
|
FALLACIES AND FACTS ON THE MACEDONIAN ISSUE ©2003 There have been certain fallacies circulating for the past few years due to ignorance on the “Macedonian Issue”. It is exacerbated by systematic propaganda emanating from AVNOJ, or communist Yugoslavia and present-day FYROM, and their intransigent ultra-nationalist Diaspora. Fallacy #1The inhabitants of The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians,
direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians. Fact #1The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs,
Bulgarians and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient
Macedonians. Here are some testimonies from The FYROM’s officials:
a.
The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs
who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the
ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern
Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).
b.
Also, Mr Gligorov declared: "We are Macedonians but we are Slav
Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek
and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century"
(Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).
c.
On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska
gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions
at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: "We do not claim to be
descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second
largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for
war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the
ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another
question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska
stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”
d.
On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan
Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the
northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We
are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also
commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my
country." e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they "belong to the same Slav people.”
Fallacy #2 The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM. Fact #2
Ancient Macedonians were
a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves. Fact #3Ancient Macedonians were
one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the
Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see
Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees
I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by
the Slavs for expansionistic reasons. Fallacy #4 Ancient Greece was a
country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.
Fact #4No. Hellas (Greece) was
first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today
in 1830. From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a
geographic term or an administrative area whose borders were changing
depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires. Fallacy #5 There was one ancient Greek language and the ancient
Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek. Fact #5Linguistically, there is no
real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor.
People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a certain
kind of speech is a language or a dialect. Since the Pan-Hellenic area
consisted of many small city- states (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and
larger states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.), it
was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states were
speaking different languages, when in fact they were all variations of the
same language, Hellenic or Greek. The most advanced of all Hellenic
dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic. When people state
“ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the
Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is actually a comparison to the Attic
dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the
difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are
Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another good
example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy. The
official language of Italy is the Florentine, but common people still speak
their own dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot
communicate if both speak their respective dialect, and yet they both speak
Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently? At that time, Greeks spoke
more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to
call them. Some of the well-known dialects were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic,
Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolic, Acarnanic, Macedonian and Locric. Moreover, we
know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples.
Livy wrote, "…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same
speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time
…" (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians
and Acarnanians were definitely Hellenic tribes. On another occasion Livy
writes "…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the
whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek
and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor…”. If the crowd of
Macedonians were not Greek speaking, why then did the Romans need to translate
Paulus' speech into Greek? (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).
The Macedonian dialect was
an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The
Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but
never in a way that one person could not understand the other. The Military
Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a
very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske
invazije, njihov jezik bio grčki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od
njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (…
at the time of the Roman invasion their language was Hellenic, but two
centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples
could not understand one another). After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation
changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos
(308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical
unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire
required the standardization of the already widely used common language or
Koinē. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in
all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander's Successors). It was already
spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised. Alexandria, Egypt was
already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II
assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new
language, one that not only all Greeks, but all inhabitants of the Empire
would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as basis for
the new language. Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him trimmed
the language a little, eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as
well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and
Aeolic dialects. The Spartan Doric, however, was excluded from it (see
Tsakonian further down). So, they standardized THE Hellenic language, called
Koine or Common. The language was far from
perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was
no way to separate words, sentences and paragraphs. In addition, they
were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During
that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more melodic than Italian is
today. The system of paragraphs,
sentences, and some symbols like ~. ;`'! , were the result of
continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution
of many Greek scholars from all over the World. There were a few alphabets
employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included
letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two
main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official
alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( After the new language was
completed with its symbols, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity
for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language
that the Jews of Diaspora spoke. So on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria's
seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their
sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the
Koinē Greek, the newly created language. This is known as the Septuagint
translation. The Koinē evolved and in about two to three centuries it became
the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those
who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the
Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament. Although the Koinē was officially in use, common folk
in general continued to speak their own dialect and here and there one can
sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such
as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are
written in perfect Attic. The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in
Koinē with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e. the Hebrew
genitive) and invented words (i.e. epiousios). The outcome is that today in Greece there are many
variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding
each other, but still there is divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today
the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a
direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta. The Demotic is a
development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a
made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in
various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other and sometimes an
untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic
and Cypriot Greek are very good examples to the unacquainted ear. Tsakonian
dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to
understand if one is not familiar with it. Over the years, Macedonia
had several names. At first the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia,
after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis
meaning sand or sandy. From now on, all of its names are
Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia
(Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos,”
(in Attic “mēkos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus
Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (cf.
Orestae, Hellenes). In Opis, during the mutiny
of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army
addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10).
The Macedonian soldiers listened to him and they were dumbfounded by what they
heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after
Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to
enter the palace so that they could talk to him. When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent spoke as follows: “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11). The previous story clearly
reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand
their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who
happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to
speak to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be
impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to
the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they
did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash
course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the
speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it. Furthermore, the
Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (καυσία) (Polybius IV 4,5;
Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz,
Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them
from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna
takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat”. The Macedonian hat was very
distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not
distinguished the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek
(Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37
[1988] 7).
On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the
Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe
whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of
Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the
depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests.
Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are
quite different from any other neighboring nations. Light complexioned, and
blue eyed in the midst of dark skinned neighbors, their language, even though
it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslim languages of nations
that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many
elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with
"ispanta" from the Greek verb "ασπάζομαι" (greetings) and they warn them about
"heman" from the ancient Greek noun "χειμών" (winter). These indigenous people
still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles
very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe
of Kalash by Greeks", October 11, 1996). Michael Wood, the British
scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes
the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz: Long long ago, before the days
of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British
people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world, and was a very
great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to
go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but
preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash
[Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and
they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash,
the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children.
Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too;
we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first
ancestors... (Seleucus was one of the
Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of
Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia,
Thrace.) The Kalash today worship
the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god.
Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. This is further
evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same
religion and the same customs. Accusations of Macedonians
being barbarians started in Athens and they were the result of political
fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or
language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A
History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a
total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were
speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that
the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians encountered a conflict
of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life
differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very
common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians,
Acarnanians, Aetolians and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia,
p 4.) Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and
Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes
addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of
Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more
than the orators' tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” (E.
Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late
Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians). Fallacy #6
Ancient Macedonia was a
nation state. Fact #6Before Phillip II,
Macedonia was divided into small typical city-states having adopted the same
concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each
Macedonian city-state or area had its own main city and government. Philip II
united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric
style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states
with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know
this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present day Bitola
- Florina) was Alexander. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s
first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia (Hammond, The
Macedonian State, p. 9). Fallacy #7
Over the years the
ancient Macedonians disappeared. Fact #7The ancient Macedonians,
under the influence of the new common language, the Koine, as developed over
the years, were amalgamated with the rest of the Hellenes, or Greeks. Fallacy #8 If the ancient
Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia,
named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to
foreigners. Fact #8The king of Macedonia,
Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same
reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes
(Isocrates 107A, 199A). The title Philhellene in ancient times meant
Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or simply put “a patriot” (Plato,
Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander
the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his
soldiers to burn Thebes. Fallacy #9 The ancient Greeks had a
Greek or Hellenic national conscience and the Macedonians, by destroying Greek
cities, proved that they were not Greeks. Fact #9Greece is an area which
lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not
only in the general sense, but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the
ancient Greeks did not have a common national conscience which is why they
were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned
cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians,
the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another. They knew that somehow they
were related, but local conscience was much stronger than a Pan- Hellenic
one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy
attack that could endanger the common freedom and welfare. This fact was
displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands. Greeks from Ionia
and Aeolia (present day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian
allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks. It was common practice for
various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other
and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There
are plenty of such alliances in the ancient Hellenic world. A few centuries went by
until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks
definitely achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time
Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium. Very few ancient Greeks, such
as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a
united country, but each one wanted to see his own state as the leading force
of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip
II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had common religious practices and
customs as the Spartans. Fallacy #10 The ancient Macedonians
were one of the Illyrian tribes. Fact #10Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect)
regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of
evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it
states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were
communicating with the Illyrians. This means the Macedonians and the
Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the
Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus
the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a
mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living
in Perseus' court. Moreover there is evidence that the Illyrians and the
Macedonians were vicious enemies. Fallacy #11 Many of the Greeks
living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during
the First World War and especially during the 1920's and 1930' from Turkey,
the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.
Fact #11It is very true that a good
number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various
Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are
descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either
colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia,
Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all
times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two
and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and
civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and
thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they
had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going
home to Israel. Fallacy #12 Sts. Cyril and Methodius
were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the
Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.” Fact#12The term “Slav Apostles” or
the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs.
St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an
Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers
from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the
alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and
liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known
as Old Bulgarian. Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of
December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two
brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki. Professors Ivan Lazaroff,
Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of
History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in
their book, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod (Short History of
the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two
brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of
Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization,
A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles
of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya
narod. Fallacy #13 The present day Emblem
of the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great
is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins. Fact #13There is nothing in common
between The FYROM’s lion and the lion's skin that Alexander the Great wears in
some coins. The FYROM’s lion is actually the Bulgarian lion, which is
depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms. Alexander’s lion is the
lion's skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds
executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great
wears signifies his ancestral relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is
an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf.
Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their
Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas” (Errington, A History of Macedonia,
p 265, n 6). Fallacy #14 In other coins we see
Alexander the Great having two horns on his head and this signifies that he
was a very bad man. Fact #14In the Middle Eastern
tradition a horned man meant that he was powerful. Darius in his letters to
Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the
horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most powerful. Fallacy #15 After the battle of
Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a
present, with the following inscription: "Alexander, son of Philip, and the
Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the
Persian who dwell in Asia.” J.R. Hamilton in a note on this event states,
“In view of the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the
inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be
regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not
fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.” Fact #15J.R. Hamilton’s assumption
is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because
the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only
played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary
force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks”,
Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted
with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks
and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians
complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they
considered themselves included in it. The fact is that Alexander
the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry
on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules
(Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus,
Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45). The Macedonians themselves were Greek speaking peoples
(see: Papazoglu,
Makedonski Gradovi, p 333 and Central Balkan Tribes, p 135; Casson,
Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp157-162; NGL Hammond, The
Macedonian State, pp 12-15 and 193; Cavaignac, Histoire de l’ antiquité,
i, p 67; Hoffman, Die Makedonen, p. 259; Errington, A History of
Macedonia, p 3; Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia 1974 “Antička
Makedonija”; Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p.5, n 4), Urlich
Wilcken, Alexander the Great, II pp 23 and 24, Botsford, Hellenic
History, p 237). Some of the scholars
mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians
(i.e. NGL Hammod). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were
excavated indicating the Macedonians were actually Greek made them admit their
previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do
not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State
(page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A
History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54). In
Barr-Sharrar, Badian holds the view that the Macedonians (whom he does
not define) spoke a language other than Greek. Badian keeps ignoring evidence
that is against his beliefs and convictions choosing only certain proof and
ignoring other relevant proof. That is exactly the pattern others, like E.
Borza, P. Green, etc. have chosen to follow. All names, whether members
of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian
citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11),
Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans,
chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland
were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia,
Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis,
Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian
Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the
narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM). Fanula Papazoglu indirectly
agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is
often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part
of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268).
Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski
gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories
under Roman rule. Macedonia conquered the
already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the
death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into
Macedonia before that year is absolutely false. All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including
those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek. With a few
exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas
that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any
non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are
remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before
their expulsion by the Macedonians. Participation in the
Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes
of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic
and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic
Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22). It is stated by Herodotus (Histories
VIII, 43) that a number of Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians,
Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that
with the exception of Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian
blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which
makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians. The answer as to why
Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes
back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But in order
for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of
Thermopylae. The Persian Army and Navy,
headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis)
lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is important for
one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek,
Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and
thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according
to Lycourgos' laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any
reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the
Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians. … the Spartans upon the
urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding
reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with
Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the
house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed
their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’ Xerxes laughed, and
for a time did not answer… The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the
royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles
(Hercules). Taking into consideration
all of the above, we come to the conclusion that Alexander the Great, being
victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess
Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way he AVENGED the 300
Spartans who died defending Greece. Conclusion: An abundance of information
regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology.
Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish
trustworthy information which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past.
However, it does not mean it is completely useless either. It elucidates
through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for
historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are
the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden
elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic
group of nations. Countries are products of
historical events, which is why they are born and die. Nations do not.
Nations are entities that take a very arduous time to evolve. The same thing
is true for their appellation. Nations cannot be given birth and receive names
whenever politicians wish by legislation, as it is the case of the FYROM. The present-day Hellenic
nation is the result of social, civic and linguistic amalgamation
of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed
descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed
to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians,
educators, soldiers, philosophers and authors. They have all contributed in
their own way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural
maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and
political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years. “When we take into account
the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our
conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the
Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to
participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further
south...” (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians
have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs in a similar fashion. The
Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek
ethnic group. The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the
native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of
the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further
expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia and they
similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in
areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians
absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They
established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their
ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated
the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all
tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different
(Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The
Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors
such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians
physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence
denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south,
which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism. N. G. L. Hammond states: What language did these
`Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination.
It probably means `highlanders', and it is comparable to Greek tribal names
such as `Orestai' and `Oreitai', meaning 'mountain-men'. A reputedly earlier
variant, `Maketai', has the same root, which means `high', as in the Greek
adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous
ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of
Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from
inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek
language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the
Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of
Hellen's three sons - Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of
three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would
not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the
seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people. The next
evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians
described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of
them was the `yauna takabara', which meant `Greeks wearing the hat'. There
were Greeks in Greek city-states here and
there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished
by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia.
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of
Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian,
Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod's genealogy by making
Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family.
Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement
about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a
powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13). The evidence above shows
that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes
speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and
especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies
emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are strongly repudiated.
Marcus A. Templar |
|
Bibliography: 1 Αλεξίου, Ι., Αρχιμανδρίτης, Κύριλος και Μεθόδιος, οι Ιεαραπόστολοι, Αθήναι 2 Αρριανός, Αλεξάνδρου Ανάβασις, Γ. Ε. Σ., Δ/νσις Στρατιωτικών Εκδόσεων, Αθήναι, 1971 3 Auty, R., Handbook of Old Slavonic, University of London, 1977 4 Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History, New York, 1956 5 Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, Westport, CT, 1971 6 Cohen, E., The Athenian Nation, 2003 7 Crampton, R. J., A Concise History of Bulgaria, 2000 8 Δασκαλάκης, A., Ο Ελληνισμός της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας, Αθήναι, 1960 9 Δημόπουλος, Δ. Π., Η Καταγωγή των Ελλήνων, 1995 10 Dvornik, F., Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, 1970 11 Errington, R. M., A History of Macedonia, 1990 12 Ferluga, J., Byzantium on the Balkans, Amsterdam 1976 13 Halecki, O., Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe, 2001 14 Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece, 1959 15 Hammond, N. G. L., The Macedonian State, 1989 16 Hammond, N. G. L., The Genius of Alexander the Great, 1997 17 Ηρόδοτος, Ιστορίαι, Γ. Ε. Σ., Δ/νσις Στρατιωτικών Εκδόσεων, Αθήναι, 1971 18 Jardé, A., The Formation of the Greek People, New York, 1970 19 Лазаров, И., Павлов., П. Тютюнджиев, Палангурски, М., Кратка история на бьлгарския народ, 20 София, 1993 21 Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., The Great Lexicon of the Hellenic Language, Athens, 2001 22 Ναλτζάς, Χ. Α., Φίλιππος ο Μακεδών, Ενωτής των Ελλήνων, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1970 23 Obolensky, O., The Byzantine Commonwealth, London, 2000 24 O’Brien, J. M. Alexander the Great, London, 1994 25 Παπαγεωργίου, A. Β., Η Αρχαία Μυγδονία, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1988 26 Papazoglu, F., The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, Amsterdam, 1978, English Edition. 27 Папазоглу, Ф., Македонски градови у римско доба, Жива антика, Скопље, 1957 28 Mario Pei, The Story of Language, Scarborough, Ontario, 1966 29 Rufus, Q. C., Alexander the Great, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Wauconda, Il 1991 30 Schuster, M. L., A Treasury of the World’s Great Letters, New York, NY 1968 31 Smith, Ј., S. J., Biblical Greek, Rome, 1990, English Edition. 32 Συνοπτική Ιστορία των ΙΙας και VΙης Μεραρχιών, Β’ Σ.Σ./3ον Ε.Γ., Βέροια,1965 33 Θουκιδίδης, Ιστορία του Πελοπονησιακού Πολέμου, Γ. Ε. Σ., Δ/νσις Στρατιωτικών Εκδόσεων, 1971 34 Vasiliev, А. А., History of the Byzantine Empire, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1980 35 Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great, New York, 1967 36 Warren, P., The Aegean Civilizations, New York, 1989 37 Wood, M., In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, 1997
|
|
• |