachery, shifting alliances, and mass slaughter on battlefield after battlefield."

                It is thus surprising that the period has attracted so few general studies. Now we have two, both offering well-paced and often dramatic narratives, up-to-date research, and thorough documentation. Mr. Romm takes the story from 323 down to 309/8, when Antipater's son Cassander and Antigonus, realists both, ended the charade of a still-united empire by procuring the assassination of Alexander's bastard son, Heracles, and of his sister Cleopatra (then beyond childbearing but still hoping to marry Ptolemy). Mr. Waterfield covers the same ground but also carries on to the deaths in 281 of the last Successors who had fought and ridden with Alexander: Lysimachus and Seleucus.

                The early years were the most dramatic. Ptolemy, ensconced in Egypt, hijacked Alexander's embalmed corpse on its way to burial in Macedonia and put it on public display, like Lenin in Red Square, as an endorsement of his rule. The dynasty he founded was to last until 31 B.C. Perdiccas, trying to oust Ptolemy, lost hundreds of men, drowned or eaten by hungry crocodiles, while trying to ford the Nile and was promptly murdered by his own officers.

                A pattern developed whereby one Successor would make his bid for Alexander's ill-organized empire, at which point the others would join forces to stop him. The most dramatic of these conflicts was that fought out in the eastern provinces (ca. 319-16) between Antigonus and Eumenes, the despised Greek pen-pusher who proved himself the finest general of them all and was only defeated when his own troops sold him to Antigonus in return for their captured baggage-train.

                Mr. Romm admits to having had his heart won by Eumenes. This partiality lends a vividness and passion to his narrative less evident in that of Mr. Waterfield, who makes up for his more conventional style with a detailed timeline and a welcome who's who of the many characters involved. Mr. Waterfield also scores with a number of well-placed interludes summarizing Hellenistic developments in social life, literature, art, economics, philosophy and religion.

                And he finishes the story, following the activities of the Successors to the crucial point at which the last bid for Alexander's empire as a whole, that of Seleucus in 282-81, was defeated at the eleventh hour by his murder. (The assassin was Ptolemy's dynastically frustrated son by his first wife; competitive sons from multiple marriages were the curse of the Successors.). The survivors were content to divide the spoils and develop their own royal dynasties in Egypt, Asia and the Macedonian homeland. It isn't the end, but it does herald a new stage in the Hellenistic world.
                Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                Comment

                • Mistracona
                  Banned
                  • Oct 2012
                  • 87

                  #38
                  Response to TrueMacedonian post of 11-20-2012 03:18 PM where he writes:

                  "What I find amazing about your posts are the following things you conveniently leave out.
                  1) The part of Macedonia occupied by modern greece since 1913 had name changes throughout the land.
                  2) Modern greece has only occupied that part of Macedonia for under a hundred years.
                  3) A migration of different ethnic groups were settled all over Macedonia by your government to create the poor illusion that Macedonia is indeed greek ethnically yet they all spoke Turkish.
                  4) Modern greeks have more in common with their neighbors in Albania than they do with the dead ancient race of Hellenes.
                  5) Modern greece is bankrupt financially, morally, and historically and is the proverbial basket case of Europe.
                  6) 18th and 19th century grk enlightenment figures thought ancient Macedonians were not Hellenes.
                  7) Modern greece has had as many Albanian presidents and prime ministers as Albania.
                  8) Modern greeks are not culturally, and most certainly not ethnically, related to anything Hellenic in the antiquated sense. The language was forced upon a population who largely spoke many different languages in what is known today as hellass.
                  9) Peloponnese was known as "Morea" a very Slavic word. In fact modern greece was riddled with Slavic names so much so that she would rival Russia.
                  10)Not to long ago the greeks were knee deep in Turkish culture (as she still is today yet the coffee is still cal:

                  Point by point response:

                  1) When the Greeks conquered a part of the former Ottoman region of Macedonia they began, logically enough, a process of "Greekification" of the region which included the changing of Slavic place names. Much of this was done in the 1920s. The process of "Greekification" of the new territory was greatly aided by the resettlement from the population exchange from Turkey which significantly tipped the demographic balance towards the Greek-speaking side. The changing of village names which were a result of the Slavic invasion annd domination of the peninsula is a process that has been carried out throughout all of modern Greece at various periods in the process of creating a unified state.

                  2)Yes, the centenary of the conquest of the region by the Greek army is being celebrated this year in Greek Macedonia.

                  3)The population resettled by the Greeks in Macedonia in order to change the linguistic balance were a mixed group. Some of them, from Pontus and other seacoast regions, spoke a fluent Greek dialect. Some from other regions of Turkey had a smattering of Greek and some, from Capadoccia for example, spoke no Greek at all. There were even some who had but the vaguest sense of "Greekness" and thought of themselves only as "Christians" and wondered what the injustice was all about.

                  4) The modern Greeks are a Balkan people. They are closely related in many respects to the other people of the Balkans, Albanians and Slavs. The relationship of the modern Greeks to the ancient world is predominantly in the unbroken continuity of the Greek language as a common mother tongue.

                  5) Before the financial crisis, Greek society and its political institutions were on the verge of collapse. This collapse would have taken place regardless of the financial crisis. It is a total failure of the Greeks to create a modern, functioning society. The biggest failure of Greece, and other Balkan countries, is that they never developed a functioning state. The present crisis will undoubtedly be overcome for many reasons. It will also result in the march towards the creation of modern, functioning state which Greece has never had and still does not have.

                  6) The weight of historiography is conclusive that the ancient macedonians were part of the Greek-speaking world and played crucial and decisive role in the preservation and perpetuation of the Greek language and culture. That is the one and only reason they have any value in the minds of modern Greeks.

                  7) The modern Greeks are, like all nations, a mixed race, "a mongrel race" as Churchill called the British. Greeks of Albanian background have played important roles in the liberation and construction of the country. Many revolutionary war fighters were Albanian. Bouboulina, the Albanian woman who led naval forces fighting for the Greek side was from the predominantly Albanian-speaking island (then) of Hydra She is celebrated in Greek history.

                  8) The Greek language, which is an unbroken connection between the Greek speaking people throughout the ages, became dominant in a specific region amongst a variety of people who were not originally Greek-speaking. As in all such case, it was sometimes transmitted commercially, culturally and, in times of war, violently. In the reverse, the same is true of the Slavic language in the region and of most if not all languages generally.

                  9) The etymology of "Morea" is uncertain. During the 6th centuary, Slavic migrants overran and demographically dominated the peninsula which became modern Greece. This was slightly less the case along the eastern side where the power of Costantinople was still in force. At that time, the centre of the Greek world was not in the peninsula but in the capital of the Roman Empire in the east. The peninsula, itself had a minority of Greek speakers. A Greek state was forged from the peninsula in the 19th century using the familiar methods, enticement, need and violence, of all national state creation.

                  10) The Greeks were under the control of the Ottomans for 4 hundred years and the Turkish influence on Greek culture and language cannot be exaggerated. In some respects, some sectors of modern Greece are more Ottoman than sectors of modern Turkey. paradoxically, some aspects of the unreformed Greek Orthodox church carry powerful influence from the period of its Ottoman domination.

                  Comment

                  • Mistracona
                    Banned
                    • Oct 2012
                    • 87

                    #39
                    Nexus write:

                    "Don't forget that the greek language has only survived because it was used for the religion, liturgy, and the greek alphabet for writing. Otherwise about the greek culture, only the ancient texts, objects and buildings has survived. The greek world ended after the rise of the Roman Empire, and it's funny that today's greeks pretend that there is a continuity between Ancient and Modern Greece, theses two "Greece" are completely different, their peoples too. Today's Greece is composed of hellenized turks, albanians, vlachs and slavic-speaking peoples, and this country was born only by the will of western powers, with their distorted view about Ancient Greece.

                    About the ancient macedonians, the ancient authors clearly defined their non-greek origin and nature, but maybe "they are wrong" like you said. Don't forget also that the greek alphabet and language was used by the Illyrian and Thracian royalty, does that make them "greek" ? By the way there are several evidences that the language of the barbarious macedonians was not greek, and was related to the illyrian and thracian language....

                    I want to know something, what are your views about the theory of a Slavic "migration" ?Do you believe in it ?
                    Last edited by Nexus; 11-20-2012 at 01:50 PM.

                    The Greek language was definitely transmitted through the liturgy that was used in the Greek-speaking congregations of the church which was theoretically "ecumenical" but was in fact Greek-speaking. It was, of course, transmitted through other means, the same means that any living language, that all living languages are transmitted.

                    You are absolutely right that today's Greeks stem from the ethnicity of a variety of different cultures. As well as the ones you mention we could add, Italians, Arabs, French, Kurds, Catalans and others. They have all been, as you say, "Hellenized" or "Greekafied" to sound less grand. This, by the way, is true of all nation states.

                    The origins of modern Greek culture were definitely a product of German and British scholarly influence. They created a false direct association between the new state and a far distant historical period. It was a shortcut and summarisation that we often see in the mythologies of nation states. However, this is not to say that the connection was a total fabrication. It's specifics were abridged and exaggerated, leaving out some 3 thousand years of the Greek-speaking people for the sake of political expediency.

                    The ancient Macedonians participated in aspects of Greek society which were closed to anyone but Greeks. Their language, religion and culture were exclusively Greek. In the expansion of their empire they persistently built cities on the Greek model, in infrastructure, culture and institutions, even in their farthest reaches of Asia. More, the ancient Macedonians said they were Greek. One has a choice: he can believe what the Macedonians said about themselves in their own words and expressed in their own desires and behaviour, or he can believe Eugene Borza.

                    In language there is a difference between a mother tongue and the use of a second language. The modern Greeks use the words "supermarket" and "computer" and "goal" and "management" and many, many others. But this does not make them English nor does it make them less Greek.

                    The migration of the Slavic-speaking people into the southern Balkans can be attested, aside from other means, by the abundance of Slavic toponyms. The period of those migrations has also been established from a variety of sources, textual, linguistic and structural.

                    Thanks for your comments, Nexus. I was interested to read them.

                    Comment

                    • Mistracona
                      Banned
                      • Oct 2012
                      • 87

                      #40
                      As a curiosity, you might be interested in this poem by C. P. Cavafy, the internationally acclaimed poet who was himself an Alexandrine Greek and descended of that community. He wrote in the years between 1890 and 1930. He wrote often of the communities descended from the Macedonian conquests. It is poetry, but it does relate how one people have assimilated what they feel about their history, just as the modern Macedonians of the Republic feel about theirs. I would call attention to the line "our flexible policy of judicious assimilation"

                      ***

                      In the Year 200 B.C. The Canon

                      “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks except the Lacedaimonians...”

                      We can very well imagine
                      how completely indifferent the Spartans would have been
                      to this inscription. “Except the Lacedaimonians”—
                      naturally. The Spartans
                      weren’t to be led and ordered around
                      like precious servants. Besides,
                      a pan-Hellenic expedition without
                      a Spartan king in command
                      was not to be taken very seriously.
                      Of course, then, “except the Lacedaimonians.”

                      That’s certainly one point of view. Quite understandable.

                      So, “except the Lacedaimonians” at Granikos,
                      then at Issus, then in the decisive battle
                      where the terrible army
                      the Persians mustered at Arbela was wiped out:
                      it set out for victory from Arbela, and was wiped out.

                      And from this marvelous pan-Hellenic expedition,
                      triumphant, brilliant in every way,
                      celebrated on all sides, glorified
                      as no other has ever been glorified,
                      incomparable, we emerged:
                      the great new Hellenic world.

                      We the Alexandrians, the Antiochians,
                      the Selefkians, and the countless
                      other Greeks of Egypt and Syria,
                      and those in Media, and Persia, and all the rest:
                      with our far-flung supremacy,
                      our flexible policy of judicious integration,
                      and our Common Greek Language
                      which we carried as far as Bactria, as far as the Indians.

                      Talk about Lacedaimonians after that!


                      Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard

                      Comment

                      • Nexus
                        Junior Member
                        • Oct 2012
                        • 73

                        #41
                        Thank you too for answering our questions. I see you're not like the others greeks, you have a very logical view about modern greece. I agree with the most things you wrote.
                        The greek language is, indeed, a connection between Ancient and Modern Greece, but it is the only one. I disagree also with "the unbroken continuity of the Greek language as a common mother tongue". The greek language existed, but it was the mother tongue of no one for centuries. Like you said it was used for the purpose of religion, administration, business etc ... But the ones who used this tongue did feel everything but certainly no greekness. It's a fact.

                        Also about this part you wrote :

                        "The ancient Macedonians participated in aspects of Greek society which were closed to anyone but Greeks. Their language, religion and culture were exclusively Greek. In the expansion of their empire they persistently built cities on the Greek model, in infrastructure, culture and institutions, even in their farthest reaches of Asia. More, the ancient Macedonians said they were Greek. One has a choice: he can believe what the Macedonians said about themselves in their own words and expressed in their own desires and behaviour, or he can believe Eugene Borza. "

                        First the religion didn't define your ethnicity (I speak about the ancient times, not today ), and maybe you don't know, the gods that the greeks praised where in fact of non-greek origin. Here the greeks gods and their egyptians counterparts in the book of Françoise Dunand, Gods and Men in Egypt (2004), that you can see on the page 242 :

                        "Dionysos = Osiris, Demeter = Isis, Apollo = Horus
                        Artemis = Bastet, Zeus = Amon, Athena = Neith
                        Aphrodite = Hathor, Hermès = Thoth, Hephaistos = Ptah
                        Leto = Wadjit, Pan = Dieu de Mendes, Typhon = Seth".

                        Does that make the greeks egyptians ? Absolutely not. The same for the macedonians, the fact that they have possibly whorshipped "greeks" gods, did not make them greeks.

                        About the culture, i think that Philip II, the royal house, were certainly philhellenic, that's why he chooses Aristotle to be the teacher of Alexander. Aristotle originated from a greek colony in Macedonia. I will not say that all macedonians and all Macedonia was of greek culture. I don't ignore also that the greek culture was very powerful, and dominant. Only the elite at the time could access education, don't forget.

                        It's sure that the greek language was used at the Macedonian royal house, the same for the Illyrian and Thracian royalty. But this was not the mother tongue of the macedonians. I will try, in a future post, to provide you quotes of ancient authors that cleary make the distinction between greek and macedonian language . You can also visit the rest of the Forum, the issue about the ancient macedonian language is already tackled.

                        Here's one quote of Plutarch about the egyptian queen, Cleopatra, who was of macedonian origin :

                        "She spake unto few barbarous people by interpreter, but made them answer her self, or at the least the most part of them: as the Ethiopians, the Arabians, the Troglodytes, the Hebrews, the Syrians, the Medes, and the Parthians, and to many others also, whose languages she had learned. Whereas divers of her progenitors, the kings of Egypt, could scarce learn the Egyptian tongue only, and many of them forgot to speak the Macedonian. ("Life of Anthony", 27) ".

                        You say that the language of the macedonians was greek, but why he mentioned "macedonian" language instead of "greek" ?

                        I will post other examples later.
                        Last edited by Nexus; 11-24-2012, 08:23 AM.

                        Comment

                        • Mistracona
                          Banned
                          • Oct 2012
                          • 87

                          #42
                          If the people of of the ROM also had Greek as a mother tongue, what "dispute" would exist between them and the Republic to the south?

                          Comment

                          • Mistracona
                            Banned
                            • Oct 2012
                            • 87

                            #43
                            @ Nexus:

                            Conversely, we might ask how credible would a modern Greek claim be to a connection to the ancient world if the modern Greeks spoke Turkish, or Albanian as a mother tongue.

                            Contrary to your statement, your religion did indeed denote your "ethnicity," and your example proves it.

                            As you quote from Dunand, there were many equivalencies among alien gods in the pagan world: Dionysos to Osiris, Apollo to Horus, Zeus to Amon, Zeus to the Norwegian Thor, etc, etc. However, the name of the god signified the speaker's tongue, his "ethnicity." Only the Greeks said "Zeus" while the Egyptians said "Amon". If someone said he worshiped "Osiris", he would not be thought to be Greek and if someone said he worshiped "Dionysos" he would not be thought Egyptian. More clearly, the Roman and Greek gods were identical, yet a Roman would say that he worshiped Minerva and a Greek Athena, a Roman Jupiter and a Greek Zeus. By simply saying "Minerva" or "Athena" one could tell if the speaker were Roman or Greek even though they were the exact same goddesses. The Macedonians worshiped the same Greek gods in the same Greek names, in the same Greek language.

                            The evolutionist Richard Dawkins responded to those who still doubt the theory of evolution that all that one needs to disprove it is to find a fossil that is chronologically at a more complex state of development than its progeny. No such fossil has or can be found. Similarly, all that one needs to prove the existence of an ancient Macedonian language that is not Greek is to find a decipherable text or an inscription in that language, the language of an entire people. Surely, if an entire people spoke a language at the same place as written Greek, someone must have written a letter, or a poem , or an instruction, or a recipe, or a love note or something, anything, in that language.

                            Just like today in Greece, "Macedonian" is a synonym for "Greek," so Plutarch was using the word "Macedonian" to signify the language spoken was Greek. To prove otherwise, you would have to find a passage where Plutarch says that someone was speaking "Macedonian" and not "Greek". Since so many ancient authors said that someone spoke "Macedonian," and not meaning "Greek" by it, there must certainly exist some example of it or the very same authors could not have known what it was.

                            As for the Greek that "was no one's mother tongue," when exactly did it disappear and when and how did it start up again? Did the Germans teach the Greeks how to speak it in 1821 using the highly successful "Rosetta Stone" method? Greek is well established as a spoken language throughout the ages. Poems, folk songs, popular works of literature, formal and informal communications between authorities, and between common people exist from every period without interruption. When exactly was the period when Greek was not spoken by any population? When and why was it suddenly taken up by an entire people?

                            Great fun, Cheers.

                            Comment

                            • Mistracona
                              Banned
                              • Oct 2012
                              • 87

                              #44
                              One is being asked to believe that the ancient Macedonians who established an empire stretching from Egypt to India and created within it colonies that ruled for hundreds of years, never once communicated in writing between themselves or anyone else, never left an inscription, in their own true language which for some reason they kept a secret preferring to use someone else's over centuries, even though ancient writers must have heard it or read it because when they referred to "Macedonian" they did not mean "Greek."

                              Such a leap of logic is not easy for everyone to make. It does, given the approaching season, make belief in the virgin birth a short step by comparison.

                              Comment

                              • TrueMacedonian
                                Senior Member
                                • Jan 2009
                                • 3810

                                #45
                                Mistercona the goal posts seem to change distance where it concerns modern Greek identity. First religion determined ones greekness. A convenient application considering most everyone in newly independent Greece spoke a language other than romaika. Once the language issue was fixed then language determined ones greekness. Then came Macedonia. Now religion and self-determination as well as education determined ones greekness. It seems fitting when you look at the speed of conclusions you can come to when determining an Albanian is related to Pericles and a Christian Turk is related to Alexander the Great under the guise of 19th century Droysenian Hellenism.
                                Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X