Posted on 04/15/2002 7:12:21 PM PDT by Lions
That is exaclty correct. For once you are starting to make sense yank, hence the topic of this article!!!!!!
Oh yeah, statistical averages and basic biology. Is that all you can say. So now you are saying that DNA testing is a sham. You have proven my point that you are an idiot. Your comments show that you have submitted to defeat. You are speachless and have no more answers. You have been defeated, just like when the Greeks were defeated by Alexanders Macedonian Army. I am now (just like Alexander) asking you to join me in the fight against people like youself. You must convert to the truth and cant live a lie anymore. I know that it bothers you but in the long term it will be better for you to accept the truth than to live your life as a lie. Join me now and feel the freedom that you deserve!!!!!!!!!
Alexander's uniting of Greeks helped create a united nation. He was the first Greek ruler of a united Greece.
The hole you keep digging for your points just keeps getting deeper.
If you think that slaughtering, pilliaging, conquering helps to create a united nation, then so be it because that is exactly what the Macedonians under Alexander did to the "Greek city states". The Greeks had no choice but to accept defeat from the Macedonians. Can you notice here that there are 2 different nations involved here----- Macedonia and Greece or do you still have your blind folds on.
Like i said to you, its not too late to accept yourself for what you are. But there is one thing, you will never be MACEDONIAN. It seems like its the trendy thing to be amongst some "imported greeks"
What happened? Never heard of Isocrates and the Pan-Hellenism?
The Greek cities were at feud with each other, and were severally torn by intestine faction. Political morality was become a rare and a somewhat despised distinction. Men who were notoriously ready to sell their cities for their private gain were, as Demosthenes says, rather admired than otherwise.’ The social condition of Greece was becoming very unhappy. The wealth of the country had ceased to grow; the gulf between rich and poor was becoming wider; party strife was constantly adding to the number of homeless paupers; and Greece was full of men who were ready to take service with any captain of mercenaries, or, failing that, with any leader of desperadoes. Isocrates draws a vivid and terrible picture of these evils. The cure for them, he firmly believed, was to unite the Greeks in a cause which would excite a generous enthusiasm. Now was the time, he thought, for that enterprise in which Xenophon’s comrades had virtually succeeded, when the headlong rashness of young Cyrus threw away their reward with his own life.2 The Persian empire was unsound to the core—witness the retreat of the Ten Thousand: let united Greece attack it and it must go down at the first onset. Then new wealth would flow into Greece; and the hungry pariahs of Greek society would be drafted into fertile homes beyond the Aegean.
A bright vision; but where was the power whose spell was first to unite discordant Greece, and, having united it, to direct its strength against Asia? That was the problem. The first attempt of Isocrates to solve it is set forth in his splendid Panegyricus (380 B.c.). Let Athens and Sparta lay aside their jealousies. Let them assume, jointly, a leadership which might be difficult for either, but which would be assured to both. That eloquent pleading failed. The next hope was to find some one man equal to the task. Jason of Pherae, Dionysius I. of Syracuse, Archidamus III., son of Agesilaus— each in turn rose as a possible leader of Greece before the imagination. of the old man who was still young in his enthusiastic hope, and one after another they failed him. But now a greater than any of these was appearing on the Hellenic horizon, and to this new luminary the eyes of Isocrates were turned with eager anticipation.
Who could lead united Greece against Asia so fitly as the veritable representative of the Heracleidae, the royal descendant of the Argive line—a king of half-barbarians it is true, but by race, as in spirit, a pure Hellene—Philip of Macedon?
The letter Isocrates Address to Philip (346 BCE)
15] while you and you alone had been granted by fortune free scope both to send ambassadors to whom ever you desire and to receive them from whom ever you please, and to say whatever you think expedient; and that, besides, you, beyond any of the Hellenes, were possessed of both wealth and power, which are the only things in the world that are adapted at once to persuade and to compel; and these aids, I think, even the cause which I shall propose to you will need to have on its side.
[16] For I am going to advise you to champion the cause of concord among the Hellenes and of a campaign against the barbarian; and as persuasion will be helpful in dealing with the Hellenes, so compulsion will be useful in dealing with the barbarians. This, then, is the general scope of my discourse. . . .
I affirm that, without neglecting any of your own interests, you ought to make an effort to reconcile Argos and Lacedaemon and Thebes and Athens; for if you can bring these cities together, you will not find it hard to unite the others as well;
[31] for all the rest are under the protection of the aforesaid cities, and fly for refuge, when they are alarmed, to one or other of these powers, and they all draw upon them for succor. So that if you can persuade four cities only to take a sane view of things, you will deliver the others also from many evils.
[32] Now you will realize that it is not becoming in you to disregard any of these cities if you will review their conduct in relation to your ancestors; for you will find that each one of them is to be credited with great friendship and important services to your house: Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors; the Thebans honor the founder of your race, both by processionals and by sacrifices, beyond all the other gods;
------------------------------------
Did you read that? Philip Macedonian and Greek, one and the same. Philip whose fathers come from Argos, related to the Thebans who sacrificed in the name of Macedon from which district Macedonia took its name, who was the son of Zeus and Thyia, Deucalion's daughter.
Education is a good thing.
When someone resorts to slogans, it means they have run out of arguments.
My facts are too overwhelming for you?
Thanks for leading the way.
Lions tell me why the empire Alexander created spoke and wrote and in almost every other respect was Greek? Why is there NO evidence of a written Ancient Macedonian language.
Tell me what language is written on the temples, monuments, and ancient churches in Thessaloniki? Could it be Greek?
(a) "The phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian."
"Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was difficult, indeed a foreign tongue to them."
(b) "The idea that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that, conversely, a common language means a common nationhood -- which is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today."
(c) "There is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian War of 480-479 BC."
(d) "With the exception of the single item, no Macedonian king between Alexander I and Philip II is in any way connected with the Olympic or indeed with any other Greek games."
(e) "Archelaus who founded peculiarly Macedonian Olympic Games at Dium. We might call them counter-Olympics, for everyone know where the real Olympic Games were celebrated."
(f) "Certainly, no Macedonian appears on the list of Olympic victors that have survived ( a fair proportion of the whole unit) until well into the reign of Alexander the Great."
(g) "Nor do we find the Macedonian people ever regarded as a political entity, transacting business with Greek states."
(h) "Characteristically for Alexander, despite his thorough Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was nevertheless a Macedonian king."
(i) "Greeks never commanded his (Philip's) armies. As we shall see, it would have involved technical difficulties and might have caused resentment among the Macedonian soldiers."
(j) "He (Alexander) never tried to integrate Greeks into the Macedonian units that were his best military assets, either in the tactical or in the emotional sphere, while at the very end, both for tactical and for political reasons, integration of Macedonians and Iranians was important, while integration of Greeks with either was not."
(k) "Did the ancient Macedonians speak a form of ancient Greek? The question seems to me at present unanswerable for the period down to Alexander the Great. We so far have no real evidence on the structure of the ancient Macedonian language: only on proper names and (to small extent) on general vocabulary, chiefly nouns. This is not a basis on which to judge linguistic affinities, especially in the context of the ancient Balkan area and its population."
(l) "Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was difficult, indeed a foreign tongue to them."
(m) "Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate it with Greek units or Greek 'foreign' individuals."
[Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece In Late Classical times". By the National Gallery of Art, Washington.]
(n) "Neither Greeks nor Macedonians considered the Macedonians to be Greek." ["Greeks and Macedonians"]
Eugene Borza [Professor of Ancient History at Pennsylvania State University]
Spar, like I said to you, you have failed to prove that the Turks, greeks and Bulgarians are not related. Your failure means that you are all related peoples. You are so good at determing others identities, but you are unable to prove youR OWN authenticity ---- AND THATS BECAUSE YOU CANT.
NO I did not read that!!!!!!.......Of course I did and had a good laugh as well. I am open to other ideas, something that you are opposite of. And by the way, if you were correct with your theories, that was 2500 years ago.
The big question now is, how related are the Modern Greeks to the Ancient Greeks. The ancient greeks were without a doubt an amazing race, somthing that the Modern greeks want to take credit for. The only thing that the MOdern Greeks inherited from the Ancient greeks, is the ability to lie, steal and convert other races into their own falsely created "greek identity".
There is no doubt that ancient Macedonians were Greek.
It is thoroughly proved by historic documents and archaeological discoveries which can be found in history books and museums in Greece and arround the world. The most important archeological discovery in Macedonia is the tomb of King Philippos II. It was excavated in Vergina, Greece in 1978 and it proves beyond any doubt the Greekness of ancient Macedonia. All the findings are characteristic of the Greek culture and all the inscriptions are written using the Greek language. Among the discoveries of this tomb is the symbol "Vergina sun".
Some facts which prove that ancient Macedonians were Greek
Macedonians spoke a dialect of the Greek language
All the monuments and inscriptions found in the Macedonia region are written in the Greek language. It is also crearly stated by the Latin historian Titus Livius : "Aetolians, Acarnanians, Macedonians, men of the same language..." (T. Livius XXXI,29, 15) and the Greek historian Herodotos : "Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers..." (Herodotos, The histories 7.9.2)
Macedonians had Greek names
All the ancient Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Alexander's name is Greek. The word "Alexandros" is produced from the prefix alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning "he who protects men". The prefix "alex" can be found in many Greek words today (alexiptoto=parachute, alexisfairo=bulletproof - all these words have the meaning of protetion). Philip's name is also Greek. It is produced from the prefix Philo(=friendly to something) and the word ippos(=horse) meaning the man who is friendly to horses. The prefix "philo" and the word "ippos" are also found in many words of Greek origin today (philosophy,philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).
Macedonians fought together with the rest of the Greeks.
Macedonians always fought along with the other Greek city-states against enemies from Asia.
Macedonians took part in the Olympic games
It is well known then ONLY Greeks were allowed to take part in the ancient Olympic games. The first Macedonian who took part in the Olympic games was Alexander I, King of Macedonia between 498-454 BC.
Macedonians celebrated the same festivals as the rest of the Greeks.
Examples of festivals which were celebrated in Macedonia as well as in other Greek states are the "Hetaireidia", the "Apellaia" and many more.
Macedonians worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks
Several temples dedicated to the Greek Gods have beem discovered in Macedonia and especially in Dion the religious center of ancient Macedonians. It is obvious that the Macedonias worshiped the 12 Olympian Gods as the rest of the Greeks The Gods were "living" on Mount Olympos which happens to be located in Macedonia. Would that be possible if there was hostility between Macedonians and Greeks? This is another proof that Macedonia was considered a part of Grrece.
The regions of ancient Macedonia had Greek names
The regions which formed ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Most of these names are used in Greece even today.
Macedonian architecture was similar to the Greek architecture
All the buldings found in the Macedonia region have many common characteristics with the ones found in the rest of Greece. Palaces, temples, theaters markets are characteristic sampes of ancient Greek architecture.
Some more evidence from history
1. The famous ancient Greek play writer Euripidis wrote and originally presented most of his plays in Pella, the capital of Macedonia. How was that possible if the audiance spoke a different language?
2. After the battle of the Grannikos Alexander the Great sent to Athens some pieces of armor captured from the Persians with the following inscription : "Alexander, son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lakedaimonians, offer these spoils taken from the barbarians of Asia".
3. Macedonia was a member of the Delphic Amfictiony , an institution which was open only to Greeks
4. When Alexander arrived in Asia he visited the ancient Greek town of Troy (Troia), where he sacrifised to the Greek Gods to help him in his quest.
A part from the "Treaty of Alliance" between king Philip V of Macedonia and Hannibal.
"This is a sworn treaty made between us, Hannibal the general, Mago, Myrkan, Barmokar and all other Carthaginian senators present with him, and all Carthaginians serving under him, on the one side, and Xenophanes the Athenian, son of Kleomachos, the envoy whom King Philip, son of Demetrios, sent to us on behalf of himself, and the Macedonians and allies, on the other side. `In the presence of Zeus, Hera and Apollon; in the presence of the Genius of Carthage; ...and in the presence of all the gods who possess Carthage; and in the presence of all the Gods who possess Macedonia and the rest of Hellas; and in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath. Thus said Hannibal the general and all the Carthaginian senators along with him and the Carthaginian soldiers: ...That King Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Hellenes. . . (Polybios 7.9.1-7)
Alexander's speech to his solders one year before his death
I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily in peace. All mortals from now on shall live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country, a country where the best govern, with common laws, and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people, as many narrow-minded others do, into Hellenes and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens, I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me, each foreigner is a Hellene, and each bad Hellene is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, you must not resolve them by taking to arms; you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I shall act as your negotiator.
The speech of Alexander I when he was admitted to the Olympic games
"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Hellas I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Hellene by descent, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Hellenic cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon." (Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45)
What was the origin of ancient Macedonians?
"The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod's genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek." (Professor N G L Hammond, University of Cambridge, UK, 1993)
" This was Macedonia in the strict sense, the land where settled immigrands of Greek stock later to be called Macedonians" (Professor W J Woodhouse, University of Sydney, Australia, 1917)
The speech of Alexander I when he was admitted to the Olympic games
"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Hellas I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Hellene by descent, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Hellenic cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon." (Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45)
Once again you are using references from Greek agents such as Professor Hammond. Below are only a drop in the ocean about Hammonds contradictive theories. Contradiction is common amongst those that lie............
N.G.L.HAMMOND
Professor of Greek University of Cambridge, 1993
Hammond is one of the modern writers representing the ‘Greek’ position. It’s interesting to note that Hammond had changed his position. His earlier position was that the Macedonians spoke a "patois which was not recognizable as a normal Doric Greek but may have been a north-west-Greek dialect of a primitive kind" (in other words he couldn’t say for sure). Later however, he changed this position and launched his "firm conclusion" that the Macedonians now spoke a dialect of Aeolic Greek, i.e. the ancient Macedonians were Greek, despite of the overwhelming and extensive research done by Badian and Borza which proved the opposite. Interestingly, he had done this ‘transformation’ towards firm Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians, during the period when the modern Greek propaganda intensified in spreading their "Macedonians are Greek" position, a position which was later used against the part of the modern Macedonian nation that was in a process of getting independence (today’s Republic of Macedonia). It may look like Hammond is a ‘Greek agent’ whose writings reflect the wishes of modern Greece and it’s propaganda, however, in that process he proved that he was obviously ignorant to many of the ancient sources that do not conclude what he concludes. He is also ignorant to many modern sources as well, particularly the ones of Borza, Green, and Badian which have proven in-depth that the Macedonians could not have been Greek. It should be pointed out that Hammond had been proven incorrect in many matters (not just the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians) regarding the history of Macedonia, specifically by the Macedonian specialist Borza. His views are nowadays corrected and regarded as outdated.
Although Hammond believes that the Ancient Macedonians had a Greek origin, he however, contradicts himself in few passages where he clearly separates the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks:
"We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks', despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2. 81. 6; 4. 124.1) When it comes to political controversy, it was naturally good invective to call the king a barbarian too. Thus a Greek speesh-writer called the Thessalians 'Greeks' and Archelaus, the contemporary Macedonian king, 'a barbarian'. Demosthenes spoke of Philip II as 'the barbarian from Pella'."
Point of Interest: I will stop Hammond here and analyze his last words. He begins by saying that the Macedonians were considered non-Greek. At the end he says that the Macedonians, including their kings were called barbarians i.e. non-Greeks, but he implies that they were really Greek, and were called non-Greek only due to "political controversy". This is not convincing at all. If the ancient Greeks referred to the Macedonians as barbarians only because of political conflict, then why other Greek tribes are not called barbarian or non-Greek by the ancient Greeks. That never happened, during any of the so many political conflicts, "controversies", and wars among the Greek city-states, not involving the Macedonians. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks referred to the Persians as barbarians too. According to Hammond’s logic the Persians are therefore Greek too, but were called non-Greek only because ancient Greece was in "political controversy" with Persia. Hammond’s words obviously make no sense. The ancient Greeks called very clearly all non-Greeks barbarians (Macedonians and Persians included), and any try to change the meaning of that word only in the case of the Macedonians, is ridiculous and can be ascribed as siding with the modern Greek propaganda. Now let’s examine the rest of Hammond’s words:
"Writing in 346 and eager to win Philip's approval, Isocrates paid tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that Macedonians were not Greeks. (Isoc. 5. 108 and 154) Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so."
Interesting (inadvertent) reversals in Hammond narrative: "Philip and Alexander attracted many able foreigners, especially Greeks, to their service, and many of these were made Companions (e.g. Nearchus a Cretan, Eumenes a citizen of Cardia, and Sitalces a member of the Odrysian royal family). Some of them, if they served in the King's Army, were given Macedonian citizenship, which apparently was in the gift of the king." The Macedonian State p.141
Points of interest: These phrase alone claims that: (a) Macedonia was a not a Greek land, and (b) that Macedonians were not Greeks One does not attract foreigners from his own country, and second, one cannot be called a foreigner in his own country.
"These instances show us that even Philip II and Alexander III introduced very few Greeks into the Assembly of Macedones. They wanted the 'Macedones' to have their own esprit the corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection."
[53-an ordinary soldier is represented as speaking in the Macedonian dialect to the dying Alexander in Ps-Callisthenes B 32. 14 (ed. Kroll), and the Macedonian soldiers greeted Eumenes in the Macedonian dialect when he came to command them (Plu. Eum. 14. 11). [p.64]
"The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod's genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek."
Response to Hammond's conclusion that the Macedonians were Greek:
[1] There were many tribes in Macedonia. If we accept Macedon to be the progenitor of his tribe, where is the connection for the rest of the Macedonian tribes? What about the Lynchestians, Elimiotes, Eordians, Orestians etc., etc.. Besides; In the 'Catalogue of Women', the eponymous founder of Makedonia, Makedon, was the son of Zeus and Deukalion's daughter Thuia. This line of descent excludes him from the Hellenic geneology - and hence, by implication, the Makedonians from the ranks of Hellenism." (Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, by J.Hall, p.64)
[2] Professor Borza who is credited as Macedonian specialist and who had completed an extensive research on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had proven that Hammond's conclusions that the Macedonians were Greek are inaccurate:
"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary progenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)
"The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from a Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)
"As a question of method: why would [Macedonia] an area three hundred miles north of Athens - not colonized by Athens - used an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"
The above passage showed us clearly that Hammond, no mater how firm he stands on his ‘Greek’ position, still contradicts himself by saying that the Macedonians and the Greeks are two separate ethnic groups. The lines of Professor Eugene Borza, had put an end to the Hammond’s speculations of the supposed Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians, and proven on many instances (not just on the ethnicity issue) in In the Shadow of Olympus and Makedonika, that Hammond’s work on the Macedonian history is inaccurate and as such should be rejected.
Not true at all.
The Turks who invaded Anatolia were Ghuzz Turks.
The Bulghars who invaded the Danube plane in the 7th Century where Kok-Turks.
In the late 6th century the Proto-Bulghars and related tribes called the Q'azars broke from the Western Turkish Khaganate. The Q'azars and the Bulghars fought along a region around the Aral and Caspian seas called Trans-Oxiana. The Bulghars were defeated and split in two. One group settled the Volga River valley near the intersection with the Kama river. The Volga Bulghars survive today, still speaking Chuvash.
The other Bulghar's were pushed by other Turkish groups West along the Black Sea and into the Balkans. Being a relatively small people, the Bulghars quickly mixed with their subject Slavic and Thracic peoples in the Danube plain. The souther Bulghars adopted Christianity and emulated Byzantium. They droped the dual Khan/Khagan system of governance and took up that of the Byzantines.
Check out the history of the Proto-Bulgharians.
http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/p_bulgar/index.htm
The Ghuzz Turks settled the area between the Oxus river and along the Caspian sea in the 7th century. These Turks were At-Turks and spoke a different language. It was this groyups that swept the middle east under the Seljuk and then under the reign of the Osmani dyunasty conquered the Byzantine Empire.
Thus Bulgarians and Turks have some mixed history even before the Ottomans (Osmani) conquered Constantinople in 1454. I have met some persians that appear to have slightly oriental facial features, but never a turk that appears this way. So apparently the turkish peoples have changed alot over the centuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.