|
Post by Artemidoros on May 17, 2004 15:51:38 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. Orestis you mean? Yeah, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 15:56:40 GMT -5
Orestis you mean? Yeah, thanks. Yes, how could I forget! Orestis is the region. With their capital ARGOS Oresticon.
|
|
eden
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by eden on May 17, 2004 17:29:34 GMT -5
artemisia, going by your logic, why does the bible distinguish between "greece and macedonia"? why would a macedonian region if it were greece not include greece? why didn't the bible say "macedonia and achaia" or why didn't it just say "greece". thanks for the history lesson artemidoros, what language was the new testament written in? what does that tell you? by your own admission paul spoke to the thessalonians in koine, did he pick that up with a "greek for dummies" handbook en route? the common language the jews spoke was aramaic. with your logic the jews should be either arabic or greek.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 18:26:55 GMT -5
Looks like you didn't understand my comments. Read them one more time and you will find out why Macedonia and Greece were separate regions but not separate peoples.
|
|
eden
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by eden on May 17, 2004 19:06:44 GMT -5
artemisia, why don't you just answer my question? if macedonia and greece were different regions yet not different people why wouldn't it be written just as greece? or maybe macedonia and achaia? it says macedonia and greece... maybe you should re-read my original post.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 18, 2004 0:03:32 GMT -5
artemisia, going by your logic, why does the bible distinguish between "greece and macedonia"? why would a macedonian region if it were greece not include greece? why didn't the bible say "macedonia and achaia" or why didn't it just say "greece". thanks for the history lesson artemidoros, what language was the new testament written in? what does that tell you? by your own admission paul spoke to the thessalonians in koine, did he pick that up with a "greek for dummies" handbook en route? the common language the jews spoke was aramaic. with your logic the jews should be either arabic or greek. Good Lord, please save us from time waisters. Is Pristina in Albania then? Is Paphos in Greece? If I want to go to Moldova, is it the same if I go to Romania instead? Did you pick up your English from a "English for dummies" handbook? Otherwise you would have understood what I said. Speaking Greek is not enough to make you Greek. What language do you want me to use so that you will understand?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on May 18, 2004 2:24:06 GMT -5
The fact that some ancient authors spoke of "Macedonia and Hellas" has absolutely no bearing on the ethnicity of the Macedonians. Open any map of the Ancient World, and you will soon realize that Hellas was the home of only a part of the Hellenes. The Hellenes were distributed in a much wider area than narrow-sense Hellas. Indeed in the beginning, "Hellas" just signified a small region of Epirus.
The Macedonians were Hellenes. They have absolutely no relationship to Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by ordinary on May 18, 2004 5:11:38 GMT -5
Who else was of Helenic origin then? Pelagons, Orests, Lynkests, Desarets, Peons, Brygians......??
Perhaps the Thracians and Ilirians, too. Possibly Etruscans (then on the "boot" peninsula)?
I mean, where do you draw the line, and how? It is mainly a matter of (give or take) 300km by 300km area where all these tribes were cramped into after all. How different could they be? Perhaps they were all Helenes?
|
|
eden
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by eden on May 18, 2004 13:17:26 GMT -5
"Speaking Greek is not enough to make you Greek. What language do you want me to use so that you will understand?" Dear Artemidoros, SO then if Macedonia was not a Greek colony, and Macedonia and Greece did not occupy the same territory, and Macedonians have their own distinct language and culture apart from the Greeks then exactly HOW were the Macedonians Greek? I ask why Macedonia and Greece are distinguished in the Bible, I get because Cyprus is Greece (?) and Kosovo is Serbia.
|
|
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 18, 2004 13:36:51 GMT -5
Berisha said that Nano is a Greek meaning he is not Albanian end he was CORRECT because Nano is REALLY not Albanian. And about that guy Fellipe, yes it is not verifable. So what if he is born in Spain, has a Spanish name... I know German citizents, with German names, with parents having German names....but their grandmothers or grandfathers were Turkic. And I realized that while talking with them more thoroughly. In that sense your example is not verifable. Maybe the other guy who called him a Moor had some informations about his ancestry. What if some Albanian comes in your country takes a name Perikles Stefanopoulos and after two generations have grandchildren, one of which by name Georgios Stefanopoulos. At first sight he is a PURE Greek, but if some has an information about his ancestry he could call him Albanian...and he would be correct. As a matter of fact I can quote you many ethnic determinations among rivals which are try. I quoted one in the former post. So where are we going ...to compete who will find more ethnic determinations among the political rivals?? Come on. In that sense Demostenes and Thrasymachus were correct. They determined Macedonian kings as non-Hellenes as Berisha determined Nano as non-Albanian. As for CD players....he..he ...I'm just using top historian thought on those matters..nothing more...nothing less. And about Droysens ideas...you unintentionally proved them wrong, concuring with the arguments of the historians I quoted. So, Philip and Alexander were not unifiers and didn't spreded Panhelenism intentionaly ;D. And Yes, I like it MOST when you stated that if some population speak Greek they are not necessarily Greeks . That was AAAALLLLL I needed to hear from you . That is a real man of logic that makes him a good (meaning not bad) looser ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 18, 2004 16:57:54 GMT -5
Who else was of Helenic origin then? Pelagons, Orests, Lynkests, Desarets, Peons, Brygians......?? Perhaps the Thracians and Ilirians, too. Possibly Etruscans (then on the "boot" peninsula)? I mean, where do you draw the line, and how? It is mainly a matter of (give or take) 300km by 300km area where all these tribes were cramped into after all. How different could they be? Perhaps they were all Helenes? The inhabitants of Pelagonia, Orestis and Lyncestis were discribed by Hecateus as "Molossian ethne". They were Greek. The others were not. They were all very likely quite similar racially. Modern genetics shows that the inhabitants of all those areas are still similar even after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 18, 2004 17:09:16 GMT -5
Dear Artemidoros, SO then if Macedonia was not a Greek colony, and Macedonia and Greece did not occupy the same territory, and Macedonians have their own distinct language and culture apart from the Greeks then exactly HOW were the Macedonians Greek? Was there any need for us to follow the footsteps of St. Paul or go on a tour of the Holy Land so that you can make this arbitrary statement? For I pressume that by distict language and culture you mean alien. Since you have all the answers by "divine revelation", there is no need to debate anymore. Did I say Cyprus is Greece? I said Paphos is not in Greece, yet the inhabitants are Greek. I was wondering whether you are a troll or mentally deficient but since they are not mutually exclusive I will have to revise my assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 18, 2004 17:35:20 GMT -5
Berisha said that Nano is a Greek meaning he is not Albanian end he was CORRECT because Nano is REALLY not Albanian. And about that guy Fellipe, yes it is not verifable. So what if he is born in Spain, has a Spanish name... I know German citizents, with German names, with parents having German names....but their grandmothers or grandfathers were Turkic. And I realized that while talking with them more thoroughly. In that sense your example is not verifable. Maybe the other guy who called him a Moor had some informations about his ancestry. What if some Albanian comes in your country takes a name Perikles Stefanopoulos and after two generations have grandchildren, one of which by name Georgios Stefanopoulos. At first sight he is a PURE Greek, but if some has an information about his ancestry he could call him Albanian...and he would be correct. As a matter of fact I can quote you many ethnic determinations among rivals which are try. I quoted one in the former post. So where are we going ...to compete who will find more ethnic determinations among the political rivals?? Come on. In that sense Demostenes and Thrasymachus were correct. They determined Macedonian kings as non-Hellenes as Berisha determined Nano as non-Albanian. It is obvious we are different in personality and debating style. I feel compelled to provide proof ar at least supporting evidence when I say something. You consider a theory, however far fetched, is enough. There is also a cultural difference. I strongly believe that someone making an "accusation" has to provide the proof. You obviously believe it is the "accused" that has to prove his "innocence". I am sorry to inform you that your view is incompatible with modern civilization. Ask a lawyer I wonder why Alexander was teaching Persians who joined the phalanx Greek, built cities with Greek temples, brought Greek philosophers, actors, artists, doctors, cartographers and so on all the way to the Hindus? Kings have funny whims sometimes... After this statement I can envisage two possible scenarios: A) Now that I have stated Greek speaker does not mean necessarily Greek, you will stop being in denial and admit the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek. ;D B)Now that you have me where you wanted you will proceed to demolish all my arguments (what is taking you so long?) Because I have a strange feeling they are both unlikely to materialize, I will not waste my time waiting. Read my next post
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 18, 2004 18:08:47 GMT -5
Apparently, Andrea has never heard of the Molossians before.....nor of Hecateus.
When you have a name like Argos Orestikon in northern Greece (and no, it WAS NOT named so due to south Greek influence!) it immediately proves that there was some connection with the Myceneans in this area. It is very likely that south Macedonia was part of the Mycenean world (neighboring Thessaly has a major Mycenean center) as Epirus is also turning out to be. In any case, the Molossian ethne of Orestis, Lynkestis, and Pelagonia spoke a NW Greek dialect just like the other Molossians.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 18, 2004 18:16:46 GMT -5
A small number of historians in order to support their claim that the Macedonians were not Greek and having to overcome the fact they did speak Greek, claim they were Hellenized. Linguistically and to some unspecified extent culturally. Andrea repeated the claim in this thread. Challenged to explain how, given the fact that none of the conditions for linguistic change had existed, she replied that Greek had become the kultursparche of the Macedonians sometime between the time of Philip and 1,100 BC. The Macedonians had voluntarily replaced their native language with Greek because they admired it or because it was more useful. Apparently she said, the Irish and the Scots had done the same and had adopted English. Although I proved to her that neither the Irish nor the Scots had accepted the English language voluntarily and challenged her to present another example, she has so far failed to do so. Let's see some historical evidence in order to further assess the likelihood her claim might have a basis. The king considered the founder of Macedonia was Karanus, an Argaead. Since discussing him would involve mythological sources and from the outset we said they would not be used, let's skip a few generations. Let's deal with Perdiccas I, the founder of Aegae. Both his name and that of Aegae are very Greek. Evidence and etymology will be produced on challenge. Therefore the supposed hellenization of the Macedonians was at a rather advanced state at the time of his birth, around 700 B.C. www.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PERDICCAS.htm www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/persons/per01308.htm#0I have mentioned previously in this thread, that the first evidence of the Greek alphabet in Greece is dated to around 700 B.C. as well. Give or take 50 years from the birth of Perdiccas. Although it is likely the alphabet had already been in use for about 100 years previously, there is no doubt Greek literacy as we know it, had been in in its infancy. Even the Linear B had vanished for centuries. Why? Read these: www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/pre-greece/greekdarkages.htmlwww.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_110/Dark.Ages.htmlYou will see that in the time the Greek language is supposed to have become the kultursprache of the Macedonians, Greece was a mess. Civilization itself seemed to have been wiped out. The cities were abandoned. Even the Greeks themselves did not want to live in Greece. How could they have been in a position to influence the Macedonians? They did not. The Macedonians were never Hellenized because they have always been Greek.
|
|