|
Post by ordinary on May 17, 2004 7:14:11 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. You may have a point as far as the relation between inhabitants of Salonica and Alexander to the topic being discussed. As for the "modern Macedonians" actually being Bulgrians. You really have to be joking. Even modern Bulgarians are not actually Bulgarians, let alone modern Macedonains. I'd love to get your spin on the modern Greeks, but I admit that it is something that should go in a new thread. 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? You are not saying that the geography played a major part in the distant relations between the supposed relative Maceedonians and Helenes? The heart of the territory of Macedonia is plains, but the terrain becomes more rugged going south, north and west. Anyway, I can not see it as a major obstacle in times when major means of transport were the feet and horses. Besides, Helenes did not seem to have any problems in having close relations with their relatives on the islands, if were are to discuss difficulties of transport. We are not talking about equal number of scientists and/or philisophers, but for some at least. Latest archaeological research www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=22287reveals the level of the refinement and technical as well as technological accomplishment of the Macedonian society. It seems to me that the suggestion here is that Macedonians had "split" with their relatives a few centuries earlier, had little or no contact so to grow linguistically and culturally apart from their relatives in the meantime, to converge again and re-discover their Helenic identity, both linguistically and culturally. This against the far more simple explanation that they were different peoples altoghter. 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. Why do you get so upset? It is not fair to say such things. This is a great forum, and the purpose of a forum I thought is for exchange of ideas no matter how opposed they are. I'd never resort to such terminology no matter what your convictions and beliefs are.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 17, 2004 8:40:09 GMT -5
Bulgaria, Bulgarians are Europeans who speak a slavic language. The Bolgars were immigrants from the Volga region of Russia who spoke Turkic, but were thoroughly incorporated into a slavic speaking population. So in a sense Bulgarians are slav speakers who have little to do genetically with the few Bolgars Turkic speakers who interbreed with them. It is the reverse of Romanians speaking a Romance language, but the original Romanians were anything but Latins or Mediterraneans.
So when I use Bulgarian I am not referring to the immigrant Bolgar Turks, but to the slav speaking original stock of the region.
|
|
|
Post by Emathius on May 17, 2004 9:02:34 GMT -5
Graeme,
If the Bulgarians themselves, as you just stated, are a Slav-speaking people who have little in common genetically (or linguistically and culturally for that matter) with the original Bulgars, why are you adjudging the Macedonians a Bulgarian name and ethnicity?
|
|
eden
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by eden on May 17, 2004 9:41:25 GMT -5
"As for Thessalonians guess in what language St. Paul corresponded with them in the 1st cen. AD? " Artemidoros, can you explain these verses to me?
Acts 16:9,10 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come to Macedonia and help us." After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
Acts 20:1-3 When the uproar had ended Paul sent for the disciples and after encouraging them, said good-by and set out for Macedonia. He traveled that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people and finally arrived in Greece, where he stayed three months. Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia.
An absolutely clear distinction is made from Macedonia and Greece existing as separate entities. The Jews of that time spoke Koine as their main language and actually wrote the New Testament in Koine, does this make them Greek as well?
|
|
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 12:44:16 GMT -5
Graeme pal, don't draw conclusions for a matter you don't know well. Just a suggestion . Yes, Ordinary, Eden and Emathius...let our oponents answer the questiones.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 13:37:57 GMT -5
Eden, learn your history, pal. Paul lived during Roman times and Macedonia was a Roman province wich included the whole of ancient Macedon, Thessaly, parts of west Thrace, and parts of south Illyria. The province Achaia was south Greece. When Paul talks about Macedonia, he means the whole province and the various cities in it. Macedonia and Greece were indeed separate entities, but so were Greece and Ionia, or Greece and Magna Graecia. It's simple: the people living in Greece, Macedonia, Ionia, and Magna Graecia were all Hellenic people who lived in different areas.
To give you an example from modern times: Greece and Cyprus. Two separate nations but of the same ethnic origin (those living in the southern part of Cyprus anyway.) Or another one: Germany and Austria. Most Austrians are of German origin and are brothers of the Germans.
[/quote]
|
|
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 14:09:34 GMT -5
That is your wish. Alinei states that: Today only a minority of experts belive the traditional theory of the arrival of Slavs in middle ages. He better knows the situation in the linguistic world than you...I suppose .
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 14:53:33 GMT -5
You see I'm not loosing patience....I'm just getting warmed up ;D. Why should you lose patience? I am not the one with the mentality of a CD player Nano is not Greek. Calling him one is a lie, whether you admit it or not. So my claim that a top Spanish politician, born in Spain from Spanish parents, with a Spanish name, Felipe Gonzalez Markez, is unverifiable While your claim that he must have Moorish ancestry because some political enemies called him a Moor is not When I called you a falsifier, I provided the evidence. It is still there: dodona.proboards24.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=history&thread=1074367958&start=75In your way of thinking, all I have to do is call you a thief and say you stole 1,000 Euros from me. If you can not prove in court you have not, you go to jail ;D That's us, Greeks. We like to argue and call each other names. We even have civil wars. Nevertheless your blind trust to all Greeks is moving. Now, lend me 1,000 Euros please ;D Blah...blah...blah You can establish a lab at Dodona and bring all the models, charts, equations you want. One thing you have not managed. Give a single valid example. You gave two and they were both crap. In case you have any doubts read: The conquerors, to be sure, would impose their kind of society, their customs, and, especially, their language; but they could not and did not eradicate the people they had conquered. They dominated and ruled, but that is not the same as destroying those now at their mercy. www.electricscotland.com/history/scotland/chap1.htmYou said the Irish and the Scots adopted English voluntarily out of admiration for their "Kulturspache". I am still waiting for an example.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 15:09:05 GMT -5
A bit off topic here but I need to clarify this:
Nano was called a "Greek" by Berisha because the Greek government supported him all the way, not because he has any Greek descent. His wife (a Muslim and about 25 years younger than him!) was married to a rich Greek before she married Nano and thus, they have connections in Greece. Berisha knows full well what Nano's ethnic origin is. He is a Vlach from the Gjyrokastra region. Although many Albanian Vlachs have Greek names, they don't speak Greek (before 1990 anyway) and do not have much Greek culture either. Although Vlachs have full citizenship rights, neither Greece nor Albania can claim them ethnically. They were a nomadic people who have settled throughout the Balkans and adopted the languages of the nations they live in, whether it be Greek, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Bulgarian, or Turkish.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:15:21 GMT -5
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. First of all thank you for the admission. Second, whatever his motives and whatever various authors claim, it was Hellenic culture that he spread Rufus is classical reading with a pinch of salt as I have already showed ;D Another example of twisting. Where did I say that? Some did, like Isocrates and some did not like Demosthenes. Paste what I said, go on. Liberating the Ionians was reference to the Macedonian soldiers. Not the Greeks. BTW do not come and say look even you admit the Macedonians were not Greeks. My wording is intentional. Do you happen to know the Greek word that has been translated as non-kindred? I have told you I do not have the mentality of a CD player like you. Go to the 6th page of THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS thread and you will find plenty of names of historians who believe the ancient Macedonians were Greek, posted by Gonatas, Sandwich and others. I will only say that the first person to point to Vergina as the ancient Aegae was Hammond. The man to find the tombs of the Macedonian kings was Andronikos. They are the ones being justified
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:26:06 GMT -5
You are not saying that the geography played a major part in the distant relations between the supposed relative Maceedonians and Helenes? The heart of the territory of Macedonia is plains, but the terrain becomes more rugged going south, north and west. Anyway, I can not see it as a major obstacle in times when major means of transport were the feet and horses. Besides, Helenes did not seem to have any problems in having close relations with their relatives on the islands, if were are to discuss difficulties of transport. The ancient Macedonians originated in the mountains of Pieria according to Hammond. They descended to the plains later and defeated the Thracians who lived there. It is well documented. Sea and rivers were the highways of history. Travelling overland in a terrain like the southern Balkans was exremely difficult and dangerous even on horseback. Many areas including my neck of the woods gave nothing that has been preserved and my lot was much more advanced than the Macedonians (until Hellenistic times).
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:34:00 GMT -5
"As for Thessalonians guess in what language St. Paul corresponded with them in the 1st cen. AD? " Artemidoros, can you explain these verses to me? Acts 16:9,10 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come to Macedonia and help us." After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. Acts 20:1-3 When the uproar had ended Paul sent for the disciples and after encouraging them, said good-by and set out for Macedonia. He traveled that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people and finally arrived in Greece, where he stayed three months. Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia. Just to add to Artemisia's examples, Kosovar and Albanian. Not that the Kosovci are not from Kosovo, there is no political meaning behind this. Also I remember the days when everybody was talking of East Germany and Germany (the words West Germany were rarely used). You are wrong. Greek was not the main language of the Jews of Judaea. And no, it would have not made them Greeks if it was. I have answered this already.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:38:11 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 . I told you start another thread. I have a lot to say too.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 15:41:57 GMT -5
It looks like there were Macedonians in the Pieria region and also in Upper-west Macedonia bordering on Epirus, where a NW Greek dialect was spoken. Thucydides makes it clear that the Macedonians DROVE OUT the previous inhabitants of the land and settled on their territory, thus they were not a mixed ethnic group. A good book to read about this is Malcolm Errington's A History of Macedonia. Artemidoros, it is hard for foreigners to understand this because they don't have to live in these conditions. Some forget that Mount Olympus and the Pindos range do much to separate north from southern Greece. Just try driving to Epirus by car and tell me how "easy" it is......try it! Now imagine if you were to travel by horse in that terrain!
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:49:57 GMT -5
How come I missed this one? Nobody forces or ever forced the Slovenians to speak Austrian....but through the centuries it became obsolete through dealings with other nations. After making her poor grandmother turn in her grave, she is now trying to upset her father Population: 1.95 million (July 1996) Area: 20,256 sq. km Capital: Ljubljana Other cities: Language: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian Religions: Roman Catholic (96%), Muslim (1%), other (3% www.okno.com/factfig/slovenia.html
|
|