Vinko Pribojevic and the Glory of the Slavs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Toska
    Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 137

    Vinko Pribojevic and the Glory of the Slavs

    since we are on the topic, i thought ill mention this book written 500 years ago before nationalism had awaken, its a long read but worth it.

    this is the whole book translated from latin to english

    In the year 1525 on the Island of Hvar in front of a selected audience, the social and intellectual elite of this prosperous Adriatic community, the learned...



    here is a summary

    A book about the Greeks and the Macedonians, published in Venice in 1532 – Were Alexander the Great and Samuil the Emperor speaking the same language?
    Labels: Geschichte, Mittelalter, Sprache


    In this very interesting book which is kept in the National Library “Saint Clement from Ohrid” Prof. Vinko Pribojevic, using a great number of quotes from Greek and Latin writers, claims that the Macedonians had always spoken the language they spoke in 1525, at the time of writing the book. According to him, the Macedonians lived in this region in the 16th century, as well as all the preceding centuries.

    Vinko Pribojevic was a very educated man for his time, a great connoisseur of the ancient, classic history. He was born on the island of Hvar, where he finished elementary school. He started studying theology and went on specialization in Italy and later became one of the most prominent theology professors at the time.

    As he knew the history of the Balkan Peninsula, which he called Macedonian Peninsula, very well, in his book Pribojevic used a great number of source information that he collected in libraries, archives and Dominican monasteries. That is why, in his introductory addressing to his friend Petar, Patrician and commander of Gaul, who probably paid the printing of the book, he asked that the book was “published for the benefit of all, without deleting the quotes from the writers that are noted parallel with the main text”.

    According to the quotes and what the professor discovered through his researches based on the differences in the speech between the Macedonians and the Greeks, it is very clear that there is no way that the Macedonians could be Greeks as they don’t know that language and have always known their own, Macedonian language.

    Pribojevic said in his book that Thucydides himself claimed that “Macedonia covers the areas from Byzantium, Thrace, Misia and Illyria” and “the difference between the Greeks and Macedonians can be seen immediately from their character and way of life and it is because of such an opposite in characters and customs it can be concluded that the Greeks and Macedonians are not the same people”.

    Did the ancient and medieval Macedonians speak the same language?

    In this very interesting book about Macedonia and the Macedonians, Prof. Vinko Pribojevic, using a great number of quotes from Greek and Latin writers, claims that the Macedonians had always spoken the language they spoke in 1525, at the time of writing the book. According to him, the Macedonians lived in this region in the 16th century, as well as all the preceding centuries.

    This claim by Pribojevic didn’t go well with the Macedonian fifth column, which claimed that there was a great gap without Macedonians – from the time of Paul the Apostle to the book by Krste Petkov Misirkov from 1903, meaning that the Macedonians disappeared along with their language, customs, tradition and history. Pribojevic’s book from 1525 is a proof that that notion was a lie made by those that never felt as Macedonians.

    He claims that at the time when he lived, the Macedonians spoke “the same language as they did 1500 years before that, when the Greeks could not understand them so a translation was necessary”. The professor from Venice from the 16th century said: “As an objection to the claim by some writers that the Macedonians should be considered Greeks, I would like to bring out an opinion by Quintus Curtius in his book “The work of Alexander the Great”.

    He could make a clear difference between the Macedonian and the Greek languages and it was also very clear that Alexander’s army could not understand the Macedonian speech because part of it was Greek. When Philota, son of Parmenion, had to defend himself in front of the Macedonian parliament, Alexander told him: “Philota, the Macedonians are going to pronounce a sentence; I want to know whether you will talk on your mother tongue” to which Philota said no because not everybody would be able to understand him.

    Then Alexander said that Philota hated his mother tongue. If the Macedonians were Greeks then this wouldn’t have been a problem because they would all speak the same language. The fact that the Macedonians’ mother tongue differed from the language spoken by the Greeks in Alexander’s army clearly indicates that the Macedonians never felt as Greeks because the affiliation of one nation is best proved with the uniqueness of the language, as Pribojevic said, so “we consider the people as members of a certain nation that took the mother tongue together with the mother’s milk from the earliest age”.

    If the Macedonians and the Greeks were the same people, then there was no need for Alexander the Great to call himself King of the Macedonians and the Greeks, but just King of the Greeks. In his five-century old book Pribojevic says that because the Macedonians have their own language, which didn’t just fall from the sky, it is clear that they have always spoken the same language.

    If that was true in 1525, when the book was written, then it is very probable that Alexander and Samuil spoke the same language. According to Pribojevic, Alexander, Samuil and Saint Clement would have no problem understanding each other in their mother tongue in 1525.

    Were there no writers to truly depict the deeds of the Macedonians?

    According to Pribojevic, “there were no writers to truly depict the deeds of the Macedonians”, so “a great part of their oldest history after Alexander the Great remained unknown”.

    There are many records that confirmed that many Roman emperors and Popes were called Slavs. Pribojevic said that it would take him a lot of volumes to write about their deeds while also saying that he couldn’t keep quiet about these facts: “When the battles were in the sea or on the land, the Slavs always overcame their opponents or died in battle.”

    He also wrote that even though it may be strange, but the truth was that the Turkish sultan had great respect for the Macedonian people, which is why nearly all main commanders of the army were Macedonians and he formed a strong squad made of 20.000 people as his personal guard.

    The Romans were making up provinces just to erase the name Macedonia!

    Pribojevic used hundreds of quotes and names of authors in his book as source to back up his thesis about the interrupted history of the people that allegedly settled in the Balkan Peninsula during the 6th century.

    According to him, the so-called Slavs have always been here, albeit under different names, and the move was made up simply to annul the continuity of the survival of the ancient nation through the centuries. To him, all the divisions in this part of Europe were made just to annul the autochthony of the people that lived in this region for thousands of years.

    Even though Macedonia didn’t exist as a country at the time, the borders were remembered as Macedonia’s borders. An interesting thing about Pribojevic’s book is that there is no mention of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians as part of the so-called Slavs on the Macedonian Peninsula.

    Actually, there is only one reference that “the whole land all the way to the Black Sea is a Macedonian land that was later named with different names to cover up the track of the truth about Macedonia”.

    Important facts about the suppressed History of the Balkan

    A sample of Vinko Pribojevic’s book was found in 1922 by the academician Novak Grga, who was a member of the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences in Zagreb in 1951. Thanks to him, the book was published for the first and last time in two languages – the Latin original that was published in Venice in 1532 and the translation to Serbo-Croatian from 1951. The National Library in Skopje got the book in 1952 and according to the stamps on the first page it was registered three times – 1957, 1965 and 2002 - through revisions of the library fund.

    According to academician Novak Grga, the work of Vinko Pribojevic in its conception and views is of “epochal importance because it discovers important suppressed facts about the glory of the so-called Slavs” on the Balkans. Therefore, Pribojevic’s work is one of the most important works of the Balkan historiography and deserves a special place in the international historiography.

    The Pope ordered the burning of the book that used Pribojevic’s quotes!

    What is very interesting is that Vinko Pribojevic and his book about the Macedonians and their history which was printed in 1532 had a great influence on Mauro Orbini, who accepted his theses and published his book in Rome in 1544.

    Unfortunately, the book was immediately forbidden and the Pope ordered to burn it to the last copy. However, one copy was somehow saved so Orbini’s work was re-published in 1601 and all main directions from the book of Pribojevis were elaborated in it.

    In any case, as Grga said, Pribojevic was a great patriot who was the first to set forth the conception about the greatness of the Macedonians and the people from the Macedonian Peninsula from the ancient time to mid-16th century, while also persisting on scientifically proving it.

    How much he succeeded and how much his book can be considered scientific is for the science to prove and the only copy of the book still exists in the National Library “Saint Clement of Ohrid” in Skopje.
  • VMRO
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 1462

    #2
    Great find Toska!
    Verata vo Mislite, VMRO vo dushata, Makedonia vo Srceto.

    Vnatreshna Makedonska Revolucionerna Organizacija.

    Comment

    • Constellation
      Member
      • Jul 2014
      • 217

      #3
      I have always been puzzled by works such as this and others, including "The Kingdom of the Slavs" by Orbini.

      Writers such as these--writing hundreds of years ago--use the generic term "Slavs" to describe all Slavic speakers, but not merely as a language family. On the other hand, the writers clearly distinguish between the different Slavic speaking ethnicities.

      Works such as this are more important from a historical perspective to document the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity hundreds of years before Tito and Yugoslavia, but the pronouncements made in regard to ancient history is speculation and interpretation.

      The writer lived in the 1500s and so he cannot prove that the ancient Macedonians spoke Slavic, but uses a wide variety of historical documents to make the case that there is Slavic continuity.

      I personally do not believe this book or Orbini's proves that there is a common Slavic culture.

      Toska, I am most curious: do you believe that there is a common ancestor or ancestors of Slavic speakers?
      Last edited by Constellation; 07-17-2014, 02:46 PM.

      Comment

      • Gocka
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2012
        • 2306

        #4
        Toska,

        Great find, I will try to read the whole book.

        Doesn't his writing prove what I have been saying? That Macedonian culture is not "Slavic" culture, but its own natural culture?

        Comment

        • Gocka
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2012
          • 2306

          #5
          Check out the Wikipedia entry on Vinko, based on the summary posted above, the description below seems very contradictory.

          Vinko Pribojević
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaVinko Pribojević (mid-15th century - after 1532; Latin: Vincentius Priboevius) was a Croatian historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.

          Pribojević was born on the island of Hvar. He was educated in the humanist spirit and joined the Dominican Order around 1522.

          His most famous work is the speech De origine successibusque Slavorum (On the Origin and Glory of the Slavs), where he exalts Illyrians and Slavs as the ancestors of the Dalmatian Croats. His speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on the Venetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years. Its passionate glorification of Slavs (in which the book includes Alexander the Great and Aristotle, Diocletian and Jerome) and its strong pathos played a major role in the birth of the pan-Slavic ideology. It was the first time that such ideology was formulated as a program, which was further developed by the Croats Mavro Orbini and Juraj Križanić.

          Pribojević was the first to incorporate Illyrians and their myth into the Croatian and Slavic historiography (or rather ideology), as a shield and rampart against the German, Hungarian and Italian national and territorial ambitions. His identification of Slavs as Illyrians, as well as his enthusiastic glorification of the historical greatness and importance of Illyrians, left a deep mark on world history and outlook.

          Although his work is pure fiction from the aspect of critical historiography, Pribojević's basic ideas, however bizarre today, were taken very seriously by his contemporaries. At the time of Humanism and the Renaissance, there was still no established rational and critical apparatus differentiating between truth and fiction in the murky issues of ethnogenesis and national/linguistic loyalties. In fact, various fantastic theories on the origin of peoples persisted well into the 19th century.

          This exceptionally influential man, one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.

          Comment

          • Constellation
            Member
            • Jul 2014
            • 217

            #6
            Originally posted by Gocka View Post
            Check out the Wikipedia entry on Vinko, based on the summary posted above, the description below seems very contradictory.

            Vinko Pribojević
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaVinko Pribojević (mid-15th century - after 1532; Latin: Vincentius Priboevius) was a Croatian historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.

            Pribojević was born on the island of Hvar. He was educated in the humanist spirit and joined the Dominican Order around 1522.

            His most famous work is the speech De origine successibusque Slavorum (On the Origin and Glory of the Slavs), where he exalts Illyrians and Slavs as the ancestors of the Dalmatian Croats. His speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on the Venetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years. Its passionate glorification of Slavs (in which the book includes Alexander the Great and Aristotle, Diocletian and Jerome) and its strong pathos played a major role in the birth of the pan-Slavic ideology. It was the first time that such ideology was formulated as a program, which was further developed by the Croats Mavro Orbini and Juraj Križanić.

            Pribojević was the first to incorporate Illyrians and their myth into the Croatian and Slavic historiography (or rather ideology), as a shield and rampart against the German, Hungarian and Italian national and territorial ambitions. His identification of Slavs as Illyrians, as well as his enthusiastic glorification of the historical greatness and importance of Illyrians, left a deep mark on world history and outlook.

            Although his work is pure fiction from the aspect of critical historiography, Pribojević's basic ideas, however bizarre today, were taken very seriously by his contemporaries. At the time of Humanism and the Renaissance, there was still no established rational and critical apparatus differentiating between truth and fiction in the murky issues of ethnogenesis and national/linguistic loyalties. In fact, various fantastic theories on the origin of peoples persisted well into the 19th century.

            This exceptionally influential man, one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.
            Wikipedia is right. Beyond the historical reference to a Macedonian people living in the 1500s, it is useless (even this is suspect, as I did a word search in his book and I did not find references to a Macedonian ethnicity). Similar to Orbini's book, it a tale about Pan-Slavicism that later became official communist and Yugoslav dogma.

            Pribojević's tales can be understood as propaganda. He lived at a time when the Balkans were populated by Slavic speakers. Similar to today's YugoSlav propaganda, he made the assumption that all these peoples are one and the same and that there is an unbroken connection between them since ancient times.

            This is highly doubtful.

            Comment

            • Constellation
              Member
              • Jul 2014
              • 217

              #7
              Here are some notable quotes:

              As mentioned in the previous chapters, a claim on the heritage of the past, that of the lUyrians in the case of Pribojevic, is established by securing the ethnic continuity between them and the inhabitants of his time. For Pribojevic, the same people, descendants of Thyras, inhabited the lands of the Balkan peninsula from time immemorial to the present day. As mentioned, this he attempted to prove by the usage of arguments of common descent, language and customs. Judging by his strict insistence on the humanity understood as the posterity of Adam, being divided by lines of descent into various gentes and nationes, one could almost categorize Pribojevic's understanding of collective identity as one of the first works of the primordialist theory.
              Common descent, language, and customs is what makes us Slavic. We know scientifically that there is no common descent of Slavic people and we also know there is no common culture. The languages, while Slavic, are all very different and mostly unintelligible.

              This is the same Yugoslav propaganda of generations ago and the same Western propaganda used today to discredit Macedonians.

              A full discussion concerning the name and the nature of the common language, follows in the sections below. For now, I only wish to mention that Pribojevic designates that common language as Slavic. He states that there exists the unity of language among the descendants Thyras, and later in his argumentation in favor of Slavic ethnicity of Macedonians and Istrians claims that they speak Slavic. Apart from this, he states that the Russians are also using Dalmatarum sermone.^'^'^ Through this language unity, Pribojevic claims a continuity of the present inhabitants of Balkan peninsula with those from Antiquity.
              More of the same nonsense.

              The Slavic genealogy stems of one root (Thyras) from which all the branches of the Slavic tree sprang forth.
              Here it is -- the biggest whopper of all.

              Three main arguments are repeatedly used by Pribojevic when advocating someones Slav identity: descent, language and customs. Indeed, he is systematic and consistent in the application of this criteria, but also rather subjective. In the following paragraphs through several case studies, the practical application of those criteria through Pribojevic's argumentation, are illustrated.
              Very much the same.

              Do not be afraid by the diversity of the names, due to the vastness of the lands inhabited by the descendants of Thyras, it was unavoidable for them to be named differently. Under their rule are, not to mention the old names of the regions, Ruscia, Cassubia, Pruscia, Masouia, Vandalia, Moscouia, Polonia, Slesia, Morauia, Bohemia, Panonia, Carniola, Hystria, Lybumia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Bosna, Rascia, Dardania, Seuria, Myssia and Bulgaria once called Macedonia.^^'"
              2. Pribojevic's Concept of Collective Identity or What Makes Slavs Slavs?
              So you see, according to the author, despite the richness of different ethncities, ultimately we are Slavs. This is the mother of all of our problems.

              This is the ultimate problem facing the survival of our people. Unfortunately, some Macedonians, young and old, believe this, but are even worse.

              I know of one Macedonian, relatively young, who believes in Pan Slavicism and believes Macedonia is historically Greek. So-called "Slavic Macedonians", he believes, are southern Slavs related to all southern Slavic people and ultimately a Slavic people.

              I have a relative who thinks in these terms, but is even worse. He believes that Macedonia is southern Serbia. He also rejects the connection to ancient Macedonia.

              I think the problem is that growing up, pretty much everyone is taught the official Greek position, which is to say, the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.

              What I always found puzzling is that even if the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language than modern day Macedonians, it should not follow that we are not Macedonians anymore should it follow that the Egyptians of today cannot relate to the ancient Egyptians or the Lebanese with the Phoenicians.

              Should the Greeks be conquered tomorrow, and adopt Slavic is their dialect, I very much doubt that they will argue that they are Slavic and their forefathers were a different people because they spoke a different language (ignoring the issue of the origins of today's Greek population).

              Comment

              • George S.
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2009
                • 10116

                #8
                cbonstellation why waste your time questioning defining what is slav. constellation why they ac cuse us of not being Macedonian our oppressors with have the propaganda and are smearing our identity for their 1912 landgrab We are called slavs so they can legitimize their claim on macedonia.
                "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                GOTSE DELCEV

                Comment

                • Soldier of Macedon
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 13670

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Constellation
                  Pribojević's tales can be understood as propaganda.
                  It's not propaganda, and while he may be incorrect in some areas, the overall point is a valid hypothesis that was developed to try to explain the origins of Macedonians, Croats and others, people who spoke related languages and inhabited a vast space of land.
                  I know of one Macedonian, relatively young, who believes in Pan Slavicism and believes Macedonia is historically Greek. So-called "Slavic Macedonians", he believes, are southern Slavs related to all southern Slavic people and ultimately a Slavic people. I have a relative who thinks in these terms, but is even worse. He believes that Macedonia is southern Serbia. He also rejects the connection to ancient Macedonia.
                  People are free to think what they like, not every person in every nation believes the same theory on origins for their own respective people. But in your case, I am inclined to think that you're making some of this stuff up as you go along.
                  Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.
                  Your subliminal messages are becoming more pronounced. I would advise you to reconsider your approach. Few Macedonians refer to themselves as Slavs and would only use such a term in a common linguistic context. The only Macedonians who consider themselves Serbs or Bulgars (aside from an extremely tiny minority in the Macedonian republic itself) are those that either live in those countries and have been assimilated or those in the diaspora that have been subjected to such propaganda. Most are simply a product of the bizarre and manipulative environments they grew up in.
                  In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                  Comment

                  • Constellation
                    Member
                    • Jul 2014
                    • 217

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                    Your subliminal messages are becoming more pronounced. I would advise you to reconsider your approach. Few Macedonians refer to themselves as Slavs and would only use such a term in a common linguistic context. The only Macedonians who consider themselves Serbs or Bulgars (aside from an extremely tiny minority in the Macedonian republic itself) are those that either live in those countries and have been assimilated or those in the diaspora that have been subjected to such propaganda. Most are simply a product of the bizarre and manipulative environments they grew up in.
                    Let me see if I understand this correctly. I do not believe there is a Slavic ethnicity. I do not believe in a Slavic culture. I do not believe there is a single origin to Slavic speakers. I do not believe Macedonians are Slavs. But, according to you, there is a subliminal message. Publicly I am denying Yugoslav propaganda, but subliminally I am conveying what?

                    Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.
                    I am not arguing that Macedonians are south Slavs, Bulgarians, or Serbs. What I am arguing is the opposite. That some Macedonians relate to Yugoslav propaganda and see more affinity with Yugoslav propaganda. This is what Orbini and others have advocated. I disagree with it.

                    We have a problem. Even a writer in the Slavic Brotherhood thread noted that some people between the ages of 15-25 or so identify as Slavic.

                    Originally posted by Momce Makedonce
                    Unfortunately what you are saying is true in a lot of cases. People in mainstream society have a habit of
                    trying to lump everyone into the Slavic ethnicity pile. This is even more the case when it comes to the Balkan countries due to the Yugoslav past and all the Yugo propaganda about all those countries being the same South Slavic people. This has stuck around even to this day and is used by people who cant see behind all the Yugo and Soviet propaganda.

                    It is also unfortunate that some Macedonians seem to have been brainwashed by Yugo propaganda and today will actually say that they have a Slavic ethnicity when there is no such thing. Even worse is when confused Macedonians ( the young ones in my age bracket of 15-25) claim that Alexander the Great is ours as he was Macedonian but then call themselves Slavic, which contradicts what they said about Alexander being ours ( Macedonian ).
                    This is not good. They should identify as Macedonian.

                    Why is it no one on this forum can understand basic logic? Why is it words are taken out of context or misconstrued to mean something very different than the apparent meaning? There is a difference between advocating something and pointing out the problems we have as a people.
                    Last edited by Constellation; 07-19-2014, 07:17 PM.

                    Comment

                    • Soldier of Macedon
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 13670

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Constellation View Post
                      Let me see if I understand this correctly.
                      You haven't understood it correctly.
                      Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.
                      I was responding to some of your statements, the one above in particular.
                      I am not arguing that Macedonians are south Slavs, Bulgarians, or Serbs. What I am arguing is the opposite.
                      You made a sweeping statement indicating that today's Macedonians consider themselves Serbs or Bulgars. If you meant something else then it didn't read that way, so you should construct your sentences with greater care.
                      That some Macedonians relate to Yugoslav propaganda and see more affinity with Yugoslav propaganda.
                      See how the inclusion of a quantifier makes a difference?
                      This is what Oribini and others have advocated.
                      Orbini died centuries before Yugoslav propaganda as we know it came into existence.
                      Even a writer in the Slavic Brotherhood thread noted that some people between the ages of 15-25 or so identify as Slavic.
                      They are young and either naïve or have been misled. Further, that is an exception and not the norm. Most Macedonians in the diaspora between that age group wouldn't even know what is meant by a 'Slav' let alone use it to identify themselves. To them a 'Slav' is a slur used by our enemies to denationalise Macedonians.
                      Why is it no one on this forum can understand basic logic? Why is it words are taken out of context or misconstrued to mean something very different than the apparent meaning? There is a difference between advocating something and pointing out the problems we have as a people.
                      I agree, there is a difference. But if you're being misconstrued then you should take my previous advice and present your arguments in a more clinical manner. That would be logical, don't you think?
                      In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                      Comment

                      • Constellation
                        Member
                        • Jul 2014
                        • 217

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                        You haven't understood it correctly.

                        I was responding to some of your statements, the one above in particular.

                        You made a sweeping statement indicating that today's Macedonians consider themselves Serbs or Bulgars. If you meant something else then it didn't read that way, so you should construct your sentences with greater care.

                        See how the inclusion of a quantifier makes a difference?

                        Orbini died centuries before Yugoslav propaganda as we know it came into existence.

                        Who?

                        I agree, there is a difference. But if you're being misconstrued then you should take my previous advice and present your arguments in a more clinical manner.
                        Reread the post, as I edited it with the exact quote. In regard to this statement:

                        Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.
                        Today's Macedonians, every one of them, understand that their language is similar to the surrounding south Slavic speaking countries. They all identify as southern Slavic, not necessarily does everyone identify ethnically as southern Slavic, though some do, but all do from a language perspective. If Western, Yugoslav, Serbian, and Bulgarian textbooks teach the ancient Macedonians are Greek, and Macedonia is Greek, and today's Macedonians speak Slavic, which according to history books was not present in the region of the southern Balkans at the time of Alexander, what do you think Macedonians will identify as such?

                        If they speak a language differently than the ancient Macedonians and instead speak a language similar to their neighbors, what can the Macedonians be? Similar to Palestinians, who are considered a collection of Arabs, the Macedonians must be a collection of southern Slavic people, whether Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.

                        I am NOT arguing that this is true, I am arguing that if followed to its logical end, this is the rationale.
                        Last edited by Constellation; 07-19-2014, 07:34 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Soldier of Macedon
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 13670

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Constellation View Post
                          Reread the post, as I edited it with the exact quote.
                          I did, and edited it accordingly before your last post. Reread mine.
                          If Western, Yugoslav, Serbian, and Bulgarian textbooks teach the ancient Macedonians are Greek, and Macedonia is Greek...
                          Not all western scholars consider the land and people of ancient Macedonia as Greek. You should read the actual sources from antiquity. I am not trying to paint a pretty picture, there are certainly some texts that may appear inconsistent with others but overall the case for arguing that Macedonians were not Greek is overwhelming, and much stronger than the opposing argument.
                          If they speak a language differently than the ancient Macedonians and instead speak a language similar to their neighbors, what can the Macedonians be?
                          They can only be Macedonians. There are various examples that can be provided in which similar situations have occurred, yet the validity of such nations aren't contested because they aren't surrounded by such malicious and manipulative neighbouring 'historians'. Most Egyptians (except perhaps some religious fundamentalists) identify with their ancient past despite the fact that they don't speak the original language (although Arabic and Egyptian both belong to the same Afro-Asiatic linguistic family), there are African countries that use French as an official language and are part of the Latin Union (!) yet don't disregard their African heritage, there are millions of indigenous south Americans who only speak Spanish or Portuguese but still retain their original identities, there is a Germanic language that came from the same pool as English which is used in Scotland and known as Scots but Scottish people still identify with their Celtic heritage despite the fact that none of them speak the original form of British Celtic and few of them speak the Scottish Gaelic which overtook the former, and the Irish have many traditional Irish songs in the English language in which some of them actually speak about fighting the English! But again, these people don't live next to others who are obsessed with claiming everything in antiquity for themselves. Even the Bulgars (and Croats and Serbs, if one is to believe that they were originally some Iranic tribes) don't speak their original languages, yet, for some reason they are exempt from this stringent test of authenticity. Some of the theories on Albanian and Romanian origins are others which, if the same criteria was applied, would be hard pressed to justify.
                          I am NOT arguing that this is true, I am arguing that if followed to its logical end, this is the rationale.
                          You're either contradicting yourself or saying that logic doesn't equate to truth. Whatever it is, the argument is not a logical conclusion, because it disregards several important factors, and is therefore short-sighted and simplistic.
                          In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                          Comment

                          • Constellation
                            Member
                            • Jul 2014
                            • 217

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                            I did, and edited it accordingly before your last post. Reread mine.
                            I see it. Well at least you finally admit the obvious fact: there are people in Macedonia, whether naive or ignorant, whether old or young, who identify as Slavic ethnically, not just linguistically. I know this personally, for I know people who do.

                            This is wrong.

                            Not all western scholars consider the land and people of ancient Macedonia as Greek. You should read the actual sources from antiquity. I am not trying to paint a pretty picture, there are certainly some texts that may appear inconsistent with others but overall the case for arguing that Macedonians were not Greek is overwhelming, and much stronger than the opposing argument.
                            No doubt. But I did not write scholars. I wrote textbooks. As in school textbooks. And in textbooks the majority of time, if not virtually in every instance, the established position prevails, which is that the Macedonians were Greek or very likely Greek. No Western textbook has ever stated that the ancient Macedonians spoke a proto Slavic tongue and that today's Macedonians have inheritance in the ancient Macedonians. This is not to say it cannot be untrue, however.

                            They can only be Macedonians. There are various examples that can be provided in which similar situations have occurred, yet the validity of such nations aren't contested because they aren't surrounded by such malicious and manipulative neighbouring 'historians'. Most Egyptians (except perhaps some religious fundamentalists) identify with their ancient past despite the fact that they don't speak the original language (although Arabic and Egyptian both belong to the same Afro-Asiatic linguistic family), there are African countries that use French as an official language and are part of the Latin Union (!) yet don't disregard their African heritage, there are millions of indigenous south Americans who only speak Spanish or Portuguese but still retain their original identities, there is a Germanic language that came from the same pool as English which is used in Scotland and known as Scots but Scottish people still identify with their Celtic heritage despite the fact that none of them speak the original form of British Celtic and few of them speak the Scottish Gaelic which overtook the former, and the Irish have many traditional Irish songs in the English language in which some of them actually speak about fighting the English! But again, these people don't live next to others who are obsessed with claiming everything in antiquity for themselves. Even the Bulgars (and Croats and Serbs, if one is to believe that they were originally some Iranic tribes) don't speak their original languages, yet, for some reason they are exempt from this stringent test of authenticity. Some of the theories on Albanian and Romanian origins are others which, if the same criteria was applied, would be hard pressed to justify.
                            I know this already. And I don't disagree with this. The problem I have is that no one contests that the ancient Egyptians did not speak Arabic. Moreover, no one is arguing that today's Egyptians came in the region in the 6th century AD or so. The problem with the Macedonian cause is that historically as well as the present, people are taught in the public schools and the universities that either the ancient Macedonians were Greek, were likely Greek, or its leadership became quite Hellenized in time. No textbook states or has ever stated that a proto Slavic was spoken in the Balkans hundreds of years or more before the time of Christ. The textbooks teach that Slavs came to the region sometime in the 6th and subsequent centuries into the Balkans.

                            The idea is that today's Balkan populations are new comers and have nothing to do with the ancient peoples in the Balkans. Moreover, the argument is that all these peoples are descendants of Slavic migrants, which makes them ethnic Slavs. So now based on these arguments (I am not stating they are accurate), why would the present Macedonians see a kinship with a people that lived in the part of the world hundreds of years before they arrived in the region and who speak a very different language? Based on these arguments, it is not logical to do so. Instead, they will relate to other Yugoslavians, for they are ethnic kin and linguistic kin. Thus, if Macedonia is Greek or likely Greek, or some other unknown dead ethnicity, and today's Macedonians are ethnically and linguistically kin with other Yugoslavs, and they came to the region hundreds of years after the time of Alexander the Great lived, they are going to relate with other Yugoslavs, not the ancient Macedonians. This means that they will either relate with either just being south Slavic, which is a collectivist title, or Bulgarian or Serbian.

                            Personally, the arguments buttressing these "facts" are incorrect, so I think it is a whole house of cards that hopefully one day will collapse.

                            I recognize that Slavic is a racial insult to Macedonians (I feel the same way), but the fact remains that is how the world generally views us, that is the historic Yugoslav and communist party line, and that is how some Macedonians till the present day--old and young--see themselves.

                            Now it is true that thanks to information presented in Macedonia and by Macedonian organizations, Macedonians are reaffirming what they affirmed since the time of Alexander, that they are Macedonians. We have evidence that even in the 1500s the Macedonians identified as Macedonian ethnically, and not as Slavs.

                            This is a good thing.

                            You're either contradicting yourself or saying that logic doesn't equate to truth. Whatever it is, the argument is not a logical conclusion, because it disregards several important factors, and is therefore short-sighted and simplistic.
                            Not so. You misunderstood the whole argument. And you still do.

                            Comment

                            • Gocka
                              Senior Member
                              • Dec 2012
                              • 2306

                              #15
                              If you use the same logic that is applied to Eastern Europe and the Balkans then you have only three ethnicites in the whole continent of Europe, German, Latin, and Slavic. Every single language in Europe, except Greek, is a dialect of those three base language.

                              That is why this entire argument is garbage. Because if you used the same logic anywhere else in Europe then that's what you would end up with, a German, a Latin, or a Slav.

                              Yet somehow only we are subjected to this type of bullshit.

                              In my opinion the usage of the word "slavic" to describe a language family has little to do with a tribe of ancient Ukrainians, and more to do with someone at some point in history not having a better way of describing it, and then like many other things it just stuck.

                              The relevance that Russians seem to speak a language int he same language family as Macedonian, is the same as Swedish and Austrian being in the same family, or Austrian and English.

                              The spread of a common language in the East has more to do with Christianity, the Byzantine empire, Cyrillic, and Geography, and almost nothing to do with "Slavs"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X