Dimitar says:

Nowhere do you mention that Macedonia was divided in the Balkan Wars 1912/3, among Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. Macedonians were the majority population in Macedonia at that time, including the portion of Aegean Macedonia (that which Greece gained). Greece set out on forced assimilation and/or ethnic cleansing of the Macedonian people,as well as "Hellenizing" of the region. Everything Macedonian including toponyms, hydronyms even personal names were all changed into Greek sounding names, ie: the character of Macedonia was NEVER GREEK!

The Macedonian state is today the victim of attempted appeasement of Greek politics. There is only ONE ethnic, national, cultural, linguistic group called Macedonian! Today's Republic of Macedonia is recognized by 126 countries including USA, Russia, China, Canada, India etc. which you also failed to mention. Greece's aggressive nationalism impedes the sovereignty of a foreign state, an entire people and their universally encoded right to identify as they wish!

Jon says:

"The government of the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM is in fact trying to lay claim to the ancient heritage of Macedonia (most independent historians would say spuriously)."

Nicole, you cannot make claims like this. Who are these "most independent historians?" You are, supposedly, supposed to be an unbiased journalist, but with statements like these you are doing a great dishonor to your field of work.

Kiro Velkovski says:

Well, well... Another independent thinker that refuses us the right to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, if we have to prove our historic ancestral rights, what are the other nations that went thru this process before us?
We are Macedonia. We are Macedonians. We claim the heritage of our country, territory, region - until 1913 it was undivided and whole. The fact that it was divided in 1913 does not allow the other to claim its history... Check League of Nations archives what was the name of Greek occupied parts of Macedonia back in 1928. New Territories? New Greece?
I don't hate that they lie. I hate that they want us to believe them...

Alban.Kcomment@gmail.com says:

Dear Nicole :).

This is not just semantics.

People know so little about this southeastern region of Europe, which is "Conceived" with so many national conflicts. The fact is that the disease of this radical nationalism, is so serious that opened the "war" on many fronts. You have put the finger into a plague where all will scream with a voice that will go to heaven.

This is my "scream" :)

Is Kosovo a country?

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February 2008....

Kosovo, with SFRY (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) constitution of 1974 had the status of autonomic and constitutive part of SFRY. In 1989, Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic revoked the province’s autonomous status, allowing the 10% Serb minority to essentially impose an apartheid-style system on the country’s ethnic Albanian majority. The majority of ethnic Albanians in the public sector and Serbian-owned enterprises were fired from their jobs and forbidden to use their language in schools or government.

In response, the province’s ethnic Albanians – consisting of over 85% of the population – declared an independent republic in 1990, establishing a parallel government with democratic elections, a parallel school system, and other quasi-national institutions. The movement constituted one of the most widespread, comprehensive and sustained nonviolent campaigns since Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence. In response, Serbian authorities engaged in severe repression, including widespread arrest, torture, and extra-judicial killings.

For most of the 1990s, the Kosovar Albanians waged their struggle nonviolently, using strikes, boycotts, peaceful demonstrations, and strengthening their parallel institutions. By the end of the decade, nonviolent struggle didn't had brought yet any solution except the escalation of serbian army violence which started to commit a large number of atrocities over civilian population similar with those in Bosnia and Croatia. At that time from little guerrillas started the rise of a armed force known as the Kosovo Liberation Army. To the big and accelerated efforts of western diplomacy to find a peaceful solution, Slobodan Miloscevic replied with the operation "Horseshoe". The objective was to realize an ethnic cleansing before the western diplomacy could came to a solution. As everybody know, there was no other possibility left except that of NATO intervention. With split of Montenegro on 3 June 2006, FRY
dissolved and were no more boundaries to keep Kosovo and Serbia together.

Regarding FYRMacedonia, things are proceeding. this may be the following conflict in Balkan between FYRMacedonians 65% and Albanians 30%. It is the time for preventive diplomacy to intervene before explosion of a large scale conflict will involve not only both ethnic groups but as well the surrounding countries who still having open accounts with this state.

Slav Stamef says:

Nicole,
Your attempts to remain impartial reporter are nonexistent and lacking integrity to be a so called journalist.
. As a reporter for Global Post and based in Greece, by no mean we rely on your reporting bias with inaccuracy and little knowledge you have about the history of Macedonia.
If I may help you to take your blinkers and widen your horizon about Macedonia please note for the moment (time only). Let’s not overload you with too many facts.
The Treaty of Versailles 1919 awarded Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria parts of Macedonian land, land which was populated with Macedonians. There is not even 100 years since and you have failed badly not to mention or attempt to establish what really did happen to the people on the apportioned land always Macedonian.

Don says:

Northen Cyprus,

Nicole, please check your facts. Turkey did not 'invade' Cyprus in 1974 ! Turkey legally intervened under the 'Treaty of Guarantee " signed by Greece, UK, and Turkey to stop the genocide of the Turkish Cypriots which had been perpetrated from 1963 till 1974 by Makarios and his gang. The Greek mainland 'coup' was just the last straw.

Don

akritas says:

Where is Macedonia?
And who are Macedonians?

The name "Macedonia" has been used since 1944 to indicate the Yugoslav republic that has its Capital at Skopje.The name itself is a controversial misapplication of the name used for the ancient Hellenic kingdom of Philip of Macedonia and Alexander the Great, which included much of the area today occupied by that x-Yugoslav Republic as well as the Greek province of that name.

The Slavic inhabitants of the republic are called Makedonci, although names such as Slav Macedonians are used to distinguish them from the Greek Macedonians who live in the northern Greek province of Macedonia and identified as Makedones.

This Slavic nation attempts to adopt the history and culture of Macedonia as their own and present themselves to the world as "ethnic Macedonians" and "descedants of ancient Macedonians". This is a blatant attack against Greece and its world wide respected history as 347 world-wide academaic wrote in an letter that sent in President Obama.

The FYROM Slavs who claim to be "Macedonians" have no historical, cultural or linguistic relation with ancient Macedonia. They descended into the region not before the 6th cent. A.D. long after ancient Macedonia was homogenized with the rest of Greece. Their 'Republic of Macedonia' occupies less than 10% of ancient Macedonia.Therefore their claim on ancient Macedonia's name, history, culture and symbols can not be justified.

The state name needs specifically to refer to and describe the present region of FYROM. It should apply erga omnes in multilateral and bilateral international relations and transactions and should be observed by all organizations, states, and other non-governmental international organizations, including the government and the agencies of FYROM. The kernel of the problem is that FYROM´s policy has long been based on old agendas, eventually the oldest issue on the national priorities of the states in the region, namely irredentism and great idea aspirations. These were once again exposed recently in slogans over "liberation of Thessaloniki", provocations that aim at formulat-ing a zero sum policy framework in both sides.

Greece has made a rather generous offer by accepting the use of the name Macedonia by FYROM with a geographical prefix that will distinguish it from Greek Macedonia. Practically it has offered Slav Macedonians the raw material to go on with their hostile and aggressive irredentist activities despite the mass objection of the Greek public opinion. This has not been fully appreciated by nationalists in Skopje and mediators. Rhetoric and argumentation based on the logic of the Balkan Wars of the early 20th century are outdated material in the construction of a zone of peace and security in South-eastern Europe. Some choices are hard to make but the risks of megalomania have proven disastrous to all Balkan peoples.

Sir Slav says:

Ancient Macedonians and their Macedonian language
Scholars, based on long and painstaking work and encompassing varied disciplines have, to a certain extent, arrived at an acceptable consensus regarding the ancients. You will be able to read the latest interpretations of history by the most prominent scholars and revisionists of the twentieth century. Here we make a deliberate effort to distance ourselves from scholars and literature emanating from the Balkans -- in order to avoid the trappings of politics and bias.

The main concern of this study will be the "Macedonian language"

MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE - THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM

The language used by the ancient Macedonians has been deliberately politicised by Greece. It is, therefore, imperative, given the complexity of the situation, to carefully address the two structural underpinnings on which this issue (un)comfortably rests:

(A) The political aspect of the problem, and

(B) The technical aspect of the problem.

(A) Political

The political aspect of the problem can be assessed trough the following observations/questions:
(1) Why are modern-day Greeks obliged to deny the existence of a separate Macedonian language?
(2) What is the driving force behind such an act?
(3) What degree of association can one assign between language and ethnicity.

(B) Technical

Here, we need to elaborate and examine their assertions that:
(1)"There was no Macedonian language."
(2) "Ancient Macedonian spoke Greek, and therefore they were Greeks."

A Political

(1) By denying that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate [non-Greek] language, modern Greeks can: (1) declare that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, and simplistically conclude that (2) they must also have been ethnically Greek.

(2) The driving force behind such desperate reasoning is Greece's fear of losing the newly-acquired "province of Macedonia." If Greece fails to establish that the ancient Macedonians were Greek speakers, or ethnically Greek, then the part of Macedonia which is independent (the Republic of Macedonia) may place a claim on its lost territory and abused population.

Under the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia partitioned Macedonia and distributed it (and its indigenous population) amongst themselves. Serbia has relinquished control over the Macedonian territory it acquired. This is an acknowledgement that Macedonia is not "Southern Serbia" and that the partition of Macedonia was not legal to begin with. Similarly, Macedonia is not "Northern Greece." In a broader sense, Greece anticipates that the hands of justice may someday reach for her and demand the return of the "stolen" booty.

(3) This is an issue of enormous importance to modern-day Greeks who are indoctrinated to believe that use of language equals ethnicity. Furthermore, most Greeks today equate their ethnic identity with the nation state. As a consequence, the use of a common language would denote a common nationality. However, the concept of a separate ethnicity within the nation state is completely lost upon them.

B Technical

The technical aspect of the problem requires a much deeper analysis. To better understand the Greek-revisionist claim, and to be able to properly address the issue, we require clarification of the ambiguous Greek position.

(1) Does the Greek claim about Macedonia suggest that ancient Macedonians were Greek because they sometimes 'used' the ancient Greek language?

(2) Is it being claimed that the ancient Macedonian language was Greek in both: written and spoken form?

(3) Do the modern citizens of Greece really believe that language is the primary identifying aspect, or component in discerning one's ethnicity?

(4) Was the language that the Ancient Macedonians spoke, in fact, Greek, or perhaps, a Greek dialect?

Before we tackle these questions, I would like to make some comparative observation of analogous situations where the instrument of communication, the spoken/written language of a given population/community or a country, does not by itself identify the ethnic/national character of the users in general.

First and foremost one must keep in mind that the language used by people does not by itself identify their ethnicity. We communicate in English, and we all come from different ethnic backgrounds. South American countries use the Spanish language, (Brazil excluded), and yet, not everyone is Spanish. History is replete with examples where people speak the same language yet identify themselves as ethnically different.

Professor Ernst Badian from Harvard University writes:

"The idea that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that, conversely a common language means a common Nationhood - which is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today".

("Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in late classical and early Hellenistic Times".)

[The implicit assumption is that ethnicity is determined and/or identified through a common language. This pattern of thinking continues further through the implication that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, and therefore, they were Greeks. Consequently, everything that has been identified as "Macedonian"- is Greek, including, most importantly, the name itself.]

Fourth century silver coins from the Persian province of 'Yehud' imitate "Greek issues for trading with the Greeks." There had already been Greek influence in Judea as early as the fifth century B.C., and many Jews especially the wealthy ones from the towns of Seleucia and Gadara, were prepared to accept a measure of Hellenism. Even in Judea "Greek was rapidly becoming the language of government and big business." Furthermore, the pro-Hasmonean books I and II Maccabees, though totally pro Jewish, were written in Greek. Jews in Alexandria used the Greek language extensively; "On the Kings of Judea" was written in Greek by a certain Demetrius.

Thracian silver coins and vessels from the fifth century B.C. bear Greek inscriptions, and yet, the Greek archeologists have never claimed this people as Greek. Late eighteenth century nobility in Russia and Germany used the French language as a mode of communication. Were they proclaiming their french nationality? Therefore, we must ask ourselves: Where do we draw the line? With what precision and certainty, do we ascribe Greek ethnic character to the Ancient Macedonians when we are confronted with such overwhelming analogous evidence?

Let us peruse the available literary evidence and see what those who know more than us have to say:

Eugene Borza:

"The lesson is clear: the use of the Greek language as a form of written expression does not by itself identify the ethnicity of a culture". ("In the Shadow of Olympus -The Emergence of Macedon", p. 94.)

On p. 89 from the same source we find Borza discussing the arrival of the Macedonian tribes in the Balkans.

"As the Macedonians settled the region following the expulsion of existing peoples, they probably introduced their own customs and language(s); there is no evidence that they adapted any existing language, even though they were now in contact with neighboring populations who spoke a variety of Greek and non-Greek tongues."

[It is proper, and even compelling, to expect that the arriving Macedonians already had an existing oral language.]

Ulrich Wilcken in his book 'Alexander the Great' notes on p. 22:

"linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words"

"The main evidence for Macedonian existing as a separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great where the Macedonian tongue is specifically mentioned". ("In the Shadow of Olympus", p.92.)

"The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from the ordinary Attic Greek used as the language of the court and of diplomacy".

And then we have N.G.L.Hammond, an unabashed philhellene, whose position on the ancient Macedonians is "flexible," to say the least:

"What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. ...The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. ...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... 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 Hesiodus genealogy... 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".

(1) Hammond's strong and a forceful implication that Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus "had no motives for making a false statement" about the language of the ancient Macedonians leaves one with the impression that Hammond was trying to fend off his critics beforehand.

The Persian example relies on a Persian's "impression" in the 6th century BC. If we move to 480/79 BC, a much more opportune time for the Persians to get to know the Macedonians, we find the following episode enlightening:

The Persian commander Mardonius chose Alexander I (king of Macedon) as an envoy to Athens, partly because he was related to the Persians through his sister Gygea's marriage to Bubares, and partly because Mardonius had learned that Alexander I was already "proxenos," -- a public friend of the Greeks. The question arises:

If the ancient Macedonians were Greek, or better yet, if Persians felt that the ancient Macedonians were Greek, (this surely is implied by Hammond) should we dare assume then, that the Persian commander would trust a "Greek" - to negotiate for him with the other Greeks?

Since Hammond brought up the episode with the Persians as evidence that the Macedonians were Greek speakers then let us see what Ulrich Wilcken had to say about these same Macedonians at the time of the Persian wars.

"Having stayed in the extreme north, they (Macedonians) were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south, and so, when in the time of the Persian wars they emerged in the horizon of the other Greeks, they appeared to them as non-Greek, as barbarians".

[Note: "Barbarians" was a term used by the ancient Greeks to describe people whose language was unintelligable to them.]

(1) The second example about Hellanicus is even less persuasive. Eugene Borza dismisses it as a piece of mythology. He writes:

"Hammond's firm conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a distinctive dialect of Aeolic Greek is unconvincing to me, resting as it does on an interpretation of a bit of myth quoted by Hellanicus, who made Aeolus the father of the legendary progenitor Macedon". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.92.)

(3) In view of the available evidence one must be weary of Hesiod's "beliefs." A "belief" is not evidence. The validity of such a statement must be taken with caution.

Strangely enough, though, this very same N.G.L. Hammond, when describing the affairs of the Macedonian state in the years between 460 and 360 B.C., (on p. 152 in "The Macedonian State") writes the following:

"Literary evidence and archeological evidence show that between 460 and 360 the standard of life in Upper Macedonia was at a primitive level and the area was remote from the orbit of Greek trade, and even from coastal Macedonia, with only two exceptions......"

If we were to assume that Greek language was imported from Greece proper, it must have occurred much later than the time suggested by Hellanicus. Even if we accept Hellanicus' assertion as verifiably "true," we must keep in mind the "time gap" of several centuries in question.

Hammonds argues that the area was remote from Greek trade, and thereby the "contact" with speakers of the Greek language was minimal. This, invariably brings us to the following unanswered question: Was there a separate Macedonian language already in use by the ancient Macedonians before the spread of Greek? To put the same question in different light: Were the Ancient Macedonians a mute people? Did they wait for the arrival of the Greeks to open their mouths and start communicating among themselves?

To continue with Hammond's assertion; On p. 163 (Macedonian State) describing the army units in Philip's time, we find:

"These units were equal to those of the old kingdom. There was still some difference in dialect; for some men from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek and some from the old kingdom spoke a form of Aeolic dialect, known then as "Macedonian dialect".

[I would like to bring to the reader's attention the following important aspect of the meaning of "Macedonian dialect" in contrast to "koine". And if one hurries to ascribe to the "usual" interpretation of "dialect" to mean the same as "Greek", I must inform you that this is the same "dialect" that got Ambiance (a Greek commander who could not communicate with his Macedonian soldiers) killed, because he could not understand it, and it is the same Macedonian "dialect" that Alexander used to call on his guards, when he felt that his life was in danger. This also is, the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers affectionately greeted their commanders, and finally, this is the same "dialect" in which Macedonian soldiers paid their last respects to their fallen king - Alexander. A "dialect" that Alexander the Great himself called "our Macedonian language".]

It appears that some authors use the term "dialect" to minimize the existence of a separate Macedonian language. One must bear in mind that in the Greek Peninsula a number of Greek dialects were employed. However, in Macedonia, which was huge in comparison, only one "dialect" is expounded. Where there no Macedonian dialects?

Hammond, once again, refers to the Macedonian language as an Aeolic dialect known as the "Macedonian dialect". Professor Borza clearly disagrees and offers the following argument:

"The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect. And even had they changed at some point it is unlikely that they would have reverted to their original form". ("In the Shadow of Olympus" p.93.)

On p. 165 from "Macedonian State", we read as Hammond describes the spread of Greek language in the latter part of the fifth century:

"We may be sure that the Greek language spread more rapidly among the 'inlet barbarians' of the enlarged kingdom, whose livelihood depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greek speaking cities in their midst."

We see the first penetration of Greeks in the area, and therefore the first substantial contact with the Greek language. Precarious is his assertion that the livelihood of the "inlet barbarians" (Macedonians) depended increasingly on their commercial relations with the Greeks.

What did the "livelihood" of these barbarians depend on before the arrival of the Greeks in the fifth century? It is undeniable that ancient Macedonians were self-sufficient, an extremely proud and resourceful people who inhabited very fertile lands in Macedonia.

Very curiously, on p.165, from the same source, Hammond describes how different tribes in Macedonia came in contact with Greeks and learned the Greek language.

"Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones, had learnt to speak Greek, for they were diglossoi."

Hence, what do we have to contend with so far:

1. Hesiod's seventh century: "Macedonians are a Greek speaking people".

2. Persia sixth century: "Macedonians to be speakers of Greek".

3. Hellanicus late part of fifth century: "Aeolic branch of the Greek speaking family".

4. Hammond 's 460 - 360 B.C. : "Upper Macedonia was remote from the orbit of Greek trade".

5. Hammond (during king Philip): "Macedonians from Upper Macedonia spoke West Greek, and some from the old kingdom spoke Aeolic dialect, known as 'Macedonian dialect'".

[Note: (a) Wasn't Upper Macedonia primitive and remote from Greek trade? How did this "West Greek" language come into this remote land that was not in contact with Greeks? (b) Those from the old kingdom spoke a "Macedonian dialect" the same dialect that Greeks could not understand. Remember Ambiance?

6. Hammond - (Fifth cent.) Greek contact is established: (a) various peoples "learnt the language", (b) "were diglossoi"

[Note: "Learnt the language", were "diglossoi" denotes the following:

(a) The existing people spoke something other than the "new language" that they had just learnt, and

(b) to be "diglossoi" one must be bilingual; to speak your own language and the newly learnt Greek language. One would not be called "diglossoi" by speaking only Greek.

7. Hammond - (Fifth century) "spread of Greek language".

[Note: In lieu of the following statements, one is compelled to ask the following question: If these Macedonian peoples were already speaking Greek, whom did the Greeks spread their language to?]

Eugene Borza is called the 'authority on Macedonia,' and one must heed his advice. He asks:

"As a question of method: why would an area three hundred miles north of Athens - not colonized by Athens - use an Attic dialect, unless it were imported? That is, the Attic dialect could hardly be native, and its use is likely part of the process of Hellenization. To put the question differently: if the native language of the Macedonians is Greek, what is its Macedonian dialect?"

An excellent question indeed. Why would Macedonians use the remote Attic Greek dialect if they supposedly had their own "dialect"? Furthermore, when did they begin using the Attic dialect?

[It must be noted that there is some contradiction in terms of time, terminology and purpose.]

Let us continue.... On p. 391 in "The Macedonian State" he (Hammond) writes:

"As the language of the Macedonian State and of the army was Greek, we may be sure that the subject peoples were bilingual (diglottoi)".

[Note: Please remember Hammond's statement above about the language of the army, and compare it with Badian's assertion below.] Knowing what "bilingual subject" means, we are on much firmer ground as to what Hammond has in mind. Even if there was a Greek language used by the state and the army, there was, also, "another" language used in ancient Macedon. On p. 64 (same source) we find a description of the Macedonian Assembly comprised of Macedonians only with their own 'esprit de corps' -- Hammond writes:

"They wanted the Macedones to have their own esprit de corps; and those of them who came from Lower Macedonia continued to speak the Macedonian dialect among themselves and to address the king or a commander in that dialect as a sign of affection".

[In the previous quote Hammond eludes to the use of "another language" spoken by the larger mass of Macedonian subjects. Here he covers the other side of the coin, using the "Macedonian dialect".]

One thing is clearly evident: we have inadvertently been exposed to the existence of either a Macedonian language and/or Macedonian dialect.

On p. 165 Hammond continues:

As Philip continued to build new cities in the areas east of Axius he was able to "plant new cities of Macedonians". Particularly important was the spread of the "Greek language" among the "inland barbarians" like Pelasgic Tyrsenoi, Bisaltae, Crestonians, and Edones who "learnt to speak Greek". This passage suggests that these peoples were "diglossoi' ,bilingual. And that, by itself, speaks volume. Obviously, there was another language in operation besides Greek.

Let us visit Ernst Badian, (professor and chair person at Harvard History Department) a more contemporary author and a revisionist of Ancient History. The usage of the Macedonian language, and thereby its existence, is confirmed by the following episode:

...after one symposium Alexander the Great felt that his life was threatened and he is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian. When his life was threatened he reverts to his more primitive psyche, which could be interpreted as "overpowering his expressed intellectual preference for the Greeks, i.e. the Greek part of his own nature". "But the answer is probably simpler than that", writes Badian. "He used the only language in which his guards could be addressed".

[Note: The guards could be addressed in Macedonian only.]

Episode #2. Eumenes of Cardia. In 321 B.C., Greek commander Ambiance, with cavalry and light arms only, faced the Macedonian noble, Neoptholemus, with the Macedonian phalanx. To avoid battle Xennias, a man whose speech was Macedonian, was sent by Eumenes to negotiate with the commander of the phalanx. Badian analyzes:

"Now, Xennias' name at once shows him to be a Macedonian. Since he was in Ambiance's entourage he was presumably a Macedonian of superior status, who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. He was the man who could be trusted to transmit Ambiance's message. This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And almost equally interesting - he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally address soldiers who understood them, nor did he sent a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign language to them. We may thus take it as certain that, when Alexander used Macedonian in addressing his guards, that too was because it was their normal language, and because (like Ambiance) he had to be sure he would be understood".

It is documented that Ambiance had experienced extreme difficulties in commanding the Macedonian soldiers. His disability was "not only his Greek birth, as has always being realized, but the simple fact that he could not directly communicate with the Macedonian soldiers". "His alien culture and provenance were not only obvious in an accent; it was a matter of a language".

["It was a matter of a language..."]

("Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times".)

Ancient Macedonians and their Macedonian language - part II

akritas says:

The international community, with the exception of Turkey, does not recognise the Turkish occupied part of the Cypriot Republic as a sovereign state, but recognises the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island. The United Nations considers the declaration of independence by the Turkish occupied part of the Cypriot Republic as legally invalid in several of its resolutions.

The internationally recognized Cyprus Government refuses to give any official status to the government of the Turkish-controlled part, and actively dissuades any other country from doing so. This policy is in line with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the policy of the entire international community which refuses to recognise the Turkish occupied part of the Cypriot Republic as TRNC.

United Nations regards the Turkish-controlled part in such terms as: "illegitimate entity", "Turkish military occupied territory" and "a puppet state of Turkey". Phraseology such as "pseudo" or "so-called" are used by the Cyprus Government to describe government officials and institutions in the Turkish occupied part of the Cypriot Republic t.

The United Nations Security Council has challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs.The aftermath of Turkey's invasion, however, did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect; such as the de facto partitioning of the Republic in two, the creation of a separate political entity in the north and the forceful expulsion of Greek Cypriots from it. A large number of Turkish Cypriots, many of whom were forced to live in isolated enclaves and ghettoes throughout the island during the intercommunal violence between 1963 and 1974, chose to leave their homes in the south and moved to the north after 1974.The United Nations still recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus according to the terms of its independence in 1960. The conflict continues to affect Turkey's relations with Cyprus, Greece and the European Union.

KP says:

Dear Don,

It is obvious that you have not read the treaty well either concerning Cyprus. The three guarantor powers had the right to 'intervene' to "the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty". After the coup in 1974 the legitimate government was back in power. Why haven't the troops left the island?

It has nothing to do with genocide but rather long strategic planning by the British, the US and of course Turkey. Read the historical papers then come ready to discuss.

KP

Gandeto says:

I will go on the limb and reiterate my opinion regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians: Anyone who claims that ancient Macedonia was a Greek land and that ancient Macedonians were Greeks or that Macedonians are stealing Greek heritage, is nothing less and nothing more than a corrupt, deceitful fabricator of history whose (scientific) thinking—devoid of substance—is based on personal beliefs and mythical constructs.
Facts are not derived from beliefs or mythology. Scientific knowledge does not rest on feelings, nor is it supported by bad-time stories and mythology. Science needs concrete, verifiable evidence.

Mike says:

Kosovar Albanians never "waged their struggle nonviolently". Tito died May 4, 1980. Among other de-stabilizing effects, Albanians felt that they had lost their new guardian. Less than a year later and not necessarily related to Tito's death, Albanian riots shook Kosovo. The riots were ignited by student grievance at a grossly overcrowded Pristina University, and rapidly spread throughout Kosovo. At this time approximately 28% of the people in Kosovo were students and the education they were getting was inferior because of the overcrowding and because of under-qualified and unqualified faculty. This was a matchbox that it took only a spark to ignite. Serbian and Montenegrin citizens were beaten, their homes burned and their shops looted. Public opinion throughout Serbia turned sharply against the educational system in Kosovo In particular Pristina University became widely believed to be a hotbed of Albanian nationalism. In response, Serbian, Montenegrin and Macedonian nationalisms were all given great impetus.

By the middle 1980's there was an increasing amount of Serb migration out of Kosovo, in respose to widespread intimidation, pressure and some violence on the part of extremist Albanians who made no bones about desiring an "ethnically clean" Kosovo. The first organized protest on the part of Serbian Kosovars took place in 1986. Interestingly, also about this time the strongest statement on behalf of the Serbs in Kosovo was made by a group of Serbian intellectuals under the auspices of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Long before Milosevic came to power, this memorandum from this prestigious body called for a revocation of Kosovo autonomy and for a de-Albanianization of Kosovo. However, by this time a strong underground movement for the "National Liberation of Kosovo" had developed along with other underground Albanian groups. Serbs in Kosovo felt, and indeed were threatened. In February 1987 the Serbian government proposed to take away Kosovo's autonomy, even though they did not have the authority to do so since it was under Federal not Serbian authority. From 1974 until the late 1980's Albanians in Kosovo undoubtably had enjoyed the most administrative and cultural autonomy in their history whether under Serbian, Albanian or indeed Ottoman rule, but for the Kosovars that favored independence, it wasn't enough. Some wanted status as a republic within Yugoslavia, while others favored unification with Albania along with Albanians from Macedonia and Montenegro in a "Greater Albania"

John Ioakimidis says:

Please see macedonia-evidence.org. Over 347 scholars from the most prestigious universities from around the world have concluded that the ancient Macedonians, like the Spartans, Athenians, etc., were Greek.

The website was motivated by an article in the Archaeology magazine, and the letter Stephen G. Miller, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, sent in response, which Archaeology did not publish. The academic community rose to preserve historical truth.

The facts are very clear.

sh says:

Well Nicole Itano,
The truth is that European Powers divided Albania land to Serbia (with so called” Macedonia”, the fact is FYROM), Greece and Montenegro. Kosova, some parts of today’s Serbia, 2/3 of FYROM and more then 1/2 of today’s Greece is Albanian land (not to mention today’s Croatia, the fact name is DALAMTI). Greeks and Macedonians have been once upon a time states, but they have been vanished and mixed with Slavs and others. Now another fact is that Today’s Greece wouldn’t exist if was not helped and created by Europeans “Hellenics” and America as new state who went to fight Turks, (better said Muslims). Europe at that time raised a lot of money to fight Turks, and as everybody knows to win a war and conquer a country you need 3 thing, money, money and more money, which Europeans did and free the so called “ancient Greece”. There is another fact that you should know as a “journalist” (you need a lot of education and knowledge to become a JURNALIST). The fake is that all fake stats will always, always have problems with other nationalities even though these nationalities were before them at that state and still live in their own state, and try to defend”their” territories cause they are aware that are disappearing as a identity, and the worst thing of all is that so called “Greeks, Macedonians and so on” are terrorizing, discriminating and not recognizing these people as a citizens of their own state.
My advice to you is, before you post story about any territorial state do some historical, political and economical research. Well I do not judge your knowledge as you are just a freshman.

akritas says:

So Mr Gandeto 347 classical Scholars from around the world are based on personal beliefs and mythical constructs. Mr Gandetto you are responsible as teacher because you teach Revisionism-Negationism in your co-patriots. You teach them fantacies and lies.

Historian and Professor Eugene Borza who is credited as "Macedonian specialist" and you mentioned many time in your articles a, and who has completed extensive studies regarding the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis that the Ancient Macedonians were not Slavs (or mixture of Slavs) or Romans as some Slav-Macedonists claim. In his article Macedonia Redux Borza explains:

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom".

You like or not the real academaic world have reject you. Political dimesion originated from the ill-conceived decision by Bush administration to recognize FYROM as the Republic of “Macedonia,” clearly became the catalyst of a more aggressive stance by FYROM that can presently be perceived as hostile towards Greece, a NATO ally of the US for many years. Obama administration should reverse Bush decision, recognize them again as FYROM, and actually block their NATO integration until a new name is found. In addition the US should condemn in the strongest terms their irredentist and aggressive behavior, as mentioned in the letter. It is imperative that a negotiated mutually acceptable solution also includes change of the FYROM constitutional name to the new agreed name, i.e. change in their passports and use of that name erga omnes.

The academic dimension is clear because the names that undersigned this letter are so huge and any comment by me will be a tom-fool thing to do.

Rewriting History says:

I wouldnt doubt if the FYROMian government has people on payroll writing this nonsense. Afterall, just last week they issued what was supposed to be an academic publication, from the Skopjian Academy of arts and sciences. This encyclopedia instead drew vast criticism from all parts of the world for their falsification and history rewriting. It has now been pulled from international pressure. The provacations exist. The propaganda exists. Gandetto, Risto Stefov, Biljana, etc.. are all puppets of the current regime and I would not doubt compensation for this by the FYROM governement. The truth lies in history. You cannot change this ever. FYROM is slavo-albanian-bulgarian. Macedonia is Greek. You argue foolishly about 1913. Well let me remind you that Greece was under Turkish occupation for over 400 years. This land was Greek far earlier than your slavic people ever touched foot upon. Your argument is void. You exist, but choosing a name out of a hat from your neighbors to immediately prove as if you have an identity apart from your slavic brothers or sisters is not something the world will fall for. The world is smarter than your foolish politicians and brainwashed citizens. The world knows who Macedonians were and are. Never did they think that slavs were Macedonians. Just like they never thought New Mexicans in the USA were Mexican. Wake up foolish FYROMians. The world knows history. You do not.

Rewriting History says:

CORRECTION FROM ABOVE COMMENT: "writing this nonsense" meaning the comments from posters, not the article. The article was spot on.

Dimitar says:

"Re-writing History"; you wish! The Macedonian Encyclopedia was a provocation by the SDSM political party, nothing more! It's aim was to stir up inter ethnic tensions and unseat Gruevski's Govt. No such thing happened, nor will it! Before you accuse Macedonia of "re-writing history", however, you should look at your own state, the absolute USURPER of other people's history, land and identities, which you gloss over in favor of "debating ancient history, languages etc. The MANU are nothing more than SDS mouthpieces, whose credibility has long been in question and this will lead to reform of the institution!

Macedonia will never accept Greek "diktat" re: our identity, simple! There is only one MACEDONIAN ethnicity, nation-state, language, culture! The recent construct, "Greek Macedonian" carries its own Geographic qualifier! End of story!

Dimitar says:

Today's citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria all have equal rights to call themselves Macedonians if they so wish, as well as to lay claim to the heritage of Aleksandar, in fact of all civilizations that have preceded them on their respective territories! The Greek arguments are entirely erroneous, as all modern European nations are of mixed ethnic origins, in any case, Macedonians will never accept a Greek approved identity!

Ironically, in terms of genetic origins, non Slavic speaking Greece and Albania are more Slavic then Macedonia and Bulgaria! How do Greeks explain that?

Ted says:

Today the majority of FYROM are Slavs who immigrated in Europe in the 6AD nearly 1000 years after Alexander The Great. So how could a little country like FYROM mixed with Slavs, Albanians, Serbs and Muslims claim to be the true descendants of Alexander the Great and the Macedonian? Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek and claimed to be Greeks. FYROM was created in the 1940s during the Cold War so FYROM can claim all of Macedonia to the Yugoslavians.
FYROM are Bulgarians descend and speak Bulgarian. Today FYROM only occupies 10 percent of proper Macedonia.

Dimitar says:

There is NO QUESTION that today's Macedonians are the descendents of the Ancient Macedonians!! However, no Macedonian (at least that I've heard of), has ever claimed that we are the "direct",ie: in an unbroken ethnic, linguistic, cultural, sense! Only the Greeks can lay claim to that absurdity! The modern Macedonians have proven through DNA studies that they are an indigenous Mediterranean people; how then can they be "arrived" in the 6th C.? Also, inscriptions found on Macedonian territory pre-date Christianity, and can be interpreted through today's Macedonian language!

Where is the historic proof that "Slav Migrations" occurred in the 6th C.
AD?? When you blurt out absurdities it only reveals your "training", ie; like a parrot, you regurgitate what your Greek politicians have taught you. This is a political construct that modern Greeks are imbued with and has no historic basis in facts on the ground!

Alexander says:

Great article and very factual. The ancient Macedonians were a loose Greek tribe that conquered and united various Hellenci city states into an empire. Alexander the Great spread Greek culture to the world. All ancient Macedonian artefacts, coins etc are written in Greek. The Skopjian Slav-macedonians of FYROM know these facts. Unfortunately, these ex Turkish Bulgarians dream of annexing Greek Macedonia as they are a poor land locked country, hence come up with propaganda and fallacies to justify their cause. The solution will be to name their country Gornamacedonia-Skopje and language as gornamacedonian, and to stop their hostile lies, distortions and historical thieving. The truth hurts!

Dimitar says:

1. Never did the combined territory of the ancient city-states include Macedonia! The modern Greek state, a philhellenic creation, first stepped into Macedonia in 1913!
2. There is abundant proof that "Hellenism" had spread well before Aleksandar's time! It's simply another misrepresentation of modern Greek political propaganda.
3. Was it Nikos Dimou (don't quote me) but a Greek intellectual put out a paper re: the common Turkish, Bulgarian and Greek origins! You should read it, and perhaps Ilija Petropolos, Anastasia Karakisidou and others; learn your own history THEN lecture others!



The solution to Greece's problem with the Macedonian name, only Greece can solve! Not Macedonia, nor any of the other 126 countries that recognize it!

historictruth says:

347 world famouse historians confirms ancient macedons where Greeks.
So who are the Fyromians and who are their ancestors?

And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?

Krste Misirkov, "On Macedonian Matters", Macedonian Review Editions


We are Bulgarians, more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria themselves.

We belong to the same Slav people.

Slobodan Casule, (born 1945), Foreign Minister of FYROM, to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria Solomon Pasi, in an interview to "Utrinski Vesnik" of Skopje on December 29,2001.

Krste Misirkov, "On Macedonian Matters", Macedonian Review Editions

We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century (AD)... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

Kiro Gligorov, (first democraticaly elected president of FYROM, referring to the citizens of his country), Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992

The idea that Alexander the Great was something that belonged to our history was in the minds of some extremist political groups only! These groups were insignificant the first years of our independence, but the big problem is that the old Balkan Nations have been used to be legitimized through their history. In the Balkans, if you want to be recognized as a Nation, you need to have history 3000 years old. So since you made us invent a history, we invented it! (…) You forced us to the arms of the extreme nationalists who today claim that we are direct descendants of Alexander the Great!

Denko Maleski, first Minister of foreign affairs of FYROM (1991 to 1993) and ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997, in an interview to Greek TV channel Mega, November 2006

Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people? We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia.

former Prime Minister and Vice President of FYROM, Ljubčo Georgievski, 2007, in his book "С лице към истината" ("Facing the truth").

We are not stating by accident that Josip Broz Tito is Jesus Christ for Macedonia, a father and a mother for Macedonia. Because we have, in that time, after NOB, for the first time created a Macedonian alphabet, a Macedonian television, a Macedonian state, a language, a passport, an identity card, a university for the first time, a Macedonian academy for the first time. We, communists, have created the Macedonian Orthodox church.

Slobodan Ugrinovski (Слободан Угриновски), politician of the FYROM and the current leader of the left-wing political party Union of Tito's Left Forces,

Robert The Great says:

This article is extremely poorly written. an you at least give some names to these most historians comment?
Anyway the truth is as follows,

Macedonia in its current form is far larger with roughly 60% being occupied and yet the world seems to shy away from this issue as has yourself.

Macedonans- My parents are both Macedonian as where my grandparents and my great grand parents...All my relatives in my Macedonian home town of Voden (renamed edessa after occupation) are all Macedonian. So enough said Macedonians come from Macedonia including those which are occupied by greece and bulgaria....two modern day fictitous peoples....

Kosovo- was never albanian but in saying that it is now since the handfull of albanian families bred like animals and have now taken over....which could happen to all of europe through its islamic populations....oh and your albanian population in Macedonia is only like 10% as Nato were responsible for the false census..

Bulgaria- a bunch of Macedonian and other eastern european people brainwashed by a small group of invading tatars (originally mongols) to believe in this fictitious country.

Cyprus- an ancient phoenician land which currently consists of arabic and turkik people with half the island calling themselves rightfully turkish (islamic turks) and the other half calling themselves greek (another fictitious people). Note this group is made up of largely Christian Turks.

Finally the Fictitious modern day greece. Made in Germany in the early 1800's this truelly is a bastardized nation of a mixture between europeans/asians/africans and the middle east. These people believe they are the decendants of a wiped out race consisting of spartans, athenians and thracians...in reference to the occupied territory of Macedonia they chose to bring over 1 million anatolians to infest the lands of those that inhabited it....now this is just another injustice of the world powers at the time who to today wont admit their mistakes. History is that the ancient hellenes were actually a mixture of phoenicians and sub saharan ethiopians.... Anyway the greeks are false in everything and i pose that you line 10 of them up in a line and you will see the proof that they are a bastardized peoples.