The Greek colonization of Macedonia since 1913!

[Mastika]

Acutally Mastika, what are your thoughts on the Albanians being the second largest minority group in RoM?
What is your point, I need it clarified please.

Well Albanians are obviously the largest minority group in the Republic of Macedonia. However I do believe that the number of 500,000+ which was recorded in the last census is obviously inflated. This has a lot to do with people listed dead relatives and relatives overseas as part of the population of ROM, which defeats the purpose of having a census. I personally believe that the next census, if conducted properly, will see a decline or a stabilisation of the Albanian population. This would be for two reasons, the removal of dead and absent relatives from the resident population and the high emigration levels since 2001 in many Albanian villages. However this is just a forecast, we will have to wait for the census to be conducted.

My point here is that the Greeks are guilty of destroying the unique ethno-linguistic composition of Aegean Macedonia and of unfairly seizing Aegean Macedonia for themselves. They need to be held accountable for this!

SoM, the statistics are based on mother language, not religious affiliation. After analysing numerous statistical records/surveys etc. it became apparent to me that Greeks were found in Macedonia in 1900. They were concentrated in the south where they did form the majority in only 3 districts. I stand by my assertion that they were the 3rd largest group. I agree with what you are saying, many people have used the number of people affiliated with the Patriarchate in order to boost the number of Greeks. This methodology is highly flawed and misleading.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM, the statistics are based on mother language, not religious affiliation.

Which statistics cite linguistic affiliation from the period leading up to the 1900's?

After analysing numerous statistical records/surveys etc. it became apparent to me that Greeks were found in Macedonia in 1900.

I am not denying that there may have been some sort of Greek-speaking presence, so I don't see the relevance in your statement. I am disputing the below:

I stand by my assertion that they were the 3rd largest group.

An absurdity that you can't substantiate. Are you saying there were more native Greek-speakers than native Vlach-speakers in Macedonia during 1900? If so, show me contemporary sources that back up your assertions.

[Mastika]

An absurdity that you can't substantiate. Are you saying there were more native Greek-speakers than native Vlach-speakers in Macedonia during 1900? If so, show me contemporary sources that back up your assertions.

I would hardly call it an absurdity. Greeks formed the majority population in the Kasandra, Naselica/Ljapchishta and Grevena kaza's, whilst forming a plurality in the Ber region. They also formed the majority in the region roughly corresponding to today's Pieria prefecture. There was also a considerable amount of Greeks around the mouth of the Struma river and along the coastal areas around Pravishta and Kavala. All ethnographic maps reflect the Greek presence in the Chalcidice region, in the area around Ser and Kavala, as well as south of the Bistrica river.

The Vlach speaking population is more easily accounted for. You have the Megleno-Romanians who accounted for roughly 12,000 - 20,000 people c.1900, living in 10 villages of which 3 are in the Republic of Macedonia. The completely Vlach villages are Pesoder and Neveska in Lerin district, Dolno Sel, Gorno Sel, Marusha, Livada, Kastanja, Doljani, Valoda and Crkovchan in Ber district, Livadija in Pazar district and Gramos and Klisura in Kostur district. Vlachs formed significant minorities in Blaca and Sisani in Kajlar district, Boren, and Prosochen in Drama district, a few villages around Neveska in Lerin region, and in the towns of Hrupishta, Grevena and Serska Dzumaja. There were a few more smaller groups spread throughout some of the larger cities, but this hardly equates to a number even close to that of the Greek speakers. Thats really the entire Vlach population of the time. To say that they were more populous than Greeks is nonsensical.

I dont understand how you can say the population of 20-25 villages along with some colonies in small-medium sized towns is greater then the population of a group who formed the majority in four kaza's and a substantial minority in a number of other kaza's and towns.

I'm not here to push any Greek propaganda however It's very inaccurate to say that Vlachs were more numerous then Greeks. I feel that by trying to be objective here I automaticallly assume the role of "devils advocate", so to speak.

SoM, What do you believe the majority population was south of the Bistrica river, on the Chalcidice and around the mouth of the Struma river?, if not Greek.

[Orfej]

1. This is a common misconception/excuse. On more detailed ethnographic maps the ethnic composition of cities is also appropriately detailed.

2. 100 years ago, in Aegean Macedonia there was no one ethnic majority, Macedonians formed a plurality though.

If you go "kaza by kaza" you will find that Macedonians formed the majority group in most Kaza's.

Macedonian Majority: Pazar/Enidze-Vardar, Voden, Kukush, Demir Hisar, Lerin, Kostur.
Macedonian Plurality: Ser, Z'hna.

Greek Majority: Kasandra, Naselica/Ljapchishta, Grevena
Greek Plurality: Ber.

Turkish Majority: Lagadina, Pravishta, Kavala, Sari Shaban, Kajlar, Kozhani.
Turkish Plurality: Drama.

Jewish Plurality: Solun.

The same survey recorded that in 1900 there were roughly 977,494 people living in Aegean Macedonia at the time. If all of the groups are added up you arrive at 346,022 Macedonians (35%), of whom 306,490/31% were Christian and 39,532/4% were Muslim. The second largest group was the Turks who accounted for 274,005 (28%), apart from c.3,900 they were exclusively Muslims. Greeks were the next largest group with 214,872 (22%) of people, of whom 201,119 (20%) were Christian and 13,753 (1.4%) were Muslims. Approximately 59,450 (6%) were Jewish whilst 47,107 (5%) were Vlachs/Aromanians. The rest comprise of smaller groups.

The fact remains that in 1900 Greeks were the third largest group living in Aegean Macedonia, behind both Macedonians and Turks. Coastal, you and many of your countrymen are deluded if you think that Greeks made up the majority population in Aegean Macedonia before 1913.

Since 1913 the Greek people have engaged themselves in removing non-Greeks from Aegean Macedonia. In the 1920s it was expelling all of the Muslims. In the 1940s all of the Jews were sent to be slaughetered. After World War Two tens of thousands of Macedonians living East of the Vardar were exiled to Bulgaria. After the Greek Civil War a similar thing happened to many living West of the Vardar, except this time they were sent to the Eastern Bloc. Since 1948 the remaining minority groups have been heavily assimilated. Greece needs to be held accountable for such shocking behaviour!

The Average Greek, as Thessaloniki says, needs to wake up and realise that 100 years ago Greeks were a minority group in Aegean Macedonia.

Mastika, where can we find this data you are mentioning?

[TrueMacedonian]

Mastika said;

All ethnographic maps reflect the Greek presence in the Chalcidice region, in the area around Ser and Kavala, as well as south of the Bistrica river.

Who were these mapmakers? How could they identify ethnic groups when nationalism in the region was inhibited by constant propaganda?

I'm not here to push any Greek propaganda however It's very inaccurate to say that Vlachs were more numerous then Greeks. I feel that by trying to be objective here I automaticallly assume the role of "devils advocate", so to speak.

Well Devil's Advocate the issue here is how can we identify who was a solid "ethnic Greek" and solid "ethnic Vlach" in a region where the population spoke 2 or more languages? There is too much about these assertions you are pushing forward. One ethnic group not even accounted for is the Armenians. They were moving into Macedonia in the 9th and 10th centuries (and further later on) and they spoke both Armenian and what was called Roman (Greek) at the time. Now how do we know that these specific peoples are not the Romaika speakers encountered by later travellers? Do you see the problems with the Romaika speakers? Their language was not associated with just one primary ethnic group. It became the lingua franca associated with many ethnic groups. And notice I am using the word ethnic because I am not at all talking about nationality which was a later development in the Balkans. Do you now see the many many discrepencies with pseudo-Hellas' claims?

[TrueMacedonian]

Keith R. Legg, Politics in Modern Greece, page 59

Mastika if the ethnic "greeks" were the third largest ethnic group in Macedonia then why was there a need to Hellenize 'northern greece'?

[thessalo-niki]

It is laughable to say the least that the concerns you highlighted have origins from 1945 and 1991.
So modern Greeks "feel" that the name Macedonia belongs to them. This originates (as you say) at best 65 years ago, a name mind you that has been in existance for 3000 years.

No, the question was "How far back does this problem go where the name Macedonia is unexeptable by the lower region of Macedonia(ns) to be used by the upper region?"

So this "feeling" by a modern Greek is enough justification to block all avenues for ROMacedonia to take part in a European block.

While issues related to identity, symbols, national pride & feelings etc are considered silly and non pragmatic by many people, they are very important. I don't want to be dramatic, they are the things we would fight for.

So this "feeling" (65 years ago) is enough to usurp Macedonian history as being a Greek one.

We have the opposite view. We actually use this exact motto for you.
___________________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[thessalo-niki]

1. This is a common misconception/excuse. On more detailed ethnographic maps the ethnic composition of cities is also appropriately detailed.

2. 100 years ago, in Aegean Macedonia there was no one ethnic majority, Macedonians formed a plurality though.

If you go "kaza by kaza" you will find that Macedonians formed the majority group in most Kaza's.

Macedonian Majority: Pazar/Enidze-Vardar (Giannitsa), Voden (Edessa), Kukush (Kilkis), Demir Hisar (?), Lerin (Florina), Kostur (Kastoria).
Macedonian Plurality: Ser (Serres), Z'hna (around Nea Zichni?).

Greek Majority: Kasandra (Halkidiki, the whole of it?), Naselica/Ljapchishta (???), Grevena
Greek Plurality: Ber (Veroia).

Turkish Majority: Lagadina (Langadas), Pravishta (???), Kavala, Sari Shaban(???), Kajlar (???), Kozhani.
Turkish Plurality: Drama.

Jewish Plurality: Solun (Thessaloniki).

Which are the red areas? Some are misspelled and I cannot guess or find a reference anywhere.
Also, kazas are not compatible with this map (post #21)

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3930&page=3

_________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Daskalot]

Which are the red areas? Some are misspelled and I cannot guess or find a reference anywhere.

Those are the original place names that the Greek government had to erase with approx 1800 other as well, post 1913.

Would you like to have a list of every place name that got changed?

[Stojacanec]

No, the question was "How far back does this problem go where the name Macedonia is unexeptable by the lower region of Macedonia(ns) to be used by the upper region?"

While issues related to identity, symbols, national pride & feelings etc are considered silly and non pragmatic by many people, they are very important. I don't want to be dramatic, they are the things we would fight for.

We have the opposite view. We actually use this exact motto for you.
___________________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

You have eys but you cannot see.

Take those 65 years then go back only a further 45 years....where's your Greece??

No different to how the Bulgrian State was created in the 1800s it goes on record that people wanted and faught for an autonomous Macedonian State. This is around the time when the other Balkan states were created.

The only difference is we had no allies to see it through.

Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian feeling was only created in Macedonia by propaganda. You are part of that propaganda. Congratulations and bravo for upholding that. You must feel proud of that 100 or so years of history of deep concern and propaganda.

Macedonians have wanted to live as free men and women for thousands of years. Free from any oppression. The oppression came from the Greek city states as well not only Persians. That is the Macedonian History.

If Macedonia had a true Greek history your Athenian government wouldn't have had to change so many names of people places and things in a short time.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I'm not here to push any Greek propaganda however It's very inaccurate to say that Vlachs were more numerous then Greeks. I feel that by trying to be objective here I automaticallly assume the role of "devils advocate", so to speak.

Inaccurate are your assertions that these Patriarchist Vlachs were really 'ethnic Greeks'. Inaccurate, and unproven. You haven't provided a single reference to corroborate what you have claimed. There are several sources that speak of the Vlachs as being the main component of the so-called 'Greeks' in Macedonia, Brailsford is one among many. He even goes so far as to suggest that the (ethnic) Greeks are not a Macedonian race. But here you are, convinced and uncompromising in the distorted narrative you have chosen to adopt. Do you have the linguistic records I asked for earlier, on which you base your assertions, or not?

SoM, What do you believe the majority population was south of the Bistrica river, on the Chalcidice and around the mouth of the Struma river?, if not Greek.

Much of the Chalcidice was not densely populated as it was largely church property. Although as a trading language Romaic was spoken by town and coastal populations such as those around the mouth of the Struma, most of these people (including those south of the Bistrica) were either native Macedonians or possibly Vlach, who, since the 1700's have undergone a repressive campaign of propaganda from the Patriarchate that was trying to turn the all into good little 'Rumlari' who could only speak Romaic.

Wrap them in whatever 'Greek' clothing you want, it will remain thin and weak until you start considering other factors, such as Macedonian, Serbian, etc traders who were in Austria-Hungary and referred to as 'Greeks', such as Serbian and Bulgarian townsfolk referring to themselves as 'Greek', etc. You seem to disregard all other parallel matters that are critical for gaining the true and overall picture of what was happening during that era, and concern yourself only with Macedonia and the associated propagandas that were spewed up by Macedonia's enemies. Funnily enough, you don't dare delve into the same matters where it concerns Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria or Albania.

You can't just pick and choose which era you want to work with and dismiss all events prior. You let yourself and your research down when you do this.

[Mastika]

Inaccurate are your assertions that these Patriarchist Vlachs were really 'ethnic Greeks'. Inaccurate, and unproven. You haven't provided a single reference to corroborate what you have claimed. There are several sources that speak of the Vlachs as being the main component of the so-called 'Greeks' in Macedonia, Brailsford is one among many. He even goes so far as to suggest that the (ethnic) Greeks are not a Macedonian race. But here you are, convinced and uncompromising in the distorted narrative you have chosen to adopt. Do you have the linguistic records I asked for earlier, on which you base your assertions, or not?

The statistics I have used here are taken directly from Vasil Kanchov's 1900 Macedonia - Ethnography and Statistics survey. It gives village by village descriptions on the demographics of Macedonia. His classification of the peoples of Macedonia is done by mother language, which in my honest opinion is the best descriptor of one's ethnic identity. His sources give generally accurate descriptions of each village, the city population however is more disputable. It is however Bulgarian propaganda, and thus lists the Macedonians as being Bulgarians which is obviously incorrect. This is the downfall, however if you merely swap the word bulgarians with Macedonians then I see no major issue in using the data from the work to give detailed descriptions of the demography of a certain village or town.

You can give me some quotes from people claiming that there were Vlachs posing as Greeks, etc. etc., I agree this happened. But where did these Vlachs live? Give me more detail rather then summative and innacurate statements. I know that some Vlachs posed as Greeks, Vasil Kanchov for example still counts them as Vlachs, because that was their mother language. Show me proof that Vlachs settled the regions which are marked upon demographic maps as being "greek".

Much of the Chalcidice was not densely populated as it was largely church property.

That is true, however figures such as Vasil Kanchov still managed to include 34,442 people living in the Kasandra kaza, of whom according to him 30,359 were ethnically Greek. These people were not traders but villlages and fisherman who had been speaking Greek for hundreds of years. You cannot claim them to be anythign but Greek, historically the Chalcidice has been predominantly Greek speaking for hundreds if not more years. Vlachs and other people have had not historic presence, nor were there any Vlach villages to be found on the Chalcidice 100 years ago. The only other groups to be found were Turks, who had a considerable presence in the inland and a few Macedonian villages to the South of Solun. However the bulk of the population was Greek speaking and this is depicted on every single ethnographic map of the time. I will not be posting them here however there is a considerable range presented at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...y_of_Macedonia. (I am not endorsing the depictions of Macedonians as Bulgarians or Serbs, which is found on most maps, this is WRONG). If everyone notices the areas around the Chalcidice, the Struma delta, Thasos island and south of the Bistrica river are consistently shown to be ethnically Greek. I wonder why?! Is it possible that these people were in fact Greeks?

Although as a trading language Romaic was spoken by town and coastal populations such as those around the mouth of the Struma, most of these people (including those south of the Bistrica) were either native Macedonians or possibly Vlach, who, since the 1700's have undergone a repressive campaign of propaganda from the Patriarchate that was trying to turn the all into good little 'Rumlari' who could only speak Romaic.

Again all ethnographic maps present this population as Greek speaking, and that these people were not ethnically Macedonian or ethnically Vlach. I am talking about 1900 not in the 1700s, assimilation happens. What ever some of our ancestors were at the begginging of the 18th century is irrelevant, a persons ethnicity is defined by the ethnicity of their parents/grandparents as well as the environment in which they were raised. Please give me details, which are the assimilated villages? Which villages were once ethnically Macedonian and became 'Greek'? Where is the documented presence of Vlachs at the mouth of the Struma who assimilated into Greeks?

You are making speculations about a hypothetical demography of a region and then trying to relate it to a group which lived 200 years later. Again, please show me evidence that at the turn of the 20th Century in places such as Lokvica/Mesolakia (at the mouth of the Struma) the population was Macedonian or Vlach, ie. non-Greek.

Wrap them in whatever 'Greek' clothing you want, it will remain thin and weak until you start considering other factors, such as Macedonian, Serbian, etc traders who were in Austria-Hungary and referred to as 'Greeks', such as Serbian and Bulgarian townsfolk referring to themselves as 'Greek', etc. You seem to disregard all other parallel matters that are critical for gaining the true and overall picture of what was happening during that era, and concern yourself only with Macedonia and the associated propagandas that were spewed up by Macedonia's enemies. Funnily enough, you don't dare delve into the same matters where it concerns Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria or Albania.

It is not about wrapping them in Greek clothing, if a family has been speaking Greek for as long as their family is aware, is that family not-Greek? 'No, they must be Macedonian or Vlach.' Why? What business do people like this who have been speaking Greek for hundreds of years have with Macedonian or Vlach people?! It is ridiculous to claim that a group of people is not what they have been for hundreds of years, because of some theory that 500 years ago their ancestors may have been speaking a language other then Greek.

You are accusing me of not delving in the matters of Greece. Well, Aegean Macedonia is in Greece, I have posted many times in support of the Macedonians in Greece and of those working against racial intolerance. What you call "delving" seems to be an effort to disprove the existance of any other neighbouring ethnicity. This is ridiculous. I am not going to join in the actions of other people whose only intention is to believe that there exist no Bulgarians, no Greeks, no Albanians and no Serbs, and that us Macedonians are the only real ethnic group. This is nonsense.

You can't just pick and choose which era you want to work with and dismiss all events prior. You let yourself and your research down when you do this.

In this converstaion, I am dealing with the era around 1900. I am concerned with what people believed themselves to be and what languages people spoke at that time. What language one ancestor spoke in the 1700s is not a concern of mine, that does not define ethnicity.

I do not know how to make this any clearer, you are confusing the real Greeks with the fake Greeks found in places such as Lerin and Voden. The difference is that in the North these "greeks" were indeed Hellenised Macedonians or Hellenised Vlachs. However in the south a Greek popuation did exist. There is a reason why we never hear of Macedonians from Grevena or Satista or the Chalcidice, for the simple reason that there were no ethnic-Macedonians living there at the time. The Vlachs, as I have already mentioned were located in a select number of villages and in some colonies across a few towns.

It seems that you are not happy with the actual demographic landscape of Macedonia 100 years ago, the same one recorded in ethnographic maps, in reports and in surveys, so to counter-act this you have devised your own view of history which apparently believes that all Greeks are infact not Greeks, rather brainwashed Arvanites or Vlachs or Turks or Macedonians etc.

If these people were not Greeks, then please show me some hard evidence which documented the majority population in the Chacidice, Lapcista, Satista, Grevena, Katerini and Nigrita regions as being ethnically non-Greek, ie. ethnically Vlach or ethnically Macedonian. If you can present direct demographic information disproving my assertions about the demography of these regions then the conversation will be able to move forward.

I'm not here to support the Greek point of view/propaganda, however I disagree completely with a number of people here who believe that their own alternative version of history is the true version of history, and who dismiss methodologies/research with no good reason. Dismissing the existence of an entire ethnicity, as is frequently expressed by many contributors here, is a fanatical and historically innacurate view.

[TrueMacedonian]

Mastika said;

In this converstaion, I am dealing with the era around 1900. I am concerned with what people believed themselves to be and what languages people spoke at that time. What language one ancestor spoke in the 1700s is not a concern of mine, that does not define ethnicity.

Define Ethnicity for us Mastika.

[Mastika]

Mastika said;


Define Ethnicity for us Mastika.

In my opinion, ones ethnicity is defined by both ones past and ones present. It is the act of belonging to a certain ethnic group through ancestral heritage, language, culture, religion, customs, traditions, dress, kinship and often physical appearance. It arises due to a combination of nature and nurture. Upon birth, we are born into a certain ethnic group, however nurturing of this ethnic consciousness is needed for the certain ethnic identity to be perpetuated within the individual.

Can one change one's own ethnicity? I don't believe so, ethnicity is not a buffet for one to choose what they want to be, I despise people such as the Grkomans, they are kidding themselves, they will never be truly Greek. However, one can change their descendant's ethnicity through the process of assimilation, if that is the desired form of nurture. Over several generations it is possible for a family through altering of customs, language, clothing, religion, traditions, etc. to change their ethnicity, by undergoing assimilation. Personally I see race as being the only obvious barrier preventing this complete assimilation, however as society changes this too may also disapear.

Do I believe that genetics are the most important thing in defining ethnicity? Definately not. How can one define a pure Macedonian or a pure Russian?, for example. What are Macedonian genetics?, what are not? Genetics do not define ethnicity, example. If a Macedonian wakes up tomorrow and recieves a call that his father was from Sweden, should he feel Swedish? What does this person have to do with the Swedish ethnicity? Culturally nothing. Should they feel less Macedonian?, No definately not. Nurture, in my opinion, is much more important, had they not recieved that phone call they would have no idea they "weren't really" Macedonian. If people are to hold genetics in such high esteem they must realise that it is more likely to work to their detriment then their benefit.

I will give an extreme example which is close to home for many, in the aftermath of Ilinden, a large number of Macedonian women and girls were raped by Turkish soldiers. Many of these women would have been impregnated, later giving birth to children, who "genetically" would have been half-Turkish. These children grew up in Macedonia as Macedonians, imagine questioning the 'Macedonian-ness' of these people because the of the non-ethnic Macedonian origin of their biological fathers. This is ludricrous and insulting! The fact that such occurances have happened over thousands of years, coupled with consenting inter-ethnic relations and the fact that ethnicity was determined by customs, language, religion etc. and not the amount of a certain strand of genetic material in one's blood stream further exemplifies the fallacy which is determination of ethnicity by ones genes.

Although I feel that one cannot truly change their own ethnic identity during their own lifetime, over a number of generations it can and often does happen. Inter-marriage, loss of customs, loss of language and assimilation into the wider culture may mean that in 3 generations a person and their family may be no different to the "true" members of that ethnic group. Although genetically they may be "impure", they are culturally and physically (if they are of the same race) a member of the ethnic group which the family/persons assimilated into. Nurture in this case trumps nature.

That is my opinion. No doubt people will disagree. I am not a fan of those people who chose to assimilate, I hate assimilation with a passion, which I believe to be the destroyer of cultures, languages and practises. I am also against those people who voluntarily choose to leave their own culture and join another culture.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The statistics I have used here are taken directly from Vasil Kanchov's 1900 Macedonia - Ethnography and Statistics survey.

Where does Kanchov obtain his figures from, or was it independent research on the ground level that led him to believe he knows the linguistic affiliation of each village in Macedonia? Here is what Verkovich wrote in the mid 1800's:

........Slavs are the most numerous compared to all the other people, and after them are Vlachs. The numbers of the Greeks and Turks are very small................Generaly, Greeks are located where there were once old Hellenic colonies, like : Amphipolis, Eion, Neopolis, etc, however everywhere in very small number. (S. Verkovich, 1860.)

Here is what Brailsford wrote in the early 1900's:

They are not a very numerous stock, though without their aid the Greeks would cut a poor figure among the statistics of the Macedonian races. The so-called "Greeks" of Monastir are Vlachs to a man. They form a considerable and continuous group along the Pindus range, wedged between Thessaly and Epirus. They are numerous once more between Olympus and Kara-Veria (the ancient Beroea). Elsewhere they have scattered villages, all built like Pisodéri among the rocks. Kruchevo, Neveska, and Klissoura are the most notable of these mountain-nests. (H. N. Brailsford, 1906)

The 'Greeks' in Macedonia during 1900 were essentially nothing without Vlachs. The area between Olympus and Beroea where these Vlachs live is south of the Bistrica. I will grant you some Greeks south of this river in Macedonia, but I won't be blind as you are, and accept everybody there as 'Greeks' for the sake of conclusion.

That is true, however figures such as Vasil Kanchov still managed to include 34,442 people living in the Kasandra kaza, of whom according to him 30,359 were ethnically Greek. These people were not traders but villlages and fisherman who had been speaking Greek for hundreds of years. You cannot claim them to be anythign but Greek, historically the Chalcidice has been predominantly Greek speaking for hundreds if not more years.

For all you know your 'ethnically Greek' fishing villages were in that particular area for only a generation prior as descendants of refugees from elsewhere. Or are you suggesting that such a small group of people survived in the same area unscathed since the ancient Hellenic colonies in Macedonia were destroyed by Phillip II during the 4th century BC?

I will not be posting them here however there is a considerable range presented at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...donia.......If everyone notices the areas around the Chalcidice, the Struma delta, Thasos island and south of the Bistrica river are consistently shown to be ethnically Greek. I wonder why?! Is it possible that these people were in fact Greeks?

Don't get too excited, all of your maps are either from the 19th or 20th centuries, none of them correspond to each other exactly, some differ significantly, and others still will exclude groups that existed by placing them under 'umbrella' terms such as Greeks and Bulgars. Although Verkovich refers to the Macedonian population as 'Bulgarian' (side note: he gives an explanation why he does this), see what he writes about the 'Greeks' at the mouth of the Struma:

From Demir-Hisar, where begins the big Serezian lowland, on both sides of the river Struma, till the ruins of Amphipolis by the sea, and east from Amphipolis towards Kavala, on both sides of mountain Pangea, which is today called Pernar by locals, there are more than 100 Bulgarian villages, the same number of Vlach villages, whereas there are barely 20 Greek villages. (S. Verkovich, 1860)

Should he be dismissed because you only wish to look at a narrow window of time or prefer to trust misinformed propagandist maps from the 19th and 20th century?

What ever some of our ancestors were at the begginging of the 18th century is irrelevant, a persons ethnicity is defined by the ethnicity of their parents/grandparents as well as the environment in which they were raised.

It's not irrelevant, except to people like you who readily accept over-simplified narratives which just so happen to be at the expense of your 'own' people's existence. Some of my grandparents were born in the early 1900's, they were Macedonians, their grandparents were born in the 1800's, a few generations earlier, 1700's, etc, etc, and it keeps going back. True ethnic identity doesn't just change with each century, and can endure even in the harshest of environments. There are also those of weak mind or questionable integrity.

What business do people like this who have been speaking Greek for hundreds of years have with Macedonian or Vlach people?!

What evidence do you have to indicate 'hundreds of years' of Greek-speakers in Macedonia in any given area except for some of the main towns?

Which villages were once ethnically Macedonian and became 'Greek'? Where is the documented presence of Vlachs at the mouth of the Struma who assimilated into Greeks?

I showed you Verkovich. He too considers Bistrica as a natural border but south of Macedonia is Thessaly, and there the Vlachs were even more numerous.

You are making speculations about a hypothetical demography of a region and then trying to relate it to a group which lived 200 years later.

It's not a speculation or hypothetical, prior to the 1760's 'native' Greek-speakers were basically nowhere in Macedonia. There are no census' based on language or ethnicity in those earlier years, historical accounts vary but they do also speak of Macedonians.

This is ridiculous. I am not going to join in the actions of other people whose only intention is to believe that there exist no Bulgarians, no Greeks, no Albanians and no Serbs, and that us Macedonians are the only real ethnic group.

Where have I said that no Bulgars, Greeks, Albanians or Serbs exist? I will tell you where, nowhere. So what was the point of that rant? Nothing. Have another drink of your namesake.

I'm not here to support the Greek point of view/propaganda, however I disagree completely with a number of people here who believe that their own alternative version of history is the true version of history, and who dismiss methodologies/research with no good reason.

Some of your 'methodologies' have no good reason, because you haven't properly researched all of the necessary sources. You don't sound stupid so I don't think you're ignorant, which probably means that you're still the same self-loathing and self-negating 'Macedonian' that you were the first time you arrived here.