|
Post by Graeme on May 16, 2004 9:45:13 GMT -5
I have missed something here. What the hell does Alexander the Great of Macedon have to do with the inhabitants of Thessalonika at the time of the Christian era. There is a huge time shift here during which the inhabitants of that area could have changed completely. Since modern slavic speaking Macedonians are actually Bulgarians, these Bulgarians could not have moved to Macedonia, Thessalonika or wherever until after the movement of the Bulgars from the Volga region of Russia. The saints Cyril and Methodius have nothing to do with Alexander the Great. Your space and time coordinates are out of whack when it comes to Macedonia.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 16, 2004 10:00:04 GMT -5
I have missed something here. What the hell does Alexander the Great of Macedon have to do with the inhabitants of Thessalonika at the time of the Christian era. Absolutely nothing ; it was just an example :
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 16, 2004 10:41:14 GMT -5
The earliest known inscription from Macedon is in the Ionic dialect and dates to the 6th century BC. That's not exactly late, considering the fact that the Greeks had only been literate for some 200 years. Some areas of Greece were more literate than others.
The Epirotes were a monarchy too and they weren't very civilized either but you wouldn't dare say that they were not of the same ethnic origin as the other Greeks. Go to Epirus and you will clearly see why this was so. For you foreigners it is hard to understand the GEOGRAPHY of Greece unless you've lived there. Do you know how isolated some parts of Greece are from other parts? Back in those days, it would take weeks to pass the mountains of Epirus and to reach Aetolia or Thessaly. The same is true of Macedon. Even today, passing by car through the Epirote mountains takes a long time (and the roads are well-paved.)
You wouln't expect all areas where Greeks lived to contribute an equal number of famous philosophers, artists, etc. Some parts of Greece were more ahead than others. Ionia was ahead from the rest of Greece by a long margin but later the other Greeks cought up to them. There were parts of Greece where no notable figures came out of. You have several Aegean and Ionian islands (plus Epirus) who have no famous intellectuals to count as their own. Does that mean that these people were not Greek just because they didn't produce any famous individuals?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 12:05:36 GMT -5
The vast majority of Academics do not want to even hear of Slavs in the Balkans before the 4th cen. AD. The first inscription in a Greek alphabet has been found in Osteria dell’Osa in Italy. Dated to 830 B.C. The earliest found in Greece are from around 700. Texts and literature appear later. It was a slow process with coastal populations, engaged in commerce, having the lead. Not all Greek populations were mariners though. Inland pastoralists remained culturally at a level similar to other Balkan populations. That is the case of the Macedonians. If you were interested in answers you would have checked some other sources.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 12:16:51 GMT -5
The translation confirms that Thessalonians spoke Slavic well, already in the 9-th century. That is what is most important. The translations may vary...but the information is the same. The Macedonians became bilingual... at least. Cut the crap. The phrase refers to the Byzantine theme (province) of Thessalonike. Early in the 9th century, the theme of Hellas was divided into smaller themes, among which was the theme of Thessalonike, with Thessalonike city as its capital; it comprised western and central Macedonia and a part of Thessaly.www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/mmkm/content/ctxt/ct41.htmEverybody knows that there were big numbers of Slavs who settled there in the 6th cen. AD. Or you dispute even that? It bears no relevance to the ancient macedonians and you know it As for Thessalonians guess in what language St. Paul corresponded with them in the 1st cen. AD?
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 16, 2004 12:22:13 GMT -5
Cool down pal. Those inhabitants of Thessalonika and the surrounding in the early middle ages were Macedonians....read the quote of John Cameniate from 904 AD. It means they were heirs of the ancient Macedonians. Bulgarian state was OUT of that area for more than 250 years (If we accept "the arrival of the Slavs" theory in the mid 6-th century). Bulgarians occupied those territories (with fluctuating succes) at the end of 9-th century. Those territories (Macedonia) was under Bulgarian control only about 100 years, after which Byzantium State took them back again.
So, Macedonians that spoke Slavic (confirmed by the quote and http://www.link) weren't Bulgarians. It is only after the occupation of Bulgarian state that those people speaking Slavic language became Bulgarian citizents = not ethnic Bulgarians, but Bulgarian citizents. After First Bulgarian State disappeared, those Slavic speaking Macedonians lived in the Byzantium State again.
Secondly, I mentioned that to give an example of how Macedonians... (at least) became bilingual and that the bilinguality was a quite frequent phenomenon in the Balkans.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 16, 2004 12:35:13 GMT -5
Ha ha...ha. Artemidoros... it bears a great relevance to the heirs of ancient Macedonians = the mediveal Macedonians. Citizents of Thessalonika are citizents of the city and the surrounding (the thema). I said that 100 times. And the citizents of Thessalonika spoke Slavic. Where did you find evidence that the Emperor meant only the surrounding of Salonika....or it is just your wish. Well...than...it is a wishfull thinking....and it is bad for objective , unbiased debate.
On the other hand do you suggest that Macedonians lived only in Thessalonika the city and nowhere else in Macedonia? Try me...I have some quotes from that period.
As I said, EVEN if we accept the "Theory of the arrival of the Slavs (by charter flights)" in the 6-th century Macedonians and "Slavs" lived together for centuries after...they intermaried and mingled on the whole territory of Macedonia. The dominant number of them adopted the Slavic language. Try me on this topic too.
As for St Paul...if he was to spoke to Thracians, Phrygians...he would use Greek too....wouldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 12:42:46 GMT -5
Nice Artemidoros... after loosing the battle with Nano-Philip analogy you choose another example that is not verifable and you think you won. Wrong expectation pal. Now you should try hard to find evidence that he has nothing in common with Mooric ancestry. Or maybe he has ? Or you expect some help from Spanish side. I have to admit...clever move...but transparent one . Again, we have to trust Trasymachus and Demostenes. For Christ's sake. I am losing patience. I am the one who says Gonzalez is Spanish. You are the one who says he can not be. And you are asking me to prove he is not a Moor? What else do you want me to prove? That he is not a Slav? Or maybe that he is not an elephant? ;D The onus is on you. It is so obvious you are in the wrong, yet you refuse to admit it. Bollocks again First of all, nobody said language change=ethnicity change. Second, you said the Irish adopted the English language voluntarily and you were wrong. Now you are trying to twist things and change the original argument. I will repeat myself, Languages do not change simply because of admiration for another language. You are a bad loser Not all Thracians were Hellenized. The ones that did were Hellenized by the ...Macedonians, after becoming their subjects ;D Ever heard the term elite domination? When your efforts to use ancient writers are shot down you move on to modern. I don't give a shit about Philip's real motives. The point I made was that he expected the Greeks to believe he was going to exact revenge from the Persians. He expected the Greeks to believe he was one of them.
That's what is important. And you have not answered it
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 12:58:47 GMT -5
Greeks were making aliance with Persians to disable Philip on his "Panhellenic crusade against Persia". Why nobody knows ;D. " The Greeks had done a deal with Artaxerxes, (Persian commander), and if Philip did not move fast it would be they who invaded his territory, not he theirs. In the event, he moved faster then anyone could have predicted (p.69)". As for the willingness of the Hellenes ("the Ionian brothers") to participate in the "Panhellenic" adventure: "The military contingent they (Hellenes) supplied, were, in reallity so many hostages for their good behavior. As we shall see, whenever they saw the slightest chance of throwing off the Macedonian yoke, they took it" (p.87). and " It is significant that two native uprisings occured on the news of Alexander's death, and both of these, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks"; As for how the Hellenes "accepted with both hands" the "unification" of all the Hellenes under Philip and Alexander" we can see from the following quote when Demades heard the gossip that Alexander III ("the Panhellenic crusider and the son of the natural unifier of Hellenes - Philip") was dead: " Impossible", exlaimed Demades," The world will stink of his corpse" see Plut. Phoe.22. What an emotion of sorrow for the king of the unified Hellenes. And here are some additional quotes about the happyness and joy of the Hellenes that were finally "unified by Philip and Alexander": " If only your strength had been equal, Demostenes, to your wisdom, never would Hellas have been ruled by a Macedonian ares." written in 280 BC, that is after the unification. As I see the Hellenes perceived a RULE by the Macedonian ares...not a unification. Also I don't perceive a happyness but sorrow for the "unification". Where is the joy of the Panhellenic crusade....to pay back to the bad Persians for the wrongs they did to the Hellenes? I know why.... because those Hellenes wrote what they really felt, they were not propagandists of the Droysen's fantasies. What Droysen's fantasies? What I said is mentioned by Diodorus Siculus. I have proven it to you. Your claims are shot down and you keep repeating them as if nothing happened? As for the unification, what did you expect? The Greeks had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries, even bringing the Persians into their wars. Do you think they would have stopped and jumped at the idea of uniting under the Macedonian kings? ;D Old habits die hard. Look at what was happening before Philip and Alexander: 395-393: Athens rebuilds walls. 394: Persian fleet under Athenian beats Spartans.390: Evagoras, tyrant of Salamis (Kypros), revolts against Persia. 386: Peace of Antalkidas (King’s Peace) involves Persian-backed control of Greece by Sparta.382: Sparta overtakes Thebes. www.mholowchak.net/greekhistory.htmNow you are sharing your fantasies with us ;D
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 13:06:06 GMT -5
Cool down pal. Those inhabitants of Thessalonika and the surrounding in the early middle ages were Macedonians....read the quote of John Cameniate from 904 AD. It means they were heirs of the ancient Macedonians. Bulgarian state was OUT of that area for more than 250 years (If we accept "the arrival of the Slavs" theory in the mid 6-th century). Bulgarians occupied those territories (with fluctuating succes) at the end of 9-th century. Those territories (Macedonia) was under Bulgarian control only about 100 years, after which Byzantium State took them back again. So, Macedonians that spoke Slavic (confirmed by the quote and http://www.link) weren't Bulgarians. It is only after the occupation of Bulgarian state that those people speaking Slavic language became Bulgarian citizents = not ethnic Bulgarians, but Bulgarian citizents. After First Bulgarian State disappeared, those Slavic speaking Macedonians lived in the Byzantium State again. Secondly, I mentioned that to give an example of how Macedonians... (at least) became bilingual and that the bilinguality was a quite frequent phenomenon in the Balkans. There were Sklavenies in Macedonia established after the arrival of the Slavs. If you have a problem with historical facts, sorry but they can not be undone. The Slavs based in western Macedonia were known as Bulgarians. Emperor Basil was named Bulgar Slayer for defeating them.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 16, 2004 13:10:21 GMT -5
Ha ha...ha. Artemidoros... it bears a great relevance to the heirs of ancient Macedonians = the mediveal Macedonians. Citizents of Thessalonika are citizents of the city and the surrounding (the thema). I said that 100 times. And the citizents of Thessalonika spoke Slavic. Where did you find evidence that the Emperor meant only the surrounding of Salonika....or it is just your wish. Well...than...it is a wishfull thinking....and it is bad for objective , unbiased debate. On the other hand do you suggest that Macedonians lived only in Thessalonika the city and nowhere else in Macedonia? Try me...I have some quotes from that period. As I said, EVEN if we accept the "Theory of the arrival of the Slavs (by charter flights)" in the 6-th century Macedonians and "Slavs" lived together for centuries after...they intermaried and mingled on the whole territory of Macedonia. The dominant number of them adopted the Slavic language. Try me on this topic too. As for St Paul...if he was to spoke to Thracians, Phrygians...he would use Greek too....wouldn't he? This is precisely why I did not want to discuss this in the first place. You are losing the argument on ancient Macedonians and you are looking for substitutes in order to distract the debate. Stick to the ancients. Anything after the 5th cen. I will not discuss. If you want to discuss medieval Macedonians start another thread
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 16, 2004 15:12:06 GMT -5
Let's face it Artemidoros. Andrea is not only anti-Greek, she is also a stupid person who doesn't have much logic. She keeps trying to back her (wrong) ideas about the Macedonians with medieval (Slavs) and modern (Vlachs) history. When people don't know ancient history very well and skim books for references to "Macedonia", that's what they do. At least some folks are gracious enough to admit that they are mistaken.
Just because Andrea is having a problem with her identity (Slovenian, Vlach-Albanian, Austrian, and God knows what else) doesn't mean the ancient Macedonians had identity problems as well. I'm sorry I have to resort to personal issues, but Andrea brought it this far. I understood her motives all along.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 17, 2004 5:12:52 GMT -5
You see I'm not loosing patience....I'm just getting warmed up ;D. Yes you should pray to Christ. I said once and I don't mean to repeat myself. Your argument is based on a statement that can not be verified (contrary to Nano's case which defeated you to the feet ). I just said that the guy you mentioned might have really some non-Spanish line. Maybe some of his ancestors weren't Spanish really. That is not subject to verification for you, me, ... and for anyone else, so your argument fails again. I can give you examples from the Austrian parliament where several years ago Heider called Potocnik "That cunning Slav", but Potocnik is a Slav really. It is verifable FACT. So, again, Trasymachys and Demostenes are thrustworthy persons. Don't say they didn't know what they were talking about owerwhelmed by anger, they were Hellenes, your blood, damn it ;D. Than, you accept that language change does not equal ethnicity change...right? OK then . I said that the Gaelic language in Irish people became obsolete not by force...but because another language showed itself more functional and dominant through the centuries. That is elite dominance by definition. Elite dominance is not change of the language by force as you stated it. You should know that. The "elite" language spreads because it is more functional for dealing with other nations...as Filota said once upon a time. Filota told it all....maybe seeing your native language becoming obsolete is sad and you do not accept it voluntarily....but the life itself prefers more the elite language. Through generations it becomes your native language. Living in a same state of the populations speaking the "elite" language and the other one, just reinforces the adoption of the elite language. It need's not be imposed by force. Nobody forces or ever forced the Slovenians to speak Austrian....but through the centuries it became obsolete through dealings with other nations. On the Discovery channel there is a short program called "Connecting through cultures celebrating diversity". The Scotish girl in the program says " Young people treat the Gaelic as old fashioned, so they don't speak it any more...and it is sad". However, the life goes on and the more functional language spreads more and more....just like heat spreads. (I can post you some serious refeered mathematical models for language change that use the analogy of heat diffusion, through changing the "memes"=cultural units. So, language change happens all the time. Well, YES he expected the Greeks to BELIVE that he was one of them....BUT he was NOT one of them. He expected that to use them in the Persian war. Nagle, Badian, Green, Bosworth, Danforth,.... not to mention Borza, and many other top historians state that. His "Panhellenism" was just a cloak for Macedonian Drang nach Osten. BUT really he did not give a fig for the Panhellenic idea, spreading the Hellenic culture.... That is the point. That is the claim of those modern autors you don't accept. My efforts to use ancient authors was not shot down at all. Rufus is a classical reading. Filota told the whole story.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on May 17, 2004 5:39:21 GMT -5
Ha...ha. Hey pal...don't push me. It is you who have problems with historical facts...not me. . What happened to Macedonians who spoke pure Slavic. That is a historical fact too. Nikas showed it to you. They lived together with Slavs in those Sklavenies. Whole Macedonia was covered by those political units. As for the thema Thessaloniki...don't distort the historical facts. The emperor Michael III speaks to Constantine and Methodius which were BORN Thessalonians = Macedonians, so saying " You both are citizents of Thessalonika and the Thessalonians AAAALLLL speak pure Slavic (or speak Slavic well) means that (it is tautology ...of course) citizents of Thessalonika = Macedonians spoke Slavic. And those Macedonians didn't live only in Thessalonika but all around Macedonia in Sklavinias together with Slavs. Only after Bulgarians took control of Macedonian lands in the late 9-th century populations under their control were called Bulgarian in a political sense. It is 250 years and more after Slavs settled in Macedonia. They were just inhabitants of the Bulgarian state. Just like Yugoslavians were citizents of Yugoslavia, but ethnicaly they were Macedonians, Serbs, Croats,...etc. You should make a distinction between the notions: nation and ethnicity. If you asked some person what are you..he would answer I'm Yugoslavian....but if you go in more detail...he would answer ... Yes I'm Serb...I'm Macedonian..... Because politics deals with relations among the states, in political documents the inhabitants are called much more often by the name of their state than by their ethnicity. The first Bulgarian State held the lands of Macedonia for no more than 90-100 years. After that they belonged to Byzantium State again. So, if you like I'll post you some historical quotes that go up to the end of Byzantium State and latter...in which are mentioned ethnicities in the Bulgarian and Byzantium states as well as Ottoman state. However I don't think you'll like them. They are devastating for your claims . No wonder why they are not on the menu in the schools you attended .
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 17, 2004 6:44:37 GMT -5
His satanic majesty is always red hot, as you all will find out.
OK prove me wrong. Is not the slavic language used in the FYR of M and parts of Greece and Bulgaria, a dialect of Bulgarian. Historically the fruit salad zone of the Balkans had to be controlled by the Greeks, Serbs or Bulgarians. I don't think you can rely on the Bulgars having the upper hand briefly for the development of slavic Macedonian as a form of Bulgarian. Or maybe you are thinking of the historic Bolgars who spoke Turkic before being assimilated by slavic speakers. Your ancestors, I suppose?
Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. I supposed you will be relieved? I am more interested in the western Mediterranean and Romance languages.
|
|