Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his Macedonian ancestry

[astibo]

I don't lead the debate to wrong directions!I just answered to YOUR CLAIM that if Alexander was really allowed by the Greeks to participate in the Olympics,this happened in all probability out of gratefulness reasons,cause he helped them in the Persian wars

Your answer was full with hypothesis witch you can not prov.
You have no proof that can support your story about "the athlete tricks"!
You have no prov that can support your story that Macedonians were not participants in the Olympic games because they were so buzzy fighting with the fealty barbarians!

Having this in mind, all you have posted here about this case of Alexander I Phillhelene is just pure speculation.

Again i answered to YOUR CLAIM "Alexander I was considered by the Hellens as a friend and a helper in hard times of war" pointing out that it was some Hellenistic time historians and not his contemporary Greeks who labeled him as such.

You can say the same about his supposed participation in the Olympic games. Having in mind that it was speculated that he has won the race but on the other hand his name was not on the list of winers we can get closer to conclusion that he has not participate in the race, probably because he was not allowed by the Greeks.

What inscription,they didn't even know to write in 550-600 BC.

Come on now, surely they were familiar with writing in the few years before Alexander I

And when i post my evidence you say "these stories of Herodotus are invented",or "it's not sure what he meant with the word 'Greek' or whether he used it at all" e.t.c.

It is not true, i am giving answer to every quote u have posted to me, and if u have not noticed when i am giving these answers, i presume that everything the author wrote is true and i am explaining the meaning.
The question how true the quotes are, ore what the circumstances were is a whole other subject.

Macedonia had become a vassal state of Persia already before Persians attacked Greece:

"Macedonia becomes a vassal state of Persia".

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/CHRON/BCchron.html

"At the end of the 6th century BC, Darius the Great ruled over an immense realm, from western India to eastern Europe. In 513 BC Darius, for the first time, conquered Thrace and Macedonia. Macedonian king Alexander I became his vassal....In 492 BC Darius dispatched an army under his son-in-law, Mardonius. This army reduced Thrace and compelled Alexander I of Macedon to submit again to Persia".

http://www.crystalinks.com/grecopersianwars.html

And since Macedonia was a Persian protectorate then,Persians ought to protect Macedonian borders from every invasion

This is one of the sorrow est explanations i have heard. But i would like to have a chance to see some prove witch support your story.

The Illyrians are included in the group of those "obscure tribes in the Balkan interior" i mentioned in my older post.Probably because they and their culture neither left any remarkable traces in Greece nor interacted too much with Greeks,unlike Thracians,for instance.

What Balkan interior, Illyrians were see people and they hade contact with the Greeks, more so because Greeks had colonies on Illyrian territory.
I will try to explain again. From that text u can not draw a conclusion that Macedonians were Greeks only because the author do not mention them in that part of the text. And as a mather of fact they are mentioned in other places:

Josephus
"…how much harder is to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under sun? These, although they inhabit a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty then you have." [Wars, 2.16.4]

Well,if you have to debate with 3 or even 4 persons simultaneously it's not possible to answer to all their questions.But i also could claim the same,some of my questions either to you or to other Macedonians are not answered.

It is clear that you are carefully choosing the parts u are answering, but i also do not have time nor i like to write long texts. Because of that i suggest that we discuss one subject after another.

Let us start with Josephus:

"…how much harder is to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under sun? These, although they inhabit a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty then you have." [Wars, 2.16.4]

What do u think about this quote?

[Soldier of Macedon]

That's why i consider your "specialist" Borza as a mediocre.........

Spare me, your assertions about Borza are extremely comical, and I am no particular mood for jokes.

But even if we accept for the sake of the argument that Herodotus refers only to the current events.....

Accept it, because that is what it is. He had a perfect opportunity to mention the Macedonians as Greeks already subjugated at that time, yet he didn't - as Borza correctly highlights.

“These Thessalians are wise men; this, then, WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THEIR PRECAUTION, LONG BEFORE when they changed to a better mind, for they perceived that their country would be easily and speedily conquerable.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Asection%3D2

Here fits perfectly the passage about "the sons of Aleus,the first Greeks who surrendered to Xerxes"

How does that contradict what Borza says about the Thessalians being the first Greeks to submit to the Persians? Doesn't it corroborate what he says?

Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. THE GREEK CUSTOM THEN IS NO GOOD;AND WHEN I MARCHED AS FAR AS THE LAND OF MACEDONIA,IT HAD NOT COME INTO THEIR MINDS TO FIGHT".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Asection%3D2

Well,who were those Greeks whom Mardonius met in Macedonia?

Probably Hellenic colonists given that his march through Macedonia would have been in close proximity to the coast, and therefore the shortest distance back to Asia. These would be the same Hellenic colonists who had their homes burned to the ground by Phillip and the Macedonians a century or so later.

"This was the stated end of their expedition, but they intended to subdue AS MANY OF THE GREEK CITIES as they could. Their fleet subdued the Thasians, who did not so much as lift up their hands against it; their land army ADDED THE MACEDONIANS to the slaves that they had already, for all the nations nearer to them than Macedonia had been made subject to the Persians before this".
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Asection%3D1

This reference to Greek cities relates to Thasos and the Greek colony there, it doesn't imply that the Macedonians are Greek, nor was Macedonia ever a Greek city. A poor attempt at manipulation, and you have the audacity to question Borza's knowledge and interpretation....please.

Wild assumptions!Herodotus was there,Borza not.

A number of Borza's assertions are corroborated by others, and he is highly regarded by several of his peers where it concerns ancient Macedonian history. Your simplistic approach is to take everything at face value in the hope it results favouring your narrative, the problem with that is, the minute you decide to show some consistency you end up having to have to believe in dragons, fairies and Medusa. Do you believe in Medusa? If an individual came up to you today and said that he is descended from a mythical figure (akin to Medusa), and that was his basis for claiming 'Greekness', would you believe him? Put things into perspective and apply some logic.

That's why he stated they were of Doric stock being himself a Dorian.

Nowhere does Herodotus state that the Macedonians are of "Doric stock", that's just a figment that your imagination has conjured, and nothing more.

Even if we accept Borza's claim that the story of Alexander's participation in the Olympic games was his own invention,it's not acceptable for supposed specialist to ignore that besides Alexander I,two other Argead kings participated and won in the Olumpics:Archelaos around 400 BC and Philip II in 356 BC:

They were the only Macedonian kings that bothered to interfere on a higher level in Hellenic society from 498 BC to 359 BC, when Phillip assumed the throne. That's 3 people in a period of 139 years. And they were not even accepted into the games as Macedonians, but as Heraclidae, ie; descendants of a Heracles, a myth. Do you disagree?

I don't know how he refered to himself but most sources call him Poseidippus the Macedonian:

They're all modern sources, not contemporary or near-contemporary.

Note also this:Athenaus wrote in "Deipnosofists" that Poseidippus describes in his comedies the cooks as slaves because it was the Macedonians that introduced it to the Greek world the cooks as slaves:

Where does it say the Macedonians introduced it to the "Greek" world? I don't see Poseidippus being specifically identified as a Macedonian either, is there more to the passage on the links that elaborates?

I agree,some Romans may have been described as Philhellenes,fonds of Greek culture,litterature e.t.c. and even honoured as such by Greeks,but no Roman ever declared himself to be a Hellene.

It was more than just fondness, it was participation and imitation, not too unlike the Macedonians. Hadrian's nickname was the 'Greekling', Titus Pomponius gave himself the nickname of 'Atticus', while Plutarch remarks that the Greeks saw in Titus Flaminius 'a Greek in his voice and language'. These are but a few examples of the Romans' infatuation with ancient Hellenic culture at the time. They picked up from where the Macedonians left.

I don't see any contradiction here.Polyaenus expressed first his regional (Macedonian) and later his ethnic (Greek) identity.The latter always overshadows the former.

You're applying that same poor revisionism, again. Where does he say 'regional'? Polyaenus says Macedonian nation, and equates it with the Persians. He then goes on to make a clear distinction between Macedonians and Greeks. There is no confusion for anybody other than those that deliberately avoid the truth.

As for the distinction between "Greeks" and "Macedonians",there are numerous similar cases of Athenians speaking of "Athenians attacking Hellenes", of Thebans mentioning "Hellenes fighting against Thebans" and so on,so that's not a solid proof.

Nowhere does it compare Hellenes vs Athenians or Hellenes vs Thebans as opposing nations. There are several other varying examples that can be produced to further corroborate that point, which don't have equivalents with Athenians or Thebans.

Nothing,i just couldn't find any mention of the words "Greci" or "Hellenes" in ethnic sense from that time.However,as i said in some older post of mine,it would be equally difficult to find any mention of ethnic French,Germans,English e.t.c during the same time

The Hellenic identity disappeared after Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, that's why you can't find reference to it. It was a term frowned upon. The French and English nations (and languages) were formed and came to be formed well after the disappearance of the Hellenes; they don't claim an undisturbed line to antiquity so your analogy is incorrect.

The image is very clear:There were Greeks and Slavs,he doesn't speak of Greek-speaking Slavs.................It is also recorded by many other Byzantine authors and well known that most of those Slavs were transported by the Byzantine emperors to the interior of Asia Minor while Greek colonists from that area and Sicily were settled in their place.The rest was Hellenized in the cource of the centuries.

He doesn't have to speak of Greek-speaking Slavs, his other assertions, like that of Hellas being completely Slavicised, speaks volumes. Their subsequent adoption of the Greek language resulted from the Roman identity and Christianisation - not "Hellenisation", a term that would have been detested by Porphyrogenitus and his contemporaries. And those 'Slavs' that were transported to Asia Minor left plenty of their kinsmen in the Peloponnese to continue applying their own place-names in abundance for centuries later. Which Greek colonists from Asia were settled where? Are you sure you aren't referring to the Armenian populations settled in the Balkans?

This abstract here is really a mess and that's why i did not quoted it.

You didn't quote it become it doesn't sit well with you far-fetched interpretations. There is no confusion at all. The Greeks are those that speak Greek as their main tongue, and in that way they are differentiated from the 'Slavs' - it is a linguistic identity, not an 'ethnic' one. The Hellenes are merely those that (once) followed pagan gods, and aren't directly tied to one or the other.

How do you think is it that all the Balkan Slavs and the Russians as well call us "Grtsi" and not "Romans"?Why do you think medieval texts writen in Serbian,Bulgarian and Russian speak mostly of Greeks instead of Romans?If Byzantines themselves had not used the term "Greki" how did all the above peoples become acquainted with it?

At the time of the disruptions of the 6th century AD, Latin was still the official language of the Roman Empire in the east. This means that both Balkan natives and invaders from the Danube and beyond (at that time) were more accustomed with the term used in Latin, hence, they called your language Greek, like most others. This identity was later applied by outsiders to all citizens of East Rome as a result of Greek being the official language. It is only the Greek-speakers themselves who chose to identify their own language as Roman, discarding the term Hellene and rejecting the term Greek; such was their affection for the foreign imperial term.

Your theory doesn't hold water,given that Latins used to call Byzantines "Graeci" and their empire "imperium Graecorum" in order to reject their claims as inheritors of the old Roman empire.So why should they adopt at that time an ethnic name which their arch-rivals applied to them in an almost derogatory manner,if their incentive was only their hatred of Latins and the need to face off Latin imperialism,as you believe?

Who is "they", a handful of nobles or educated types? If by "they" you mean Greek-speaking people in general, then they didn't apply any 'ethnic' name. Those few that did toy with the idea, were using the term 'Hellene', and not 'Greek'.

The term "Hellene" was not always used as synonumous for "pagan" in the Bible,some times it's used with its ethnic meaning.

St Paul almost always used Hellene in comparison to Jew in a religious manner, for example - There is neither Jew nor Hellene, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark 7:26 - "The woman was a Hellene, a Syrophœnician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. The nationality/ethnicity of the woman is stated to be Syrophœnician, by her religion she is a Hellene. Interestingly, it is not 'Hellene' but 'Heathen' which is used in Ulfilas's Gothic, Wycliffe and Coverdale. Where is the term 'Hellene' used in an ethnic manner?

Thus Byzantine authors prefered sometimes the term "Graikoi",when it was neseccary to emphasize one's ethnic origin:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O5J...raikoi&f=false

This is one east Roman author, and the term 'Graikoi' is in reference to the Greek-speakers from Italy in the western 'sphere', not those in traditional east Roman territories such as the Balkans and Anatolia, where Greek-speakers identified as Romans.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=el&...=calls&f=false

I asked for an example where Michael Palaeologos calls himself emperor of the Greeks, not a modern passage lacking citation. Is there any contemporary text or document where Michael referred to himself by the term 'Greek' or not?

Too many pebbles to be considered as triffles,i would add.

Hardly. I was being generous, because over the space of 2,000 years they are more like dust particles than pebbles.

That's irrelevant,what matters here is whether he self-identified as Hellene.

He does identify as a Hellene, an absolute rarity among the millions living in the same empire during that period. My point is still very relevant to you though, as his definition of Hellenic living space doesn't include Macedonia, which renders him useless to the cause you're pursuing here as a Greek at a Macedonian forum.

Commoners in medieval time usually didn't leave any records,writings e.t.c. not to mention that more than half were illiterate.It is the intelligentsia that left such stuff in every society,so we have to draw our conclusions only by this very limited material.

They may not have left many records but their actions and deeds were recorded by others. There is no record of a collective Hellenic identity, you would even be hard-pressed to find the people of the Hellas Theme referred to as Hellenes. Your dozen or so people don't count as the 'intelligentsia', this is merely your attempt at giving coherence to a few statements made over a period of 2,000 years.

If you add to the history of classical Athens that "he called contemporary Greeks descendands of men both great and wise",it's not hard to imagine whom he considered as his ancestors.

All I see is a secondary source. Do you have his actual quote? What term does he use for Greeks?

I don't see any confusion.On the contrary,i see that more educated Greeks started to clarify this misunderstanding to their fellow illiterate compatriots

That's because you're confused yourself. Hellenes WERE Idolaters and pagans. This is the interpretation of the Bible and of Christian society for nearly 2,000 years.

I doubt there did exist in late 18th century-early 19th century any Macedonians,Albanians,Vlachs,let alone Gypsies who used the word "Romios" for self-identification.

Generally speaking, from the 19th century and prior, all Christians of the Rum Millet in the Ottoman Empire were referred to as Romans (Rumlar) officially and internally. Externally (mainly by the west) they were referred to as Greeks - for the previously stated reasons relating to religion, location and the main language of the (eastern) church. Self-identification, however, is another matter. Of all the non-Latin members of the Rum Millet, it is only the Greek-speakers who assume this generic Roman label as something specific in reference to their language and people.

That's again irrelevant to the topic.It's the view of an 19th century Brittish author,however what matters here is what some educated people in Greece thought of their language and how they called it in 16th century.

That is the same author who cites your source, so it is relevant, and pertinent. Those “educated people” who made such statements, when “taken collectively, cannot, in fact, be so properly called an individual people, as a religious sect………”. Period. For all you know Zygomalas and Cabasilas could be Albanians, like so many other ‘Greeks’ at the time.

The answer is above.

Hardly. You reference to a few educated types says very little about the collective sentiment of their Albanian kinsmen, who were happy to watch the English take archaeological artefacts from ancient ruins during Ottoman times, without protest. Without the Great Powers, there would be no Greece or Greeks - as they are known today.

Isn't it strange that only the other athletes protested against Alexander's participation and not the Hellanodikai,who were the main rersponsible to check whether an athlete fulfilled the criterion of Greek origin?

Your theories are strange. Their cause for protest is because they knew he wasn’t a Hellene, and not because of some perceived ‘threat’ to their sporting valour. Alexander’s acceptance to the games is also highly dubious given that his name appears nowhere on the records of that Olympiad.

Athenian hegemonism,which was mainly expressed at that time through Demosthenes and he himself in particular didn't actually give a shit about the "Hellenic cause".All what they really cared was to restore Athenian hegemony,this was their further aim and real "cause".

The assertions about Demosthenes’ sentiments based on your own misguided attempt to deny the distinction between Macedonians and Hellenes are becoming entertaining. But, let’s say for argument’s sake, that Demosthenes didn’t care for the ‘Hellenic cause’ (nice selection of words by the way, to distinguish it from the Macedonian cause). Nearly the WHOLE of Hellas did care, and they supported Demosthenes in an Athenian-led struggle of Hellenes against the Macedonians. What were they then, a pack of morons following a single moron? Or maybe, just maybe, the Hellenes united against the common Macedonian foe, as is evidenced in sources from antiquity.

However there was a pro-Macedonian fraction too in Athenian political scene and in other cities too,like Corinth who didn't view Macedonians as barbarians.

What makes you say that Corinth didn’t view the Macedonians in the same way that other Hellenes did?

Not even in the time of the Persian wars was made such fuss by any Athenian politician against the "barbarian invaders".

The Macedonian conquest of Greece differs markedly to the efforts made by the Persians, and there are several factors to consider, like Macedonia’s proximity to Greece, her rise as a powerful state in the same continent, Phillip’s policies and alliances, etc.

Borza's favourite sport is certainly self-contradiction:
http://www.google.com/search?q=there...A1&tbo=1&hl=el

The quote you keep repeating in the link, where Borza states that there is “no reason to deny the Macedonians’ own tradition about their early kings and the migration of the Makedones” – it goes on to say the following (which you conveniently left out) – “We have already suggested that a branch of those highlanders, the Argeadae, may have migrated out of the Haliacmon basin into the piedmont of northern Pieria”. The migration that Borza refers to is from Haliacmon in Macedonia, and not Argos in the Peloponnese! It would seem that your favourite sport is manipulation and blatant fabrications.

Any specific names?I can't recall any Thracian,Illyrian,Paeonian e.t.c. claiming to be Greek in 490 BC.

I never said they claimed to be Greek, I said they claimed a heritage from mythical figures (inaccurately) considered to be ‘Hellenic’. Scythians did it, and so did the Persians. Have you actually read all of Herodotus’ works, or do you read only those extracts that appear to be beneficial for your cause? The mythical fiction is the sole basis for some Macedonian kings claiming kinship with certain ‘Hellenic’ figures from the past. There is absolutely nothing else that essentially connects them to the society of Hellenes prior to Alexander I, aside from a brief citation from Hesiod, which is again, in reference to mythical events.

I don't need too.The translation "old racial rivalry" is wrong,ask any Classic scholar and you'll see.

The sources on all of your links are word for word the exact same, which means that they have been copied from one another. Nevertheless, “racial rivalry between Greek and Macedonian” or “strife between the Grecians and Macedonians, concerning the honour of their respective nations”, still spells the same thing - Macedonians and Greeks are two separate and perpetually distinct entities (nations, tribes, races, whatever), with a high degree of mutual animosity towards each other, hence Arrian’s quote.

So, in total, how many people identified (or were identified) as Hellenes from the spread of Christianity till the end of the 18th century? 15? 20? One for every century? Two for every century? This is what you base the continuity of a Hellenic identity on?

[Agamoi Thytai]

Accept it, because that is what it is. He had a perfect opportunity to mention the Macedonians as Greeks already subjugated at that time, yet he didn't - as Borza correctly highlights.

How does that contradict what Borza says about the Thessalians being the first Greeks to submit to the Persians? Doesn't it corroborate what he says?

Borza's point is that Herodotus indirectly implied Macedonians were not Greeks when he labeled Thessalians as "the first Greeks to surrender themselves to Xerxes".However Herodotus' clear reference to Thessalian envoys who went to Persia itself to offer their submission to Xerxes,long before Persians passed from Macedonia invalidates Borza's assertions.Herodotus had already written in some chapter before that he considered Macedonians as Greeks,why would he now change his mind?

Nowhere does Herodotus state that the Macedonians are of "Doric stock", that's just a figment that your imagination has conjured, and nothing more.

The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D43%3Asection%3D1

"...the statement of herodotus that there was a time when the dorians lived in Pindus and were called Macedonians"

http://books.google.com/books?id=DhyQ5nHMt3UC&pg=PA150&dq=herodotus+macedonians+dorians&hl=el&ei=EylHTfauFMiv8gPH0YSvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=herodotus%20macedonians%20dorians&f=false

[/QUOTE]

[makedonche]

Borza's point is that Herodotus indirectly implied Macedonians were not Greeks when he labeled Thessalians as "the first Greeks to surrender themselves to Xerxes".However Herodotus' clear reference to Thessalian envoys who went to Persia itself to offer their submission to Xerxes,long before Persians passed from Macedonia invalidates Borza's assertions.Herodotus had already written in some chapter before that he considered Macedonians as Greeks,why would he now change his mind?

The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D43%3Asection%3D1

"...the statement of herodotus that there was a time when the dorians lived in Pindus and were called Macedonians"

http://books.google.com/books?id=DhyQ5nHMt3UC&pg=PA150&dq=herodotus+macedonians+dorians&hl=el&ei=EylHTfauFMiv8gPH0YSvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=herodotus%20macedonians%20dorians&f=false

[/QUOTE]

Agamoi
You might want to read another of Myres works before you use him as a reference:

The influence of anthropology on the course of political science

[Agamoi Thytai]

Agamoi
You might want to read another of Myres works before you use him as a reference:

Makedonche,my reference was no to John Linton Myres but to Herodotus' history.I couldn't find an english translation of Herodotus' passage where he says Dorians were once called Macedonians,so i had to post this excerpt of Myres with a citation to Herodotus.However i've found the original passage of Herodotus i was talking about:

“The Pelasgians never migrated anywhere,but the Hellenes were a very well-travelled race.When Deucalion was their king,they were living in Phthia,but in the time of Dorus the son of Hellen they were in the territory around Mount Ossa and Olympus,known as Histiaeotis.Then they were evicted from Histiaeotis by the Cadmeans and settled on Mount Pindus,where they were called Macedonians.Next they moved to Dryopis,and from Dryopis they finally reached the Peloponnese and became known as the Dorians.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=VrV5TELCHJ4C&pg=PA24

[makedonche]

Makedonche,my reference was no to John Linton Myres but to Herodotus' history.I couldn't find an english translation of Herodotus' passage where he says Dorians were once called Macedonians,so i had to post this excerpt of Myres with a citation to Herodotus.However i've found the original passage of Herodotus i was talking about:

“The Pelasgians never migrated anywhere,but the Hellenes were a very well-travelled race.When Deucalion was their king,they were living in Phthia,but in the time of Dorus the son of Hellen they were in the territory around Mount Ossa and Olympus,known as Histiaeotis.Then they were evicted from Histiaeotis by the Cadmeans and settled on Mount Pindus,where they were called Macedonians.Next they moved to Dryopis,and from Dryopis they finally reached the Peloponnese and became known as the Dorians.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=VrV5TELCHJ4C&pg=PA24

Agamoi
Your'e missing the point, when you quote what an author says it is him you are quoting - regardless of who/whom he is talking about! That being the case you should read more of his works to get a wholistic understanding of his views, rather than selecting one small piece that he makes reference to Heredotus and trying to use that as some credible evidence to substantiate your flawed opinions.

[Agamoi Thytai]

Agamoi
Your'e missing the point, when you quote what an author says it is him you are quoting - regardless of who/whom he is talking about! That being the case you should read more of his works to get a wholistic understanding of his views, rather than selecting one small piece that he makes reference to Heredotus and trying to use that as some credible evidence to substantiate your flawed opinions.

Makedonche,i repeat that my point was Herodotus' passage and not the personal view of that author,John Linton Myres,but anyway,since you insist,neither this is in your favour.On page 99 he writes:

"...at this point it is sufficient to note that though this group of languages spread into Asia Minor from the European end,it belongs to the same eastern group of Indo-European languages as Sanskrit and Old Persian,not to the western group which includes as its nearest neighbors the northern dialects of Greek,including that of the Macedonians,who were coming in the fifth century to have a common frontier with the Thracians in the Strymon basin..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=DhyQ5nHMt3UC&pg=PA99

[makedonche]

Makedonche,i repeat that my point was Herodotus' passage and not the personal view of that author,John Linton Myres,but anyway,since you insist,neither this is in your favour.On page 99 he writes:

"...at this point it is sufficient to note that though this group of languages spread into Asia Minor from the European end,it belongs to the same eastern group of Indo-European languages as Sanskrit and Old Persian,not to the western group which includes as its nearest neighbors the northern dialects of Greek,including that of the Macedonians,who were coming in the fifth century to have a common frontier with the Thracians in the Strymon basin..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DhyQ5nHMt3UC&pg=PA99

Agamoi
If you continue to read page 99 it may enlighten you further:-

"We have now made a complete circuit through the regions immediately east of the Aegean, seeking for something more coherent than the survivals in loan words and place names, with which we began, to illustrate the distribution of languages there before Greek dialects began to spread."

Further on to page 100 :-
" Fortuneately here there is not only a large mass of documentary material of early date, at last decipherable; but, as now deciphered, this gives us an outline of historical events, very much further back than any documentary record on the side of the Greeks."

Tell me is this in my favour?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Borza's point is that Herodotus indirectly implied Macedonians were not Greeks when he labeled Thessalians as "the first Greeks to surrender themselves to Xerxes".However Herodotus' clear reference to Thessalian envoys who went to Persia itself to offer their submission to Xerxes,long before Persians passed from Macedonia invalidates Borza's assertions.

Herodotus doesn't mention the Macedonians as the first "Greeks" subject to Xerxes even though they already were through a previous arrangement inherited from his father Darius, which was well before Thessaly showed 'precaution' to him.

Herodotus had already written in some chapter before that he considered Macedonians as Greeks,why would he now change his mind?

No he doesn't, he refers to the Macedonian kings and only because of his dealings with Alexander I 'Philhellene'.

The following took part in the war: from the Peloponnese, the Lacedaemonians provided sixteen ships; the Corinthians the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians furnished fifteen ships, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezenians five, the Hermioneans three. All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and Macedonian and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Asection%3D1

That distinguishes Macedonians from Dorians.

"...the statement of herodotus that there was a time when the dorians lived in Pindus and were called Macedonians"

http://books.google.com/books?id=DhyQ5nHMt3UC&pg=PA150&dq=herodotus+macedonians+dorians&hl=el&ei=EylHTfauFMiv8gPH0YSvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=herodotus%20macedonians%20dorians&f=false

That 'statement' of Herodotus says:

they settled, under the name of Macedni, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians (Rawlinson).

For a period of time they settled under the Macedonian name, which was already in existence, and then they moved on to the Peloponnese. Herodotus' reference to them as Macedonians was specific for a point and nowhere repeated.

[Agamoi Thytai]

St Paul almost always used Hellene in comparison to Jew in a religious manner, for example - There is neither Jew nor Hellene, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark 7:26 - "The woman was a Hellene, a Syrophœnician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. The nationality/ethnicity of the woman is stated to be Syrophœnician, by her religion she is a Hellene. Interestingly, it is not 'Hellene' but 'Heathen' which is used in Ulfilas's Gothic, Wycliffe and Coverdale. Where is the term 'Hellene' used in an ethnic manner?

Here Paul definitely uses the term "Hellenes" with the original ethnic meaning,in his letter to the Romans:

"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to the barbarians both to the learned and to the ignorant".

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYIfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA354

Also in this passage of his letter to the Corinthians it's reasonable to assume that he does the same:

"And although the Jews demand a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom yet we preach Christ crucified:to the Jews indeed a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness"

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYIfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA383

Greeks "seeking wisdom",a clear reference to typical Greek cultural traits,i.e. philosophy,rationalism and free thought,as opposed to Jewish religiousness and acceptance of a priori doctrines.It would make no sense to speak of "pagans" seeking wisdom.

That distinguishes Macedonians from Dorians.

On the contrary,it means Macedonians and Dorians are one and the same.The Greek text says "Δωρικόν τε καὶ Μακεδνὸν ἔθνος" and the key-word is "te",which is always accompanied by "kai" ("and" in Greek) denoting an addition or connection,i.e. "they are both Macedonian and Dorian race".

Watch this:

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5037.htm

te
and (denotes addition or connection)
Original Word: τέ
Part of Speech: Particle, Disjunctive Particle
Transliteration: te
Phonetic Spelling: (teh)
Short Definition: and, both
Definition: and, both.
5037 té (a conjunction) – "and both" ("both and"). 5037 /té ("and both") occurs 204 times in the NT and unfortunately is often not translated.

[When translated, 5037 (té) is usually rendered "and," "both and," or "and both."]
Word Origin
a prim. enclitic particle
Definition
and (denotes addition or connection)
NASB Word Usage
alike (1), along (1), also (7), both (37), even (1), only (1), only* (1), or (2), well (2), whether (1).

That 'statement' of Herodotus says:

For a period of time they settled under the Macedonian name, which was already in existence, and then they moved on to the Peloponnese. Herodotus' reference to them as Macedonians was specific for a point and nowhere repeated.

I didn't get your point here.Do you claim Herodotus actually said they were called Macedonians only when they dwelt in that specific region,because they were living there together with (or as neighbours of) the Macedonians?Very odd,if that's really your point!

[Bill77]

Here Paul definitely uses the term "Hellenes" with the original ethnic meaning,in his letter to the Romans:

"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to the barbarians both to the learned and to the ignorant".
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYIfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA354

So now all of a sudden, you separate "Greeks" and "Barbarian", as an ethnic meaning.

Congratulations, you have taken a step forward, so there is hope for your likes after all

But now the bad news. Even though you show signs of progress, you still don't pass. "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to the barbarians both to the learned and to the ignorant"..... How do you take this passage as Paul using the term "Hellenes" in an ethnic meaning???

Paul clearly describes Hellenes as the learned, and Barbarians (non Hellenes) as ignorant. Anyone that did not believe in a God (signs) but preferred science, logic (wisdom) would have been a "Hellene". It has nothing what so ever to do with ethnicity but belief, understanding. What they called "Hellenes" back in ancient times, is now called Atheism.

Also in this passage of his letter to the Corinthians it's reasonable to assume that he does the same:

"And although the Jews demand a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom yet we preach Christ crucified:to the Jews indeed a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness"
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYIfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA383

Again you look silly. "Jews demand a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom" How could this mean anything else apart from religion vs Atheism ?

Greeks "seeking wisdom",a clear reference to typical Greek cultural traits,i.e. philosophy,rationalism and free thought,as opposed to Jewish religiousness and acceptance of a priori doctrines.

ahhhh now you say its a religious vs anti religion (seeking wisdom, science rather than Divinity, a creator)

Darwin and his followers must also be Greeks aswell.

Also What you need to do is for a moment, wipe out of your mind the modern word "Greek" and all that comes with it (souvlaki, bouzouki, panathiniaikos, the Turkish influenced language etc) so not to get confused with the true meaning of Hellene.

It would make no sense to speak of "pagans" seeking wisdom.

I will disagree with SOM and your self here. IMHO, "Hellenism" did not mean "Paganism" (worshiping of many Gods and rituals rather than a one true god).

In the bible, Hellene did not mean Pagan, which you are correct in saying "It would make no sense to speak of "pagans" seeking wisdom".
But it makes sense when someone seeks wisdom, it can only mean he does not depend on religious belief. They search for evidence rather than faith.

What distorts the true meaning and confuses many (regarding the Bible and Greece), is the word "Greek" used by modern day scholars as a translation to the original scriptures. This is very wrong. Its wrong that it's misleading, and through any gurney in discovery, when you come to a fork in the road, if you take the wrong turn, you will come to a different destination all together and not the correct one you intended. This is where the modern day translation of the bible is.

The original scriptures (old testament) never used the words "Greek" or "Hellene".

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here Paul definitely uses the term "Hellenes" with the original ethnic meaning,in his letter to the Romans:

"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to the barbarians both to the learned and to the ignorant".
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYIfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA354

I don't think so, because according to that logic, there are ethnic 'barbarians'. However, as we both know, there is no such ethnicity, so the above is merely a cultural distinction, which is why the quote goes on to say 'both to the learned and to the ignorant'. Presumably, the Greeks are the learned, and the barbarians ignorant. Let's look at the whole passage and not just the excerpt you extracted:

ROMANS, 1 - I am debtor to both Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and unwise. So as much as in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

It is significant to note that Paul wrote his letter to Rome in Koine Greek, and it is more than obvious that the terminology used is religious or class/cultural in nature, that is why you only ever see ‘Jew or Greek’, ‘Greek or barbarian’, and not 'Greek or Roman'. Why else would Paul be talking about 'Greeks and barbarians' in a letter to the Romans? The power of God is for the salvation of everyone - clearly, not everyone was an ethnic Greek or an ethnic Jew (Hebrew). I guess this is a case of a modern Greek trying to monopolise the meaning of 'Hellene' in the New Testament. I wouldn't discount the possibility that some references to 'Hellenes' may in fact be pertinent to ethnic Greeks, but certainly not the majority of them.

[osiris]

modern greek historiography is fitting the past to suit the present they look at history backwards and this fool agamisou is a perfect example of that method

[George S.]

exactly my point how can they know today more than 2000 years ago what happened.Also they can base things on what happened in the 6 th century.It's all greek propaganda it's all illogical & doesn't make sense.If any serious history student studies what greece has done they will know & understand that greece was never a country it was created by the powers that be.Now greece is tring to appropriate other people's history & culture.As soon as you clear the smoke & mirrors you see the big picture.

[Dimko-piperkata]

next big statue of Mustafa Kemal "Atatürk" is planned...

...in Bitola

MKA was only a half-macedonian (mother), as against acko a full blooded macedonian was...but I assume that the turks will be very proud about a statue of MKA.

do u guys think that the turks will be happy or unhappy like the greeks are about the acko statue ?