| 1913 Makedonija i Balkanot (sto bi bilo poinakvo?) | |
| elSeven | Zdravo Makedonci, zdravo korisnici na forumot Macedonia. Imate pozdrav od Makedoncite vo Swajcarija. Posebno od Winterthur. Gledam postojat sekakvi diskusii, zabeleski, analizi, raskazuvanja itn. Interesno e da se cita. No sega imam edna mala molba do vas. Ako mozete da mi pomognete, mi treba informacii, internet stranici, sto ja opisuvaat godinata 1913. Togas koga Makedonija ja podelija na site 4 strani. 1913 i slucuvanjata na Balkanot. Najvazno e da tie stranici bidat na angliski ili germanski. (Mozat da bidat i na makedonski se razbira no ke treba da prevedam na germanski). Mene me iznenadi toa sto go vidov na forumot. Bravos Makedonci. Taka treba da se podrzavame. Zabelezuvam i nekoi karanici i provokacii no narode, ponekogas se zaborava na ovoj svet deka treba site da se imame a ne da gledame koj na kogo poveke ke mu misli loso. We all should be friends. ;) Da zivee Makedonija. Sonceto e symbol za svetlina, zastita, nadez i zivot. Da zivee sonceto nad crvenoto platno. |
| Misirkov | Hilander (ili Brigian na makedonski), ne znam za koe baranje zboris? Tajniot dodatok na bukureskiot "miroven dogovor" istece po 50 godini. Edna od pricinite zosto tolku im se brzase da ne fyromisaat pred da prkneme i da si go pobarame ona sto ni sleduva. Ama i Kiki Gligorov nas golem maz izigra mnooooogu loso, da ne recam katastorofalno. Vidi sega slucki vo 19 vek: temno vreme, krstosuvaat propagandi, na pocetokot na vekot grcite pravat neverojatni obidi za elinizacija na naseleneieto. Nasite prerodbenici se borat da izgradat svj jazicen standard, nekoi razmisluvaat za zaednicki jazik so bugarite (Zografski na primer), no sepak prvo svoja gramatika posle se drugo. Sredina na vekot, uste poteska situacija, grcite taman da ne pretopat. Turcite ni mestat Bugarska Egzarhija, nie da preziveeme morame uz niv. No ni nametnuvaat ime. Prosvetitelite kako Pulevski maka macat da odbranat sto moze da se odbrani - pravat istorija "Slavjano makedonska" itn. Se bara vozobnovuvanje na Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija. Sudir so Egzarhijata. Grcite navaluvaat uste pozestoko, srbite vleguvaat so svoi ucilista (70.000 Makedoncinja se pod trite propagandi vo nivni ucilista vo Makedonija) Sega pazi cin na hrabrost: Mitropolitot Teodosija Gologanov , postaven od Egzarhijata so amin na Carigradskata Patrijarsija, bara nezavisna Makedonska crkva vo 1891 година pod zastita na Papata. Во условите за премин, на македонската „паства„ во унија со Римокатоличката црква, меѓу другото Теодосиј Гологанов ќе напише: 1. Да се обнови стародревната Охридска архиепископија, која ќе биде во канонско единство со Римокатоличката црква, со непосреден благослов на светиот отец Папата. 2. На чело на обновената Охридска архиепископија ќе бидам јас како автокефален поглавар на црквата. 3. Другите луѓе од високиот клер (епископите, свештеномонасите, и мирските свештеници) да бидат родум МАКЕДОНЦИ и назначувани од архиепископот, а епископите можат само да бидат потврдувани од вашата светост. 4. Границите на Архиепископијата да се поклопуваат со границите на Македонија, а поделбата на епархиите да се задржи сегашната. 5. Старите унијати од Кукушко-полјанската и Струмичката епархија да се изделат од јуриздикција на унијатскиот архиепископ во Цариград, Н. Б. Нил Изворов и да се приклучат како епархии кон Охридската архиепископија. 6. Католички мисионери, со исклучок на затекнатите во просветно добротворните институции во Македонија, да не се доведуваат нови, а затечените да не се мешаат во внатрешниот црковнопросветен живот на Архиепископијата. (Archivio della S. Congregazione de propaganda Fide – Roma: "Indice della Ponenza-Marzo 1892-93", Somm. XV, f. 132-141). |
| nemo | Od Londonskiot miroven dogovor Makedonija da ima eden king od protestanska vera i da se zadrzi celata teritorija |
| Byzantine | Dear Misirkov, I read quite a number of the most recent posts you have presented as your arguments in order to further understand your position. Firstly I am confused at something which has nothing to do with your arguments, in some post while writing about Macedonian history you used Nie.As such the name you have as your real name is Sylvester Rogers.Is this a peudonym,or short for Rogevski(Just joking)? Were your parents immigrants in the US or UK? While I appreciate that this is a complex issue covering many centuries I am puzzled by the references you rely on for your argumentation.Over the years I have learned to base my arguments on work done by Oxford,Cambridge,and Stanford,as the traditions of these institutions is very strict on runaway speculation that takes place for historical periods which lack sufficient evidence to prove various theories.And because it counterballances my desire for things to be as I desire them,kind of a forced objectivity. Do you find that your references are parrallel to those I mentioned or is there some deviation,if so in what key points? Some other references you use I have never run across in my life,and seem as historical recreations. It is necesary to keep in mind that not all historic periods need speculative assumptions,why make life difficult after all. In brief: l References and wealth of documented information. The Byzantine empire having gone through many reforms from those of the emperor Diocletian,to Justinian had a very big (at times too big)beaurocracy which was based in every administrative capital and communicated centrally with the Emperor's "Grammatikos'office" for every detail concerning with running the state. This is an empire with a logistics framework that would oversee the financing of a project,the gathering and storing of raw materials,the ordering and assembly or production of goods varying from swords,chest plates,shields,all the way to ships,balistas,catapults,etc.There was also a banking system which was at times the target of nationalization,and a speculting market of promisory notes,where business men would buy ownership of a stock comming at a future date and selling it at a profit before it even arrived. There were also reports from every administrative center towards the capital from: Paper path 1.Governors towards the emperors office. Paper path 2.Officers to Generals and Generals to the Emperor's office Paper path 3.Episcopes to Archepiscopes to the Patriarch. This without even refering to archeological sights and the like. So except for extreme occasions we have various sources that comment on the same event from different viewpoints,but always original sources many of which are eyewitness accounts (especially in the case of Generals) That being said I have presented a post on this ng with all the tribes that have a documented presence in the balkan region during the Byzantine era.We know this for a fact because we have documents from the emperor giving grants,special posts,and land for settlement to these tribes.We have written accounts of Generals and expedition commanders detailing the amount of troops used for the campaign,the salaries paid to surrounding garrisons,and descriptions of the battles included in the expeditions. Therefore the concept that the Slavic migration to the Balkans is not recorded is simply innacurate.You can take a look at the post I have offered in this ng.Any further sources of mine you would like to double check please feel free to ask.If not simply check Slavic Migration as a topic in any of the following library: Library of Princeton,Cambridge,Oxford,New York,Michigan,Paris,McGill,Library of Congress to name a few.You can cross reference them with Byzantine Studies in the same universities. 2)You have offered in one of your posts the position that there is indeed a continuity in the Macedonian language from antiquity to the modern language spoken in the Republic of Macedonia today. ll. Linguistics The linguistics study of the two languages shows something quite the opposite from what you argue.According to the science of linguistics and the current classifications we have the following: Linguistic classification 1 Ancient Macedonian: Ancient Macedonian language Language name:Ancient Macedonian Alternate name(s):Macedonian Once spoken in: Greece Macedonia Language code: XMK Status: Extinct Family:Indo-European Subgroup:Macedonian Subgroup code: IEGB (Indo-European Greek Branch) Linguistic Classification 2: Macedonian Language name:Macedonian Alternative name(s):Macedonian Slavic Language spoken in: Macedonia Language code:MKJ Family:Indo-European Subgroup name:Eastern South Slavic Subgroup code: IE (Indo European) The sources are endless but I believe the most user friendly sites are those of Oxford,Cambridge,and Michigan University. At the moment the biggest linguistic database in the world is available at: www.linguistlist.org Just go to search,open the linguist window and enter country,or language code,or language name,or all three. It is clear from this linguistics classification that based on all words classified as Ancient Macedonian that we know to have been used by this group are of the IEGB group which was absorbed and assimilated by the so called KOINE (common) Greek dialect. If there have been any new classifications that I am not aware of kindly refer me to you references.However as far as I know the Eastern South Slavic language group MKJ is of a total and irrelevant lineage to that of Ancient Macedonian XMK,and meets only at the juncture of "Indo-European" which far predates any migration to Europe. Tribes:While you state in some post that Macedonias were totaly different from the Greeks this in effect creates a geographic paradox. Macedonians are known to have inhabited the region of Epirus before they moved further southeast at about the times of 900-800 BC towards the Aegean.Archeologicaly the Dorians moved south from Epirus at about 1100 - 950BC.Which basicaly puts the Dorians and the tribe later called Macedonians at the exact geographical location. It seems imposible given the size of Epirus that the Dorians and the tribes to be later Macedonians did not live at exactly the same place and same time.Given the fact that the Dorians were by far the most populus tribe of the region it does not seem possible that one did not interact with the other.It makes even more peculiar since Makednon means highlander(more accurately people of a high place) in the Doric dialect,which perfectly describes the initial living grounds of both the Dorians and the Macedonians. Is it the case that you are arguing that all these references linguistic,archeological,and mythological are all wrong? I will need your help to find these references you are using because they actually agree with original accounts in ancient texts. Thanks for responding, Best regards, Dennis |
| DJ_SHEMA | elSeven Eve tuka tuka nekolku tekstovi http://forums.vmacedonia.com/forum.asp?ARCHIVE=true&FORUM_ID=62 http://forums.vmacedonia.com/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=2139 A tuka ja imash arhivata od odoj del na forumot kade ima golem broj na tesktovi, mapi i informacii. Imash 4 strani so po 20 tina temi, taka da ima dosta materijal, pobaraj i kazi dali ti vrshi rabota. AKo ne, strelec kje ti go napishe sostavot za na shkolo, ne se sekiraj. http://forums.vmacedonia.com/forum.asp?ARCHIVE=true&FORUM_ID=62 |
| Strelec | quote:Lesna rabota! Samo pravam copy-paste od diskusiite na Shema ovde na forumot i sostavot e gotov!:) |
| elSeven | Blagodaram za sirokiot materijal. Ke vidam kako ke mozam da go skusam za da go napravam da mozam za 7 min pred celiot klass da referiram. Utre ke treba materijalot da go dadam na profesorot. A na krajot na mesecot ke treba da referiram. :) Ako imate nekoi skrateni verzii so najglavnoto od 1. balkanski vojni nema da bide loso. No sepak fala za linkovite. Ke mu se frlam saa i ke gi procitam site linkovi. Belkim ke zavrsam do pred 20:00 casot. Ke mi pocne eden dobar film. Inaku jas znam kako, sto se slucilo vo 1912-1913 no sakam da bidam siguren i zatoa ve zamoliv: p.s. Ima eden grk vo mojo Klass. I saa ke mu pokazam koja e Makedonija. Male so ubava prilika. :) hehe p.s.p.s ke gledame evrovizija idnata nedela. ;) |
| Thunder from down under | L7 evo odberi od dvete po malu imas i reference da im dades da ne recat deka si izmislil od um :) i karti isto ti ostaviv podolu od pred 1913 godina , neznam kako ke e pravis prezentacijata dali vo Microsoft power point ili so overheads ili napamet ? ----- In 1912 the Balkan states - Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro formed an alliance in order to expel the Turkish administrative and military authorities from the Balkans. After expelling the Turks from Macedonia during the First Balkan War (1912/13), the occupation interests of the allied countries towards Macedonia caused another war among the allied states - The Second Balkan War (1913). Consequently, it wasn’t taken into consideration the prospective autonomy of Macedonia. The aspiration of the neighbouring countries were advocated by the Great Powers which protected their own interests. Taking into consideration the Bucharest Peace Treaty of August 1913, the partition of Macedonia was executed resulting into hard and long-term consequences concerning the uniqueness of the ethnic tissue of the Macedonian people and the territorial entity of Macedonia. In accordance with the Treaty, Greece has grabbed the Southern Macedonia with the coast (Aegean Macedonia), Serbia - the Northern and the Middle Macedonia (Vardar Macedonia) and Bulgaria - the Eastern Macedonia (Pirin Macedonia) This partition caused new and more emphasized national, political, economic, cultural and economic oppressions of the Macedonian people. The representatives of the Macedonian people, organized into the Macedonian colony in St. Petersburg, sent memoranda and appeals to the government of the Great Powers, Balkan states and to the European public asking to prevent the partition of Macedonia and her constitution into a liberated and independent state within the ethnic and geographical limits. During the World War I the Macedonian people suffered occupations, military destructions and partitions. Serbia recruited forcibly 53.000 Macedonians, Bulgaria - 33.000 and Greece - 20.000. The bandits’ actions and the military clashes between Serbia and Greece, on the part of Entente and Bulgaria, on the part of the Central Forces concerning Macedonia, especially the great military operations on the Macedonian territory, were the cause of hard consequences for the Macedonian people. The both - occupiers performed requisition and plunder on the national treasure, practisized mass forced labour, deportation and repression. The Macedonian people offered different forms of resistance: hiding goods, desertion from the military units, passing in the underground etc. During the war a great number of towns and villages such as: Bitola (Monastir), Seres, Lerin (Florina), Dojran etc., suffered terrible. Famine, wasteland and contagious diseases prevailed in Macedonia. The new partition of Macedonia offered the Macedonian people larger national and political oppression. The Macedonians abroad, organized themselves into political organizations and associations, sent appeals and memoranda to the government of the Great Powers, the Paris Peace Conference and the World publicity, acquainting them with the conditions and the endeavours of the Macedonian people asking for solution of the Macedonian national and governmental question. They clearly declared to the world that the Macedonian people are determined to constitute Macedonia as a free, united and independent state on the Balkans. The activity of the Macedonian associations in Switzerland, united into a General Council was significant. They asked the governments of the Great Powers to give the Macedonian people the opportunity of self-determination and independence according to the "Fourteen Points" of the American president W. Wilson. The Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria, represented by the revolutionary leaders of Seres, in 1918 issued a Declaration asking for an autonomy of Macedonia within her ethnic and geographic borders as an equal members of the Prospective Balkan Federation. In 1919 a group of Macedonians established The Provisional Agency of the former VMRO, led by Gj.Petrov, D.Hadji Dimov, M.Atsev and others. The Agency sent an Appeal endeavouring the establishment of the independent Macedonia as a state of neutral status under the international protectorate. The Agency sent a delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. In 1917 the Macedonian intellectuals of St. Petersburg, led by D.Chupovski, founded a Macedonian Revolutionary Committee endeavouring the establishment of the Balkan Democratic Federative Republic, in which the Republic of Macedonia, independent and united, would be an equal member of the federation. These appeals of the Macedonian people and its political representatives were not taken into consideration by the international factors. Notwithstanding some propositions of Italy and Great Britain concerning the autonomy of Macedonia, at the Paris Peace Conference (1919) the interests of the Balkan states and the Great Powers were expressed. The Macedonian question was treated as a question of minority and a new partition of Macedonia among the kingdom of SHS (Yugoslavia), Greece and Bulgaria was executed. reference:http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G05/A05/aar0501.htm |
| Thunder from down under | Nationalism in the Balkans was the final element of the war that erupted in 1912. Early that year, a mutual defense pact between Serbia and Bulgaria divided northern Macedonia between those two countries. In response Athens signed bilateral pacts with both neighbors. Essentially, the three Balkan powers thus agreed to cooperate militarily against the Porte, but they did not agree on the vital question of how to distribute territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire. The Balkan powers initiated the First Balkan War by marshaling over 1 million troops and then declaring war on the Turks in October 1912. Venizelos's military modernization paid rich dividends. Within a matter of weeks, the Greek army took Thessaloniki and besieged Ioannina to the west. The armies of all three allies fought mainly to gain a favorable position in a postwar settlement. In the May 1913 Treaty of London, the Ottoman Empire ceded all its European possessions to the Balkan allies, with the exception of Thrace and Albania, the latter of which became independent. Because the Treaty of London made no division of territory among the allies, and because Greece and Serbia had divided Macedonian territory between themselves in a bilateral agreement, Bulgaria attacked both, initiating the Second Balkan War. Greece and Serbia won victories that ensured major territorial gains at the Treaty of Bucharest in August 1913. The addition of southern Epirus, Macedonia, Crete, and some of the Aegean Islands expanded Greece by 68 percent, including some of the richest agricultural land on the peninsula, and the population nearly doubled. The major Greek cities of Ioannina and Thessaloniki were reclaimed. Although more than 3 million Greeks remained in Ottoman territory, the Balkan Wars had brought the Megali Idea closer to realization than ever before. When King Constantine was crowned following the assassination of King George in Thessaloniki in March 1913, national morale had reached a high point. reference:http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/greece/greece_history_the_balkan_wars_1912_13.html |
| Thunder from down under | F. Bianconi: Carte commerciale de la province do Macedoine, 1:1,000,000, 48x37 cm. Paris, 1885 The British Library (BL-MR 43.315.35), London [img]http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/images/81_m.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/images/56_m.jpg[/img]The British Library (BM-MR aps 148 c. 2/20), London reference:http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/ |
| elSeven | Thank you Thunder. I will see if i can tell more about Macedonia in my speech in front of my class. What are you thinking about this following site? http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/PartitionedMacedonia/BalkanWars.html |
| Homer MakeDonski | Thanks for your answers As we can read from your explanation : -"So the answer is no the Ottoman empire was clearly Turkish." Ottomans were Turks and they remind Turks after they adolped Arabic alphavet and : -"The language was still Turkish," -"the symbols of pronounciation (letters) changed." -"As such while an Arab can read Ottoman documents,he cannot understand the actual meaning of what he is reading" This is about to say that we have an eg: that used alphabet is not indicator for the origin of one ethnos . If we move backwords in the past could we say that ancient Makedons became Hellens when they accept Greek alphabet ? I've used ,as I wrote "(Arabic Golden Age?)" just to make it clearly that it is not posible for the Arabic word to came foreword with a claim that the Ottoman era is their golden one ,because the Ottomans had their alphabet ,but what we do not have with the Arabs we have with our next door .One of Greeks arguments are used alphabet during the age of Macedonian Empire ,what you are having them as a proove of the Greeknes of it . Even more could we say that the ancient tribes nowdays known as Hellens ,became Phoenitians when they adolped Phoenitian alphabet ? Regards Homer MakeDonski |
| Homer MakeDonski | Suleyman the Magnificent,use to gave a commands to his army at his language ,but what else the documents could say than ,Arabic alphabet. |
| Ceki | And please explain me from where and when greek tribes setled on balkan? And why do you have right to make cretan and other pre-greek civilizations as greek civilizations? And dont tell me this is not true, it is! |
| Byzantine |
Hi Ceki and Homer,
Thanks for your questions,I'll try to answer them all (based on the references I have)in this post.
1)The Language and alphabet of the Ottoman empire.(Arabic Golden Age?)
2)When the the Greek tribes desend onto the Balkans
3)Kretan (Minoan) and Mycenian civilisations.
1.Turkish language vs Turkish alphabet
The Ottoman Turkik tribe after taking Konstantinople studied very carefully the structure of the Byzantine empire,and tried to duplicate it and adapt it to their needs.
It is important to note that from the battle of Manzikert and onwards we know that the majority of the first Turkik tribes to inhabit and rule the area spoke a language which was limited but inteligible to all who would be lableded as Ottomans.
As such there was a clear language but the tribes were not culuturaly develped enought to have their own developed phonetic alphabet.The choice was to use one of two prvailing alphabets of the region,Greek or Arabic.
As I said before a nation-empire steers away from using the language and alphabet of it's conquered people one basic reason is the boomerang effect of causing your empire to be assimilated by the previous one which in the long term means military victory and cultural loss.It was then clear that the Ottoman empire would religiosly choose to align itself with the Arabs (muslims)and use the Arabic alphabet.
It is important to note here however that the Ottoman empire's official language was Turkish and used the Arabic alphabet only phonetically (as an alphabet).The same as we use latin symbols on the internet to write in what is actually our language(Macedonian or Greek).It is for the same reason that Kemal Ataturk later wished to revert this process and decided the new alphabet the Turks would use would be the latin one.The language was still Turkish,only the symbols of pronounciation (letters) changed.
As such while an Arab can read Ottoman documents,he cannot understand the actual meaning of what he is reading.So the answer is no the Ottoman empire was clearly Turkish.Like any empire the influances are many and intense but the driving force behing it's culture was the Turkish language which was used as the official language of the empire.
2. Greek tribes and timeline.
From archeological artifacts we know that the Kretan(minoan)bronze age started in the 3000's BC,and climaxes twice once in 2100-1900bc and then in 1500-1400BC.
The Mycenean civilization peaks at about 1450-1200 bc.
And we know of another people who lived along the inner area of Greece called Pelasgians which date back to a time before both the Minoans and Myceneans but were much less developed.
The three major Greek tribes start decending into Greece from Thrace and then Macedonian and Epirus at one to two century intervals,although it has been very different to pinpoint it more accurately.
Aiolians : 1600 - 1400 BC.
Achaens: 1400 - 1200 BC.
Dorians: 1100 - 1000 BC.
Always give or take a century on these dates.
We know that all three of these tribes paricipated in the Trojan war that took place around 1100 bc.
There is no linguistic, racial or religious link between the Greek tribes and the Myceneans,Minoans,and Pelasgeans what so ever.
The Pelasgians not having entered the bronze age were simply wiped out and assimilated by the decending tribes.The Myceneans and Minoans were defeated by the Greek tribes and taken over.While initially the technological leaps made by the Greek tribes indicate that they learned a great deal from the Myceneans and Minoans in shipbuilding and architecture,this simply means that the older tribes in part lived on as part of the Dorian society as slaves and were made extinct linguistically and culturaly by the Dorians.
Even in Greek Mythology the overthrow of the Titans by the Olympian Gods indicates the perception of the Greek tribes of an overthrow of the status quo.
To conclude the Mycenean and Minoan civilisations can only be included in Greek history as civilisations that were assimilated,and due to their geographic location,breifly co-existed.Otherwise as you say yourself they are pre Greek and they cannot be classified as Hellenic civilization.But then again that is actually the case,it is clear to every historic institution that I know (Princeton,Oxford,Cambridge,etc that these were civilisations with different races,languages,cultures and writing forms.Greek history and percetion of nationhood starts with the Trojan war under the name of (Danai).These cultures neither participated nor had a feeling of Greekness,other than that of a defeated,enslaved and assimilated race.
In a sence these civilisations in part lived through Greek culture as architecture,technology,and Mythology.If at times they are grouped in Greek history it is most likely for this reason,but the differences are always clear.Every Greek knows that he cannot read Minoan script,God knows I've tried many times.
My references are historians GW.DeBurgh (Oxford) and T.R.Glover.(Cambridge)but there are many sights you can refer to the above stuff is preeety much of universal acceptance.
Thanks again,best regards.
Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: |
| Christian | quote:taka li te vikaat? |
| Ceki | quote:Which one you mean, i know there are two scripts, linear A and B. Linear A is not yet decoded, so it is obvious you cant read it. But linear B is decoded, is younger and it is thought from some experts to be old greek language, very arhaic one. Now which one you tried to read. And if it is true that linear B is decoded, can it be its similarity with ancient greek language understood as fact that greeks took some words from Minoans( as minoans being culturaly superior to greeks). As did Romans from greeks. So that we would be talking of minoan( or other old language), and not greek. I think this can be done this way. quote:This differences are really big, 100 years betwen two tribes settled. How can we be sure that they were of same group? And i wanted to know, where exactly they came from. They didnt came from Macedonia, but through Macedonia. Is it possible that they moved from area near carpathi!!! Some historians say that the easiest path to come on balkan is path that slavs used it. This is very interesting. My opinion is that Macedonians are remains of those pre-greek tribes, that were not assimilated as other tribes were. Maybe they were called by greeks as highlanders, cos they lived in mountains, or maybe this is a word that comes from their language( pelasgian language, or some other). We cant deny that they later came under strong greek cultural influence, this is not my point. All i am trying to prove is that they were not of greek origin. And if i am not wrong even Thracians were once thought to be greeks, but today it is clearly known that they were under strong greek cultural influence and they were not greeks. But you still have name Thracia as a name of one of your provinces ... And some greeks still think they were greeks ... And about Trojan war that took place in 1100 bc and is described in 800 bc, i mean come on, you are trying to be scientific, now please say to me, without being biased. How much can we trust Homer? When it is clear that he describes in Iliad and Odisea, social relationships that were in year 800 bc, and not in 1100 bc. It is source, but we still have to look critical on it, and not just believe everything. You also said: quote:We know they thought myths were real, or at least we think today, that they thought they were real. But our job as historians is to look on things as they were, and not to believe in myths as they did( for example herodotus and his geneology of Macedonian royal family). Now how do you expect me to take you serious when you say this kind of stuffs about ancient myths? quote:Macedonians( or i dont know how to call this nation that lived here) moved NE from northern border of tesalia, not central epirus. They never lived in epirus or tesalia. They got central Macedonia under their rule from region around river Halakmon( i only found this name for this river), place that was and is known as Macedonia, the very south part of it. Around mountain Olymp. quote:Now here is the problem, i have never heard of this. Now some think they were aborigins, you say they moved here from epirus. That is why Macedonians are thought to be greeks. We have to clear this up. We have to make clear what numbers there were aborigins and newcomers. As i know many aborigins were made slaves from greeks, AND IN SOME STATES THERE WERE MORE SLAVES THAN GREEKS, especialy sparta. And those slaves were eventualy assimilated with greeks. So here goes another myth of greek pure race. And then you have the right to call us gypsies, skopians, bastards, ... Shame on you. And as i know some greek historians said that only dorians were hellens, for other two they thought as they were aborigins ... |
| Byzantine |
Dear Ceki and the rest,
Why is it that your historic narrative is so apathetic? If the great powers this if the great powers that.Do you think that Greece is the size it is today because the great powers gave it to us? Throughout history whenever empires fall apart nations comprising that empire fight whatever way they can to grab a piece corresponding to that nation's greatest historical borders.
1)The international community was only willing to "assist" Greece in taking that which was unavoidable.When Greeks massed armies of hundreds of thousands at the Macedonian border it was obvious to all major powers that if they agreed to the Greek cause they would weaken the Ottomans and obtain a new "controlable" ally,or suffer the consequenses of having to put up with a hostile new state which would search for other allies.Whatever the case the Greek attack on Macedonia was unavoidable because the Greeks saw it beyond a liberation more so as a march towards what every Greek considered in his/her blood as their Divinely ordained capital,Constantinople.The same can be said of Thrace.The question then becomes who,except for the Ottomans would be willing to put up an army big enough to stop the Greek offensive.The answer is no one,and certainly none of the Balkan neighbors.
2)The protagonists of these wars were from the begining the crumbling Ottoman empire,and the renaisance of the Byzantine state.
It is historically obvious that everyone else took a back seat to this clash.
Did any other army have the guts (including the Russians)to invade Turkey like the Greek army did in 1921? We were a poor young country but above all we were an ancient nation.
The question you make "If Macedonia whould have been given independence" has within it the answer.It would not be given independence for the simple reason that independence is not given it is taken.
As for Greece respecting "international decisions" this is in itself a very defeatists attitude.First off, what young state are you refering to? By 1912 all the balkan states are either young,in question, or inexistent.Secondly all Great powers where against Greece growing beyond the province of Thessaly,so what,we were supposed to accept what the international community had planned for our future?
I don't know what is the driving force behind your patriotism,however members of this ng seem to ignore what makes a Greek tik.We don't see ourselves as a poor,small,inocent,victim,etc.etc.
1)We consider ourselves the linguistic and cultural continuation of Hellenism and the Christian Byzantine state.
2)We are not a nationality as generaly percieved in the Balkans or Europe.We are a peope who see themselves in a way that perhaps only the Jews can understand.We have a language and an alphabet which derived from our own history,and a religion which we accepted and was not "proposed" to us or imposed.We are not also Orthodox,we are THE original Orthodox.(You may know that the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate is Greek,as is the Patriarch of Jerusalem)And even in our darkest days we never proposed to accept the pope as our "head" in order to achieve our liberty or dreams.
Our dedication to this can be judged by our success in realising these dreams.
Southern Greece
Thessaly
Macedonia
Epirus
Thrace
Aegean Islands
Ionian Islands
Crete
and as of this May, Cyprus.
Where ever there is percieved Greek soil there will eventually and unavoidably be Greeks.This is something we give an oath to when we go to the army.And in our culture it is an honour to die for the glory of Greece.(Note here that we are the only nation on earth who gives an oath to Christ as he is the official "General" of the Greek army)
I know that to most of you this will most probably sound like propaganda bullshit,but it's what you can expect from us.We don't care about the world powers,we will use them and fool them in whatever way we can.As long as in the end of the day Greece wins.
If we could persuade all of western europe to use Greek on the EURO,I think that says alot about our dedication to our cause.
Be well,and try to get to know us better,you might be pleasantly surprised.
Be well.
quote: |
| Misirkov | Why is it that your historic narrative is so apathetic? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT THE WHOLE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE IS APATHETIC, JUST OUR CONTEMPORARY HISTORY HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT OUR FATHERLAND HAS BEEN FORCEFULLY PARTITIONED. WHAT IS TODAY PALESTINE OR IRAQ, MACEDONIA HAS BEEN FOR MOST OF THE 19th and PART OF THE 20th CENTURY. IF OTHERS ARE DENIED A BASIC RIGHT TO EXIST AS A PEOPLE, OFTEN IN INSIDUOUS MANNER, THAN I GUESS THEY MAY REACT IN AN "APATHETIC" MANNER AS WELL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think that Greece is the size it is today because the great powers gave it to us? Throughout history whenever empires fall apart nations comprising that empire fight whatever way they can to grab a piece corresponding to that nation's greatest historical borders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AS A MATTER OF FACT YES, BY AND LARGE WE DO THINK THAT. THIS IS NOT TO NEGATE GREEK NATIONAL STRUGGLES. BUT IT IS A FACT THAT GREECE BECAME INDEPENDENT IN LARGE PART BECAUSE "GERMANIA" WANTED TO EXTEND ITS REACH IN THE BALKANS, AND THEN ONLY UNDER THE TUTELAGE OF PRINCE OTTO, "THE KING OF THE HELLENES". LATER ON, THE ANGOSAXONS TREATED GREECE LIKE A LACKEY, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT RELATIONSHIP YIELDED YOU WHAT YOU NOW HAVE. THIS TREATMENT CONTINUED EVEN UNTIL GREECE BECAME AN EU MEMBER. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The international community was only willing to "assist" Greece in taking that which was unavoidable. When Greeks massed armies of hundreds of thousands at the Macedonian border it was obvious to all major powers that if they agreed to the Greek cause they would weaken the Ottomans and obtain a new "controlable" ally, or suffer the consequenses of having to put up with a hostile new state which would search for other allies. Whatever the case the Greek attack on Macedonia was unavoidable because the Greeks saw it beyond a liberation more so as a march towards what every Greek considered in his/her blood as their Divinely ordained capital,Constantinople. The same can be said of Thrace. The question then becomes who,except for the Ottomans would be willing to put up an army big enough to stop the Greek offensive.The answer is no one,and certainly none of the Balkan neighbors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL SAID ABOUT THE GEOPOLITICS BEING AT THE CORE OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS. YET, I DO NOT THINK THAT ANYTHING WAS INEVITABLE, UNAVOIDABLE ETC. MUCH WAS DETERMINED AT THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT AT PLACES LIKE BERLIN, VERSAILLES, LONDON. :-( THAT'S WHY IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR GREECE TO EXPAND FOR MORE THAN TWICE ITS SIZE, MORE THAN ANY OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRY. HOWEVER, IT BEARS REPEATING THAT MACEDONIA WAS NEVER PART OF GREECE. THUS, IT WAS NOT ONLY NOT INEVITABLE, BUT QUITE SURPRISING THAT THE WESTERNERS ACTED THEY WAY THEY DID. WOODROW WILSON CLEARLY WAS WARNED THAT THE FUTURE OF THE BALKANS CANNOT BE SOLVED UNLESS THE MACEDONIA QUESTON IS SETTLED (I.E. MACEDONIA GIVEN AUTHONOMY). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Did any other army have the guts (including the Russians)to invade Turkey like the Greek army did in 1921? We were a poor young country but above all we were an ancient nation. The question you make "If Macedonia whould have been given independence" has within it the answer. It would not be given independence for the simple reason that independence is not given it is taken. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "WHAT IF".....IS LAUGHABLE IN THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY. IT WAS A "ROMANTIC" QUESTIN THOUGH, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE KIDS DISCUSSING IT HERE. RE: GREECE AND RUSSIA: ONE OUGHT TO RESPECT GREECE'S NATIONAL REVIVAL AND STRUGGLE AGAINST THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. BUT RUSSIA IS RUSSIA, AND IT LED MORE THAN 10 WARS AGAINST TURKEY. I DONT KNOW WHETHER IS NOT IN GOOD TASTE TO MAKE SUCH COMARISONS, BECAUSE IT LESSENS YOUR CAUSE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know what is the driving force behind your patriotism,however members of this ng seem to ignore what makes a Greek tik.We don't see ourselves as a poor,small,inocent,victim,etc.etc. 1)We consider ourselves the linguistic and cultural continuation of Hellenism and the Christian Byzantine state. 2)We are not a nationality as generaly percieved in the Balkans or Europe. We are a peope who see themselves in a way that perhaps only the Jews can understand. We have a language and an alphabet which derived from our own history,and a religion which we accepted and was not "proposed" to us or imposed. We are not also Orthodox,we are THE original Orthodox.(You may know that the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate is Greek,as is the Patriarch of Jerusalem)And even in our darkest days we never proposed to accept the pope as our "head" in order to achieve our liberty or dreams. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE DRIVING FORCE IS THE SURVIVAL OF THE MACEDONIAN IDENTITY FROM ANCIENT TIMES TILL TODAY AGAINST INCREDIBLE ODDS! TO BE FAIR, IT IS A LITTLE FAR FETCHED TO CLIM "WHAT MAKES A GREEK TICK" AS HISTORICAL TRUTHS. THESE ARE COLLECTIVE BELIEFS, NOT ALWAYS CONSISTANT WITH HISTORICAL EVENTS. BUT EVERY NATION IS BASED ON A MYTH. GREECE AND MACEDONIA ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. LIKE IN OTHER BALKANS AND EWURPEAN COUNTRIES, THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY IS OFTEN SUBJECT TO POLITICAL AND STATE PRESSURES. THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT GREEKS, AND ESPECIALLY OTHER BALKANS PEOPLES, ARE STILL CONSIDERED AS LESSERS IN THE WEST. IT IS ONLY 20 YEARS AGO THAT A STEREOTYPE OF GREEKS AS MIGRANT WORKERS WERE OMNIPRESENT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And in our culture it is an honour to die for the glory of Greece.(Note here that we are the only nation on earth who gives an oath to Christ as he is the official "General" of the Greek army) I know that to most of you this will most probably sound like propaganda bullshit,but it's what you can expect from us.We don't care about the world powers,we will use them and fool them in whatever way we can.As long as in the end of the day Greece wins. If we could persuade all of western europe to use Greek on the EURO,I think that says alot about our dedication to our cause. Be well,and try to get to know us better,you might be pleasantly surprised. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ADMIRABLE, BUT NOT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER COUNTRIES (SPAIN, BRITAIN, OR RUSSIA FOR EXAMPLE) INCLUDING MACEDONIA. ;-) LET'S NOT FORGET THAT "FREEDOM OR DEATH" ACTUALLY DERIVES FROM US. ;-) YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE BIG POWERS; YOUR POLITICIANS SHOW AS MUCH WHEN THEY DEAL WITH USA FOR EXAMPLE. I FEEL IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT GREECE CHOSE THE COURSE THAT IT DID 14 YEARS AGO AGAINST MACEDONIA. IT SAW IN MACEDONIANS A THREAT THAT IT NEVER WAS. OR THE GREEK RULLING CLASS FELT IT HAD TO ACT TO PROTECT WHAT IT HAS AND PRESERVE TERRITORY AND NATIONAL MYTHS? I DONT KNOW, BUT GREECE ACTED IN A HOSTILE MANNER. PERHAPS NOW THAT IT DECIDED TO BECME A SOUTHERN-BALKAN ECONOMIC LEADER, NOW THAT IT BOUGHT WHAT LITTLE MACEDONIA OWNED, IT HAS BEGUN TO RELAX. I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT YOUR COMING HERE IS WITH FRIENDLY INTENTIONS AS THE TONE OF YOUR MISSIVE SUGGESTS. BUT FRIENDS TREAT EACH OTHER ON AN EQUAL FOOTING. AND SO CAN BE SAID OF GREEKS ABOUT MACEDNIANS: GET TO KNOW US, YOU TOO MAY BE SURPRISED. |
| Byzantine |
Dear Misirkov,
Thank you for your response,I disagree with some of your points written here,while for the most part your response is very accurate.
I don't want to go through Greek history part by part,but I would say in brief that every country relies on whatever it has.In our case the Greek diaspora was that which guided the "Megali Idea" from the start.From then on a country always has the choice of allies.Wether they will be the winners or loosers is always speculative,but in any conflict there are always two sides.You choose the ally which will best serve your purpose,this choice is always open to every nation,as is the price of making the wrong choice.
We were equally "German" just before WWll (Metaxas regime)but that did not mean that the regime would not at the critical moment side with the allies as opposed to the axis.
Concerning the geographic Macedonia and wether it was part of Greece or not,this is a peculiar historical argument.The "Megali Idea" was not about Greece.Actually at this point I don't understand what you are refering to when you say Greece.Ther Megali Idea was about Byzantium and its reinstatement.As you recall Venizelos'idea was of a new state that would be based on five major cities (as unrealistic as it sounds today)Athens,Thesalloniki,Konstantinople,Smyrni,Alexandria.
Therefore Macedonia was well within the region that Venizelos had defined as the new Byzantine state which would differ only in that the capital would be Athens.(due to disagreement with the Greeks of Asia minor who were under the influence of the Patriarchate more so than the Venizelos camp.)
I hope here that we are refering to the same geographic entity.When Venizelos was refering to Macedonia he was concerned with the entity comprised of what is basically the Greek province of Macedonia today and including what was refered to as Monastiri/Bitola to Doiran.
Greece a Lacky of Germania and the UK?
First off the conflict between the "Germanic" royal regime and the Venizelos camp is more than abundantly clear given the difficult relationship between the two sides.Second if Greece was a Lacky of anyone how was it we lost in 1922? Was this because of our support from the German King or the Royal English fleet?
My granfather fought in this war.The supplies that the English were carrying in their ships off the coast of Asia Minor have still not arrived.(Which the whole Greek offensive in Turkey was based on).This is an example of diplomatic mistakes.The Greek administartion was outmaneuvered by the Turks which had struck a new deal with the English,while the English were still in "principle" allies with Greece.So we lost.The change of the military key positions after the fall of Venizelos helped in making the war a total scam.But as a Greek I cannot blame the English or the Germans.Had we not been so naive and so cocky we would have settled for less at that specific time.Simply put wrong call.
So the argument that we won so much because of the Germans or the English can easily be reversed to one were we lost a great deal due to the English and the Germans.
The truth of the matter is,as I argue in the previous post,we won because of smart diplomacy and choosing the right side,and lost by choosing the wrong side.Mostly our fault.
Russia:Agreed Russia is Russia,and it has the nack of expanding into Europe and then retreating to naval empires during all of its existence and still hasn't understood that Navy is the way to go.The brief outlet to the Mediteranean during the days of Yugoslavia (which was only loosly an ally of the USSR)was just that, brief.All historical trade corridors that have been reasons for wars,have seen the Russians attempt to aquire and lose.Mediteranean,Balkans,Middle east,Poland,etc.
So while I respect the Russian ability to defend it's own hinterland,beyond that as an empire with lasting power Russia has marked consequent failures,especially to the Anglo saxons.
As both Greece and Turkey are in the Mediteranean,historically,Russia's intervention at the time was predestined to fail,as it did.Despite the distance,the staying power of the naval English and later American geopolitical strategy would and did prevail.(Samuel Huntington)
What makes a Greek tick.
A nation will always refer to its "glory days" and try to embody those qualities which it percieves allowed it to reach such heights.In as much as that is constant so is what makes people tik.The "Megali Idea" was the driving force behind the Greek uprising.It was consisitend with Greek's perception of themselves because it included all those characetristics which the Greek would be willing to fight for,1)Geographic reference (Byzantium),2)The Eastern Christian Church,3)Democracy.
To suggest that songs,poems,stories,legends,are not part of history in my opinion is inaccurate.
True,these were highly romantic ideals,but inspiring a nation means morale,and morale wins wars were weapons and money fail.Furthermore going back to speaches made by Heraclios emperor of Byzantium in the 600's reveals that the inspiration in the 1800's among Greek speakers was the same during this 1000 year period.
Finaly,as you probably remeber,during the beginning of the conflict in the 90's concerning the name,there were big demonstrations were ever there were Greeks.From Thesalloniki,to Canada,and Australia.In a typical Byzantine manner,the demonstrations were organized by the Church simply because the government was affraid it would get a lesser response as a result of party politics.(As is the case in any conflict during the last roughly 15 centuries.
Concerning Macedonia:
I don't agree with your reference of the modern completely slavic culture of the Macedonians of your region and the Macedonian culture from antiquity.At least not in the same way as I refer to Greek culture from antiquity.There are things that tie me to ancient(classic Greek)and more recent (Byzantine)culture which does not apply to you.
For example,In our educational system part of our curiculum is to read the Iliad,Odysee,Plutarch,Poloponesian war,New testament,The Republic and other texts in their original language.This gives me the sense based on the similarity of the languages the sense of continuity.The fact that I can read by myself any ancient ruins written in a language and an alphabet at times highly comprehensive at times totaly comprehensive to me gives me an added sense of "Greekness" which is not based on "blood" but more so on common tradition.
The later Byzantine language is a breeze as it was our official language untill about forty years ago.As such again the sense of continuity is there.
So when it is desirable to stir up some chauvinism in Greece the ancient texts provide a clear cut and effective vehicle for undisputable cultural continuity.
In the case of the Macedonian cultural continuity one stumbles onto many hurdles.
1)Language:The language spoken by the Macedonians of antiquity and the alphabet used at the time from all written sources is arguably Greek.I know it's been argued that the use of Greek was nothing more than a similarity to the use of Roman during Roman times,and the use of English today but that argument has inherent weakneses.
a)It has never been the case that an empire uses the language of it's conquered peoples as the language of the state.It would be reasonable to assume that the Macedonians had assimilated the Greek alphabet phonetically and integrated it with their language,however all documents we have,starting from communications between Macedonian generals,Alexander to Ptolomeos,Alexander to Antigonos,Antigonos to Ptolomeos etc.All civic buildings and the very sensitive funeral tombs again had inscriptions in Greek.Now it is very suspect that the family of a warior of the greatest power would use a foreign language of a subjegated people for their son's final resting place to be remembered for eternity.(Or does that seem logical to you,if so please explain)
b)Their religion was also Olympic.After all in both Greek and Macedonian Mythology predating Alexander from the days of King Perdicas,Makedon and Magnitas were both sons of Zeus.
c)If there was a Macedonian Mythology different from that of the Greeks why would the King of Macedon choose the "foreign" Achiles as his hero,and why does he go out of his way to use Greece as a rallying point during his speaches given in Greek?
(I have chosen this specific speach because this battle has been used as an example of why Macedonians and Greeks were enemies on this ng)
Arrian,Campaings of Alexander
Alexander's speach to the troops
".....There are Greek troops,to be sure,in Persian service--but how different is their cause from ours!They will be fighting for pay-- and not much of it at that;we on the contrary shall fight for Greece,and our hearts will be in it.As for our foreign troops--Thracians,Paeonians,Illyrians,Agrianes--they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe,and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of tribes of Asia."
The speach here is given in one language which is inteligable by all the troops except for the foreign ones,which are clearly listed and do not include the Greeks (Spatans,Athenians,Thebans,Corinthians etc).
Alexander in essence calls the Greek mercenaries fighting for Persia,"merceneries" and cheap at that,and uses the concept of fighting for Greece as a rallying point.
Doesn't this speach by Alexander provoke some suspisions on your side given the homegeneity of language and purpose,that Alexander is uniting all the troops under the Greek banner as opposed to that of Macedon? While later on during the days of Byzantium where information is abundant we can find no trace of a Macedonian nation.All references of the empire deal with the Eastern Greek and Western Latin.Under this scenario doesn't the segragation of Macedonians and Greeks as different simply lead to the historical argument that the Macedonian nation went extinct? What's your opinion on this point?
As for my argument concerning apathy I will leave any elaborations for another time as this post is long enough as it is.
As your knowledge in history, stands out among the members of this ng,I would suggest we start this discusion over again if you agree whereby we can start from more resent times and move our way backwards.I beleive it creates forced errors when we have to jump centuries to make a point.
Thanks again for your response,
best regards,
Byz.
quote: |
| Misirkov | Dear Byzantine, Two characteristics are clear from your writing: (1) a sense of idealism (which Greek politicians, unlike the Greek masses, rarely had); (2)a Byzantine direction in Greek foreign policy, which although present, was not the sole driving force beyong Greece's natonal expansion. You cannot be serious that the Megali ideology was not about Greece. I have casually studied this national ideology. If you see maps used by Greek "propagandists", Greece does strech to Morocco. :-))) But at its core it is a helelnic idea, an idea of an empire, a desire for greatness, even if loosely associated with a nation state (but Greek nation state nonetheless). The problem is that the Balkan/european idea of a nation (and thus a nation state) is much more fixed, rigid, unlike say the American one. In that megali entity, even if as idealisticlly byzantine as you claim, there is no room for Macedonians or some others, it is essentially a greek "thing", a zero-sum game. It is somewhat similar to the Greater Serbia concept, which in essence it is a revival of their medeival Kingdom with all the elements of what you would find in the Megali idea. I am convinced that historically, it is inaccurate to refer to Byzantium as Greek. Although the primary source evidence is primariyl in Greek, like in ancient times significant information points to its multi-national aspects, as the rule of the Macedonian dynasties show. Greece's sucess in cultivating allies, as you describe, turning from german to anglosaxons, and still to others, helped Greeks build the current state AND its potential to project power. I do not see that Greece lost anything. It gained quite a bit, albeit capitalizing on a "glory" built mostly during a romantic 19 century. This my disagreement with your characterization of Macedonians as "slavic" -- as if that excludes them from their ancesotrs whose name they preserve. This is a huge topic and fr starters I would refer you to an abreviated version of this history in another post. I know your relationship with the anglosaxons very well because I know members of your royal family well. I have seen described and discussed, and have read and seen, how Greece received military help for example, the measures it undertook in its initial attempts at lobbying at the Paris peace confrence and in the the USA with Stetinious, etc. But make no mistake, achievements aside, the treatment of Greeks is one of subordinate, lesser people, not to say something worse. Even if size and race play no role (and they do), you are Orthodox, which puts you lower in the christian hierarchy after the Protestants and than the Catolics. These are metters of principle, not of particulars which I assume you would like to get into. Interesting, I have worked with Sam Hungtington and I can categorically state that unless modified, his balance-of-power theory is just too general to be practical (aside from outlining the contours of some future conflicts). In the meantime, there have been equally good or bad modifications (see Kaplan for bad, Abshire for good). What makes a Greek tick - as I said, every nation has its myths. There is a saying: the smaller te nation, the longer the national anthem. ;-) In a word, the better we understand what makes a nation, the better we adapt to each other. I bet you don't know that there are Macedonian folk songs from the early 19 century about "our King Alexander who ruled the whole Cosmos"? Must go now. Regards, Misirkov P.S. It is interesting how you and many "Bulgarians" almost always preface the word Macedonia with the moniker "geographic". Macedonia was a nation in antiquity, regardless of your view of that nation's allegiances, and it is so today (again regardless of efforts to deface her). |
| nemo | [ kako sto gledam vie imate sto pati poveke sobereno izvorni dokumenti toa bese pred nekolku godini ne se sekavam dali e od ovoj vesnik ne e so sigurnost, |
| nemo | Posle eden obilen rucek kaj kneginkata od Sutherland na fotografijata se slednite : 1. Etienne Scouloudis poranesen minister za nadvoresni rab. 2. grckiot presedatel na ministerstvoto Venizelos.3. Nikolich srbski miroven pregovarac. 4. Stojan Novakovic poran presedatel na srbskoto ministerstvoto 5. Mijuskovich, crnogorski minister. 6. Stojan Danev presed na sobranieto 7. Madjaroff bugarski minister 8. Reshid Pasha turski minister vo Wiena. 9. general Paprikoff poranesen minis. vo petersburg. 10. popvich poran bugarski minis vo Konstantinopol. 11. Milenka Visnich srbski minis vo Paris 12. Joannes Gennadius grcki minis vo London. 13. D:r Streit grcki min vo Viena. 14. Prv minister Asquit 15. G-ga Asquit. 16. Sir Ernest Cassel poznat angliski minister za finansii. 17. Kneginkata od Marlborough. 18. Lady Castlereigh. 19. Anfliskiot minister za nad raboti Sir Edward Grey. 20. Lord Esher 21. Lord Hugh Cecil uniatski politicar. 22. Kneginkata od Westminster 23. Lord Castlereigh 24. Lord Haldaur angliski kansler 25. Domakinkata, kneginkata od Sutherland |
| Macidon_ | Samo fotografijata ne se gleda. |
| nemo | quote: |
| nemo | quote:sto ke bese pa se so bese po vtorat svetska vojna ke bese porano i nemase da gi ima site tie problemi koi sto izlegoa posle na primer vlada so zivite revolucioneri,neutralna poveke partiski sistem kako i vo togasna Evropa, Crkvata ke bese obnovena , jazikot so azbukata, nemase da bide "zasluga na Tito",Nikakvo Raseluvanje i doseluvanje na naselenieto nemase da ima i sigurno nemase da bide pogodena od vojnite prosecniot zivoten vek ke bese pogolem |
| nemo | quote:Ne mozes da gi vidis ne se gledat imat bradi i mustaki, aaa da ne zaboravam znaes i sesiri i sapki imat togasno vreme [:)][:D] |
| Misirkov | Nemo: Ili jas nesto ne gledam kako sto treba ili ne znam sto e problemot. Me interesira dali znaes ZA KOJ VESNIK SE RABOTI, znaci IMETO NA VESNIKOT i DATATA. Na primer dali e "Die Zeit" 5ti april 1906 ili "New York Times" od 10ti maj 1907 razbiras? Blagodaram uste ednas. |
| DJ_SHEMA | Da zivee toa socne dolgo vo nashite srca. Dobre dojde na forumov elSeven. |
| elSeven | Dobro ve najdov. Danke schцn DJ SHEMA. ;) |
| Ceki | quote: quote:Bravo elSeven takvi luge kako ti ni treba se poveke na forumov pa i vo Makedonskiot narod. |
| elSeven | Blagodaram Ceki. Prijatele. Ako nekoj moze da mi pomogne da mi dade edna adressa, eden link za slucuvanjata na Balkanot vo 1912-1913 godina... togas koga makedonija ja delea pomegju nasite segasni sosedi. Po moznosto da bide stranicata germanska ili angliska. Mi treba za da napravam sostav za taa tema. Treba da mu objasnam na profesorot: ;) Eve imate pozdrav i od eden moj kolega sto isto taka zivee vo winterthur i e od makedonija. |
| elSeven | Sto mislite za stranicava? Dobra li e ili ima nekoi podatoci sto ne se tocni ili nekoi vazni podatoci sto ne se navedeni? http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/PartitionedMacedonia/BalkanWars.html |
| Thunder from down under | quote:even better , use the maps that are on this site and also the ones that i found because thay are recorded by the french and english and when you do oral presentation it doesnt metter if its 5 min or 10 min ,dont have to be exacly 7 min |
| elSeven | Ok Thunder. Thank you all. Now a question. What do you all think could be different if Macedonia had become a autonomous region? What would the live looks like in MACEDONIA. Wich city would be the Capital and so on? It would be interesting to listen all your opinions. |
| Ceki | That is something that interests me too, so i came to conclusion that, if Macedonia would be given independence and not just divided betwen others, life would be A LOT different. Just imagine, what was the main reason for both balkan wars, partition of Macedonia. Now what was one( very important) of reasons for WW I, Balkan and its unsaved problems caused by balkan wars. What was the main reason for WW II, Germany wanted to revenge for loosing in WW I. How did ended and what brought WW II, it ended with nuclear weapons and brought big tecnological step forward. All this is said, if serbia, bulgaria and greece would respect decisions of foreign powers, so they wouldnt attack young and independent Macedonia. But, if they would react as they usually do, who knows what would happen, i think we would then have even more wars. And most important thing, i think we would be having no problems with our name today, because we would be recognized by this name in year 1912. For capital, i think they would choose Solun. So maybe God sacrifised us, that others would live better. Of course this are just assumptions, but i think that many things would be very different, no doubt about this. And what are your opinions? |
| Christian | Kako prvo problemot so imeto ke go nema[:D], Aleksandar ke bide nas i priznaeno od MZ[:D], mnogu makedonci so izbegale poradi delbata ke si dojdat vo MKD[:D].Siptarite uplav ke dobijat oti ke bidat samo 5-10% najveke(ramknovniot paga vo voda), ke bideme naj jaka voena sila na balkanot[:D],Solun ke bide glaven grad[:D], i najvazno ke odime na more bez pari i bez viza i toa na domasno makeodnsko more[:D].Arno ama...... |
| OooOo | quote:... koga se razbudi vide deka nozete ti se otkrieni [:D] |
| elSeven | Jas isto taka sum ubeden deka ako togas ja priznaea Makedonija, Balkanot bi bil mnogu pomiren. Ne samo toa, poradi ubavinite i mirnite okolnosti, Balkanot isto taka bi bil po privlecliv vo odnos na turizmot. Makedonija ko zemja so najstaro evropsko ime "Make"-donija sto mislam deka na latinski znaci "Majka" i gradot solun, SOLEM= sonce, bi bila edna od najubavite ne samo evropski zemji, tuku i vo sirokiot svet. Ekonomskata sostojba bi bila pokraj slobodniot pristap kon moreto i mnogu podobra. Veruvam deka i pokraj nas i drugite zemji na balkanot bi zabelezile eden posotiven trend vo skoro site oblasti. Ne samo toa.. i mnogu drugi oblasti bi bile poinakvi od segasnite. No ajde.. sto mislete vie? ova e Imaginacija.. no ova mozese da bide realnost. moe mislenje. |
| Homer MakeDonski | quote:sve -bi- smo mogli mi da je samo duzi bio dan da smo smogli za nas samo malo vremena ... quote:http://forums2.vmacedonia.com/1425.html *Donka Otkako *Donka ostavi puska tenka berdanka nedovezena na razboj i na nalomi otide *pomos da redi v *sosedstvo liceto i se izmeni vegi padnaa nadolu i usti svija koravo. Ne bese *Donka rodena za tia pusti prosjacenja, prosjacenja ko zolti otrovi za gradi kitki rozovi. Prva Balkanska pomina "Osloboditelot" vo srceto i legna, vtorata Balkanska namina *delbata ja v gradi iskina. Treta godina Evropa na *Donka pokri snagata. I noke koga *polumesecko grob i so zvezda viese vetricok tiho nad nea zalna i taga reese: “Zosto mi, zosto ostana berdanka nedoupotrebena? Berdanka ne bese za na svadba”. i ova e Imaginacija.. i ne mozese da bide realnost srekja sto dodje demokratijata i ja popreci . Kako inaku ke spoznaevme sto znaci borba za covekovi pravdini masakri vo nivno ime i abolicii na gradi demokratski naredeni visat nebare ko medali neka neka |
| elSeven | imam ubava slika sto sakam da vi ja pokazam. No sto treba da napravam za da mozam da ja vmetnam ko thunder sto ja vmetna slikata? |
| Thunder from down under | quote:jas sum ninja be ,ne me gledaj mene ok , kade ti e slikata ? 1.ako e na internet, klikni so desnoto naglusecot na slikata i ke vidis nesto vaka http://www.elsedum.com/slika.jpg i kopirajgo toa i klikni na cetvrtoto od desno na replay to topic i ke ti se pokazi ["img][/img"] bez navodnicite i adresata ke e stavis izmegu toa i ke dojdi vaka ["img]http://www.elsedum.com/slika.jpg [/img"] i tolku :) 2. ako ne e na internet ako e kaj tebe vo kompjuterot ,dajmu ja na strelec neka e stavi na internet i neka ti go kazi patot do slikata i ke naprajs kako so ti kazav pogore |
| Strelec | Eve dve ubavi slikicki koi shto gi postiram vo ime na elSeven! [img]http://www.lukaroski.com/forum/elseven_call.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.lukaroski.com/forum/elseven_dont.jpg[/img] |
| Homer MakeDonski | Dear Byzantine Could we concluse that The Ottoman Empire is "Byzantane golden age "for the Arabs ? thus we have everything writen in Arabic Regards Homer MakeDonski |
| elSeven | Thank you strelec. ;) Toa neka go citaat grcite. Grcite koi sto ne ni dadoa nitu 1 poen mozebi samo zatoa sto ne sakaat pred javnosta da go spomnat imeto Makedonija. Sto mislete vie? |
| Misirkov | Pozdrav elSeven! Go cenam toa sto pravis napor da ja objasnis podelbata na makedonskiot narod vo 1913 g. Nemam link da ponudam sem citat i fakti koi treba da gi znaes. A tie se: Makedonija e podelena od Bugarija i Srbija koi napravile DOGOVOR ZA PRIJATELSTO I SOJUZ (!). Spored toj dogovor: "Negovoto Velicestvo Ferdinand I, car na Bugarite i Negovoto Velicestvo Petar I, kral na Srbija, proniknati od uverenosta za zaemnosta na INTERESITE..." A interesite na ovie dve drzavi Bugarija i Srbija se slednite SPORED: "Tajniot dodatok kon dogovorot za prijatelstvo i Sojuz. Clen 1. .... Shtom se postigne spogodba za akcija i se soopshtiuva na RUSIJA i ako taa ne se sprotivstavuva se otvara akcija spored postignatata spogodba........Vo sprotiven slucaj, ako NE SE POSTIGNE spogodba, ke se POBARA mislenje na RUSIJA koe ako RUSIJA go iskaze, ke bide zadolzitelno za dvete strani..." Sostaveno vo Sofija , 29 fevruari 1912 god. Iv.Ev.Geshov, M . Milovanovic. ZNACI: 1). Dodatokot e "TAEN" kon dogovorot za prijatelstvo i SOJUZ. 2). Se raboti zxa pazarenje, za spogodba za "akcija" odnosno podelba koja sto tie resile deka MORA DA SE POSTIGNE! Zatoa ja vovlekuvaat Rusija vo igra "cie sto mislenje da bide zadolzitelno za dvete strani." Samo za da se podsetam, Rusija ja stvori moderna Bugarija i bese glavna potpora na Srbija vo nejzinite pohodi na Balkanot. Namerie na Srbija i Bugarija najdobro go ilustrirrat izjavite na predstavnicite na dvete drzavi, Milovanovic i pretsedatelot na bugarskoto narodno sobranie Stojan Danev: "NIE SRBIJA SME GOTOVI NA SE I KJE VLEZEME VO SEKAKVA KOMBINACIJA, SO BOGA ILI SO DJAVOLOT, AKO POTREBA DA GO SPRECIME RESAVANJETO NA MAKEDONSKOTO PRASANJE NA STETA NA NASITE ZIVOTNI INTERESI." Pretstavnikot na djavolot Bugarija pak veli: "BUGARIJA JA OBJAVI VOJNATA ZOSTO MAKEDONSKITE BUGARI BEA IZGUBENI ZA NEJZINATA KAUZA, BIDEJKJI TRGNAA PO SVOJ PAT." |
| elSeven | Zdravo Misirkov, bidi pozdraven.. Eve pocnuvam da doznavam mnogu poveke raboti za koi sto ne sum znael. A zosto togas naseto baranje (sega bas zborot ne mi teknuva..namesto baranje .. ne aplikacija tuku drug zbor) ne go prifatia vo Bukurest? |
| elSeven | ________________________________________________________________ Thank you strelec. ;) Toa neka go citaat grcite. Grcite koi sto ne ni dadoa nitu 1 poen*****na evrovizija*** mozebi samo zatoa sto ne sakaat pred javnosta da go spomnat imeto Makedonija. Sto mislete vie? __________________________________________ Zboruvav za evrovizijata vo sabotata... |
| nemo | Rashid Pasha kako protivpredlog na mirovniot londonski pregovor sprema Reuters biro pod tocka "2.Makedonija da bide knezestvo so glaven grad Solun, pod sultanska uprava ili nadzor, no pod eden knez, izbran od aliansata i proglasen od sultanot. knezot da bide protestant od od edna neutralna drzava." dec. 1912 |
| Misirkov | Isto kako sto Grcija dobila nezavisnost vo 1827 g. pod "knezot" Oto od Bavaria. Zatoa denesnoto grcko zname vo osnova e bavarski simbol. Sto kje rece, grcka nezavisnost za prv pat otkako Filip II gi potepa i porobi vo 338 g. PNE. |
| nemo | Isto i Finska imala monarhija samo za sest meseci, no abdikiral i toa od germanska loza Neli e chudno site tie novonastanati knezovi, carevi, kralevi se poteknuvat od germanska i angliska loza i site da sednat na prestol da upravuvat so drugi narodi i gi mesat svoite prsti vo togasnata politika. |
| elSeven | Mislev za baranjeto postaveno od makedoncite za formiranje na svoja avtonomna makedonska drzava. No togas nas ne odbia. Namesto Formiranje na Makedonskata Drzava, bese doneseno zaklucok na vo bukarest da se podeli teritorijata na makedonija pod nejzinite sosedi. Bugarija, Grcija, Srbija i Albanija. |
| Misirkov | Nemo: mnogu bi ti bil blagodaren ako dades izvor (i celosen citat) za toa sto go kazuvas. Uste ednas, blagodaram za informacijata, mnogu interesna i relevantna (ako e tocna, razbira se). |
| elSeven | i mene bi me interesiralo da vidam. |
| Ceki | Mislam da ako imaja sansa tie da im vladat na Makedonija, kako knezestvo, deka ke go storija toa, kako germancite vo grcija. Ama za zal[:(] Koj znajt sto se bi bilo poinakvo onda. |
| nemo | quote:Informacijata ja zedov od vesnik, toa go dadov za ovoj od Svajcarija za da moze da gi najde direktno so prevod sigurno na site 4 jazici i toa bez pari ovdeka samo da si kopiras se plaka, ima i karti koj kako sakal da zeme del i sliki od ucesnicite, ministri idr vo zagovorot PS ne znam dali no siguren sum deka i vo CH gi ima starite vesnici Barajte pod razlicni datumi |
| nemo | "Mirovnata konferencija vo London vo sabota povtorno gi zede pregovorite. Posle eden cas se odlozi za denes. Reshid Pasha go iznese turskiotkako protivpredlog. Sto se odnesuva za sodrzinata nema nisto oficialno preneseno, no spored Reuters biro doznava, kako se zemeni sslednite tocki 1) Vilaetot Adrianopol seuste e pod turska administracija 2)Makedonija da bide knezestvo so glaven grad Solun, pod sultanska uprava ili nadzor, no pod eden knez, izbran od aliansata i proglasen od sultanot. knezot da bide protestant od edna neutralna drzava. 3)Albanija stanuva avtonomija pod sultanski suverinitet (souvereignity) so eden knez od otomanskata carska familija, izbran za pet godini, so moznost za obnovuvanje na dolznosta. 4) Site egejski ostrovi seuste ke pripagat na turcite. 5) Krit-prasanjeto ne e predmet na konferencijata, tuku edna rabota pomegu Turcija i golemite sili. Posle iznesenit turski protivpredlog sednicata se odlozi za da im se dade na balkanskite izvestuvaci moznost da diskutirat okolu predlogot. Posle edno izvesno vreme se zasedeoa pregovorite na novo, kade sojuznicite uslovit gi proglasija za neprifatlivi." |
| nemo | ponedelnik 30 Dec 1912 A ima i edna grupna fotografija so iminjata na ucesnicite,ministri lordovi. |
| Misirkov | Nemo: Ti blagodaram uste ednas. NO PRASANJETO E ZA KOJ VESNIK SE RABOTI AKO MOZES DA DOZNAES??? Patem, ako treba nesto da se plati, jas kje palatam nema nikakov problem, duri i tebe ke ti platam za informacijata i za uslugata kolku sto kje pobaras (vo razumni granici), samo da dojdeme do dokumentot. Pozdrav. |
| nemo | quote:Ke ja dobies na privatna poraka All right |
| Ceki | Stavi tuka, i nie sakame da vidime. |
| highlander | Стави... нека знаат сите! |
| nemo | quote:Toa sto trebase da se doznae go napisav Veke e prevedeno i napisani se licnostite pod fotografijata, ne mozam da ja scanam, nemam scaner[:(] Vo bilo koja zemja da gledate ke gi najdete tie zapisi vo stari vesnici JAS SMETAM DEKA VO ANGLIJA, FRANCIJA GERMANIJA I AVSTRIJA IMA POVEKE ,bidejki tie bea sili za toa vreme.... |
| nemo | POZDRAV DO MISIRKOV I OSTANATI ZAENERESIRANI[:D][:D] |
| Misirkov | Nemo: da ti blagodaram na odgovorot. Ti nudam 200 EURO za trudot (kje gi pratam na koja adresa kje reces ili ziro smetka) za da go najdes vesnikot. Site trosoci za skeneranje i ostanati trosoci (kako na primer taksi di toa mesto i vrakjanje) kje gi pokrijam jas. Dali kje se slozis to a da go narpavis? Mislam deka ponudata e fer. Mozes da mi se javis na [email protected] ako sakas. Pozdravi. |
| nemo | Ako sakas ke ti ja pratam preku posta taa kopija od vesnikot sto ja imam doma i toa bez trosok, , a za poveke stranici ke gi pobaram tie stranici posle 5-6 juni... ako sakas da ti pratam pisi na taa e-adresa [email protected] Pozdrav |
| Byzantine | Dear Misirkov,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Byzantine, Two characteristics are clear from your writing: (1) a sense of idealism (which Greek politicians, unlike the Greek masses, rarely had); (2)a Byzantine direction in Greek foreign policy, which although present, was not the sole driving force beyong Greece's natonal expansion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Idealists make the mess and pragmatists clean it up,if your lucky things look better after you,ve cleaned up the mess than before it was made" Given this limited definition of what's what I would say that Venizelos and Papandreou made the mess and the rest of our politicians tried to clean it up,Karamanlis,Mitsotakis,Simitis. Overall I'm satisfied with our politicians,both the idealists and the pragmatists.God help us if we ever get consecutive idealist! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You cannot be serious that the Megali ideology was not about Greece. I have casually studied this national ideology. If you see maps used by Greek "propagandists", Greece does strech to Morocco. :-))) But at its core it is a helelnic idea, an idea of an empire, a desire for greatness, even if loosely associated with a nation state (but Greek nation state nonetheless). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dead serious. If you duel deeper into Greek social history you'll see first that there were two sides to the Megali Idea. 1)you'll find that up until the mid 1900's most Greeks refered to themselves as Romaioi not Hellenes. 2)you'll find that the vast majority of folklore,music and dance had Byzantine references not classic Greek. 3)you'll find that up to the 1970's the chuech had a choke on the educational system. 4)never forget that in classical Greece we were bickering city states,not one united political entity. 5)The state was not to reach Marocco indeed,but the retaking of Konstantinople was on the lips of every commoner,which at the time held much greater prestige and passion then Athens. 6)The definition of a Romios that the church was pushing for was Greek speaking,Greek Orthodox.This is not an ethic reference because at the time there were many nationalitites in Konstantinople and in the vacinity which were defining themselves as such without seeing themselves as ethnic Greeks,after all ethnic Greek as a concept is a result of later propaganda to create a nation state. Even today the Aghia Sophia holds a higher position of awe among the older generations than the Acropolis.(Suprise surprise the church organises tourist groups for Istanbul every week from all over Greece) 7)Finally you'll find that the reference itself (classical Greek)is inaccurate.What it was in reality was Imperial Athenian,which would provoke regional problems at the time,(and still does today). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem is that the Balkan/european idea of a nation (and thus a nation state) is much more fixed, rigid, unlike say the American one. In that megali entity, even if as idealisticlly byzantine as you claim, there is no room for Macedonians or some others, it is essentially a greek "thing", a zero-sum game. It is somewhat similar to the Greater Serbia concept, which in essence it is a revival of their medeival Kingdom with all the elements of what you would find in the Megali idea. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You are making assumptions while ignoring the culture and the self perseption of people both then and now.After the katastrophy in Asia Minor and in Alexandria (time of Nessir) "Greeks" from Asia minor and Egypt came to Greece by the thousands.As did in the mean time Armenians (After the genocide in Turkey)and Orthodox Lebanese during the war with Israel. The assimilation was very quick,due to the most part because they were welcomed by the church as Romaioi while not Greek.Keep in mind that Greek seakers from Alexandria look very different that those of North west Greece.The assimilation did not take place on ethnic grounds,rather on linguistic and religious.The asphixiating propaganda done by Metaxas and later the Greek Junta failed.Even today when we know full well(at least the educated ones) that many of us are descedants of Orthodox Albanians,Vlachs,Orthodox Arabs,Slavs,etc.it does not influence our Greekness.Try not to be influenced by the Greek immigrant which evolves with a decade's delay to the develpments in Greece.Furthermore the immigrant community which assimilated fastest in the 90's Greece where the Ethiopians and the West Africans.Simply because they quickly integrated into the linguistic and religious definition which is more Byzantine than Hellenic.The most dificult integration was that of the muslim Albanians who needed some "pursuasion" to finally assimilate into the Christian Orthodox identity,again not Hellenic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am convinced that historically, it is inaccurate to refer to Byzantium as Greek. Although the primary source evidence is primariyl in Greek, like in ancient times significant information points to its multi-national aspects, as the rule of the Macedonian dynasties show. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Byzantine by definition as of the 600's (specifically emperor Heracleos) means Greek speaking and belonging in faith to the Patriarch in Constantinople.For the most part that definition holds today for a Greek.The church has seen to it that society today lives a Byzantine tradition withing the context of a political Hellenic state.After all I believe you know,as we have been continiously critisized for this by the west,that no Christian church has such influence on the state as the one in Greece which actually still has it's seat in Konstantinople. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Greece's sucess in cultivating allies, as you describe, turning from german to anglosaxons, and still to others, helped Greeks build the current state AND its potential to project power. I do not see that Greece lost anything. It gained quite a bit, albeit capitalizing on a "glory" built mostly during a romantic 19 century. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You're definition of loss and that of a Greek varies greatly.For a Greek the fact that the Aghia Sophia is not in Greece is our Greatest failure since our conception as a nation. 1)Greeks are still against the creation of a Patriarchate in Greece as everyone sees the Constantinople Patriarch as our true spiritual head. 2)The Greek army is still forbiden to wear it's original uniform because of the military loss in 1922 3)In a poll taken two years ago the most beloved leader todate in Greece of all times (especially among young people 78%)is Venizelos and his Megali Idea.The most cherished symbol among Greeks the cross,the Parthenon,the Aghia Sophia,the yellow flag with the double headed eagle(the flag of Konstantinole). You may judge for yourself wehter Greeks feel closer to Byzantium or Athenian culture.Most accurately said,we think of ourselves as wetsern,yet we identify ourselves as eastern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This my disagreement with your characterization of Macedonians as "slavic" -- as if that excludes them from their ancesotrs whose name they preserve. This is a huge topic and fr starters I would refer you to an abreviated version of this history in another post. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure which post you are refering to,I'll take a look at your posts and get back to you on this point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I know your relationship with the anglosaxons very well because I know members of your royal family well. I have seen described and discussed, and have read and seen, how Greece received military help for example, the measures it undertook in its initial attempts at lobbying at the Paris peace confrence and in the the USA with Stetinious, etc. But make no mistake, achievements aside, the treatment of Greeks is one of subordinate, lesser people, not to say something worse. Even if size and race play no role (and they do), you are Orthodox, which puts you lower in the christian hierarchy after the Protestants and than the Catolics. These are metters of principle, not of particulars which I assume you would like to get into. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)I don't know what the Royal family has to do with anything.They do not have a last name of Katakuzinos,Paleologos,Tsimiski,etc.Therefore they cannot be a symbol of anything historically Romaian or Hellenic. They are not OUR Royal family,and will never be. 2)You may know then that the vast majority of Greeks are pushing for the desolvement of NATO in europe and it's replacement with the Euroarmy.You should also note that in the 70's 90% of our military hardware was American,in the 80's 60% in the 90's 30% and in the next 10 year plan 10%.You also note that the Greek political establishment sees the US and the UK as allies of Turkey and not Greece.Our military and commercial ties with the Anglo Saxons have decreased drastically and will reach zero untill they change their tune. Yes,we know we are seen as the easterners of the west,not secular enough,and subordinate.And we hope that will last for at least one more decade.It was and is necesary to look weak and poor in order to get away with keeping foreign investment out,and buying up balkan assets without raising any eyebrows.Unfortunately the EU isn't buying it any more but I believe the Anglo saxons still have some time.Undermining us can only yield benefits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting, I have worked with Sam Hungtington and I can categorically state that unless modified, his balance-of-power theory is just too general to be practical (aside from outlining the contours of some future conflicts). In the meantime, there have been equally good or bad modifications (see Kaplan for bad, Abshire for good). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It's a geopolitical phramework,its meant to be general otherwise it would have to be 10 volumes.After all this is a science in it's infant phase,but it has become a big hit.A country just isn't chic if it doesn't have at least a thousand beaurocrats "thinking" and "planning" of "spheres of influence". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes a Greek tick - as I said, every nation has its myths. There is a saying: the smaller te nation, the longer the national anthem. ;-) In a word, the better we understand what makes a nation, the better we adapt to each other. I bet you don't know that there are Macedonian folk songs from the early 19 century about "our King Alexander who ruled the whole Cosmos"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not the myth,it's how much people believe in it and aspire to it.The amount of dedication to a myth will ultimately make it more real and accomplishable. "When we believe,mountains turn to hills and what was unsurmountable becomes possible." E. Venizelos. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Must go now. Regards, Misirkov ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Take care, Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. It is interesting how you and many "Bulgarians" almost always preface the word Macedonia with the moniker "geographic". Macedonia was a nation in antiquity, regardless of your view of that nation's allegiances, and it is so today (again regardless of efforts to deface her). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll respond to your post script after I've read your post in order to have a better idea of your position on this issue. [/quote] |
| Ceki | I also dont look on Macedonians in past as one homogeneous nation. Because there were no nations as there are today. Macedonians were, as also greeks were, divided in many tribes, with many smaller leaders that ruled them. Only the strongest leaders, could unite all those tribes into one kingdom, as Phillip and Alexander did. Those two were unique, because they also ruled all others, not just Macedonians. So i think we divided ourselves already in ancient times, not just today. And we definetly are not the only people that divede ourselves, but this is really something like Macedonian national sport. I think some tribes maybe were of greek, illyrian and thracian origins( especially when we counqered halkidiki colonys), but others( majority) were aborigins. The language is still open discusion here, not just us Macedonians, even some other experts think Macedonians spoke a language, that today dont exist anymore. Time by time, those tribes developed into a nation, that we know today as a Macedonian nation. But under a big influence from our neighbours. And i would never say we didnt know who we were in past. We always knew who we were. Geographical name always was Macedonia, but inhabitants were named by those that ruled them. Greeks, bulgarians, serbians. The same goes with language. But this doesnt mean Macedonians never existed. It is just a fact that others wrote of our people as they wanted to write. This is not the only example in history, many other nations were also under such a bad treatment by their neighbours. Not only that, even Macedonian dukes, leaders, ... were thinking of themselves to be of other( culturaly or military stronger neighbour) origin. This is not typical just for Macedonians. In Slovenia dukes, leaders, ... thought of themselves to be germans, they spoke german and despised slovenian language, ... Although they were of slovenian origin. Only when nationalism occured in 19th century, people started to think who they really are, who are their real ancestors. But again it is a big miracle that we still exist today. Many other nations would broke down under such a presure, that we had in last 100 and more years. We all know what was going on in 1912/1913, even you, but you are officialy saying completely other things. I am also surprised that many historians see event in 1913, as a partition of Macedonia. And not as unification of greece, serbia and bulgaria. But how can they at the same time deny existence of Macedonian nation, this surprises me a lot. This is just because, when serbians, bulgarians and greeks divided us, they started to spread to the world that Macedonians dont exist. That there are only greeks, bulgarians and serbians in Macedonia. It also is ridiculos, how can three nations speak of one nation to be their, and this is more accepted, than this nation's self proclamation of separate origin. I mean who would gain, if we exist as separate nation and, if Macedonia was united. Noone except us Macedonians. But if Macedonia was divided, we all know who would gain. Three, today even four, countrys. Is this only weird for us??? |
| Byzantine | Hi Ceki and Homer,
Which one you mean, i know there are two scripts, linear A and B. Linear A is not yet decoded, so it is obvious you cant read it. But linear B is decoded, is younger and it is thought from some experts to be old greek language, very arhaic one. Now which one you tried to read.
And if it is true that linear B is decoded, can it be its similarity with ancient greek language understood as fact that greeks took some words from Minoans( as minoans being culturaly superior to greeks). As did Romans from greeks. So that we would be talking of minoan( or other old language), and not greek. I think this can be done this way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek script.
As far as the Greek language is concerned,only Greek propagandists search for the "genesis" of the Greek alphabet among Linear a and b.
The Greek alphabet comes almost totally from the ancient Phoenician hierogliphic writing system.
We KNOW that 22 of our letters come from there.
A Alpha = Aleph, symbol for dear.
B Beta = Beth,symbol for house
Gama = Gimel,symbol for Camel
Delta= D'el ta meeting of two rivers.
etc............
Some historian would have to ignore history and linguistics totaly to have any different opinion.
Greek language:
To be honest my knowledge of the Minoan language is weak compared to that of ancient Greek.But as far as I do know dating back to 700BC the influence of the Phoenicians on the Greeks was much greater than that of the Minoans.I think that linguistic links between the Minoans and the Greeks have for the most part been "assumed" by some modern Greek historians to "prove" that Greeks were actually the continuity of the aboriginal people of the Greek region.This is historical crap and no historian in Stanford or Oxford or Cambridge would take such a far flung view of history.
Like I said before conquerors take as little from the conquered as possible.This is a rule of thumb,and it would be hypocritical of me to make exceptions for Greece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:This differences are really big, 100 years betwen two tribes settled. How can we be sure that they were of same group? And i wanted to know, where exactly they came from. They didnt came from Macedonia, but through Macedonia. Is it possible that they moved from area near carpathi!!! Some historians say that the easiest path to come on balkan is path that slavs used it. This is very interesting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes it is a fairly big difference.But you have to keep in mind that we are talking about tribes that are still nomadic.They move around untill either land finishes or they find an adequate climate. We know only that all three tribes were Indo european (meaning they made their way to Europe from the Aryan races of Northern India.We also know from the language that derives later on as Greek that it was related to tribes that traveled below the black sea to the Balkans.As such no they did not come from the Carpathian region. Yes,the Carpathians is the fastest way to come to the Balkans from the North,But these tribes came from the east. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My opinion is that Macedonians are remains of those pre-greek tribes, that were not assimilated as other tribes were. Maybe they were called by greeks as highlanders, cos they lived in mountains, or maybe this is a word that comes from their language( pelasgian language, or some other). --------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are refering to the period of 1600 - 900 bc,it is very difficult to say.We are talking after all about a period of 700 years of continious decending tribes. Keep in mind however that the Dorian decent caused such a panic that many Achaens later called Ionians fled south eastern Greece towards the Islands due to the massive power and number of the Dorians.It is this one historical event that filled the Aegean islands with Ionians. There is no need to prove that the Macedonians were of non-Greek origin.After all during this time period there are no Greeks,and no Macedonians they do not exist as a nation yet. Geographically however it is obvious that all three tribes had to pass through Attica to get to the Peloponessus.They had to Pass through the Thessalian plain to get to Attica,and they had to pass through the southern Macedonian plains to get to Thessaly. As such the Pelasgians were under attack from three different tribes during a 700 year period.The fact that all three passed through their land means that they accumulated 700 years worth of losses.After all If these tribes were strong enough to defeat the Myceneans and the Minoans,then the Pelasgians were not realy a big source of resistance.It is doubtfull that enough remained to be included in the three tribes that Perdicas united in order to form the Macedonians.Furthermore any kind of ancient housing system or weapon design ceased to exist after the Dorian pass.Which means whatever cultural entity lived in that area before the Dorians passed did not exist after they passed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We cant deny that they later came under strong greek cultural influence, this is not my point. All i am trying to prove is that they were not of greek origin. And if i am not wrong even Thracians were once thought to be greeks, but today it is clearly known that they were under strong greek cultural influence and they were not greeks. But you still have name Thracia as a name of one of your provinces ... And some greeks still think they were greeks ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I agree however we are talking about two different time periods.The feeling of nationhood among the Greeks comes much later after the desent of the tribes.As such the origin of the tribes and their later self perception really is not related. As for what some think about Thracians, it's not really of any relevance.The argument of Thracian self perception,Thracian origin,amd Thracian culture take place during different centuries than those we are discussing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And about Trojan war that took place in 1100 bc and is described in 800 bc, i mean come on, you are trying to be scientific, now please say to me, without being biased. How much can we trust Homer? When it is clear that he describes in Iliad and Odisea, social relationships that were in year 800 bc, and not in 1100 bc. It is source, but we still have to look critical on it, and not just believe everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is important to take Homer into context given what Schlieman (I don't remember the correct spelling)found in his archeological excavations. 1)We know from the remains of Troy that there was a war which caused it's fall. 2)We know from the remains that the ones who caused the fall were the Greek tribes from the various non Trojan armour found,inscriptions on the artifacts of war. 3)We know that after Troy was defeated it became a Greek colony that was ruled by King Byzantas (Were the origin of the name Byzantium comes from). 4)We also know that the Illiad was the bible of the ancient Greeks.As such the Illiad was used to further the sense of Hellenism.The question here is why would the extremely chauvinist Greeks of the time (600BC) so massively accept a book whose geneology accepted inferior foreigners? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You also said: quote:We know they thought myths were real, or at least we think today, that they thought they were real. But our job as historians is to look on things as they were, and not to believe in myths as they did( for example herodotus and his geneology of Macedonian royal family). Now how do you expect me to take you serious when you say this kind of stuffs about ancient myths? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually by time of the birth of Philosophy,600BC onwards,very few people believed that the Illiad was real.They understood it was a symbolic text based on legend rooted in distant times that was written mostly to teach morality to the people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:Macedonians( or i dont know how to call this nation that lived here) moved NE from northern border of tesalia, not central epirus. They never lived in epirus or tesalia. They got central Macedonia under their rule from region around river Halakmon( i only found this name for this river), place that was and is known as Macedonia, the very south part of it. Around mountain Olymp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- THe North western border of Thesally is borders the Central eastern part of Epirus.The Macedonian tribes travelled dead North of the Aliakmon.Proof to this are the locations of the Ancient cities of Pre Phillip Macedonia:(You can check them out in any ancient map of your choosing: Orestis (Kastoria region) Tymphaea (Kastotia region) Eliminea (Grevena region) Eordaea (South Kozane region) Lynkestis (North Kozane region) Pelagonia (Bitola) Amphaxitis (Kilkis) Almoria (Modern Pieria region) Pieria (Emathia region) Bottiaea Krestonia Mygdonia Anthemus (All these cities were in the Northern part of the current Thesalloniki province) It is around 600-500BC that King Archelaos moves the Capital of Macedonia south east from Aegae to Pella. As such this would indicate that the pre-Macedonian tribes made their way from the Pidus Mountain range bordering with Epirus along the Aliakmon the Thesalian border and then due north far before reaching the Aegean sea.Most of the first Macedonian ancient cities bordered with Epirus. After all the fact that Macedonians had alot of relations with the Epirotans is evident in that this is the homeland of Olympias the mother of Alexander and wife of Phillip which was from Epirus. This same path but due south is the same that all three Greek tribes took southbound from as far as 1000 years earlier to as recent as 400 years earlier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:Now here is the problem, i have never heard of this. Now some think they were aborigins, you say they moved here from epirus. That is why Macedonians are thought to be greeks. We have to clear this up. We have to make clear what numbers there were aborigins and newcomers. As i know many aborigins were made slaves from greeks, AND IN SOME STATES THERE WERE MORE SLAVES THAN GREEKS, especialy sparta. And those slaves were eventualy assimilated with greeks. So here goes another myth of greek pure race. And then you have the right to call us gypsies, skopians, bastards, ... Shame on you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)I never called anyone a bastard or a gypsie.And I specifically stated that what made Greece historically strong was a culture which had the power of assimilation. 2)The vast majority of Spartan slaves were Mesinians which were Aeolians, the earlier tribe that settled Peloponesus. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And as i know some greek historians said that only dorians were hellens, for other two they thought as they were aborigins ... [/quote] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why are you so fixated on some Idiot historians which can't even get a job in the University of Athens? Keep to the serious institutions Cambridge,Oxford,and Stanford. Dorians,Aeolians,and Achaens were not Hellenes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The assimilation of these tribes and the common cultural evolution gave birth to what LATER evolved as the Hellenes. My arguments represent what I percieve as history based on the institutions I respect.Furthermore as you've seen I steer clear of using any reference which is directly of even indirectly Greek. Lets try to see this issue based on solid historical institutions and forget what one Greek or another Greek says.OK? Take care Byz |
| Ceki | quote:You are not gonna believe, but i am all this taking from books that sumarize all this cambridge, oxford, stanford and many others experts. quote:A rule? Are you forgeting bulgarians here? What is most surprisingly is that i read that linear B is arhaic greek language! And you are saying that you cant read them, or understand them! And i was talking about language not alphabet. All three greek tribes came from north, Panonian area. Greeks are not mentioned in neither one source from eastern nations. The first reliable source that is thought to describe greek is from year around 700 bc, and the word is iamani( ionian) in sources of Asirian king Sargon II. There are just no proofs that they came from east, this area was developed and we have neither one proof they came from there, so they must came from NE, NW or N. And i dont think we will ever know that for sure. Now i read about panonian area, but it could also be carpahti area, at least we agree that it is easier path. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This historical right and this "Greek identity of Macedonia" have for a long time been "proved" with the hypothesis that the ancient Macedonians were a Doric tribe and their language a Doric dialect. Since this could not be supported by definite facts from historical sources, and even less by archaeological or linguistic proofs, not long ago official Greek scholarship discarded this hypothesis. --------------------------------------------------------------------- After the deciphering of Linear B in 1952, and more particularly after 1970. when the luxurious edition of The History of the Greek Ethnos' was published, Greek linguists and historians went far into the past to seek for foundations for their thesis of a "Greek Macedonia". Although none of the Mycenaean scholars in the world takes seriously their hypothetical interpretations of Mycenaean texts, they nevertheless wish to discover in them "proofs" that the ancient Macedonians were Indo-Europeans, Proto-Hellenes, and that their language was the oldest, purest and most conservative Greek dialect which at the same time cast a new light on the oldest history of the Greek ethnos. This thesis reached its culmination at the beginning of the 1980's when an unusual jubilee under the title of "4,000 Years of Greek Macedonia" was celebrated with great pomp. The theory thus constructed has pretensions to scholarship but in fact starts out from pre-suppositions which are not supported by a single historical fact. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The history of the ancient Macedonians over a lengthy period of 1,600 years (2,200-600 B.C.) has been reconstructed on the basis of a prejudgement that they could have been nothing other than Greeks. It should be noted that no text whatsoever has been preserved in the ancient Macedonian language. Only about a hundred glosses are known, from which it is not possible to reconstruct the language. For more than 150 years these words have been a subject of comparative linguistic studies, but quite a large number of these remain with only a hypothetical explanation or even with no explanation at all. While earlier on Doric forms were being sought in the Macedonian glosses, Greek linguists are now investing great efforts in revealing archaic Aeolian. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact the sparse linguistic material is extremely complex and heterogeneous. It is clear that among the glosses there are borrowings from Greek which in antique times was a language of great prestige; the Greek words, however, have been adapted according to a different, non-Greek phonetic system, [e.g.: Macedonian and "sky", Greek aither "air"; Mac. danos, Gk. thanatos "death"; Mac. keb(a)]le Gk. kephale "head", etc.] But at the same time there are among the glosses such words as are not found in Greek but have parallels in other Indo-European languages, [e.g.: aliza "a white layer under the bark of a tree", Slavonic e/oa xa; Mac. goda "innards", Gk. entera, Old Indian Sanskrit gudam "intestine"; Mac. pella "stone", Germ. Fels < + pel-sa, etc.] As proof of the cognation of the ancient Macedonians with the Greeks a photograph has been presented of the inscription from Vergina with Greek names. It should be mentioned that the majority of the names of Macedonians from the ancient period are those of members of the ruling dynasty or the aristocracy who consciously identified with the sphere of Hellenic culture so that it is in no way strange that the names of the majority of them are Greek. But alongside them are to be found Macedonian names which cannot be explained by means of Greek etymology. --------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:??? quote:So in your opinion only greeks developed as a nation, although we have more than 3000 years of continutional inhabitant of Macedonian area, and in many sources Macedonians are declared as separate nation. And our history can be easily compared with any other ancient history. Are this double measurments and biased look on history? |
| nemo | quote:Denes ti ja isprativ. moze da ja objavis pozdravi |
| Byzantine | Hi Ceki,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not gonna believe, but i am all this taking from books that sumarize all this cambridge, oxford, stanford and many others experts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would'nt I believe that? Just do me a favor and write some references at points where we disagree.If need be we can go back and see what the deviation is due to.
quote:A rule? Are you forgeting bulgarians here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohhh boy.that's a tough one. In brief: I think that the Bulgarian nation is actually a paradoxical statement.The original Volga tribe was to begin with, a nomadic turkic tribe.Then they sweep up all the left over hunic tribes while north of the Danube.The Bulgar federation of tribes attack Byzantium.Just from this period you can say that the Bulgar "culture" still in infant stage is being diluted with other Hunic tribes. fast forward................. It is clear during the overthrow of the Boyars that the slavs without fighting the Bulgars in a major military conflict had actually assimilated them into their society.The wars between the Bulgars and the Byzantines were on and off.At times the Byzantines fought them at times bribed them.In the end Byzantium conquered the Bulgars.But the Bulgars that the Byzantines first met and the ones they finally defeated had nothing or in any case, very little in common. As for the Bulgarians of today there seems to be a an odd mismatch of self perception.A nation which has a slavic language,and cultural make up (Bulgarians percieve themselves as slavs and Bulgars simultaneously?!?)see their founders in Han Asparuh and Han Omurtag. I think it is more accurate to say that whatever one considers truly "Bulgarian"(as in Bulgar) culture,or nation,etc, went extinct and recieved it's deathblow soon after the overthrow of the Boyars. When centuries later Samuil declares himself "King of the Bulgars",I would argue that he was refering (influenced by the Byzantine understanding)to himself as King of those who lived in the lands percieved as Bugarian (the lands not the people),but in truth if one is to compare Samuil and Han Asparuh one would quickly run out of common identifying caracteristics. In closing I think that Bulgars as part of a long Hunic tradition came,won some battles and then disintegrated.As such they cannot be classified as conquerors. What's your opinion? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What is most surprisingly is that i read that linear B is arhaic greek language! And you are saying that you cant read them, or understand them! And i was talking about language not alphabet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No,that's not what I'm saying,and I'm suprised that you assumed that from my post.Simply said until a nation evolves enough to express it's language with phonetic symbols it cannot aquire truly long lasting, common,and recorded historic memmory.A nation becomes long lasting when it's customs,experiences,laws,and religious perceptions become recorded on a fixed medium.To do this you need a language and an alphabet.When you have an alphabet you pass down this information from generation to generation in a homogeneous form,that is tradition.No common traditions,no lasting nationhood. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All three greek tribes came from north, Panonian area. Greeks are not mentioned in neither one source from eastern nations. The first reliable source that is thought to describe greek is from year around 700 bc, and the word is iamani( ionian) in sources of Asirian king Sargon II. There are just no proofs that they came from east, this area was developed and we have neither one proof they came from there, so they must came from NE, NW or N. And i dont think we will ever know that for sure. Now i read about panonian area, but it could also be carpahti area, at least we agree that it is easier path. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This historical right and this "Greek identity of Macedonia" have for a long time been "proved" with the hypothesis that the ancient Macedonians were a Doric tribe and their language a Doric dialect. Since this could not be supported by definite facts from historical sources, and even less by archaeological or linguistic proofs, not long ago official Greek scholarship discarded this hypothesis. --------------------------------------------------------------------- First off you are obviously not aquainted with current Greek university culture.The Greek historians are grouped into three camps,the German,the French,and the British.All three believe in something different and as usuall all three fight to prove their own arguments.(and in doing so they keep selling more books). In the eightees A.Papandreou (our Tito)was so knee deep in unemployment and high inflation that he needed to keep the commoners busy with something other than reality.And since he had clashed with the church twice and was getting his ass kicked in terms of popularity he decided "historical threat" was the way to go.At the time in Greece there was a virus,every new government would bring in their own people.So suddely out of nowhere we got new "historians" running all the universities and saying things that (personaly got me kicked out of school for a day)made "Star Wars" look like a detailed and accurate history of the ancient world!Using arguments that he hadden heard since the old fashist days of the 1940's and 1970's. For a moment I thought(as a kid)that even Neanderthals spoke an ancient version of Greek.Those times are long gone,and so are those "profesors". Don't forget that at any given time we have British, French, American,and German archeologists inspecting sites in Greece. The biggest archeological college and campus in Greece is German even today. --------------------------------------------------------------------- After the deciphering of Linear B in 1952, and more particularly after 1970. when the luxurious edition of The History of the Greek Ethnos' was published, Greek linguists and historians went far into the past to seek for foundations for their thesis of a "Greek Macedonia". Although none of the Mycenaean scholars in the world takes seriously their hypothetical interpretations of Mycenaean texts, they nevertheless wish to discover in them "proofs" that the ancient Macedonians were Indo-Europeans, Proto-Hellenes, and that their language was the oldest, purest and most conservative Greek dialect which at the same time cast a new light on the oldest history of the Greek ethnos. This thesis reached its culmination at the beginning of the 1980's when an unusual jubilee under the title of "4,000 Years of Greek Macedonia" was celebrated with great pomp. The theory thus constructed has pretensions to scholarship but in fact starts out from pre-suppositions which are not supported by a single historical fact. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes you're right,but there was so much money floating around from the european union that they found one more way to spend it!Or should I say waste it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The history of the ancient Macedonians over a lengthy period of 1,600 years (2,200-600 B.C.) has been reconstructed on the basis of a prejudgement that they could have been nothing other than Greeks. It should be noted that no text whatsoever has been preserved in the ancient Macedonian language. Only about a hundred glosses are known, from which it is not possible to reconstruct the language. For more than 150 years these words have been a subject of comparative linguistic studies, but quite a large number of these remain with only a hypothetical explanation or even with no explanation at all. While earlier on Doric forms were being sought in the Macedonian glosses, Greek linguists are now investing great efforts in revealing archaic Aeolian. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is partialy true.But try not refering to "Greeks" be it historians or linguists as one unified camp.First of all no historian in his right mind will "claim" that he has specialised on 1000 years worth of texts.Second the definition of Hellenic has already been defined for us by Plato:"Hellene is he who is the result of Hellenic "paidagogia"(education in the culutral sense).If any historian thinks he can correct Plato and what he percieved as Greek he should get a job flipping burgers at MacDonalds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact the sparse linguistic material is extremely complex and heterogeneous. It is clear that among the glosses there are borrowings from Greek which in antique times was a language of great prestige; the Greek words, however, have been adapted according to a different, non-Greek phonetic system, [e.g.: Macedonian and "sky", Greek aither "air"; Mac. danos, Gk. thanatos "death"; Mac. keb(a)]le Gk. kephale "head", etc.] But at the same time there are among the glosses such words as are not found in Greek but have parallels in other Indo-European languages, [e.g.: aliza "a white layer under the bark of a tree", Slavonic e/oa xa; Mac. goda "innards", Gk. entera, Old Indian Sanskrit gudam "intestine"; Mac. pella "stone", Germ. Fels < + pel-sa, etc.] As proof of the cognation of the ancient Macedonians with the Greeks a photograph has been presented of the inscription from Vergina with Greek names. It should be mentioned that the majority of the names of Macedonians from the ancient period are those of members of the ruling dynasty or the aristocracy who consciously identified with the sphere of Hellenic culture so that it is in no way strange that the names of the majority of them are Greek. But alongside them are to be found Macedonian names which cannot be explained by means of Greek etymology. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The info you have offered above doesn't sound like anything from Oxford,Cambridge,or Stanford.First off the Greek terms you are using are from different time periods while some are just wrong.Can you please provide me with this source? 1)Pella is a term that exists as far back as 800bc.At this time the Greek language is far from prestigious.At that time prestigious are language of trade Phoenecian,language of the greatest empire Persian...etc. 2)Thanatos is a modern Greek term.In the time you are refering to there are differences in pronounciations of the same word.For example like "Thanatos" would be pronounced by a Dorian or later a Spartan as Danatos,(Dorians used hard 'd'instead of the theta "th".And instead of saying Christos with the Greek X,they would use a hard "K" and say Kristos.The V as in Vasilis and F as in France would have been pronounced by a Dorian as Basilis (hard B like Boston)and Brance. One by one: Macedonian and "sky" Greek aither "air" I don't get it.Are you suggesting that aither was used to mean air and sky or that "sky" meant air in ancient Macedonian? Please explain. (For the record sky in ancient Greek is "uranos". Macedonian "danos"(I will try to look this up)in any case Danatos is Spartan. Macedonian Keb(a)]le Spartan Kebale Finally this argument compares more accurately some ancient words which are Macedonian (some which I'm not really sure of)with modern Greek.The more accurate comparison would be to compare it with Dorian,or better yet early Spartan for which we have a sum of written documents.Can you also provide some examples of the Macedonian names that have no Greek etimology,which ones is your source refering to? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:??? quote:So in your opinion only greeks developed as a nation, although we have more than 3000 years of continutional inhabitant of Macedonian area, and in many sources Macedonians are declared as separate nation. And our history can be easily compared with any other ancient history. Are this double measurments and biased look on history? [/quote] ----------------------------------------------------------------------Ceki,honestly I don't see why you like assuming what I didn't say,as opposed to what I write. If I wanted to say only Greeks developed as a nation I would have said that litteraly. If you agree with the historically predominant theory that these three tribes traveled south through this path you can agree,if not publish your source and disagree,we'll discuss it,but don't make a statement that crosses 3000 years as a reaction to a simple statement. Don't assume you know what I think.You'll be both suprised and wrong.So take a look at my arguments because they ARE what I mean. If you agree we'll move on to the 500's BC.If not we'll analyse further the 800's.OK? Take care, Byz |
| Ceki | quote:I wouldnt quite say that, because we still today have problems with people that identify themselves as bulgarians, although they are of thracian, macedonian, greek, slav ... origin. But i have no problems with that, they can identify themselves as they want, as long as they let us live in peace and not spread in world that we are bulgarians. My question was do you understand what is written in linear B script. Is this a greek language? quote:Is this true or not? quote:Those three tribes came from north, not east. From panonian lowland( modern Hungary). quote:I dont understand what you are trying to say. quote:Now what are you trying to say, were they or they werent greeks??? quote:No need to write it litteraly, your words speak for you. And they say that only greeks developed as nation, although Macedonians still exist today. quote:Well then share with us your real thoughts. |
| Byzantine | Hi Ceki,
Sorry for my delayed answer.
quote:I wouldnt quite say that, because we still today have problems with people that identify themselves as bulgarians, although they are of thracian, macedonian, greek, slav ... origin. But i have no problems with that, they can identify themselves as they want, as long as they let us live in peace and not spread in world that we are bulgarians. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thracians? When the Bulgars arrived in the southern balkans the only tribes left after centuries of warfare were Germanics,namely Ostrogoths. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My question was do you understand what is written in linear B script. Is this a greek language? Linear B is a writing system.It is called such because it is found in places that were previously Minoan.The earliest we have is around 1700 BC according to archeological finds a few years ago related to Prof. Spark's work in Acrotiri in Santorini and Crete. No,I cannot read the linear b system because by heart because the symbols do not resemble our phoenician based alphabet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:Is this true or not? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope.The official position is not Greek,its Anglo-American.Profesor Sparks while conducting a geological survey in Santorini was exploring what the relation between the volcanic eruption in Santorini and the Tsunami that perhaps followed.It was in relation to this that another two scientist who's names I don't remeber one in Ireland and one in Greenland that in combination with Sparks found geologican proof that the volcanic eruption in Santorini sent so much ash and sulphur into the atmosphere that forests and the ice in Greenland were effected and that temperatures fell an average of 3 degrees on an annual average.The linear b inscriptions they found in Crete were placed at about fifty years after the Tidal wave hit Crete. Given with the new geological proof that the volcano in Santorini erupted in 1627 BC. it means that the Dorians who are the ones that conquered Crete arrived around 1677 BC.If anything this only chnages the theory that the Dorians arrived last in Greece to that they probably arrived first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:Those three tribes came from north, not east. From panonian lowland( modern Hungary). quote:---------------------------------------------------------------------- I dont understand what you are trying to say. Hellenes from 600BC went from a race to a civilization.After that using racial references is innacurate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now what are you trying to say, were they or they werent greeks??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Their assimilation created the Hellenic race. quote:No need to write it litteraly, your words speak for you. And they say that only greeks developed as nation, although Macedonians still exist today. quote:Well then share with us your real thoughts. [/quote] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- They are all mentioned above.It easiest when people just write what they mean,nothing more nothing less. take care. Byz |