Today´s Greeks are on a major offensive campaign, with a huge Hellenic brush in their hands, to show the world, especially here in the West, that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Slogans like "Macedonia is Greece", "Macedonians have always been Greek", "Welcome to Macedonia – Greece" and a countless number of other less visible interventions have saturated the media with unprecedented regularity. Such frantic, almost feverish, drive to prove something is telling.
What prompted the Greeks, especially after the mid-eighties, to embark on such a monumental task when they had almost more than one hundred years at their disposal to fix the apparent problem with Macedonia and the Macedonians? Several scenarios forcefully enter the picture:
(a) The Green parties in European Parliament and their push for ethnic recognition of minority populations,
(b) Awakening of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece and
(c) Greece´s realization that she is no longer a sole presenter, articulator and dispenser of historical knowledge regarding the ancients, and that archeological and linguistic sciences, with a new crop of scholars, have seriously undermined her assumed status-quo. Thus, these new revisionists of history with preponderance of new found evidence at hand are challenging the old established beliefs (like the Slav migration into the Balkans) and are asserting their presence. To the detriment of all philhellenes, the old assumptions about the Greeks must be reexamined. Whence, the conclusion is inescapable: everything that shines does not come from Greece.
Greeks have systematically attempted to wipe-out any trace of Slavic culture in their territory; from changing the Slavic toponyms and the writings on the gravestones into Greek, to burning the old Slavonic books in the monasteries. Their poignant mission was almost successful. Fortunately though, the Slavic culture was wide-spread throughout the Balkans and beyond, and their poisonous Hellenicidal spray could not reach into the other countries. As a result, a host of new findings demand immediate attention and challenge the Greeks´ given and unearned supremacy as a sole possessor of the ancient´s cultural heritage.
Their desperate attempt to bring the Ancient Macedonians into their fold and eliminate the only challenge coming from the ethnic Macedonians reminds me of the old Argead regicidal practice; kill the remaining rivals for the throne and the kingdom will be yours. Thus, modern Greeks, faced with the same dilemma, are trying to eliminate the ethnic Macedonians from the picture—the only rival remaining that stands in their path to appropriate the Ancient Macedonians.]
One of the most laughable declarations ever produced by these master falsifiers is their claim that Philip II, the king of Macedon, did not conquer Greece but instead, united the Greeks city-states and that Philip and his son Alexander the Great, are the truest Hellenes of them all.
Somehow, the whole Greek hoopla about the ancient Macedonians, upon closer observation, not only looks inadmissible but down right stupidly funny.
If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, then why do you have to constantly shout it to the world? Second, all along Greeks have claimed that there are no Macedonians and that Macedonia was just a geographic entity and then, all of a sudden, they have changed their tune into inventing ethnic Greek Macedonians. Are these new Greek Macedonians like some new "Greek hybrid" that uses a new form of Greek energy for fuel? Do you change your master plans as you go along or as you´re caught cheating?
We have stated before that Greek history is like a coat made of many colors and it will fall apart at the seams for, even though Greeks have mastered the art of fabrication—they are on top of this trade—somehow, inadvertently, as it always happens with stolen booty, they are going to leave gaping holes in their thieving plan.
Readers whose interest in ancient history is no deeper then a cursory glance through the topics on the page, upon reading such slogans, will depart thinking that such headlines contain some truth to them.
A closer look at these passages reveals the same "supporting staff" at play; namely that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, had the same names as Greeks did, believed in same Gods and spread Hellenism throughout the known world.
Fair enough, one would say; if that´s the case then, they, the ancient Macedonians and Macedonia, must have been Greek and therefore what these modern-day Greeks are saying must be true.
Well then, do you mind terribly if we take a stroll through the ancient times together? I promise I will not keep you long; just long enough to make a simple point obvious.
Let´s read this passage written from Polybius: (Polybius, xviii, 46, 5).
"Philip´s defeat at Cynocephalae in 197 resulted in his confinement within the old limits of Macedonia. It was followed, at the Isthmian games of 196, by a theatrical pronouncement, which showed the Romans quick to learn how to exploit the ancient propaganda slogan of Greek liberty."
Imagine if you will, hundreds of anxious Greeks assembled at these historic games.]
"The Roman Senate and T. Quinctius the proconsul, having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, have the following peoples free, without garrison and subject to no tribute and governed by their countries´ laws – the Corinthians, Phocians, Euboeans, Phthiotic Acheans, Magnesians, Thessalians and Perrhaebians." (Polybius, xviii, 46,5).
Breaking it down we find:
(a) Romans, in a war, have defeated King Philip V and the Macedonians.
(b) The following Greek peoples are free from garrisons and subject to no tribute.
In other words, Romans defeated the Macedonians and at the same time liberated the Greeks from the Macedonian´s yoke. Conclusion: in order for people to be liberated they must have been conquered before. Two questions, please:
(1) Will this be a sufficient reason for us to reject the Greek´s notion that the ancient Greeks were united by Philip? And
(2) Is there a sufficient ground to conclude that today´s Greek proclamation that ancient Macedonians were Greeks is a fabrication unsupported by facts? Common logic dictates that people do not conquer themselves, correct?
At this point we should expect a storm from the crying Greeks. They will tell us that in ancient Greek world the city-states constantly warred against each other and it was not uncommon for them to enslave one another.
Fair enough, we´ll concur, but as good sophists do, we shall take the argument from the opposite side and bring the bacon home.
Let us visit
Justin - Epitome of the Philipic – History of Pompeius Trogos
Specifically, Justin 30. 3.3-9
"Embassies dispatched from Rhodes reached Rome complaining of wrongs suffered at the hands of Philip (see also Pol. 16 and 18; Diod. 28. 5ff.; Livy 31-33; Plut. Flamininus). It was this that removed from the senate any hesitation over war with Macedonia. Romans declared war on Philip.
(30.3.7-9)
7 Shortly afterwards, through confidence in the Romans, all Greece made war on Philip, inspired to confront him by the hope of regaining its erstwhile independence. Under pressure on all sides, the king was obliged to sue for peace."
Let´s dissect these few lines:
(a) Does it say "all Greece made war on Philip"?
(b) Was the reason for making war on Philip to gain their independence?
Can we conclude that one loses its own independence when one is conquered?
Can we, now, count the strength of this statement as one more incontrovertible fact that Greeks were conquered and not united by Philip and his Macedonians?
Next:
8 "Then, when the terms of the peace had been set forth by the Romans, Attalus, the Rhodians, the Achaeans, and the Aetolians all began to reclaim their former territory."
Conclusion: To reclaim your own territory, you must have lost it in the first place.
Question: Is there any example in the history of the humankind where countries lose their own territory voluntarily?
Therefore, is it safe to conclude that there must have been a war of conquest before?
Lastly:
9 "Philip, for his part, admitted that he could be brought to meet the Roman´s conditions; but he added that it was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon, should be dictating terms of peace to him like a victors—they should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying claim their freedom."
Oh, my friend, you would exclaim; but this is too obvious!
But of course, I have been saying this all along; let´s follow Philip´s response:
(a) "It was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon."
A big question is in order.
First, let´s establish the facts: (1) Is this the king of Macedon speaking? (2) Is this Philip V stating that his ancestors Philip II and Alexander, his son, enslaved the Greeks? And (3) Can "the yoke of Macedon" be misunderstood for "unifying yoke"?
(b) "They should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying to claim their freedom."
"How they had come to be his subjects" cannot be interpreted in any other way but enslaved and lastly "trying to claim your freedom" denotes having lost your liberty before, being in servitude, under occupation. One will not try to claim freedom if one has not lost it yet.
And this brings us to a full circle my friend. The conclusion is inescapable:
Ancient Macedonians were never Greeks. Today´s Greek cries about Macedonia and the Macedonians have much more sinister aim; To eradicate anything Macedonian from the real ethnic Macedonians and to confuse the less informed westerners about the fact that within Greek occupied Macedonia, there are ethnic Macedonians whose rights as people are abrogated by the bigoted Greek government.
That is the real picture with today´s Greeks who practice neo fascists´ ideology and display middle-age mentality. They ignore, or would like for you to ignore what the Macedonian kings were saying and want you to believe that ancient Macedonians had similar names to the ancient Greeks and that is why they should be classed as Greeks.
Finally we should ask the following: whom would you believe:
(a) a Greek with a political agenda and an ethnic axe to grind or
(b) the words of an ancient King from Macedon who tells you that his ancestors Philip and his son Alexander the Great conquered the Greeks and sent them under the Macedonian yoke?
At the end we must state the obvious; there are scholars with resolute, analytical sense that can teach and then, there are others who, with large Hellenic brush, lump things together.
What prompted the Greeks, especially after the mid-eighties, to embark on such a monumental task when they had almost more than one hundred years at their disposal to fix the apparent problem with Macedonia and the Macedonians? Several scenarios forcefully enter the picture:
(a) The Green parties in European Parliament and their push for ethnic recognition of minority populations,
(b) Awakening of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece and
(c) Greece´s realization that she is no longer a sole presenter, articulator and dispenser of historical knowledge regarding the ancients, and that archeological and linguistic sciences, with a new crop of scholars, have seriously undermined her assumed status-quo. Thus, these new revisionists of history with preponderance of new found evidence at hand are challenging the old established beliefs (like the Slav migration into the Balkans) and are asserting their presence. To the detriment of all philhellenes, the old assumptions about the Greeks must be reexamined. Whence, the conclusion is inescapable: everything that shines does not come from Greece.
Greeks have systematically attempted to wipe-out any trace of Slavic culture in their territory; from changing the Slavic toponyms and the writings on the gravestones into Greek, to burning the old Slavonic books in the monasteries. Their poignant mission was almost successful. Fortunately though, the Slavic culture was wide-spread throughout the Balkans and beyond, and their poisonous Hellenicidal spray could not reach into the other countries. As a result, a host of new findings demand immediate attention and challenge the Greeks´ given and unearned supremacy as a sole possessor of the ancient´s cultural heritage.
Their desperate attempt to bring the Ancient Macedonians into their fold and eliminate the only challenge coming from the ethnic Macedonians reminds me of the old Argead regicidal practice; kill the remaining rivals for the throne and the kingdom will be yours. Thus, modern Greeks, faced with the same dilemma, are trying to eliminate the ethnic Macedonians from the picture—the only rival remaining that stands in their path to appropriate the Ancient Macedonians.]
One of the most laughable declarations ever produced by these master falsifiers is their claim that Philip II, the king of Macedon, did not conquer Greece but instead, united the Greeks city-states and that Philip and his son Alexander the Great, are the truest Hellenes of them all.
Somehow, the whole Greek hoopla about the ancient Macedonians, upon closer observation, not only looks inadmissible but down right stupidly funny.
If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, then why do you have to constantly shout it to the world? Second, all along Greeks have claimed that there are no Macedonians and that Macedonia was just a geographic entity and then, all of a sudden, they have changed their tune into inventing ethnic Greek Macedonians. Are these new Greek Macedonians like some new "Greek hybrid" that uses a new form of Greek energy for fuel? Do you change your master plans as you go along or as you´re caught cheating?
We have stated before that Greek history is like a coat made of many colors and it will fall apart at the seams for, even though Greeks have mastered the art of fabrication—they are on top of this trade—somehow, inadvertently, as it always happens with stolen booty, they are going to leave gaping holes in their thieving plan.
Readers whose interest in ancient history is no deeper then a cursory glance through the topics on the page, upon reading such slogans, will depart thinking that such headlines contain some truth to them.
A closer look at these passages reveals the same "supporting staff" at play; namely that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, had the same names as Greeks did, believed in same Gods and spread Hellenism throughout the known world.
Fair enough, one would say; if that´s the case then, they, the ancient Macedonians and Macedonia, must have been Greek and therefore what these modern-day Greeks are saying must be true.
Well then, do you mind terribly if we take a stroll through the ancient times together? I promise I will not keep you long; just long enough to make a simple point obvious.
Let´s read this passage written from Polybius: (Polybius, xviii, 46, 5).
"Philip´s defeat at Cynocephalae in 197 resulted in his confinement within the old limits of Macedonia. It was followed, at the Isthmian games of 196, by a theatrical pronouncement, which showed the Romans quick to learn how to exploit the ancient propaganda slogan of Greek liberty."
Imagine if you will, hundreds of anxious Greeks assembled at these historic games.]
"The Roman Senate and T. Quinctius the proconsul, having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, have the following peoples free, without garrison and subject to no tribute and governed by their countries´ laws – the Corinthians, Phocians, Euboeans, Phthiotic Acheans, Magnesians, Thessalians and Perrhaebians." (Polybius, xviii, 46,5).
Breaking it down we find:
(a) Romans, in a war, have defeated King Philip V and the Macedonians.
(b) The following Greek peoples are free from garrisons and subject to no tribute.
In other words, Romans defeated the Macedonians and at the same time liberated the Greeks from the Macedonian´s yoke. Conclusion: in order for people to be liberated they must have been conquered before. Two questions, please:
(1) Will this be a sufficient reason for us to reject the Greek´s notion that the ancient Greeks were united by Philip? And
(2) Is there a sufficient ground to conclude that today´s Greek proclamation that ancient Macedonians were Greeks is a fabrication unsupported by facts? Common logic dictates that people do not conquer themselves, correct?
At this point we should expect a storm from the crying Greeks. They will tell us that in ancient Greek world the city-states constantly warred against each other and it was not uncommon for them to enslave one another.
Fair enough, we´ll concur, but as good sophists do, we shall take the argument from the opposite side and bring the bacon home.
Let us visit
Justin - Epitome of the Philipic – History of Pompeius Trogos
Specifically, Justin 30. 3.3-9
"Embassies dispatched from Rhodes reached Rome complaining of wrongs suffered at the hands of Philip (see also Pol. 16 and 18; Diod. 28. 5ff.; Livy 31-33; Plut. Flamininus). It was this that removed from the senate any hesitation over war with Macedonia. Romans declared war on Philip.
(30.3.7-9)
7 Shortly afterwards, through confidence in the Romans, all Greece made war on Philip, inspired to confront him by the hope of regaining its erstwhile independence. Under pressure on all sides, the king was obliged to sue for peace."
Let´s dissect these few lines:
(a) Does it say "all Greece made war on Philip"?
(b) Was the reason for making war on Philip to gain their independence?
Can we conclude that one loses its own independence when one is conquered?
Can we, now, count the strength of this statement as one more incontrovertible fact that Greeks were conquered and not united by Philip and his Macedonians?
Next:
8 "Then, when the terms of the peace had been set forth by the Romans, Attalus, the Rhodians, the Achaeans, and the Aetolians all began to reclaim their former territory."
Conclusion: To reclaim your own territory, you must have lost it in the first place.
Question: Is there any example in the history of the humankind where countries lose their own territory voluntarily?
Therefore, is it safe to conclude that there must have been a war of conquest before?
Lastly:
9 "Philip, for his part, admitted that he could be brought to meet the Roman´s conditions; but he added that it was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon, should be dictating terms of peace to him like a victors—they should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying claim their freedom."
Oh, my friend, you would exclaim; but this is too obvious!
But of course, I have been saying this all along; let´s follow Philip´s response:
(a) "It was a disgrace that the Greeks, who had been defeated by his ancestors Philip and Alexander and sent beneath the yoke of Macedon."
A big question is in order.
First, let´s establish the facts: (1) Is this the king of Macedon speaking? (2) Is this Philip V stating that his ancestors Philip II and Alexander, his son, enslaved the Greeks? And (3) Can "the yoke of Macedon" be misunderstood for "unifying yoke"?
(b) "They should be giving an account of how they had come to be his subjects, he said, rather than trying to claim their freedom."
"How they had come to be his subjects" cannot be interpreted in any other way but enslaved and lastly "trying to claim your freedom" denotes having lost your liberty before, being in servitude, under occupation. One will not try to claim freedom if one has not lost it yet.
And this brings us to a full circle my friend. The conclusion is inescapable:
Ancient Macedonians were never Greeks. Today´s Greek cries about Macedonia and the Macedonians have much more sinister aim; To eradicate anything Macedonian from the real ethnic Macedonians and to confuse the less informed westerners about the fact that within Greek occupied Macedonia, there are ethnic Macedonians whose rights as people are abrogated by the bigoted Greek government.
That is the real picture with today´s Greeks who practice neo fascists´ ideology and display middle-age mentality. They ignore, or would like for you to ignore what the Macedonian kings were saying and want you to believe that ancient Macedonians had similar names to the ancient Greeks and that is why they should be classed as Greeks.
Finally we should ask the following: whom would you believe:
(a) a Greek with a political agenda and an ethnic axe to grind or
(b) the words of an ancient King from Macedon who tells you that his ancestors Philip and his son Alexander the Great conquered the Greeks and sent them under the Macedonian yoke?
At the end we must state the obvious; there are scholars with resolute, analytical sense that can teach and then, there are others who, with large Hellenic brush, lump things together.
No comments:
Post a Comment