Solution to the Balkan crisis?

In my opinion if there will be a future war in balkans that war will be fought over Macedonia.

Originally posted by HEROI The balkan solution will come only when people are separated in states were they speak the same language and were they have the same national identity.Only then will their human right be respected,not as a minority in a state who does not recognise them or dehumanise them.   There is no reason whatsoever why the Albanian minority in Macedonia who lives across the border of Albania be part of the modern state of Macedonia,and there is no back-up logic nither.

Originally posted by HEROI But nither should Greeks have any claim to that nither,Macedonians clearly were not Greeks, and certainly have nothing to do with modern Greece.   I wonder what kind of people are the ones who are convincing the slavic population of Macedonia to be the decendants of Alexander the great.

Heroi, don't you consider Albanians being descendands of Illyrians? In that case how clear is that, compared to Macedonians? I want to see your definition of clear in this case. Before that have a look on the index of this thread http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15134&PN=16 just to ensure that we won't repeat the same things over and over again.

And please name a primary source of the last 15 years (not from the 19th century) having released something that supports your statement.

Thank you

Originally posted by HEROI In my opinion if there will be a future war in balkans that war will be fought over Macedonia. In my opinion Greece does not want Macedonia to carry that name because not in a very distant future it might lay claims to the north of Greece.   The balkan solution will come only when people are separated in states were they speak the same language and were they have the same national identity.Only then will their human right be respected,not as a minority in a state who does not recognise them or dehumanise them.   There is no reason whatsoever why the Albanian minority in Macedonia who lives across the border of Albania be part of the modern state of Macedonia,and there is no back-up logic nither.     And i can understand claims of Greece and Albania as to their historical past ,because of their languages,who dont belong to a particular groop of languages,but Macedonians clearly speak Slavonic,and ancient Macedonia clearly was not a Slavonic state.   If slavo-macedonians dont like Bulgaria or Serbia they can make their own slavic state in the Balkans,and nobody is against slavic states,but they can not have historical claims as to ancient Macedonia,thats my opinion.But nither should Greeks have any claim to that nither,Macedonians clearly were not Greeks, and certainly have nothing to do with modern Greece.   I wonder what kind of people are the ones who are convincing the slavic population of Macedonia to be the decendants of Alexander the great.

Oh yeah... A greater Albania will solve the issue of Balkan instability...right...

No, when these nationalist blokes sh-t the f--k up and stop influencing politics for their own gains will there ever be peace.

Creating supernations or carving out historical entites etc to create a new nation etc... will only lead to more blood shed not stop it. That is what has been at issue for over a century. You have Kosovo... where both groups have a historic claim per having lived there for several hundred years... now... we also have that entity in one hand, then if it changes to the other, the former will want to reclaim it, and a cyclic form of violence ensues again... instead both sides' nationalist just simply sh--t the f--k up and we move on to a more peaceable resolotion one that allows for both... like what happened under Tito... a shared entity where both groups were respected, and Albanians could practice virtual independence while Serbs could see a map with Kosovo as part of Serbia and make sure that their religious centers in Kosovo are preserved.

Before the Byzantine theme there was a Roman province of Macedonia which extended on a larger area, thus there's a historical justification (if people really need one) to call several areas/countries/counties/whatever on names derived from Macedonia.

Originally posted by Flipper Originally posted by es_bih It's been called that forever, and officially so, too. You shouild do a geography lookup on Macedonia before saying that. The area of the FYROM was called Paionia and the western part was a piece of Illyricum, inhabited before the Slavic and Bulgar migrations by Thracians and to the west by Illyrians. Pelagonia is a small part of the country, that became Macedonian province after the Macedonian Kindoms expansion to the north. Macedonia in early years was divided in the following provinces/subkindoms: Upper Macedonia ORESTIS Kastoria province, Greece TYMPHAEA Grevena province, Greece ELIMEIA S. Kozane province, Greece EORDAEA N. Kozane province, Greece LYNKESTIS Florina province, Greece PELAGONIA Monastiri (Bitola), FYROM Lower Macedonia AMPHAXITIS Kilkis province, Greece ALMOPIA Pella province, Greece PIERIA Pieria province, Greece BOTTIAEA Emathia province, Greece KRESTONIA N. Thessalonike province, Greece MYGDONIA E. Thessalonike province, Greece ANTHEMOUS S. Thessalonike province, Greece Expansion under Philippos II BISALTIA E. Thessalonike province, Greece SINTIKE Serres province, Greece ODOMANTIS Drama province, Greece EDONIS Kavalla province, Greece THASSOS Kavalla province, Greece CHALKIDIKE Chalkidike province, Greece SOUTHERN PAEONIA Gevgeli province, FYROM If we speak about medieval times Macedonia was displaced to Thrace for some aqward reason and the administrative areas were divided in Themata (themes) by the Byzantines. Originally posted by es_bih Unless all of the people in the S. State just woke up in the 90s then understandable. And no it is just a name no matter how you put it. No, it was not during the 90s...It's longer than that, but that's when the world got to know about it. Originally posted by es_bih It has no spiritual value nor identity value the two are two completely different historic things, only thing is that the former conquered the latter, and the latter adopted that name in order to save face, but beforehand not only despised them but considered them as great examples of barbarism. We conquered Thebes, Athens and some of their allies. We created the Panhellenion league. Could you please explain who saved face? The Athenians? Macedonians? Thebans? As for the dispice, see who the Allies are under the Peloponesian war. During classical age, the relations of Athens and Macedonia are not bad at all. For the way you use the barbarism term i suggest you take a look here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15134, pages 3, 4  and 16 for an accurate usage of the term. I will also note one more time es_bih, that the issue is not plainly about the name, but rather about the behaviour and motives. I think Leonidas was very correct pointing out the official stance of Greece on the matter.

Your problem is that you are corelating Macedonians and Greeks as some ultra ethnic bloc, which clearly was not the case. Greeks looked down upon Macedonians as the sluggish brutish cousins who never did, while Phillip conqured Greece then the attitude may have changed a bit...Not my problem you have a overly nationalist ideoogy of your past, whats the next thing, The Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire because some Western writer trying to legitimize the German empire of the Romans said it was even though that former empire found that an insult?

Originally posted by es_bih Your problem is that you are corelating Macedonians and Greeks as some ultra ethnic bloc, which clearly was not the case. Greeks looked down upon Macedonians as the sluggish brutish cousins who never did, while Phillip conqured Greece then the attitude may have changed a bit...Not my problem you have a overly nationalist ideoogy of your past, whats the next thing, The Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire because some Western writer trying to legitimize the German empire of the Romans said it was even though that former empire found that an insult?

So Greeks as you say, meaning Athenians I guess, were looking down on Aeolians and Megarians as well. So did the Spartans towards Athenians.

You didn't spend a minute checking out an issue analyzed briefly on this site and continue to post inaccuracies.

In the end you accuse me of having the nationalist ideology. That is an easy way of defence, having no real effect though on a rhetorical level. Shall I accuse you for ignorance? I don't think that would be proper. I'd rather suggest you doing a good lookup before making statements and be willing to discuss and analyze things with you. We are members of a history community and I believe that when we all deal with historical issues, we shouldn't be more carefull in making statements about a matter. That would be:

1. Statement / View
2. Analysis
3. Sources

If you want to comment the historical issue i suggest you participate on the thead i refered to, after reading the index which covers all issues discussed. Just to avoid repetitions of the same things. Legacy issues, as I would call the barbarism comment of yours.


Edited by Flipper - 13-Feb-2008 at 16:38

Originally posted by Flipper Originally posted by es_bih Your problem is that you are corelating Macedonians and Greeks as some ultra ethnic bloc, which clearly was not the case. Greeks looked down upon Macedonians as the sluggish brutish cousins who never did, while Phillip conqured Greece then the attitude may have changed a bit...Not my problem you have a overly nationalist ideoogy of your past, whats the next thing, The Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire because some Western writer trying to legitimize the German empire of the Romans said it was even though that former empire found that an insult? So Greeks as you say, meaning Athenians I guess, were looking down on Aeolians and Megarians as well. So did the Spartans towards Athenians. You didn't spend a minute checking out an issue analyzed briefly on this site and continue to post inaccuracies. In the end you accuse me of having the nationalist ideology. That is an easy way of defence, having no real effect though on a rhetorical level. Shall I accuse you for ignorance? I don't think that would be proper. I'd rather suggest you doing a good lookup before making statements and be willing to discuss and analyze things with you. We are members of a history community and I believe that when we all deal with historical issues, we shouldn't be more carefull in making statements about a matter. That would be: 1. Statement / View 2. Analysis 3. Sources If you want to comment the historical issue i suggest you participate on the thead i refered to, after reading the index which covers all issues discussed. Just to avoid repetitions of the same things. Legacy issues, as I would call the barbarism comment of yours.

You can accuse me of ignorance all you want... of course there was rivalry among city states, there was a considerable level of rivalry among dozens of Turkic emirates in Anatolia until the Ottomans won gained hegemony. The fact remains that Macedonia was a seperate entity, of course with a heavy Greek influence in its primacy due to the fact that its own people and its own intellectual base was not so well developed. I never disputed that they have no Greek influence or that they are not distantly related, however, to say A is B thus C is A is absurd. Yes, when one tends to fight so passionately for a insignificant name, that would be deemed nationalism...

The issue is really not over who is right or who is wrong, it is childish to the core, it is a name, if they use it, as they have for a while now to call that country that; that in itself should have no corelation to any intellectual discussions at hand about the authenticity of this or that theory either. It is a freaking name for God's sake. Should we condemn Austrians for calling their country Osterreich instead of Austria as a lot of other countries call them? No.. it would be ridicoulos, now if they were arguing if the Austrians were German or not, then still we can't put that intellectual discussion into a political perspective, we had to keep level headed and use a bit of common sense at the end of the day and understand all it is is a freaking name. As long as you and others keep this stance both sides will quarrel over nothing for decades to come. Yes there is a lot wrong with the  Macedonian side's take, too. Why?, well for one they are not the sole inheritors of that regions gene pool, so are plenty of other peoples whose modern nation states inhabit parts of Macedonia today. Nevertheless, to say that they in no way shape or form have Macedonian heritage is wrong too. Most of the Peloponesus has non Greek origin in modern times should we deem them non-Greek, of course not because they have mixed origins alongside their Greek, and Greek Culture. Now the Macedonians do not necessarily have a Macedonian culture as it is hard in itself to single that out, but perhaps some folk customs in rulral regions do retain something. It is true for example in Yugoslavian regions that there are carryover Illyrian traditions so why not the same for Macedonia's case. Admitting that won't force you to say that they are completly right, nor will letting them use the name internationally without picking a fight like 2 teenagers. It is not rocket science, its common sense. A name is a name. There is no reason to attach so much intellectual crap to it on a political level. A sound intellectual argument can defeat an absurd one any day, we have had instances of afrocentrism, and other forms of rather un intellectual thought here on the forum and people posted away at the extensive lack of credibility. Greek scholars can do that too if they feel the need to. HOwever, what does that have to do with them using the name for the country? Nothing, because I have asked that question and every single person so far with feelings that it should not gives me the same intellectual basis which has nothing to do, nor is 100% correct either.

Noting this we can see that the Balkans wont have any peace for at least a century to come.

Yall want a solution to the Balkan crisis? Here are some of my helpful tips:

First off, make sure all bathroom stalls have enough toilet paper. Everybody hates it when they go into a stall and find out that all their roles have been used. It makes everybody super pissed.

Second, ban the use of flags. The material used to make them is wasted to represent political and national symbols instead of making the latest design in fashion, or to make a cozy blanket to sleep in. Some people like seeing flags that represent "them," but not everybody.

Last tip, if you want peace in the balkans, hand out free drugs to all households. Everybody will be too high to even think about lifting a gun instead of grabbing some munchies

Originally posted by es_bih Besides didn't Greek athetes protest and attempt to boycot events where Phillip wanted to participate in on the account that they deemed him a barbarian?

Why don't you check out the 16 pages thread containing all the answers to your questions?

1. It was not Philip. It was his ancestor Alexander I.
2. Some people protested, like they always did when they received strong competition. That is why they had the Hellenodikai, a jury examining the right of an athlete to participate in the Olympics, where only Hellenes could participate.
3. There was no doubt about Alexanders I heritage and he participated.

May I ask you to post such questions, on the other thread, if you believe they haven't been answered already there?

http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15134


Edited by Flipper - 13-Feb-2008 at 19:44