Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Soldier of Macedon]

To the best of my knowledge, the terms Hellas and Hellenes were not in use prior to the founding of the modern Greek state.

Thanks, I chose to ignore the rest of your dribble, stop scrambling for responses, next time write what you're thinking more accurately, and don't allow your sensibilities to be slighted when you fail to do so and it is brought to your attention.

[Buktop]

Thanks, I chose to ignore the rest of your dribble, stop scrambling for responses, next time write what you're thinking more accurately, and don't allow your sensibilities to be slighted when you fail to do so and it is brought to your attention.

SoM, I know exactly what I wrote, and I know exactly the meaning that was intended, I will only ask you this one more time, stop taking my posts out of context.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I know exactly what I wrote, and I know exactly the meaning that was intended

Then you indirectly admit guilt (and support) for your own error (which you refuse to acknowledge). What's with the "one more time", Buktop, are you going to threaten me with something after this?

[Babazuba]

Soldier of Macedon

But you have the time to go 'trawling' through the forums making such statements? Show some principle and corroborate your statements.

Another fantastic statement. You are either extremely uninformed, or Greek, or both.

I am suggesting that it is not as 'mixed' a salad as has been assumed by foreigners. You, on the other hand, have bought the stories of foreigners over your own people, hook, line and sinker, either that, or you are on some sort of agenda. Your understanding of Macedonian history is naive.

So do I, as it isn't possible to be directly descended from populations that lived thousands of years ago. Our difference is that I still consider the heritage we have from them as significant, whereas you seem to consider it irrelevant.

Mate, don't waste my time by playing word games, your point of argument is irrelevant. There is no title called "King of Prilep" either, and Marko was king of much more than Prilep, you obviously don't know much about Macedonian history during that or any other period.

Another irrelevant comparison, with which you're implying that the ancestors of the Macedonians, the people who spoke our language, who practiced our culture and religion, etc, did not exist in Marko's kingdom. You clearly have no clue, and I am starting to realise this with each of your replies.

Macedonia was a peripheral territory that was absorbed into Dushan's empire, someone who had no prior ties to the region. Marko's kingdom was solely based in Macedonia, his mother was from the greater region, his father and uncle ruled there before him. Have a closer look at all of the particulars before you continue to utter ignorance.

I don't need your opinion for confirmation that differences exist between the people of the medieval period and today. The issue here is that you're using elements of the modern interpretation of 'ethnicity' to diminish the significance of Macedonia's heritage.

The Macedonians asserting their identity during efforts at gaining liberty, self-empowerment, etc was a movement, the Macedonian identity itself is not a movement, it is a historical reality to all Macedonians, except those like you who are so sure of Greece's 'homogenous' population yet so quick to comment against any Macedonian demonstrating an established link to our historical past.

As I read, and understans, corect me if I am wrong,
While Greeks travel through history to prove points away from
centre of history, loosing the sight of Macedonian nation,
Macedonians by virtue of blood line, travel toward the centre,
thus ceeping the momentum of history and heritag intact. Alive.
This to ceep antiquity secure for the sake of new generation,
who ask their fathers, 'who are we the Macedonians'
The conflict exists with Macedonian neighbours for reason that
they want us to forget, the other, needs to remember.

[Bill77]

SoM, I know exactly what I wrote, and I know exactly the meaning that was intended,

Well mabe you should keep it to your self. Whats the point in you alone knowing the meaning that was intended.


"Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832 "

I am with SOM on this one. For something to become official, it would have to be unofficial previously.

Perhaps you should have used the words such as "For the first time" if thats truely what you meant.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Glad to see another normal observation Bill, thanks. Don't hold your breathe on Buktop's ability to comprehend this though.

[Soldier of Macedon]

As I read, and understans, corect me if I am wrong,
While Greeks travel through history to prove points away from
centre of history, loosing the sight of Macedonian nation,
Macedonians by virtue of blood line, travel toward the centre,
thus ceeping the momentum of history and heritag intact. Alive.
This to ceep antiquity secure for the sake of new generation,
who ask their fathers, 'who are we the Macedonians'
The conflict exists with Macedonian neighbours for reason that
they want us to forget, the other, needs to remember.

Babazuba, I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but I think I get the point. Macedonians focus on fundamental facts to develop their pro-Macedonian points of argument, Greeks (of the racist type) develop their anti-Macedonian points of argument based on lies, half-truths and deceit. In which case I would agree.

[Babazuba]

to Soldier of Macedon

Babazuba, I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but I think I get the point. Macedonians focus on fundamental facts to develop their pro-Macedonian points of argument, Greeks (of the racist type) develop their anti-Macedonian points of argument based on lies, half-truths and deceit. In which case I would agree.

YES!, to put it blantly,
They fight to preserve the "inheritnce" tought them since
early school time. They do not understand the meaning of truth
of historical events, in the right format.
The same goest in todays lectures in ancient history of Macedonians
For example, after ocupation of Athens by Macedonians,
history does not state that Athens was ocupied by Macedonians.
It states that Alexandar of Macedon was Greek King, thus
in further reading one understands that Alexabdar is of Greek
descendant, and Greek. Historians totaly neglect to continue
that historic moment from Macedonian point of vew, but
continue to express the Greeknes of Macedonian history.
Omiting the point that Greece did not remotely exist as is today,
in ancient times. Elleni are not Greeks, per say.
That would be like, Macedonians deriving from Yugoslavs?
Elleni have forgoten who they are, because they have bin saturated
with Macedonian history and heritag to such extent that today
Greeks are like, blind falowers of an ocult.
and so on and so forth I hope I speak with clarity

[Orfej]

If you pay attention to most of European states there is a same continuity, if you want take the German tribal states, Polabians, Gauls, Romans, I'm not advocating special status of some national-state of ours but why would we be the exception?

I have the right to flourish my selective approach, if you want to follow Greek approach it is your choice.

I explained it earlier!! Every nation had a primordial approach regarding it’s people. But these approaches were established and belonged to the 18 and 19 century. Today they are obsolete. But we still try to cling on to such approaches which are causing us more harm then good.

There were Macedonians involved in the administration and Macedonia was divided into 4 republics with the duty of paying tax and millitary support.

You have dozens of generals and later even Emperors originated from Macedonian soil.

The term Romans as citizens was only a political term, but if you start reading some of the sources there is clear ethnic differentiation.

Now in the lack of explanation, you are trying to tell us that there wasn’t any Roman rule in Macedonia!! The Macedonians had their own autonomous territory( Macedonia) which they ruled, had their own Macedonian army, own laws, administration, own Macedonian king etc. They were just in a peaceful ancient federation lead by Rome.

To get back in reality. Macedonia as a territory was ruled by Rome. It’s sovereignty was destroyed, it’s kings and thousands of the people were send to slavery and Macedonia become just one of the provinces in the Roman empire. They didn’t even possessed Roman citizenship at the time, it was limited only to people of the original Roman provinces( not to the occupied provinces). They were given their Roman citizenship in the 3-th century. And as you wrote, many people used it to become Roman soldiers, generals and even Emperors. As you can easily understand they were working for the good of the Roman Empire, not for the good of the Macedonian Empire- the latter didn’t existed, it was destroyed in 168 BC.

I provided only a start point for you but I got the feeling that you haven't read the whole text properly.

However you may go now with the marble from Isar Marvinci which stands in front of the Government:



"MAKEDONIARHΩNTON NAONTHPATRIDI
PANTITΩKOΣMO TO ΘKT ETEI".

meaning:

"To Macedonian kings, a shrine of the Fatherland
from the whole nation"

That was a marblestone from the shrine/temple in 329 year or first half of the 4 century A.D.(officially) or according to Kamburovski year 56-65 A.D.; dedicated to the great Macedonian kings and represents a symbol of pride and disobeying.

The text in the lower left part of the picture states:

Pasko Kuzman: the inscription says that a ``Macedonian`` had given money for building the temple in Isak-Marvinci.

Now how will you connect this text with the disobedience of the Macedonians towards the Roman state is beyond me!!

[Bratot]

I explained it earlier!! Every nation had a primordial approach regarding it’s people. But these approaches were established and belonged to the 18 and 19 century. Today they are obsolete. But we still try to cling on to such approaches which are causing us more harm then good.

It's your choice what approach you'll chose, there are probably your common opinioners in every country I guess, but the reality in practice is pretty cruel and if you propagate naivness you will be another tragically killed humanitarian.

Now in the lack of explanation, you are trying to tell us that there wasn’t any Roman rule in Macedonia!! The Macedonians had their own autonomous territory( Macedonia) which they ruled, had their own Macedonian army, own laws, administration, own Macedonian king etc. They were just in a peaceful ancient federation lead by Rome.

How do you percieve a Roman "rule" in which the Macedonians were able to be the gouvernors, generals and even Emperors in such conglomerate of nations as that Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

It was more a question of FEDERATION and precizely that name was official: Foederate Roman

To get back in reality. Macedonia as a territory was ruled by Rome. It’s sovereignty was destroyed, it’s kings and thousands of the people were send to slavery and Macedonia become just one of the provinces in the Roman empire. They didn’t even possessed Roman citizenship at the time, it was limited only to people of the original Roman provinces( not to the occupied provinces). They were given their Roman citizenship in the 3-th century. And as you wrote, many people used it to become Roman soldiers, generals and even Emperors. As you can easily understand they were working for the good of the Roman Empire, not for the good of the Macedonian Empire- the latter didn’t existed, it was destroyed in 168 BC.

The Roman Federation took the place of the Roman Republic in which the Representatives are chosen by the province.
The Province is also given equal rights as a state, capable of making its own laws.
Julius Caesar also said a spell given to him by a mysterious oracle and created talking animals, magical creatures and living trees and water. Eventually, the Roman Federation expanded to several continents.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rom...g_Roman_Empire)

If one should follow your logic than the Macedonian Socialistic and Peoples Republic as a federate republic in SFRJ didn't existed for it's own purpose?

The text in the lower left part of the picture states:
Now how will you connect this text with the disobedience of the Macedonians towards the Roman state is beyond me!!

I provide a translation of the text, what does it tells you?

Does it provide a reason to believe as you stated upper that those Macedonians were working for the good of the Roman Empire and not Macedonia?

I don't think so homie.


A sanctuary, a temple, where generations of Macedonians were giving honour to their Kings, is that enough understanable?

Don't oppose me for the sake of opposing and stop expressing some pathetic liberal open minded views cuz as much as you try as much you look more narrow minded.

[Mastika]

Mastika, you sound so NOT Macedonian more like a Greek or Bulgarian posing to be a Macedonian. Od koj mesto si?

Poteknuvam od DemirHisarskiot kraj. Ne sum nitu Grk, nitu Bugarin, Makedonec sum.

Would it then be fair to say that THEIR great, great Grandparents were also ethnic Macedonains?

I'll go one further and ask if it would it then be fair to say that even their great, great grandparents were ethnic Macedonians?

If so, who taught them to be ethnic Macedonians? What made them ethnic Macedonians? Where did their ethnic Macedonian identity come from?

Did the French teach it to them? Or was it their parents/grandparents and so on?

Your great-grandparents, if they are still alive, would be about 97. Perhaps born between 1910 - 1915?

So their great grandparents would have been born roughly around the 1840's to 1850's and
THEIR great-grandparents would have been born, roughly speaking, in the 1780's.

Would you agree, or do you find it plausible that in the 1780's, your ancestors (that's 9 generations ago) would have been and could have been ethnic Macedonians? If not, then when did your ancestors, in which generation, change their entire identity and start calling themselves Macedonians (without basis)?

If they were ethnic Macedonians, then I'd like to ask you what happened between 1593 and 1780.

As I am sure you are aware, Macedonia was occupied by the Ottomans during this entire period, yet there are historical sources citing a Stamp of the Kingdom of Macedonia which was being used to imprint letters as early (or late) as 1593.

I do find it plausible that the generation born 1850s saw themselves as ethnic Macedonians.
I also find it plausible that the generation born 1780s had some sort of ethnic Macedonian identity, albeit not as strong as their great-grandchildren.

I cannot answer the question when my ancestors first started to see themselves as ethnically Macedonian, this question has no defnite answer.

The modern forces of nationalism, desire for a nation state, solid notions of ethnicity etc. etc. arose mainly due to the developments which were happening in Europe at the time. These too were reciprocated people in the Ottoman Empire as people began to see themselves as not only "Christians" but also an "ethnic Serb", "ethnic Albanian" etc. Once one generation of people began to see the need to be ethnic this or ethnic that, they instilled this feeling into their children who naturally found belonging amongst their own people. What I am not going to do is claim that the ethnic Macedonian identity (or any ethnic identity for that matter) has existed since time immemorial, given that what we see as being ethnicity was not a notion present before say the Englightenment or at least the late Renaissance.

I am interested in seeing this stamp if you could post it somewhere on the forum. Also who had the authority to issue it?

[Bill77]

Poteknuvam od DemirHisarskiot kraj. Ne sum nitu Grk, nitu Bugarin, Makedonec sum.

i will be slightly off topic here mate and i apoligise, but have you ever been to Demirhisar? we can take it to pm if you like

[Vangelovski]

I think my head's bleeding...

[julie]

Vangelovski, from what I can see here we have some opposing views - from the Bulgar perspective and from the Yugo perspective. Its sad to see Macedonians, if that is what they are arguing for the dushmanite.

Its done my head in too.

And if I can get my 2 cents in, for what its worth Macedonia has been an empire and a state for thousands of years, la di da di da . period.
Alexander the Great and Tsar Samuil, our MACEDONIAN kings just to name a couple
dobro vecer

And this bullshit that is going on for the sake of arguing for the dushmanite has to stop. Seriously, work out what the hell you are, as I stated in an earlier post. Then odite vo pitchku materin Bugarska i Serbska UMD i grchka. and goo riddance to those that support anti-Macedonian bullshit

[Orfej]

It's your choice what approach you'll chose, there are probably your common opinioners in every country I guess, but the reality in practice is pretty cruel and if you propagate naivness you will be another tragically killed humanitarian.

Ofcourse everyone is entitled to an opinion. I’m just astonished to the amount of people in the Balkans who still hold on the the primordial approach who is backwarded and belongs to a different time.

How do you percieve a Roman "rule" in which the Macedonians were able to be the gouvernors, generals and even Emperors in such conglomerate of nations as that Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

It was more a question of FEDERATION and precizely that name was official: Foederate Roman

Look, I don’t have the time to explain basic stuff here!! I suggest to anyone who thinks that Macedonia was a autonomous region or a state in the Roman Empire to educate himself a little more!! The same goes for those who think that the Roman Empire was a Federation. Mixing an Empire with a Federation, and a Province ( an administrative division of an Empire) with a State is not something debatable, it’s something that needs to be learned.

Furthermore the fact that there were Roman generals and even Emperors of Macedonian origin doesn’t change anything. There were also Ottoman generals and Sultans who had Macedonian origin!! Does that mean that the Ottoman Empire didn’t ruled Macedonia for 500 years and that Macedonia was a state within the Ottoman Empire!?!

The Roman Federation took the place of the Roman Republic in which the Representatives are chosen by the province.
The Province is also given equal rights as a state, capable of making its own laws.
Julius Caesar also said a spell given to him by a mysterious oracle and created talking animals, magical creatures and living trees and water. Eventually, the Roman Federation expanded to several continents.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rom...g_Roman_Empire)

If one should follow your logic than the Macedonian Socialistic and Peoples Republic as a federate republic in SFRJ didn't existed for it's own purpose?

Completely wrong!! But i tended to debate about the continuation of states and ethnicities through time( primordial approach) and not giving lessons on Roman history. I simply don't see the point in debating something obvious.

I provide a translation of the text, what does it tells you?

A translation given by who? Paskal Kamburovski?

http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/show.dml/1658834

But Pasko Kuzman and the Macedonian academia translates the text in different way!! Who should we trust now? Paskal or Pasko?

Does it provide a reason to believe as you stated upper that those Macedonians were working for the good of the Roman Empire and not Macedonia?

Well do you honestly think that Justinian or Belisarious worked for the good just of Macedonia(as a administrative unit) or for the good Eastern Roman Empire?

Don't oppose me for the sake of opposing and stop expressing some pathetic liberal open minded views cuz as much as you try as much you look more narrow minded.

I would definitely not oppose you just for the sake of opposing. But I would evaluate if you are capable to understand and accept your mistakes!! If I get the impression that you are not able to do that then I would back of, since it’s pointless to debate with a wall!!