What were macedonians?

[mayan king]

epirus kings

Epirus
Neoptolemus ? ? son of Achilleas
Helenus ? ? husband of Andromache (widow of Neoptolemus)
Molossus ? ? son of Neoptolemus
Admitus 469 423
Tharypas 423 395 son of Admitus
Alcetas I 385 370 son of Tharypas
Neoptolemus I 370 360 son of Alcetas I
Alexander I 360 352 son of Neoptolemus I
Arybbas 360 342 son of Alcetas I
Alexander I 342 331 [see above]
Neoptolemus II 331 313 son of Alexander I
Arybbas 323 ? [see above]
Aeacides ? 313 son of Arybbas
Alcetas II 313 307 son of Arybbas
Pyrrhus I 307 302 son of Aeacides
Neoptolemus II 302 296 [see above]
Pyrrhus I 298 272 [see above]
Alexander II 272 242 son of Pyrrhus I
Pyrrhus II 242 234 son of Alexander II
Ptolemy 234 231 son of Alexander II
Epirote League 231 168
168 BC: The Romans, under Anicius Gallus, conquer Epirus

[mayan king]

and here's some from..byzantium

Byzantine Empire
In the reign of Heraclius, Greek becomes the official language of the Roman Empire.
Heraclius dynasty
Heraclius 610 641 Cappadocia
Constantine III 641 641 son of Heraclius
Heraclonas 641 641 son of Heraclius
Constans II Pogonatus 641 668 son of Constantine III
Constantine IV 668 685 son of Constans II
Justinian II Rhinotmetus 685 695 son of Constantine IV
Leontius 695 698 Anatolics theme
Tiberius III Apsimar 698 705 Cibyrrhaeots theme
Justinian II 705 711 [see above]
Philippicus Bardanes 711 713 Armenia
Anastasius II Artemius 713 715 Constantinople
Theodosius III 715 717 Adramyttion Ionia
Isaurian dynasty
Leo III 717 741 Germanicea Syria
Constantine V Copronymus 741 742 son of Leo III
Artavasdus 742 743 son-in-law of Leo III
Constantine V 743 745 [see above]
Leo IV the Khazar 775 780 son of Constantine V
Constantine VI 780 797 son of Leo IV
Irene the Athenian 797 802 mother of Constantine VI
Nicephorus dynasty
Nicephorus I 802 811 Seleucia Pisidia
Stauracius 811 811 son of Nicephorus I
Michael I Rangabe 811 813 brother-in-law of Stauracius
Leo V the Armenian 813 820 Armenia
Amorian dynasty
Michael II the Stammerer 820 829 Amorion Phrygia
Theophilus the Just 829 842 son of Michael II
Michael III the Drunkard 842 867 son of Theophilus
Macedonian dynasty
Basil I 867 886 Adrianople Thrace
Leo VI the Wise 886 912 son of Basil I
Alexander 912 913 son of Basil I
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 913 959 son of Leo VI
Romanus I Lecapenus 920 944 father-in-law of Constantine VII
Romanus II 959 963 son of Constantine VII
Basil II the Bulgar-slayer 963 1025 son of Romanus II
Nicephorus II Phocas 963 969 husband of Theophano (widow of Romanus II)
John I Tzimisces 969 976 son-in-law of Constantine VII
Constantine VIII 1025 1028 son of Romanus II
Zoe 1028 1050 daughter of Constantine VIII
Romanus III Argyrus 1028 1034 husband of Zoe
Michael IV Paphlagonian 1034 1041 husband of Zoe
Michael V Calaphates 1041 1042 nephew of Michael IV
Constantine IX Monomachus 1042 1055 husband of Zoe
Theodora 1055 1056 daughter of Constantine VIII
Michael VI Stratioticus 1056 1057 Constantinople
Isaac I Comnenus 1057 1059 Castamon Paphlagonia
Ducas dynasty
Constantine X 1059 1067 Thrace
Michael VII Parapinaces 1067 1078 son of Constantine X
Romanus IV Diogenes 1068 1071 husband of Eudocia (widow of Constantine X)
Nicephorus III Botaneiates 1078 1081 husband of Maria (widow of Michael VII)
Comnenus dynasty
Alexius I 1081 1118 nephew of Isaac I
John II 1118 1143 son of Alexius I
Manuel I 1143 1180 son of John II
Alexius II 1180 1183 son of Manuel I
Andronicus I 1183 1185 nephew of John II
Angelus dynasty
Isaac II 1185 1195 Philadelphia
Alexius III 1195 1203 brother of Isaac II
Alexius IV 1203 1204 son of Isaac II
Alexius V Murtzuphlus 1204 1204 son-in-law of Alexius III
Lascarid dynasty
Theodore I 1204 1222 Cappadocia
John III Vatatzes 1222 1254 son-in-law of Theodore I
Theodore II 1254 1258 son of John III
John IV 1258 1261 son of Theodore II
Palaeologus dynasty
Michael VIII 1259 1282 Constantinople
Andronicus II 1282 1328 son of Michael VIII
Andronicus III 1328 1341 grandson of Andronicus II
John V 1341 1352 son of Andronicus III
John VI Cantacuzenus 1347 1354 father-in-law of John V
John V 1354 1376 [see above]
Andronicus IV 1376 1379 son of John V
John V 1379 1390 [see above]
John VII 1390 1390 son of Andronicus IV
John V 1390 1391 [see above]
Manuel II 1391 1425 son of John V
John VIII 1425 1448 son of Manuel II
Constantine XI Dragases 1448 1453 son of Manuel II
1453: The Turks, under Mehmet II, conquer Constantinople

[Theodosius the Great]

My impression is that the ancient Macedonians were to the Greeks what the Romans were to the Etruscans. The former in both cases were the more savage, less cultured group who went on to conquer their respective latters then mangaged to forge great empires. That might be an over-simplistic analogy, I understand. As the centuries passed and you got intermarrying and great migrations I would say both modern Greeks and Macedonians are basically the same stock now.


(No, I don't have a dog in the fight between the modern nations - but believe what you will)



Theo

[Hoplitesmores]

i would like to say to everyone that we greeks react this way that to some seems too defensive because greek history is being attacked by former communist-fascist states like albania-skopia-bulgaria-turkey and more....the issues are really close to us.Its Greek history vs Totalitarian Propaganda.

[Jona Lendering]

i would like to say to everyone that we greeks react this way that to some seems too defensive because greek history is being attacked by former communist-fascist states like albania-skopia-bulgaria-turkey and more....the issues are really close to us.Its Greek history vs Totalitarian Propaganda.

I agree that the former communist states have tried to rewrite history in a very strange way; and I do recall that the FYROM made territorial claims to Thessaloniki, which was -even if taken with with a pinch of salt- not extremely clever. I also think that many western scholars fail to realize that the Greek borders are pretty recent; Thessaloniki, the second city of Greece, was added to the country less than a century ago, and western scholars can not really imagine what this means.

This being said, I think that there is a flaw in the arguments used by Greeks and Slavo-Macedonians. This flaw is that ancient history can be used for modern politics. It would have been sufficient if Greece said to the FYROM: "This border has been recognized by all international treaties, which you signed yourself; if you don't resepect it, you break the UN treaty, and that means war against Greece and the NATO". There is absolutely no reason to make bold statements that the Macedonians of two thousand year ago were Greek, because that is irrelevant.

Germany can not make territorial claims to Essex and Sussex, even though the population is ethnically and linguisticaly related to the ancient German Saxons. And the Friesians can live in the Netherlands because they have lived there for the past generations, but not because they used to live there two thousand years ago.

Because on the Balkans ancient history is used (or abused, in my view) for political aims, the study of the past itself suffers. Bowra, a great scholar, has run into serious problems when he said that Macedonia was closely related to, but not 100% identical to ancient Greece; this is not threatening for modern Greece (he does not endorse the lunatic claims that ancient Macedonian is a Slavonic language) and neither is Mr. Bowra a communist or a fascist.

Still, when Michael Wood wanted to make a documentary on Alexander the Great, he learned that he would not receive the permits he needed if he would also interview Mr. Bowra. I immediately add that recently my own beloved Dutch government has disgraced itself by putting an end to subsidizing a cultural center called De Balie in Amsterdam after it had organized a debate on human rights in China when the Chinese foreign minister was in Holland - I am not saying that my country is more perfect than Greece, but I think that scholarship must be independent from modern politics.

I have a feeling that the Greek government is not just justifiably overreacting to outrageous claims, but is actively connecting politics with the study of history. The simple reason is, I think, that the past is modern Greece's raison d' être. The modern country was created in the 1820's, so to say, to give the Greek past a home. There is nothing wrong with that; after the nadir at Salt Lake City, the Olympic Games in Athens were the first games in two decades that were nice again, and Greece has great museums. Still, I would like it if modern Greeks would devote themselves to the pleasant sides of the study of the past and leave it out of the political sphere.

All this being said, I finish this post by repeating that as a Dutchman, living behind boundaries that have been recognized as long ago as 1542 (Germany) and 1830 (Belgium), I belong to those who do not really know what a threatened national identity is. I whisper the words above, do not shout them.

[Hoplitesmores]

i wish a solution were that simple and thankou for your show of understanding in -threatened national identity-.Wars and the such in the future based in those countries totalitarian hitler like make-up history would be detrimental to all sides and beyond.

[Arthes]

Without as Theodosius says 'having a dog in the fight' this is my viewpoint on this matter....which I have seen real nastiness over.
A lot of the arguments I see, and am mainly referring to are due to both Greeks and Macedonians claiming Alexander and the Argaed Star/Sun as 'theirs'.
The borders of Macedonia that should govern this argument is....ALEXANDER'S MACEDONIA - whatever the peoples who live within those borders, they were and still are considered Macedonians - the Argaed Star/Sun should be allowed to represent the country it originally stood for....Macedonia.
We have a hell of a lot of immigrants in England, who have been here as long as the Slavs and others in Macedonia....who call themselves English or British....what if we suddenly said - 'hey you Saxons, you are nothing to do with us and how dare you fly the Union Jack' or they said to us who look to be descended of Romano British blood 'How dare you call our Saxon kings yours' You can see what I mean :wink: :wink:
How many Macedonians are of mixed Greek, Slavonic and MACEDONIAN ancestry and some of them will be descended from the original Macedonians and Alexander's soldiers, who fought for Macedonia......and what is being forgotten here....is the fact these peoples are proud of Alexander - what is wrong with that, bearing in mind some Greeks at the time would have happily killed him...and some of the modern Greeks are descended from those too - well, the ones that survived that is.... :wink:
You cannot change history, ancient borders or Alexander being Macedonian to suit whims...Philip wanted him to have a Greek education as he considered the Greeks to be cultured compared with the Macedonians - sometimes I wonder who are the cultured ones, when I see some of the unnecessary hatred and death threats hock:
Regards
Arthes

[Hoplitesmores]

In example the turks say that they should do to us the same thing their ancestors did.genocide.

They say that we won the gold olympic medal in swimming 1922 smyrne.When women & children we swimming to the European civilized ships and their hands were cut off by civilized Europeans...

albania-bulgaria-sopia-turkey are just as nazi as WWii germany
the future is clear.once they get enough power In the next century a nice little war . hock:

[hoplite14gr]

Well I think this thread answers a lot:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=9706

Kind regards

[Idomeneas]

I think that its very dificult to start a conversation about the ethnicity of macedonians without turn into a political discussion. You know why? Because the whole issue is an effort for a political arguement. Before the late 40's no such issue existed. Basically it was devised by Tito. FYROM as state and various organizations pushing and financing this case has produced a massive propagandistic material in such a Goebels tactic. The network is unbelievable. It stretches from paramilitary organizations to international lobbies and pay rolls of academics to promote the idea of a Macedonian nation which is oppressed by the Greek state. A Macedonian state destined to be reunited and claim the lost lands :roll: . Despite the slavonic descendence of the popullation and not a sign of an ethnic group with a native ancient lineage.

There is no sign of a relation of nowdays people language with any ancient pre-medieval local unique dialect, there are no graves, no findings, no monuments to suggest a radically different culture than the greek one. All findings including a calendar which if i recall right was found 3 years ago plus this recent plaque suggest a greek culture with the known diversities that all greek city states and regions up to day have.
Despite the many ancient sources some researchers try to make a case with hypothesis and wishfull thinkings. Where are the findings ladies and gentlemen that verify those claims?

I would like to note that even if there is a hue of conspiracy and propaganda in all those ''new'' theories i dont believe that all researchers are on a pay roll or something. I do believe though that many researchers eager to be the ones presenting a big discovery and given that most of radical discoveries are done about the area they let their ego lead them to the path of academic glory and booksales. after all it is charming to be radical. To turn upside down what people believed for years. The problem is that they lack the evidences to do so.

The whole phainomenon has created a snowball the last years. If you were asking before 30 years what Alexander was everybody would say that he was a greek king of the macedonia region. Now people start as our friend ''i know macedonians are not exactly greek''. Well? how does he know that? Alexander told him? No. There is a massive effort through books tv programmes, internet. People are bombarded with those info and usually there is some big shot signature under those articles. After people who love history read those stuff and pass them over contributing without knowing to the snowball.

When the whole issue started Greece was in political turbulance. Actually till the late 70's greece was all the time in political turbulance sponsored by our lovely ''allies''. There was no space for anyone to seriously take account of such absurb claims that reached the sphaire of joke. Everybody said ''oh yes yes sure whatever you say''. Add in this the greek style of ''why do today what we can do tommorow''. Since antiquity we leave everything till last moment we can only work under pressure :lol: (olympics?). In the 90's they stopped laughing and did another mistake. They did a huge mistake. They tried to reverse ''in a night'' what FYROM was building for decades. they mobilised the people they put vergina star eveywhere you can imagine in a silly effort that only made the impression that we are no diffrent than FYROM.
In the meantime i Skopje they publish maps that show thessaloniki within their border, they have crazy history books at school poisoning the kids with stories of the greeks that stole their heritage.

Jona made a very correct note. Many scholars seems to ignore all the steps that made Greece a state. And how recent this is. I argue though on the fact that more than less Jona says that Greek state was somehow ''made up'' to stage the memory of ancient Greece. Surely we would be crazy to claim that each and every one of us is deriving from an ancient lineage. BUT. There seems to be a comparisson between Greek people and living space and people that basically roamed europe in an effort to FIND a living space. I cant see a valid comparisson. Yes people blend in yes conquests, yes wars, but there are too many regions of greece that either invaders never set foot or they had insignificant and rather ceremonial presence. Also there are the case wer conquerors had a very significant presence (turks) but local customs and mentality prevented the alteration of the population to a point that can be noted as major.
Yes offcourse there are areas where due to the closeness of customs and relligion populations where more positive. As the case of regions occupied by italians.

Greeks dominated the living space of aegean costs. I wont reffer to further regions. They were prosperous and didnt needed to massively move after the archaic major colonizations. So that means that the population base stayed here and just received groups of people. So where all those people went? Surelly people came and went but not to a point that a whole population can be completely altered and be something completely different. Evolution is another thing, extinction another.

The revolution that made modern greek state happen was on 1821 and it was one of the 400 major uprisings since turkish occupation. The greeks by themselves and without any help apart from some romantic philellenes from all over europe claimed back their own right to liberty. In the course they gain official support from major forces that by that time even aided the otomans. In order to be recognised as state they even accepted an apointed king to assure european royal houses that their motives are ethnic not political. Thessaloniki was part of greek state during the balkan wars.
Greeks had to fight or have serious diplomatic struggles for every inch of ground. I would say its a miracle the fact that after 400 years of occupation greeks stil remembered who they were and maintained their customs and most important language. That proves alot imo. It also makes clear why Greeks are so sensitive with anything that has to do with political and territorial claims.
Im sure people that dont live in countries that have their borders questioned in daily basis cannot understand this and maybe looks as a nationalistic tense.

What i would like to sayis that if the propagandistic snowball is able to influence people that really love history and painstakinly try to recreate even the smallest aspect of ancient cultures, imaging how influencing can be to people that get educated through movies or tv programmes.

Sorry for the long post, i just felt that i must explain some things.

[Arthes]

Not wishing to cause any offense here...as I see from an 'outsider' point of view...
The problem is similar to the powers that be in Athens declaring Sparta does not have any descendants of the original Spartans (they all went to live in Mani, I believe) so Leonidas does not belong to Sparta, but Greece and uproot his statue to Athens. (Which would anger me even as a non - Greek)
My view considers the original towns, borders and the nationality that the heroes concerned considered themselves to be, not who may or may not live there now or what their language has evolved into....unless the current occupants are attempting to destroy the remnants of the earlier history etc (but hasn't that happened as long as man has existed :? )
Of course, if I were Greek or Macedonian I would probably have a totally different viewpoint on this.
I don't agree that because the modern language is a Slavonic one, that none of the ethnic Macedonians can still exist or have Macedonian bloodlines....
Consider the Britons and Anglo Saxons....we don't speak Brythonic in England now, the language of Wales is the last remnant (in the West of England a version of Brythonic was still spoken up until the c14th) and they do not consider themselves the same race as the English, (even if some of them have a mixed ancestry) and I don't blame then... :wink: lol; Yet, there are many 'English' speaking the language of the Anglo Saxons who have that original Brythonic or Celtic blood in their veins and dislike being lumped in with the 'Saxons' - myself included...!
Saxons were a minority of the 'invaders', the majority were (after the Romans left) Jutes and Angles from Denmark and later Normandy (Norse-French)....yet we speak a minority Germanic language and are called 'Saxons' as a result by the Gaelic and Cymric speaking peoples of the British Isles (Scots, Irish, Welsh, IOM, West Welsh, etc)
If, as you say, the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Dorian, then how would we be able to trace if some of them moved into another Dorian speaking area of Northern Greece for example after the Slavonic invasions or if those that remained in Macedonia adopted a minority language?
A difficult problem to solve I know.... :?
regards
Arthes

[Arthes]

Saxons were a minority of the 'invaders', the majority were (after the Romans left) Jutes and Angles from Denmark and later Normandy (Norse-French)....yet we speak a minority Germanic language and are called 'Saxons' as a result by the Gaelic and Cymric speaking peoples of the British Isles (Scots, Irish, Welsh, IOM, West Welsh, etc)

oops...I forgot the other Danes and Norsemen...!

[Idomeneas]

Not wishing to cause any offense here...as I see from an 'outsider' point of view...
The problem is similar to the powers that be in Athens declaring Sparta does not have any descendants of the original Spartans (they all went to live in Mani, I believe) so Leonidas does not belong to Sparta, but Greece and uproot his statue to Athens. (Which would anger me even as a non - Greek)
My view considers the original towns, borders and the nationality that the heroes concerned considered themselves to be, not who may or may not live there now or what their language has evolved into....unless the current occupants are attempting to destroy the remnants of the earlier history etc (but hasn't that happened as long as man has existed :? )
Of course, if I were Greek or Macedonian I would probably have a totally different viewpoint on this.
I don't agree that because the modern language is a Slavonic one, that none of the ethnic Macedonians can still exist or have Macedonian bloodlines....
Consider the Britons and Anglo Saxons....we don't speak Brythonic in England now, the language of Wales is the last remnant (in the West of England a version of Brythonic was still spoken up until the c14th) and they do not consider themselves the same race as the English, (even if some of them have a mixed ancestry) and I don't blame then... :wink: lol; Yet, there are many 'English' speaking the language of the Anglo Saxons who have that original Brythonic or Celtic blood in their veins and dislike being lumped in with the 'Saxons' - myself included...!
Saxons were a minority of the 'invaders', the majority were (after the Romans left) Jutes and Angles from Denmark and later Normandy (Norse-French)....yet we speak a minority Germanic language and are called 'Saxons' as a result by the Gaelic and Cymric speaking peoples of the British Isles (Scots, Irish, Welsh, IOM, West Welsh, etc)
If, as you say, the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Dorian, then how would we be able to trace if some of them moved into another Dorian speaking area of Northern Greece for example after the Slavonic invasions or if those that remained in Macedonia adopted a minority language?
A difficult problem to solve I know.... :?
regards
Arthes

Arthes

The problem is not just a slavonic language. the people itself IS slavonic. Those lands where given away for a living space to slavs in order to prevent further wars by the emperor of byzantium. We are talking about a mass immigration to the region. Plus that the specific region isnt even the important part of Macedonia to justify that way a huge remaining population mixing with the newcomers. Yes some individuals may stay and mixed with slavs. Why that makes them no Greek?

FYROM doesnt just claim a country name based on the geographical space. They claim the history and achievements themselves in order to make a nationalistic base that doesnt exist at the moment and look for further demands. I mean common now even now half of them are basically albanian what percentage can claim any ancient bloodlines that reach antiquity?

In this struggle of FYROM to prove a case (and all the other that affiliate or have personal agendas) what are the actual clues that can create a status for questioning macedonians as greek culture? Apart from just a mass bombimg of crazy theories the only elements the ''scholars'' of that type stand on are Demosthenis speaches against Philip and Alexander speaking to his men in ''Macedonian''. They seem to be ready to stretch every bit of evidence but to ignore or try to, the extreme localism of Greece from antiquity till now, the regional dialects used up to now in countryside. Demosthenes tried to make a case and raise the athenians against macedonians propably in the same way his forfathers did for spartans. We are talking about a man who made war propaganda (as he should) and hated absolutely Philip. Put on top that indeed Macedonias were more backdrow that southern Greeks and the fact of the goverment type they had which was totally opposed to athenian one.

Being Macedonian doesnt exclude being Greek same as being Cretan or from Mani doesnt exclude it. They seem to me that they write about Greece without getting in the trouble to visit and spend time in the country apart from major museums and beaches. Local dialects exists even today.

I live in Peiraias. My father comes from Crete and my mother from Olympia. Even if you are greek getting to Crete and talk with the locals can be very difficult sometimes. They have pronounciation and specific local words. Especially if you talk to old people you will propably make assumptions of what they say. Same thing for cyprous. I ve served in the army there 14 months and i still cant understand them when they talk to each other.

In central greece they have other type of local dialect. Usually they cut down words. There are tones of jokes about that. My grandfathers from Olympia also use local words and most of them are almost homeric.

The fact that Spartans as Dorians talked in a very diffrent way than ionians escapes those scholars. So the Mcedonian ''language'' is simply a doric regional dialect as the ones in other parts of Greece.

the extreme localism exists even today. Sometimes it can be so bittre that seems hatefull to outsiders. For example. In football teams. The fans of Olympiakos (Peiraias team) are called ''gavroi'' (a fish) in return they call the fans of PAOK (thesalloniki team) ''bulgars''. Its very insulting to them and harsh. Its based on the bulgarian occupations during balkan wars and WWII of the region and people in thessalonika are sensitive about it. It hurts them so the rest use it. They call the fans of AEK (athletic union of Constantinople) ''hanums'' (dancing harem girls) cause the team was created from immigrants of Constantinople after the asia minor destruction.

Those examples might look simplistic, but please tell me if a future historian in 3000 years finds those reffrences he must make the assumtion that Peiraias was inhabited by fishes, Thessalloniki by bulgars and there was a major import of dancing girls :lol: .

[hoplite14gr]

Well before it becomes off topic. Yannis is right.
But, many Western Europeans have the consept/experience of living in "federalistic national enties" where speaking a different language does not necessarily mean another nationality. (i.e. Switzerland, Belgium).
So they find it hard to "digest" that this concept does not apply to other regions perhaps the same way that others find hard to "get" the above.
Cristina made a rational approach but the evolutionary develpoment in her country was totaly different than in our country.
Also in every human society, no matter how it is adminstrated, the consept of "inheritance" and "land of the forefathers" is paramount.
Naturaly people who lived more than 3000 years in area do not take it kindly when "outsiders" question their "land rights" in that area.
In this forum we are lucky that we can have rational discussions on that issues. But please keep in mind that in the world outside when questions like that arise there are resolved with human suffering.
Currently in the T.V. we see what happens when the "land of the forefathers" becomes an issue.
Kind regards

[Jona Lendering]

In this forum we are lucky that we can have rational discussions on that issues.

This is indeed very, very rare, and one of the reasons why I like it here.