53 replies to this topic

[galvatron prime]

Another Rift Between Greece, Macedonia

http://www.washingto...9072702653.html
SKOPJE, Macedonia -- Alexander the Great died more than 2,300 years ago. But his cult of personality is just starting to grip this tiny Balkan country.

To the annoyance of next-door Greece, which has long claimed the conqueror as its own, Macedonia has anointed Alexander its national hero. The government has renamed the international airport here in his honor, as well as the main highway to Greece. Soon to come: a 72-foot-tall marble colossus of Alexander astride his favorite warhorse, Bucephalus, which will dominate the skyline of the capital, Skopje.

The mania over Alexander is the latest chapter in a long-running feud between Macedonia and Greece that some officials fear has the potential to destabilize a region still trying to recover from the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

The dispute centers on a basic question: Does Macedonia, a country born out of the rubble of the former Yugoslavia, have the right to call itself what it wants? For 18 years, the conflict has defied attempts by the United States, the United Nations and European powers to find a solution.

The Greek government refuses to recognize its neighbor's constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia, which it sees as a thinly veiled bid to lay claim to three of its northern districts, a region known as Greek Macedonia. After Macedonia declared independence in 1991, Greece prevented it from joining the United Nations and imposed an economic blockade that nearly strangled the fledgling country.

Greece also vetoed Macedonia's bid to join NATO last year and is blocking its admission to the European Union until it changes its name to the Republic of Skopje, the Slavic Republic of Macedonia or something similar.

Macedonian officials said they cannot understand why Greece sees their country's name as a threat or thinks they have a secret plan to annex northern Greece.

I have a question from this link,Which ethics group does is Alexander the Great belong to ,Greek or Macedonian ?



Is he know as King or prince of Greece or King or prince of Macedonia ,some school history book said he is King of Greek Empires while other said his is King of Macedonian empires ,which one is correct ?

IS his empires called Greece or Macedonia empires ?



Thanks .

Edited by galvatron prime, 17 August 2009 - 11:09 PM.

[Thaibebop]

He was Macedonian. His father had subjugated the Greek city states and when he died Alexander's first campaign was to bring those city states back under Macedonian control. I believe the Greeks claim him because he was schooled by Aristotle, so trained Greek I would say. Also, when he went forth from the Greek pennisula he took Greek culture with him, he helped spread Greek ideas and art. I believe that is why they claim him, plus the Romans made no distinction between Greek and Macedonian, they were all Greek to the Romans, so in a way history recorded him as Greek.

[polar_zen]

Modern Macedonians are slavs that arrived in the region after the fall of the Roman Empire, that don't have very much of a connection to the ancient Macedonians, so don't let the Republic of Macedonia name fool you.

[LongMa]

He was Macedonian. His father had subjugated the Greek city states and when he died Alexander's first campaign was to bring those city states back under Macedonian control. I believe the Greeks claim him because he was schooled by Aristotle, so trained Greek I would say. Also, when he went forth from the Greek pennisula he took Greek culture with him, he helped spread Greek ideas and art. I believe that is why they claim him, plus the Romans made no distinction between Greek and Macedonian, they were all Greek to the Romans, so in a way history recorded him as Greek.

Macedonians also participated in the Olympic games, something no 'barbarians' non-Greeks were allowed to do. The Republic of Macedonias claims are nonsense.

[Thaibebop]

Macedonians also participated in the Olympic games, something no 'barbarians' non-Greeks were allowed to do. The Republic of Macedonias claims are nonsense.

Just to be be clear I didn't say they were non-Greeks. It is my understanding that the people of Athens viewed them as, well let's say country hicks rather than barbarians. Just not as high class as they were.

[polar_zen]

Just to be be clear I didn't say they were non-Greeks. It is my understanding that the people of Athens viewed them as, well let's say country hicks rather than barbarians. Just not as high class as they were.

The Athenians thought everyone who wasn't Athenian was low-class...

[qrasy]

He was Macedonian.

Though this refers to the ancient Macedonian, which has little relation with the people from Rep. of Macedonia of modern times (which is what the first poster was referring to).

Macedonian had their own language, different but close to the Greeks. Though now the language is extinct and there are now 2 hardly related tongues called "Macedonian", one is Slavic language and the other one is Northern Modern Greek dialect, both are not descended from ancient Macedonian.

Wikipedia has disambiguations for this: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Macedonian

This one has a modern map for Macedonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia
another map: http://en.wikipedia....ia_overview.svg

Edited by qrasy, 22 August 2009 - 07:21 AM.

[One time poster]

Just my opinion, but I think it is a bit absurd in some ways, although I do understand that it touches on both Greek and Macedonian pride. The Greeks believe they have a monopoly on all Greek related things, such as Alexander, who exported Greek culture in a massive way. The Macedonians believe that since they actually live where Alexander grew up in, and where the ancient Macedonian kingdom (Macedon was considered a kingdom rather than a city state like the other Greek entities) resided in that they should also have a right to the name. Both of them have solid claims.

You never heard people complain about the Egyptians calling their country Egypt simply because they now speak Arabic. There's plenty of examples.

[haidao]

He was Macedonian. This problem over the republic of Macedonia and Greece has more to do with the Greeks expansion into what was considered ancient Macedonia. Greeks says that area was always Greek. But it should be noted that former Greek governments have annexed territories which some would think they really had no right too. Example Chameria which was full of Albanians.

Read this: http://blog.aacl.com...estionchameria/

[LongMa]

Just my opinion, but I think it is a bit absurd in some ways, although I do understand that it touches on both Greek and Macedonian pride. The Greeks believe they have a monopoly on all Greek related things, such as Alexander, who exported Greek culture in a massive way. The Macedonians believe that since they actually live where Alexander grew up in, and where the ancient Macedonian kingdom (Macedon was considered a kingdom rather than a city state like the other Greek entities) resided in that they should also have a right to the name. Both of them have solid claims.

You never heard people complain about the Egyptians calling their country Egypt simply because they now speak Arabic. There's plenty of examples.

Actually this is not exactly right. Macedonia, most of it is in the current Greek Province of Macedonia, not in the Slavic Republic of Macedonia.

Alexandria's mother was Illyrian, but had Greek ancestry (thought to be the the ancient ancestors of Albanians) and his father Macedonian. He was born and grew up in Pella. which is in Modern Greece. Alexander also claimed Greek ancestry many times.

[One time poster]

Keep in mind that you're assigning modern day ethnic labels to people who lived long ago. Until modern times many of the lords and nobels could not even speak the language of the common people. In many places in central and eastern Europe the rulers were often German speakers, but the subjects themselves spoke various different languages and identified themselves as many different kinds of peoples including Hungarians and Lithuanians.

At any rate the whole argument borders on the absurd. It's similar to the various other threads on this forum asking what the ethnic identity of various ancient peoples were as if they've never changed in the last 2000 years or more.

[LongMa]

Keep in mind that you're assigning modern day ethnic labels to people who lived long ago. Until modern times many of the lords and nobels could not even speak the language of the common people. In many places in central and eastern Europe the rulers were often German speakers, but the subjects themselves spoke various different languages and identified themselves as many different kinds of peoples including Hungarians and Lithuanians.

At any rate the whole argument borders on the absurd. It's similar to the various other threads on this forum asking what the ethnic identity of various ancient peoples were as if they've never changed in the last 2000 years or more.

I agree to an extent, but this is not based on my opinion of what Alexander was, but what ancient documents (that are supposed to represent what Alexander said and what his father said) they were. Alexander clearly consider himself a Greek, his family origin from from Greece, he also considered himself a Macedonian, but it is clear to me he did not consider that "non-Greek". He also considered his mother "greek" in ancient ancestry but her family had lived outside of Greece for awhile. Now, what concerns me here is that, obviously, in ancient times people made up family origins to justify their reign. I do not believe Alexander's ancestor was Zeus through Heracles. :-)

Obviously the definition of what is "Greek" has changed in the last 2,000 years, actually at one time it was very inclusive, anyone who lived in the Byzantine Empire who spoke Greek is considered today by Greeks (a Greek) when at the time it was obvious the empire was multi-cultural, various Romans had various origins, and Greek was the lingua-franca, I'm quite sure there are people in Greece today who have ancestry from all over the Middle East and Southern Europe.

[Wayne]

I agree to an extent, but this is not based on my opinion of what Alexander was, but what ancient documents (that are supposed to represent what Alexander said and what his father said) they were. Alexander clearly consider himself a Greek, his family origin from from Greece, he also considered himself a Macedonian, but it is clear to me he did not consider that "non-Greek". He also considered his mother "greek" in ancient ancestry but her family had lived outside of Greece for awhile. Now, what concerns me here is that, obviously, in ancient times people made up family origins to justify their reign. I do not believe Alexander's ancestor was Zeus through Heracles. :-)

Obviously the definition of what is "Greek" has changed in the last 2,000 years, actually at one time it was very inclusive, anyone who lived in the Byzantine Empire who spoke Greek is considered today by Greeks (a Greek) when at the time it was obvious the empire was multi-cultural, various Romans had various origins, and Greek was the lingua-franca, I'm quite sure there are people in Greece today who have ancestry from all over the Middle East and Southern Europe.

Agreed. Whatever he was, he's certainly no Slav. The Slavs came much, much, much later, after the fall of the Roman empire.

[One time poster]

Explain definitively what is the difference between a Greek and a Slav in 200 BC and 2000 CE.

Edited by One time poster, 26 August 2009 - 12:01 AM.

[Wayne]

Keep in mind that you're assigning modern day ethnic labels to people who lived long ago. Until modern times many of the lords and nobels could not even speak the language of the common people. In many places in central and eastern Europe the rulers were often German speakers, but the subjects themselves spoke various different languages and identified themselves as many different kinds of peoples including Hungarians and Lithuanians.

At any rate the whole argument borders on the absurd. It's similar to the various other threads on this forum asking what the ethnic identity of various ancient peoples were as if they've never changed in the last 2000 years or more.

You are assuming that people have stayed put in the same place over the last several thousand years. History has shown that it is not true. Slavs migrated from the northeast into the Balkans only after the fall of the Roman empire. If one hypothesizes that Alexander could have been Illyrian or some other ancient people living near the core of Hellenic civilization it could have been quite possible and likely. To to insist that he is ancestral to the later immigrant Macedonian Slavs is simply Nationalistic myth. We know that the Balkans to the north of Greece (i.e. the area of the defunct Yugoslavia) was Illyrian, spoke Illyrian, and whom are considered ancestral to modern Albanians. If anything, the Albanians would have a more likely claim on him than the Macedonian Slavs.

There is nothing 'modern' about being Greek. It has been their self designation for the last two and half millenium. Furthermore Alexander identified himself as Greek, whether by adoption or by birth.