Thank you TM, I appreciate this. And just to let you know my real name isnt Philipou. I hope you can understand why I wouldnt feel comfortable posting with my real name.

Oh please risto, you have no idea how ridiculous you sound patting yourself on the back like this. Ill talk to you tomorow, Im tired.

It merely elavates my grandeur. I am setting myself up to become King of Macedonia soon you know.
(refer to other threads about the genuine yet surprising interest in this matter)

Risto the Great

Are you taking Titos time machine to usurp Alexanders throne

I will not be giving away any secrets until my quest is done. Nor will I joke about this very serious matter. I will say this though ... Tito (amongst others) told me it was my destiny. In fact, many voices inside my head are telling me this.

Risto the Great

I will not be giving away any secrets until my quest is done. Nor will I joke about this very serious matter. I will say this though ... Tito (amongst others) told me it was my destiny. In fact, many voices inside my head are telling me this.

Risto the Great[/quote]

good points you raise whoever you are , but this is a macedonian forum and we are concerned about macedonian matters especially the simple matter of the human right to self identification.

help us achieve those goals in your country.

or is that too much to ask

risto i will vote fory ou as king as i intend to become a god again as soon a this simple matter of my mortality is resolved again.

Gold! I will insist on sacrifices ... virgins like Akritas will be first.


RTGk

Some points I would like to bring up regarding your theory:

1. Justinian being of Slavic descent. This is hardly supported supported by historians. The Cambridge Medieval History states that he was not a slav. Many scholars believe he was from an Illyrian family. Furthermore for the sake of argument lets say he was a slav. How is this supposed to associate him with your modern Macedonian identity? Does your historiography state medieval slav = ethnic Macedonian?

2. You claim Justinian was not educated and could not read or write. This is a false assumption. "He (Justinian) was later known as a man of wide education and culture, of a kind that he could not possibly acquired anywhere outside the capital. His SCHOOLING COMPLETED his uncle must have arranged a military commission for him" - John Julius Norwich "Byzantium The Early Centuries" page 190 Sounds to me like he was educated.

3. Your analogy of Germans and English being Romans because they produced latin texts is a poor one. There are mountains of epigraphical evidence that the German and English cultures and empires produced writing in their oWN common language besides using a lingua franca. This is not the case with the ancient Macedonians. Your historiography wants people to believe that the ancient Macedonians were culturally and technologically advanced enough to form their own vast empires along with administering all their corresponding social, political, and scholarly institutions yet they did not codify their common spoken language for at least 1200 years until some monks did it for them? Please use your common sense. The Hebrews used Greek but the Hebrews left us seemingly endless evidence of their own language, the same certainly cannot be said of the ancient Macedonians!

4. Even if we accept your theory and assume that it was perfectly normal or not unusual for empires and cultures not to codify their domestic language for dozens of centuries while using another foreign language HOW DOES THIS ASSOCIATE YOUR LANGAUGE WITH THAT OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS? HOW? Face the facts Risto, other than some far fetched theories, mostly espoused by nationalist historians from RoM and the RoM diaspora, NO CREDIBLE UNBIASED SCHOLAR ASSOCIATES THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN BY MACEDONIANS TODAY TO THE ANCIENT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE. As a matter of fact the scholars (Borza and Badian) most heavily cited by the 'history' websites administered by your compatriots state that the Macedonians eventually were fully Hellenized. DO YOU DENY these scholars state THIS? DO YOU? In addition, the bible of your compatriots' historiography when it comes to the non-Greekness of the 4th century BC Macedonians, Eugene Borza, tell us that the Modern Macedonians have NO relationship whatsoever to the ancient Macedonians and only the most radical emigres in your diaspora would even bother arguing this. Of course these scholars are completely naive and uneducated when it comes to these opinions but they are the de facto and unparalled international specialists on ancient Macedonia on ONLY those portions of their works that concur and adhere with your nationalist theories. This is nothing to say of the numerous international NON GREEK scholars that state the Macedonians were part of the ancient Greek ethnos and spoke a dialect of Greek (See Oxford Classical Dictionary as an example).

Oh, please. Give me a break.

Justinian codified Roman law, and used and spoke 'Slavic'. His descendants and kin, were the barbarians of the Roman world in the balkans, supposedly excluded from all areas of Roman life, and apparently by the time Justinian was finished with them, the Macedonians [native Slavic speakers] were well and truly part of the Byzantine military matrix. I don't believe it.

Fact is ethnic Macedonians made up a large bulk of the Roman military in the east.

The ''Slavs'', a misused term, that rampaged through Macedonia, were locals - in fact, they were part of the Roman military, I say this because there are accounts of massive ''barbarian'' armies building Roman military technology outside the gates of Solun. One doesn't become an expert in builiding Roman military technology [state of the art], without exposure and education to it. Not the behaviour of a 'backward, swamp dwelling Slav', as modern Greeks like to boast sometimes.


p.

Thanks for responding. It helps to figure out what kind of person you are. I am sorry (but not surprised) to say you are on a very boring path. But for the benefit of my Macedonian brothers on this forum, and as a means of confirming my regal candidacy, I will enlighten you henceforth:
Your histiography states ancient hellene = ethnic greek. You can't even see anything wrong with this. No other ethnicity makes the direct correlation that greeks do. Italians do not suffer from this affliction, why do your ilk? Do you think the katharavoussa "experiment" in greece of the 1830's makes your country purer than the rest? If we adopt church slavonic as our national language now, would it give us equal credibility in comparison to greeks.

I was using Justinian as an example. You felt you had to confirm with your scholar friends that he was illyrian. Plenty to suggest he was slavic. I couldn't care less. I just like the fact he couldn't read or write.


Well, I bothered to re-read my texts. It was a Roman emperor Justin who was illiterate. Not Justinian. Same logic about rulers who could not read (6th century). Savo (I mean Justinian I) is described as of "slavonic" descent.

You failed to accept the logic of my theory. This was a time when there were not many written languages. It (written language) was for the benefit of academics. My mistake about germans and the english. I should have said english and italians who wrote in Latin. We are talking about 1000 years earlier than the german/english/italian comparison. This is a very important distinction.

So clearly you cannot accept that the use of written language in ancient times was of a different significance to present times. Perhaps if they had a printing press those days, things would have been different. But feel free to tell me exactly how many written languages existed in Europe at that time. Then feel free to negate all the races that didn't have a written language in that time. If you cannot appreciate the logic, you won't understand why people like you bore me.

Risto the Great

And you dont see how weak your argument is. I dont negate any of the races thad did not have a written language. We all know the ancient Macs existed and we all know what language is written on the overwhelming mountain of epigraphical evidence they left us. Your claim is 'ancient Macedonians' had no written language of their own for over 1200+ years and their language must be related to the modern Macedonian language. Even if it is not unusual, as you claim, that the culturally and technologically competent ancient Macs did not codify their language for dozens of centuries this does not validate your claim that modern macedonian is directly derived from ancient Macedonians. Outside of some Slavic scholars with an agenda, mostly from the RoM and RoM Diaspora, nobody supports the claim that Modern Macedonian is derived from ancient Macedonian and surely this claimis not accepted by any objective scholarly institutions.

You are doing it again. You are negating them.


Again, you do not understand what I have said. How can I agree to disagree with an ignorant person? The epigraphical evidence you talk of is limited. Further, most of it points to the ancient Macedonians being nothing like the neighbours down south.



Actually, I do not claim this. But I am open to the suggestion. You see, I have seen nothing that proves your point. In fact I am quite sure you believe the ancient hellenes were a homogenous grouping of people. Try not to be so silly to think that different ethnicities could not have existed back then.


Again, not my claim. However I am open to new truths, unlike you. Aside from knowing that the ancient Macedonians were nothing like their southern neighbours, that they could not be understood by their southern neighbours when they spoke their own language, that no text of their own language exists ... well I would say your arguments are in fact without merit. If they were of the greek variety, surely ancient texts would confirm this. We would see many stories written by the local sheep herder in his native greek dialect. But no, we do not see this even though it would logically flow from your argument. Again, you give the impression that everyone knew this written language. I bet a souvlaki or two that there would have only been handfuls of people who knew how to read & write. So, show me the texts of the ancient Macedonian language talking about day to day affairs. Not some academics attempt at sounding intelligent. Should I hold my breath? Your logic suggests we will find a fair bit of this stuff.

You did not answer my question in my previous post. If we tried to re-introduce church slavonic as our standard language would that help us become more homogenised with our glorious ancestors? The same logic has been used by the greeks. How has this helped you with your "oneness" with your ancestors?

The same institutions you often like to quote regarded Justinian as "slavonic". Would it be too horrible to think that ethnicities such as MACEDONIANS, Serbs, Bulgars, Croatians etc rose from that grouping? I see that it can get confusing, I really have no desire to pretend we Macedonians are exactly the same as our Macedonians ancestors. In order to avoid confusion, I would prefer we refer to ourselves as New Macedonians (only as long as greece refers to itself as New Hellas). It would be naive and foolish to think we are exactly the same as our ancestors. Like you are. But perhaps we are in fact very similar, look how easily Macedonians integrate into various societies as compared to greeks who find it quite difficult to integrate fully into western society. They do tend to stick to themselves here in Australia.

Risto the Great

How am I 'negating' any races by stating that Modern Macedonian is not related to ancient Macedonian? Is it or is it not your position that your modern Macedonian language is related to ancient Macedonian? Also how am I 'negating' any races by stating it is not usual for a society to use a foreign language and not codify their own common language for dozen(s) of centuries while being culturally/technologically competent enough to form vast empires along with all the corresponding administrative, political, social, economical and intellectual facilities. I am not 'negating' any races (im not even sure what you mean by that), I am only pointing out flaws in some of the unsupported arguments being espoused in here. It is you that is comming up all sorts of theories to explain history and to make the facts fit your nationalist agenda.




The ignorant person here is you. You make all sorts of generalizations and assumptions about the 'theories' I espouse and you make up arguments as you go. What is your position, Risto? Do you or do you not believe that modern Macedonian is derived and henceforth related to ancient Macedonian? If you answer no, I don't see any need to continue discussing this issue. Its a simple question!



Yah, there is hardly any Greek epigraphical evidence left over from the post Alexander Hellenistic empires. And you call me ignorant? Talk about trying to make the facts fit your nationalist agenda!




See there you go again making assumptions about my 'beliefs' and then putting forth arguments. This is a logical fallacy. How does what I state make anyone conclude that I think different ethnicities could not have existed back then? Furthermore just because I claim that modern Macedonian is not related to ancient Macedonian and that the Macedonians were at the very least eventually Hellenized in no way implies that I think I am related to them or that no other 'races' have been assimilated into the Greek ethnos, either modern or ancient. Get it? So stop making up my arguments! And these are not unsupported claims. Eugene Borza, the scholar and historian that is selectively quoted ad infinitum in these forums and in the 'history' websites produced by your compatriots states that the Macedonians were eventually Hellenized and are not related to any modern nation INCLUDING YOURS! Is he naive, ignorant brainwashed Greek too?




Listen, for the trillionth time (I dont know how many times I can state this before you get it) all I am stating is that no credible objective scholar relates modern Macedonian to ancient macedonian and that it is not usual for a society to form vast empires and to have a common language for dozen(s) of centuries without codifying it. It is you that is comming up with all sorts of sophistries to explain the absence of their written language.

As for what the ancient Macedonians were or were not...do you deny that Badian and Borza state they were eventually Hellenized? Do they state this yes or no? Its a simple question. These are the scholars that are seemingly the most widely used by your compatriots.



There you go making unsupported assumptions about my logic. Since there are no texts of the ancient Macedonian language why are so many in here concluding it is related to modern Macedonian?



You have hardly answered any questions yourself. I dont even know what your position is because your arguments are all over the place and full of sophistries.



There you go again making assumptions and generalizations about my beliefs. Where have I ever stated anything about a 'oneness' and why is it when you guys are pressed to explain your theories part of the explanation always incorporates attacking the validity of Greek history and the Greek ethnos. First off katharevousa is hardly used as a common form of the language. The introduction of Katharevousa by the Greek state as a standard dialect is politically no worse a scenario than the fact that the 'standard Macedonian' language was standardized and 'cleaned up' under the authority of a communist regime in a manner that was motivated by political purposes. Why is it that people from outside of the republic, people like MAKNEWS, claim the standard language sounds serbianized? You also cannot deny that there are numerous scholars that argue that the Macedonian language was standardized in a fashion to distance it from Bulgarian. So are you going to claim that the standardization of your language by your people was a natural process UNMOTIVATED BY POLITICS, while the introduction of Katharevousa was politically motivated and done to brainwash the people? Give me a break!



His ethnic origin means nothing to me and there is hardly any conclusive evidence that he was slavic, there are scholars that argue he was Illyrian. There are people here that think he was an ethnic Macedonian. Are you one of those people and if so where is the evidence?




This is by far the most ridiculous argument you have put forth so far. From what you allegedly claim you see in Australia you make sweeping generalizations about how Greeks integrate into 'western' societies. Talk about ignorance and narrow mindedness! There are countless educated progressive Greeks that hold esteemed positions in politics, universities, large companies, governments and organizations in all sorts of places in 'western society'. What is laughable about this comment though is the fact that you need to compare your people to the Greeks. Please stop making a fool of yourself with these ridiculous generalizations motivated by your hatred.

Post Alexander hellenistic empire .... thoroughly agreed. But you choose not to refer to the post Alexander Roman and slavic empires as well. Why is that? Why do you feel that 200 odd year window of time is so significant for you? You do not attempt to resolve the before or after. So typical of the greeks that come here. Alexander spread Koine therefore everything forever has been greek.



Great, thanks for that. So what you are saying is that you are not really sure what the hell ancient Macedonians were. That is fine. I don't really care what they were. They certainly were hellenised for a while. Then they became fabulous romans for a while. What exactly was your point? That they were hellenes, or they became "hellenistic" or what? I think they became the definition of a hellene for a window of history. In fact, I think they defined it. But my definition of hellene is quite different to yours and bears no resemblance to those people down south.

Prove the ancient Macedonians did not speak a language that has connections to modern Macedonian. Simple really.


Sure, show me the facts stating what the language of the ancient Macedonians was. Amongst your own sophistries you are attempting to show there is no link between the ancients and the modern Macedonians. You do this because you seek to negate my identity.

.
Do you accept they were Romanised and then Slavicised? If yes, what does that mean about the identity of the modern Macedonian? If no, why do you ignore the evolutions in the region?


Conversely, why do you feel it is related to greek? Too much sophistry for you?



Oh ok. The difference with standardised macedonian is that it was the language of the present time. Katharavoussa was a revived from a dead 2000 year old language. If you are drawing parallels with that, you are deluded.

So whilst YOU hop around stomping your angry little feet about my identity ... I am sure you find my reasoning not to your liking. Think of it as a bitter pill that you need to swallow. Let me re-cap ....

YOU say we do not know the language of the ancient Macedonians (I agree).
YOU say the ancient Macedonians were "hellenistic" ... (they were Romanistic, Slavistic and Westernic ??? too, but you do not dwell on this)
YOU are trying to argue for a lack of connection between our people so that logically we cannot be called Macedonian.
I say why shouldn't we question your identity if you attempt to do the same to us.

Risto the Great

Alexander's empire did utilise Koine. But that begs the question, if the ancient Macedonians were Greek then why would they adopt the Greek dialect of Athenians -- their subjugated enemy? Why wouldn't they spread their own supposedly 'Greek' dialect.

Is it because the 'tongue' the Macedonians spoke was a 'barbarian' one, as Demosthenes claimed? We know from extant sources that Greeks had difficulty understanding the ancient Macedonian tongue. Just what was this barbaric ancient Macedonian tongue that never shows up in any of the inscriptions. All we ever see is Koine -- the Lingua Franca of the times.

Exactly. They chose Koine because it already was an established language in many places along the way. Why reinvent the already satisfactory wheel?

Risto the Great

There you go making up my arguments again. Risto, you have to work on your reasoning skills. I chose the Hellenistic period because this is a period within the time frame that this alleged separate ancient Macedonian language hadnt been codified yet. Is it or is it not your position that modern Macedonian is derived from and henceforth related to ancient Macedonian?. If so which unbiased credible and objective historian relates Modern Macedonian with ancient Macedonian? Nobody, Risto, outside of RoM, the RoM diaspora and some nationalist slavic scholars supports this mythical historiography.



What I am saying is:

1. No credible unbiased objective scholar relates modern Macedonians with ancient Macedonians, linguistically or culturally.

2. Even the scholars your compatriots cite and selectively quote ad infinitum, Ernst Badian and Eugene Borza,state that the Macedonians were eventually Hellenized by roman times. Badian states that the Macedonian came to be regarded as Northern Greeks during the Hellenistic era. If you have a problem with these arguments, dont bother with me, write Borza and Badian and try to convince them otherwise.

3. Do not automatically assume that I, as a Greek, think that I am related to the ancient Macedonians or the ancient Greeks because I state that the Macedonians were at the very least fully Hellenized by Roman times, a notion put forth by the some of the most heavily cited historians of your compatriots.

Also, why do you state you really dont care what they were? Who are you expecting to fool with this nonsense, Risto? It is you that is trying to establish a link with them by your very arguments, just like the following nonsense:



This sums up your position and your proof more than anything you have said so far. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot use absence of proof as proof of existense. You are making the claim, you need to substantiate it. Other than some scholars with nationalist agendas and the part time psuedo linguists and historians in forums like this nobody supports the claim of linguistic continuity between the ancient Macs and modern Macedonians.



Whatever it was, and many credible unbiased scholars claim it was a dialect of ancient Greek (see OCD), nobody credible and objective relates it with your language.



There is no link between the ancient and modern Macedonians as one of the most heavily cited scholars of your compatriots states:

"If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of a different order. 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. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity."

If you have a problem with this, Risto, please write Eugene Borza.



I do it to point out that the theory of continuity between ancient Macedonians and modern Macedonians is unsupported and a product of nationalist mythologies. Now if you are basing the validity of your identity on a relationship with an ancient tribe then that it your problem.



I feel it is most likely related to ancient Greek because several credible objective scholars classify it as an ancient Greek dialect. This includes the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Surely this is more plausible than it being related to your modern Macedonian language. If you have a problem with these sorts of works please feel free to write the historians.




Both languages were 'standardized' to fulfill political objectives. Katharevousa is not the common dialect spoken in Greece. When will you understand this?



Risto, your reasoning is weak and you have no objective scholarly support for the argument that Modern Macedonian is related to ancient Macedonian. If you base your identity on these sorts of relationships then there is very little anyone can do for you.



I say it is not related to modern Macedonian.



I am only pointing out to you that the scholars most widely used by your compatriots to support their 'ancient macedonia' arguments state that the Macedonians were fully Hellenized. Whatever that means to you is not my interest.



Why do you keep making up my arguments? Again, the most heavily cited scholar of your compatriots when it comes to ancient Macedonia says there is NO CONNECTIOn between your people and the ancient Macedonians. Does this mean I think you cannot be called Macedonian? What have I been addressing you as the whole time???

Do a little more than accept some "useful" theories of over 100 years ago and show me proof of what comprised the ancient Macedonian language. I know you cannot, therefore I suggest you write to the scholars you appear to be infatuated with and verify how they arrived at their conclusions about the ancient language spoken. If you cannot, then I suggest you admit you do not really know. Like I have. So who is being unreasonable?

Even if we go with a slavic migration theory, your arguments suggest they should have brought a neat little written language with them over the mountains. Again not the case.

Whilst I am open to suggestions, you are not.

You keep saying you are not trying to negate the Macedonian identity. Because you appear to suggest that you don't see a need for the continuity of the people. Thanks for that. In the same manner I extend an olive branch to the modern greek people who have no relationship to the people of the region in antiquity. (Just like uncle Borza insists)

My apologies if you feel I have tarred you with the same brush as many other greeks who have posted here before. But your line of questioning follows a very traditional path. If that is not the case, can you please write to the greek government and demand rights for native Macedonians in greece as well as an end to the absurdity with respect to the name issue.

Thanks.

Risto the Great

Yea......

Fact is Phillipou, from about the 4th century BC, Greek writing first appears in Macedonia [and Thrace].

A couple words here and there, a few glosses....etc. But what makes the ancient Macedonians ''Greek'' ?? Answer: Modern Greek hysteria

One thing I know:

Some Macedonians were bilingual by very late antiquity [Strabo]
Non-Greek words in use by Macedonians was part of an older balkan substratum [American Philological Society]
Kalleris, a bias nationalist historian, says 70% of anc. Macedonian was 'Greek'. Well, 30% wasn't.
Anc. Macedonians used 'translators' to converse with Greeks [Eumenes of Cardia]
Modern Macedonian vocabulary uses many words in use in the anc. balkans [from areas inclu. Macedonia, Thrace, Illyria and Paionia]
Greeks regarded Macedonians as 'barbarians'.
Athens 'settled' the coast line, they made efforts to settle Thrace and made deliberate efforts to settle Macedonia [Hammond]
The two oldest tombs found on Mt Olymbos, are Thracian ! Not Greek [Hammond]
Brygians of ancient Macedonia, used a Slavic langauge.
Paionian Kings of ancient Macedonia, spoke a Slavic langauge.
Thracians, used what looks like a Slavic langauge.

Do the maths.

p.