Why FYROM should not be called "Macedonia"

FYROM's residents have no historical cultural or linguistic ties with ancient Macedonia.

The heart of ancient Macedonia was not in the teritory which FYROM occupies but in the Greek part of Macedonia were all the major archaeological discoveries took place.

The name "Republic of Macedonia implies a teritorial threat against Greece and other countries and it creates a great risk of renewed ethnic conflict in the Balkans.

The area of FYROM was never called "Macedonia" before the 2nd World War. This name was given to the Southern Yugoslavian providence by General Tito aiming to create conflicts in the region and to obtain Greek and Bulgarian teritories. Before the 2nd World War FYROM was called Vardarska.

An article called something as "Greeks are not Macedonians" or somethin like that was around, so I see no problem with this name.

One , probable answer is that FYROM , is only 34% of the total area that geographically is called Macedonia . 52% is Greek territory and 14% is Bulgarian territory .....

It is unheard of that the part has the right to aquire for its own the name of all the area . It can be called Slavish Macedonia or SlavoMacedonia , or republic of Slavomacedonia , but never just Macedonia...Even the proposal of the Americans is Republic of Macedonija- Skpopje without translation just to emphasize the Slavish origin of its inhabitants , of which 34 % are Albanians who do not wish to be called Macedonians .

I will not go as far as to talk about , that 62% of the economy of FYROM is based on Greek capitals ....Just a hint that these capitals may withdraw and FYROM will colapse.

Lets hope they will be reasonable...

Isk.

Edited by iskenderani

Determining on the name of a country over "percentages" or the place its people come or whatever is nonsense. It's not reasonable using statistical or engineery methods. In the same logic; we should call ATTILA back here and ask him to reverse the great migration of those barbaric tribes of Europe, so to reverse the history. But according to Iskenderani; Greece, Japan, China...etc. are just lucky countries.

Edited by YAFES

The so-called "Greco-Turk wars" were ended by myself in the non-english topics. We the Turkish members-with a majority-agreed on not to try to prove our national history, but just to talk about certain history.

But my thread is not provocative. Just a comment over methods.

It is sometimes sad to be in the difficult position , in a forum dedicated to History , to try and talk about History Fiction , or a Wishfull History...

Anyway....According to the above map , in the region of Macedonia , in 1876 there were NO Macedonians..... Exactly the same , say 2 censuses made by Hilmi Pasha , in 1905 and in 1906... Macedonians are invisible...the area is called Republica Banovina , or Republica Vardarska , until suddenly in 1944 ....Macedonias are born , their language was born too in the greatest cultural hoax of history , and their History , started to appear...

It could have been the greatest cultural joke of the century , except that there were people who actually believed all this...

Some others , go as far as to deny ALL the archaeological evidences found in ALL Macedonia being og Greek origin , inscriptions in Greek , Greek temples , u name it u have it , and say that the Greek influence in the area was minimal...

But it is understandable.....They r the same people that claim the ethnic cleansing , by Greeks , of a non existant population , in an area where Greeks were the minority...

History can be revised ...ok...but its a shame to murder it in cold blood...

Isk.

You won't be happy if I tell you actually Mehmed The Conquer /for example/ is Bulgarian, because his father had bulgarian wife.

Turkish/Ottoman identity was/is determined by language (Turkish), religion (muslim) and culture. Not by genetic descent, although the Turkish nation-state half-heartedly attempts to do this. Mehmed the Conqueror was not a Bulgarian. Nor were any of the Ottoman Emperors were anything other than Ottoman/Turkish.    

If you'd called him a 'Turk', he would have killed you, though. This is because for the Ottomans 'Turk' meant 'Turcoman', who are shiite/ alewite nomads, not sunni-sedantary.

Returning to the topic, FYROM is a ridiculous name. Macedonians should name their country whatever they like.

Edited by Beylerbeyi

Republic of slavomacedonia is the best name for this country.. but albanians not accept it..

I would think Macedonia can call itself, with the backing of the public of course, whatever it likes.
As for the name, even if the modern Macedonians speak a different language than the ancient Macedonians what does it matter.
Take the UK for example.  Nearly everyone can speak English but the country is named Britain after the Brythonic Celts who used to live in most of the mainland.  Today the only remnants of the ancient Brytons are the Welsh speakers and the Cornish speakers as well as some place names like Strathclyde (Ystrad Clud), Glasgow (Gles Cu) the local people still call Glasgow Glesga/ Glesca, Cumbria, Edinburgh (Dun Edin) etc. 
Naming a country after the historical name is nothing new and the Macedonians can and should call their nation whateer they want and no other country in the world has a right to say otherwise.


Edited by AyKurt

It is the same for Vlachs too....... Vlachs were one of the most oppressed people in Greece.

the theory of their origins to be somewhere in C.Europe, mentions that this "migration" allegedly took place in (depends on the source) either during the 7th, 9th, 10th,12th, I've even seen a tzech source mention 17th cent.
But unfortunately for all that attempt to claim the Vlachs as their own people that "migrated" towards Hellas, the first written evidence of the Vlah' s language we have that of the Byzantine collumnists, Theophanis is and Theophylactus (579 A.D.) while the word Vlahs (Armani) was mentioned for the first time in 976 A.D. from Kedrinos.

You see Vlahs (Armani) were not known with this name but with the word "Armani". This word derives from the "Romanus lives" and it is related to the decree of Karakala (Edictum Antonianium), 212 A.D. According to this decree, the right of the Roman citizen was passed on to all the residents of the whole Roman province.

If we were to accept that they were a foreign (non-Hellinic) people, why is there no mention of them in various Ottoman or European sources, as we find the Slavs, Bulgarians and Albanians clearly being destinguished from Hellines?
See: Pouqueville (Voyage en Grece) Leak (Travels in Northern Greece), Heuzey (1858) Kouzinery (Voyages en Macedoine) Berard (Turkish domination and Hellenism), Wace- Thomson (Nomads of Balkans)

Take the UK for example.  Nearly everyone can speak English but the country is named Britain after the Brythonic Celts who used to live in most of the mainland.

Your argument may be correct but since you mentioned the UK, but have you given any though or done a search on the reason for this land to be recognized internationally as UK and NOT Britain?????

The answer is simple, the French Prez, De Ghole(sp?)  decided that the name Briitain holds territorial claims on the province Bretagne(sp?) of France and should NOT be accepted under this name in the EU, what did the Brits do??? They changed it, that is the major difference with our neighbors.


Edited by Phallanx