15.07.2007, 10:43
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhTvnU&mode=related&search=">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhT ... ed&search=</a><!-- m -->
:lol:
Part-2
Q12) There is a reference in a work by Pausanias that may give the impression that Macedonians, around 214-213BC, were speaking a non-Greek language.
Advocates of the thesis that the Macedonian spoke a non-greek language claim that this language was spoken by them up to some time in mid 4th century BC. At that time Macedonians within few years were fully hellenized and since then they have been speaking Greek.
Long but relevant Parenthesis. Skip it if not interested: Some of these advocates accept a Skopjan point of view that all Macedonians perished and thus vanished when Slavs first appeared in the Balkan peninsula in the 7th century AD. All of a sudden these new Slavs became heir-apparents of the Macedonians, were granted presumably by Marshall Tito the exclusive right to be called 'Macedonians' and named the Bulgarian idiom also consisting of Greek, Turkish, and Albanian words formed at least 1000 years after their descent to the Balkans "the Macedonian language".
Some of them, possibly all, claim that this Slavic origin language was the language spoken by the Macedonians before the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced to these and other Slavs along with many greek words by two Macedonian (Greek) brothers, Kontantinos (later called Cyril) and Methodios from Thessaloniki. It is quite interesting to know how these Macedonian brothers escaped the fate of other fellow Macedonians and didn't perish during the descent of Slavs in the Balkan peninsula, as the advocates of Skopjan claimed that it had happened.
According to Pausanias (Messenians IV 29, 1) the residents of Messene a night around 214-213BC first thought that the Lacedaemonians had attacked them. Later, by the arms and the voices, realized that those who attacked them were soldiers led by king Demetrios. Since at that time a Demetrios was King of Macedonia, it was assumed that the attackers were Macedonians. Some authors claimed that the 'voices' reference was to mean that the Macedonians (attackers) were speaking a non-greek language at that time, an argument not accepted for the Macedonians of that time by almost everyone.
Later on, it was realized that the Demetrios in question was not the king of Macedonia, son of Philippos E', but Demetrios the Pharian, an Illyrian, who was later killed during this campaign against Messene.
Q13) Did Demosthenes believe the Macedonians were barbarians?
No. Proponents of the thesis that Macedonians spoke a non-greek language accept (usually...) that the Macedonian kings were Greeks but were ruling non-Greek people. Given the evidence that has been found in the past years from archaeological excavations they have started claiming that the kings and the upper-class had been Greek-speakers but the lower class was not.
Now to explain the "NO". One may claim that it should have been a "YES" and they would point to the "To Philippos" speech of the orator where he claimed that from these barbarian Macedonians one could not even buy slaves. I will let Professor A. Holm in his work "The history of Greece from its commencement to the close of the independence of the Greek nation", translated from German, London New York, Macmillan, 1894-1898, Volume III, page 206 to explain this passage from the speech of Demosthenes:
"That the Greeks did not consider the Macedonians as barbarians is proved involuntarily by Demosthenes (To Philippos 3, 31) where he states that "OYD ANDRAPODON SPOYDAION HN PROTEROY" from Macedonia, which stripped of its rhetoric means the Macedonians did not provide the Greeks with slaves, the meaning of which of course was that the Macedonians were not considered barbarians, like the Thracians, Phrygians..."
Given this, the discussion below seems to be redundant.
Demosthenes, an Athenian orator and politician in various speeches of his and most notably in Olynthiakos G' and later, when it was very clear to him that the power of Athens was fading away and Macedonia was the new power in the Hellenic world, accused Philippos II of many things including that of being barbarian. This is not surprising for Demosthenes who spent his whole life advocating the superiority of Athens over the other Hellenic states, even if that required that some Greek city-states were to be destroyed or to suffer for Athens to remain the leader of Greece [See, For the Megalopolitans,5].
In his Third Olynthiakos, 16, Demosthenes wrote
"Is he (Philippos) not our enemy? Are not our possessions in his hands? Is he not a barbarian? Is he not anything that you choose to call him? In God's name, when we have let everything go, when we have all but put everything into his hands, shall we then inquire at large who is responsible for it all?"
There are no explicit accusations of Macedonians as a whole of being so (barbarians). Given that such an assertion against Philippos is shared by no one and given so many references in antiquity to his descent [Herodotos, Thucydides, Isocrates, Hesiodos, Hellanikos] in various texts any other discussion on this question seems pointless. In one translation of this speech by John Edwin Santys in "The first Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes", Macmillan and Co, the translator commented on this passage Argos [Herodotos VIII 137, IX 45, Thucydides II 99,2, V 80,2] and one of Philip's ancestors, Alexander A', had as a Greek been allowed to compete at the Olympic games [Herodotos V 22]. Demosthenes, however, in his hatred of Philip, never acknowledges his Greek descent. ... of breath as he gasps out this final and comprehensive phrase of vituperation. In such a spasmodic utterance no one need be surprised either at the presence of hiatus or at the concurrence of several short syllables". Those who believe that this phrase of Demosthenes is not a term of abuse but truth are those who believe that President-elect Clinton is indeed 'Bozo' as President Bush claimed, which I doubt that even President Bush believes.
There is also another reason that this accusation against Philippos on behalf of Demosthenes was more of a figure of speech than anything else.
Demosthenes mother (or his maternal grandmother) was a Skythian, a non-Greek and thus a non-Athenian. Had his accusation been taken seriously we could have been accused and for a good reason of being a barbarian himself.
In fact Aeschines (On the Embassy, 78) expressed this opinion by saying ".... KAI TAYTA, V DHMOSUENES, EK TVN NOMADVN SKYUVN TO PROS MHTROS VN GENOS", that is, "you, Demosthenes, a descendant through your mother of the nomad Skythians" as well as (Against Ctesiphon, 172) "TA D' APO THS MHTROS [DHMOSUENHS] SKYUHS, BARBAROS, ELLHNIZVN TH FVNH" that is, "and by his mother's side [Demosthenes is] a Scythian, a Greek speaking Barbarian", and earlier in that passage Aeschines accused Demothenes of being a slanderer "EJ' HS YMIN O PERIERGOS KAI SYKOFANTHS [DEMOSTHENES] GEGENHTAI". [Some authors believe that Kleovouli, mother of Demosthenes, was daughter of Gylon who settled in Crimaea and married a Scythian woman.]
Let alone the fact that Demosthenes, an 'honorable' Athenian citizen, was bribed later by the Persians (barbarians) to write speeches against Philippos and at the same time was also accusing Philippos of bribing Athenians and various Athenians of being bribed by Philippos. Demosthenes would also look very silly since another Athenian, Isocrates, in, To Philippos,108 wrote considered Philippos an Hellen and urged him to unite all Hellenes and lead them in a war against the Barbarians.
In one of his speeches, On the Embassy 305, Demosthenes in his effort to accuse orator Aeschines of inconsistent and possibly traitorous behavior accused Aeschines of calling Philippos 'barbarian' and 'devil'. In his Third Philippic, 31, Demosthenes accused Philippos of being "he is a pestilent Macedonian, from whose country it used not to be possible to buy even a slave of any value" [There were no slaves in the Macedonian state as opposed to other greek city-states]. On the other hand in the Third Olynthiac Demosthenes commended the Athenians on extracting 10,000 talents from Macedonia and bringing them into the Acropolis many years earlier, in the fifth century BC.
Accusations by Aeschines on the past and present behavior of Demosthenes such as of inflicting wounds on himself and bringing suit for malicious assault, (in Against Ctesiphon, 212), of becoming a teacher in order to extract large amounts of money from his pupils (in Against Timarchus, 171), of taking money from his clients for writing speeches to be delivered in court and then revealing the contents of these speeches to their opponents (in On the Embassy, 165), of belittling young Alexander by claiming that he would prove incompetent and would never stir out of Macedonia (Against Ctesiphon 160), of later seeking favor from Alexander (same,162), of his insincerity and cowardice (against Ctesiphon 150-152), are omitted.
The following remark made by an ancient writer commenting on Demosthenes' accusation of Philippos (Olynthiakos G' 16) being a barbarian highlights the beliefs of all other Greeks as well as the real beliefs of Demosthenes:
"YBRISAI TOYTON (meaning FILIPPON DEMOSUENHS) BOYLOMENOS KALEIN BARBARON, EPEI <EI> TO ALHUES SKOPHSEI, EYRHSEI AYTON ELLHNAN ARGEION KAI APO HRAKLEOYS TO GENOS KATAGOMENON, VS PANTES OI ISTORIKOI MARTYROYSIN...".
In short the accusation on behalf of Demosthenes was just a slander since every historian at that time knew that Philippos was Greek in descent.
Q14) Is there any reference by Demosthenes to an incident that can lead us to conclude that he and his fellow Athenians believed that Macedonians indeed spoke a greek dialect?
Yes. Demosthenes in a speech of his (in Greek: PERI THS PARAPRESBEIAS[On the Embassy?] 197,229) described an incident in which Frynonas, an Athenian, while traveling to Olympia had his luggage taken by Macedonian soldiers. Frynonas acted later as an Athenian ambassador to Philippos II. Philippos II ordered his soldiers to return the taken property to Frynonans and apologized for his soldiers not knowing that that time was a period of religious festivities. Had the Macedonian soldiers not spoken a greek dialect Philippos II would have used that as an excuse, Demosthenes would have been very keen to pointing this out in his speech, and taken up with great delight, as we may guess, the opportunity to accuse not only Philippos but also his soldiers of barbarian behavior. Nevertheless, he didn't do that because he knew that the Macedonians spoke a greek dialect.
No lack of understanding between the Macedonians and the Athenians at that time (at the time that the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians was about to begin) has been reported in any ancient text.
Demosthenes, as an ambassador of Athens visited Macedonia twice. This happened before his now famous (or infamous) speeches against Philippos. During his two visits and afterwards never complained of Macedonians being "barbarians", or speaking a non-greek language. On the contrary we was dazzled by the riches of the palace of Philippos in Pella.
Q15) Is it possible [ignoring historic evidence that shows that this was not the case] that Macedonians had spoken a non-greek language before 340BC and within a 10-20 year period every Macedonian was fluent in the attic dialect?
The answer is no, unless one sites as an example the races in Star Trek: The Next Generation (Trademark by Paramount Pictures) who are all fluent in English no matter how alien or young or French for that matter are
Arrhianos presented many instances of Alexander the Great talking to his fellow Macedonian soldiers in Greek (attic)) and not say, in their supposedly non-greek mother tongue. Wouldn't his soldiers feel more comfortable in their mother tongue (a supposedly non greek one)?
Q16) Who may have 'hellenized' ancient Macedonians, if we assume, despite proof for the contrary, that they were not a greek tribe ?
This is a question that none could give an answer. Assuming that ancient Macedonians were not speaking Greek the large number of Doric and thus non-attic words found in their spoken language, let alone place-names, month-names, attributes to Gods and Goddesses, festival names etc seem to zero the probability that Athenians were the ones who hellenized them. The large number of archaic greek words not used by other Greeks of that time preclude any other greek city-state or kingdom of the classic times to be responsible for that alleged 'hellenization'. Remembering the not so friendly relations between the Macedonians and the Athenians, the vastness of the Macedonian kingdom as opposed to that of the city state of Athens, and its population -Macedonians were able to form sizeable armies, by Greek standards- it is highly unlikely that any other Greek state or Athens could have undertaken such an enormous task and had it completed in a 10-20 year period.
On the other hand, Alexander A' when he initiated his otherwise brief contacts with the Greeks in the South he was able to talk to them in Greek fluently. If Macedonians were to be hellenized in the 4th century BC there would have been no way for Alexander A' to speak greek. If he and his family were the only Greek speakers in Macedonia it would have been highly unlikely that he and his family had retained the ability to speak Greek fluently.
One of the tragedies Euripides first presented in Macedonia was Iphigeneia in Aulis and Ekavi. In Iphigeneia (1400) and Ekavi (1199) "OYPOT' AN FILON / TO BARBARON GENOIT' AN ELLHSIN GENOS / OYD AN DYNAITO", the greek superiority over the Barbarians was highlighted. It would have been be too dangerous for him to express such opinions to a non-greek audience (if Macedonians were not Greek and spoke a non-Greek language). Let alone the fact that the language of his tragedies was Greek.
Q17) Isocrates used the phrases "ALOFYLON TO GENOS", "OYX OMOFYLOY GENOYS". Do they mean "of other tribe" or "of other race"?
We discussed in previous paragraphs the various interpretations of the word Hellen (Greek) in various times in antiquity. The word Hellen used to describe in Homeric times the people living in some place (the MYRMIDONES in Thessaly) and later (possibly) those living in Epeiros if one believes that the Selloi of Epeiros, also called Graecoi, were later became known as Hellenes. Only in the 8-7th century BC was the word Hellen used to describe as a whole various Greek (Hellenic) tribes. Since at that time Macedonians were in constant wars with the Illyrians and other non-greek tribes and had little contacts with the other Greek tribes in the South the term Hellenes with its new meaning was not familiar to them.
Thus distinction between Hellenes and Macedonians used by writers at that time (who nevertheless had no doubt of the Greekness of the Macedonians) shouldn't be a source of false claims. The following excerpt of Isocrates' speech highlights this.
(Isocrates. Philip. 154):
" HN GAR TAYTA PRATTHS, APANTES SOI XARIN EJOYSI, OI MEN ELLHNES YPER VN AN EY PASXVSI, MAKEDONES D' HN BASILIKVS ALLA MH TYRANNIKVS AYTVN EPISTATHS, TO DE TVN ALLVN GENOS, HN DIA SE BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS APALLAGENTES ELLHNIKHS EPIMELEIAS TYXVSIN"
Although Isocrates distinguished Hellenes from Macedonians by including in the first term the at that time accepted interpretation of "the greek tribes living south of river Peneios", he nevertheless believed that the people who got rid of the "BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS" (barbarian rule) with the assistance of Macedonians are now ruled and taken care of ("ELLHNIKHS EPIMELEIAS TYXVSIN") by people (Macedonians) belonging to Greek tribes.
Isocrates is well known for suggesting that Philippos II (In his speech: To Philippos) lead a pan Hellenic hegemony, consisting only of Greeks, that will unify all Hellenic tribes and lead them in a war against the barbarians [To Philippos, 115,80, 127-128,8,16]. A reference by him to Macedonians as "OYX OMOFYLOY GENOYS"(TO Philippos,108) there, has been interpreted by some to mean "of other race" rather than "of other tribe" thus earning him many supporters among the ones who claim that Macedonians were not Greek. It seems quite weird that Isocrates would like the leader of a "barbarian tribe" to unite all Hellenes, including his own "barbarians".
The answer to this misinterpretation of the "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS" will become apparent shortly.
In the same text (To Philippos,32) Isocrates wrote "UHBAIOI DE TON ARXHGON TOY GENOYS YMVN TIMVSI" that is that Isocrates was aware of the Macedonian-Doric connection and/or the legend that the Macedonian kings were considered descendants of Hercules. The 'founder of your tribe' refers to Hercules. If 'GENOYS'(of TRIBE) were to mean RACE (the Hellenic one in particular) Isocrates would have used HMVN (that is, 'founder of our tribe') instead of YMVN (that is, 'founder of your tribe').
This meaning of the word GENOS (tribe rather than race) can also be found in Herodotos (I, 56, mentioned in Question 8) where the Lacedaemonians are of "DVRIKOU GENOUS' (Doric, presumably, tribe) while the Athenians are of "IVNIKOY" (Ionian, presumably, tribe). Had GENOS meant race one must conclude that either Iones (say, Athenians) or Dorians (say Spartans) were not Greek. It is worth mentioning that in that same passage Herodotos used the word 'EUNOS' (nowadays it means 'people'...) for the ancient Pelasgian and Hellenic people ('EUNH'). Herodotos included the Ionians in the Pelasgian and Dorians in the Hellenic people, although both were Hellenic (greek) tribes. So much for confusing terms...
In VIII,144, Herodotos distinguished Hellenic tribes from the Barbarians on the basis of 'blood' and 'speech' (OMAIMON and OMOGLVSSON) rather than of race or tribe which didn't have very specific meanings at that time.
The following references in addition to the previous ones, show that the word "FYLON", "GENOS" had at that time the meaning of the English word TRIBE rather than that of RACE, thus "ALOFYLON GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS" means "of other (not of the same) tribe", as this was true for the Athenians (ionic tribe) and Macedonians (Doric one). The interpretation "of other (not of the same) race" for "ALOFYLOY GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON" is thus incorrect.
Thucydides (I, 141) : Pericles talking about the Peloponnesians said "PANTES TE ISOCHFIOI ONTES KAI OYX OMOFYLOI TO EF' EAYTON EKASTOS SPEYDH" that is, he considered Peloponnesians not "OMOFYLOI" to the Athenians. Since everyone considered both Peloponnesians and Athenians to be Greek, 'OMOFYLOI' had thus the meaning of the 'same tribe' rather than of 'same race'.
Dicaiarchos : "FYLH DE KAI FYLETAI PROTERON VNOMASUHSAN EK THS EIS TAS POLEIS KAI TA KALOYMENA EUNH SYNODOY GENOMENHS; EKASTON GAR TVN SYNELUONTVN FYLON ELEGETO EINAI". Same meaning as before.
Herodotos (VIII, 144) distinguishes Hellenic tribes from Barbarians depending on the "OMAIMON" (same blood) and "OMOGLVSSON" (same tongue) but not of the "OMOFYLON" (same tribe).
Euripides (Her. Main. 1200) agreed with Herodotos.
Eustathios (93,3) assigned the meaning of tribe to 'FYLON'.
It was known to Isocrates (as attested in the same speech) the tradition relating Macedonians and Dorians and the "ALOFYLOY" was pointing out this difference between the Athenians and Macedonians. Later in his speech Isocrates asked Philippos to unite the Hellenes and drive them against the barbarians. He also suggested that Philippos should lead only Greeks against the barbarians. Had Macedonians been considered barbarians the suggestions would have been at least absurd and offending rather than encouraging and flattering, as they were intended to be.
In another part of its speech/letter Isocrates mentions that Philippos rules people (Macedonians) of not his own tribe-race. Some claim that this is a proof of the non-Greekness of Macedonians in the sense that considering Philippos to be Greek (according to the legend of his family's descent) the tribe-race is to mean that the people he ruled were not Greeks. The accurate meaning of this phrase can only be derived by reading the whole passage. Isocrates suggests to Philippos that the kind of rule (monarchy) that was so successful in Macedonia is not guaranteed to be successful in the city-states of Southern Greece. Thus, he should choose another form of government when he (Philippos) becomes hegemon of all Greece. In order to support this he cites the example of his ancestors who unable to rule Argos, since at that time monarchies were detested in Southern Greece and the trend was the establishment of city-states, were only successful in ruling another tribe, that of Macedonians.
Q18) Skopjans accuse us Macedonians in Greece of changing the names of our cities into Greek ones some time in the 20th century instead of using the Slavic names assigned to these cities since "ancient" (sic) names. They claim that Edessa for example should not be called so but VODEN instead, and Thessaloniki should be called SOLUN.
Cities in Macedonia, the ancient kingdom and the province of Greece, still have the names they had in antiquity, at least for the cities that existed at that time. The names of some of these cities may not be even of Greek origin, thus showing that Skopjan claims are not only false but at least silly or absurd.
The Skopjans claim that the Macedonian city of Edessa in the Pella prefecture of Macedonia, Greece, should not be called so but Voden instead. They also claim that we Macedonians changed the name of the city from the Slavic one "VODEN" into the "greek" one EDESSA. The city of EDESSA has been called so since prehistoric times. It is amusing to point out that many believe the name Edessa is not of Greek, but possibly of Phrygic origin denoting a place rich of waters. Edessa has always been famous of her waterfalls. Others may claim that the suffix "-dessa" may indicate 'water' in some prehistoric form of the greek word (GK:YDVR) for water. This connection of the name 'EDESSA' with 'water' had confused many historians until 1976. They used to believe that Edessa was ancient Aegae, the royal city of the Macedonian Kings. They thought that the word 'Aegae' was derived not from the word 'aega' (she-goat) as this is related with the myth of the creation of the Macedonian state by Karanos, but from the Doric prefix Aeg- denoting 'water' (cf Edessa). In Doric, 'aegae' means '(water) waves' (The 'Aegean Sea' is an obvious example). Given that both names Edessa and Aegae have to do with 'waters' archaelogists thought that Edessa=Aegae.
This argument was put in rest by Nicholas L. G. Hammond in 1968 when he suggested that Vergina and not Edessa was the ancient Aegae, a correct assertion as it was proved in 1976 by the excavations of M. Andronikos in Vergina. Though Vergina is not on the sea shore of Thermaikos Bay it is believed that in the BC centuries the present lands separating Vergina from the sea were wetlands.
It is noted that the Slavic word VODEN also denotes 'water'. It is also worth mentioning that the city of Skopje whose name is probably derives from the greek one 'Skopia', was invariably called 'Uskub', 'Skupoi', 'Skup', 'Skopje', and as of few years ago 'Skoplje'.
Another Example is the city of Kastoria in Western Macedonia, Greece. Skopjans prefer to call it Kostur and suggest that Greeks should call it so. The name of the city 'Kastoria' comes from the mythical hero Kastor (Castor) brother of Polydeukes, son of Leda and Zeus.
Regarding Thessaloniki (called Salonica or Saloniki also in English) if one opens an ancient map he will realize that the name of the city has been Thessaloniki and not Solun (as Skopjan suggest that we should call the city) since ancient times.
Q19)Skopjans claim that when Slavs descended to the Balkan peninsula, in the 7th century AD, Macedonians vanished and there was a kind of 'slavicization' of Macedonia which 'gave birth' to the "Slavic-Macedonians" as Skopjans claim they are (at least some of them), the supposedly deserved ancestors of ancient Macedonians. Are such claims true say up to 15th century AD?
The distinction between Macedonians, Thessalians, Athenians, Spartans and Lacaedemonians in antiquity which indicated among other things greek tribes of distinct customs, spoken dialects ceased to exist with the passage of time. As of the Hellenistic period almost all Greeks were using the attic dialect for their communication while all the other dialects (of greek) were dropped from regular use. The rise of Christianity erased distinctions based in religious matters and the place of residence was then used distinguish say Thessalians from Macedonians and Athenians. Their common greek dialect (the attic one) though evolved differently in various regions thus giving the various dialects of modern greek.
To say that Macedonians vanished some time in the 7AD century is to claim that the Greeks (many of them ancestors of Doric people called Macedonians, other possibly ancestor of other Aeolic, Doric or ionic people, others of mixed parentage) residing in Macedonia were all killed at that time, an absurdity.
Around 688, emperor Justinian B', after the defeat of the Bulgars and Slavs in lower Moissia transferred all the Slavs in the northern European part of his empire (that is of Macedonia and Thrace of nowadays Greece and territories covering the Rep. of Skopje, Albania and parts of Bulgaria) to Asia Minor. These were estimated to be 80,000 but probably were more than that since two years later the emperor preparing for a war against the Arabs conscripted 30,000 men from this population to his army. These Slavs subsequently switched sides and supported the Arabs. The emperor for retribution killed all the remaining Slavs in Asia Minor.
About one hundred years later, in 773AD, the Bulgarian population in the Balkans was reduced after repeated defeats in battles with the Byzantine emperors. When the Bulgars decided to strengthen their army and find new recruits they marched to Thessaly, since there were no Slavs in Macedonia, to capture a small Slavic tribe living there. On their way there they were annihilated by the Byzantine forces. In the next century forced movements of Slavic populations from Greece to Asia Minor continued.
The conclusion is that the Byzantine emperors did everything possible to clear up the northern territories (including Macedonia and Thrace of modern day Greece) of their empire of Slavs.
Various non-Greek sources indicate that not only Macedonia of modern day Greece but also Rep. of Skopje (the latter, if not entirely, at least predominantly) were Greek till the late 15th century AD.
C. Jirecek, in "Geschichte der Serben" claimed that Macedonians were always Greek and all the area south of the line defined by the cities Achris-Skopje-Nissa-Sofia-Aimos-Messimbria was greek (an assertion also confirmed by other authors such as Th. Mommsen, A. Karnach).
Hertzberg (in "Geschichte Byzantinissen") (Vol B, Book A, Chapter Gamma, page 184, 1906 edition). said that in 1282, the population below the line Euxinus Pontus-Aimos-Kustendil-Skopje-Skutari was Greek, in tongue, in customs and working for the greek interests.
One can then wonder when the Bulgarian idiom spoken by the Skopjans was in use say in the lands of nowadays Rep. of Skopje, let alone in antiquity [since Skopjans claim that the Slavic idiom spoken by the Slavs who descended to the Balkans in the 7th AD century was used by the ancient Macedonian 1000-1500 years earlier!].
The French historian Haumant, in "La formation de la Yugoslavie", mentioned that in the 13th century the area from Prisreni to Nissa was empty of people. If there were no Slavs there, then how and when the "Macedonians" of Skopjan type appeared in Macedonia and the Republic of Skopje? This is the reason Albanians (70%?) occupy the region of Cossyphopedio (Kosovo).
Hertzberg, in "Geschichte Byzantinissen", mentioned that when in the 14th century Dushan shared his kingdom with his son he kept the greek area south of Skopje and gave his son the northern Serbian areas (this is also confirmed by a Czech historian, Jirecek). All his orders were then written in Greek and not in any idiom like the one now spoken in the Republic of Skopje. In 1350 when John Katakouzenos was in the city of Verhoia representatives of all big greek cities (Skopje included) visited him and asked for help. Jirecek mentioned in his book that at this time Skopje was a greek city inhabited mainly by Greeks despite being part of the Serbian kingdom for more than a century. Following Dushan's death around 1355 his son's empire began to collapse. Dushan's brother, Symeon, proclaimed himself an emperor and accorded himself the surname of "Palaeologos" in an attempt to gain the favor of the Greek population of his kingdom(empire). He also wrote his orders in Greek (and not in any strange called Slavic idioms).
Soon the Greeks gained the control of the garrisons of various greek cities (such as Verhoia, Edessa, and Skopje). Officials in Dushan's empire quickly abandoned these greek cities and moved to Prisreni and later to Krusevach. The greek inhabitants remained in the areas they had been living for many centuries, if not millennia.
Since even in the years of Dushan, when the Slavic influence and control in the areas of Macedonia Greece), western part of Albania, Republic of Skopje and Yugoslavia (Serbia+Kosovo) was at its peak Macedonian Greeks were not "slavisized", how was that possible under the Ottoman rule, when after the defeat of Serbia by the Ottomans circa 1459, the Slavs migrated to the north and the area south of the city of Skopje was inhabited by Greeks only? If the strong presence of Slavs at that time didn't cause the Macedonians to vanish how was that possible to happen before? How come the vanished Macedonians of 7th AD survived as late as 15th AD? and later?
Q20) Do the Skopjans have desires on Macedonia, Greece?
Greece claims that Skopjans, who are evidently non-Greeks, by using to identify themselves a Hellenic (greek) name that still identifies a region in modern Greece, the people living in that region, and their thousands year old heritage, implies territorial claims on behalf of Skopje. Such opinions were shared by US officials when the late Marshall Tito, in 1944, created a (now former) Yugoslav Socialist Republic of "Macedonia".
There are many Skopjan provocations supporting Greece's position.
The use of Slavic names for Greek cities instead of the Greek ones (they prefer to call Thessaloniki, Solun, to call Kastoria , Kostur, to call Florina, Lerin, to call Edessa, Voden etc), beyond the usual changes that the translation of various names from one language to another requires. The use of Slavic toponyms is intended to cast a doubt on the Greekness of the various places in Macedonia. This is also confirmed by the fact that the Skopjans never use the term say "Greek Macedonia" but speak of the "Aegean Macedonia" (see discussion below).
The use of the term "Aegean Macedonia" (a term invented and used by Skopjans and by people of similar desires) instead of say the more acceptable and less suspicious "Greek Macedonia" to identify Macedonia, Greece (that is the region called Macedonia in Greece). This can be interpreted as an attempt to present this part as a member of a whole (usually called "Greater Macedonia") yet "un-liberated". The Bulgarian oriented (terrorist) organization called IMRO (founded in the beginning of the 20th century) and the current political party VMRO of the Republic of Skopje expressed and express such claims quite often.
3) [From [7]]: A calendar for the year 1981 was published in Skopje and circulated around the world that had on its cover the word "macedonija" written in the Slavic script. Under this word a warrior appeared, like the old Commitadjis [Bulgar terrorists who in the late 19th and early 20th century intended to include Macedonia and Thrace of Greece, Rep of Skopje as well as areas of nowadays Bulgaria to then Bulgaria], with the bayonet fastened on his rifle. Under him the well known Statue of Liberty (yes! the one in New York!) was depicted. This statue is supported on a map of the Balkan Peninsula and largely on Macedonia, Greece. Under this picture it is written in English "Independent and Free Macedonia" (implying that Macedonia, Greece was not free at that time!!!).
Maps depicting Macedonia, Greece, as part of the Republic of Skopje have been published recently (November 1992) in Skopje according to various reports.
[From [7]]: In 1973 a large size picture book was circulated in many languages which shows "the immigrants" from the other two sectors of "Macedonia" (supposedly the "Aegean Macedonia" of Greece, as Macedonia is euphemistically called by the Skopjans, and the "Pirin Macedonia" as the southwestern part of Bulgaria is also called by the Skopjans) "who have not been liberated yet", to "nostalgically" visit the "free" "Macedonia" of Skopje. This book, entitled MACEDONIAN VISTAS is still under circulation (at the time of the writing of reference [7], i.e. 1984) in the bookstores of Belgrade and Skopje.'
More recently maps found in various Skopjan cultural centers around the world include various areas of Greece in their Skopjan state (Thessaly is included in some cases).
In early 1992 a currency was printed in Skopje depicting the White Tower a landmark of Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia, Greece.
[NOTE: This was not an officially sanctioned banknote but a souvenir banknote printed by some Skopje company. Still it is interesting why these things would be popular enough to make and sell in Skopje. - ce107]
This fall it was decided in Rep. of Skopje that the coat of arms of the Republic of Skopje would be the coats of arms of the royal family of Philippos II, father of Alexander the Great. The coat of arms, a sun, was depicted in a gold larnax found in the grave of Philippos II, in Vergina, Macedonia, Greece, by the late Professor Manolis Andronikos. There have been announcements recently in Greek newspapers by Greek archaelogists that the so-called Vergina-Star has also been found elsewhere in Greece (Attica) and these occurrences are dated around the early 5th century BC (470BC).
It is open to the reader to decide what the Slavs of Skopje, who descended in the Balkans in the late 7AD century that is 1000 years after the death of Philippos II, have to do with a greek tribe, the coat of arms of their Greek Kings, and their greek heritage. It seems that the Skopjans will never stop claiming other people's heritage.
[The following are take from reference [8]].
June 1951: A book is published entitled '"Slavomacedonian" fighters'. The hero of the Greek war of independence Markos Botsaris is referred to as "Marc Botsar" allegedly a "Macedonian" of the Skopjan type.
September 2, 1951: The Interior Ministry (of Yugoslavia) gives a certificate to a person born in Agia Paraskevi, Macedonia, Greece. Macedonia is referred to as "People's Republic of Aegean Macedonia." (For your own information, Greece has never been a People's Republic, as this term is used by Communists).
November 1951: The Geography book for the third grade of High School for the students of the then Socialist Republic that is now Rep. of Skopje allegedly mentioned that "our borders with Greece are just physical and not national ones, since the Aegean Macedonia remains under the rule of Greece".
End of 1960: The Government in Belgrade adopted a law that officially recognized as time served to the Yugoslavian Armed Forces the time served by Greek Communist guerillas in Greek-communist organizations, other than EAM-ELAS, fighting against the Greek government during the greek civil war 1944-1949. Participation in EAM-ELAS (1941-1949) has been recognised since 1954.
February 1961: The filming of a movie entitled something like "Revolutionaries in Thessaloniki" began at that time in Skopje. The topic of the movie was a Bulgarian terrorist act in Thessaloniki in April 1903, when the city was under Ottoman rule. The Bulgars are depicted in the film as "Macedonians" (of the skopjan type), and the terrorist event is depicted as part of the "fight of Macedonians for independence".
This is just a small sample of the Skopjan provocations.
Q21)When did 'Macedonians' of the Skopjan type first appear?
Tito by the end of the WWII created a Yugoslav Socialist Republic that he called "Macedonia". The inhabitants of this new Republic were called "Macedonians". The following figures of Yugoslavian censuses show this.
According to preliminary results of the 1921 Yugoslavian census [Yugoslavia was called then "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"], as these can be found in [8], the ethnic composition of Yugoslavia at that time was:
Ethnic composition (in thousands) (percentages)
Serbs+Croats 8,946 74.4
Slovenes 1,024 8.5
Other Slavs 174 1.5
Germans 513 4.3
Hungarians 472 3.9
Albanians 441 3.7
Romanian 229 1.9
Italians 12 0.1
Others 201 1.7
The final results of this census, classified according to language spoken by these people where as follows:
(million) (percentages)
Yugoslavs 9,931 83.0
other Slavs 176 1.5
Germans 505 4.2
Hungarians 467 3.9
Albanians 439 3.7
Romanians 231 1.9
Turks (Albanians) 150 1.3
Italians 12 0.1
Other 69 0.6
According to their religion:
(million) (percentages)
Orthodox 5,593 46.7
Catholics 4,708 39.3
Muslims 1,345 11.2
Protestants 229 1.9
Jews 64 0.5
Greek-Catholics 40 0.4
Other 3 0.01
As one can see, in 1921 there were no "Macedonians" and no "Macedonian" language.
After the 1948 census the following figures were released. We have
(in thousands)
Serbs 6,547
Croats 3,784
Slovenes 1,415
"Macedonians" 809
Mavrovounians 425
(Montenegrians)
Muslims 808
It is interesting that a new nationality of "Macedonians" appeared in this census with a population of 809,000 while 27 years ago no such nationality existed. It is also interesting to note that according to this census no Albanians lived in Yugoslavia in 1948 while the 1921 census indicated the existence of 441,000 Albanians. This Albanian population is hidden under such terms (nationalities?) as "Macedonians", Mavrovounians, and Muslims. One can thus conclude that this 1948 census not only created new imaginary nationalities, like "Macedonians", but also erased existing ones. It seems creation and eradication of nationalities was a major hobby of the late Marshall Tito.
According to the religion of the people living in Yugoslavia one gets the following:
(percentages)
Orthodox 49.53%
Catholics 36.77%
Muslims 12.52%
Other Christians 1.14%
Jews 0.04%
Minorities (in thousands)
Albanians 750
Hungarians 496
Vlachs 102 (where did they come from? The Vlachs of
Macedonia that resided in Yugoslavia
after the Balkan Wars were under 30,000.)
Turks 98
Slovaks 83
Italians 79
Gypsies 72
Bulgarians 61
Russenoi* 37
Germans 55
Romanians 64
Jews 6.8
Greeks 1.8
Czechs 39
* This is the translation of this term into English from Greek.
It is surprising that the Greek minority in Yugoslavia is only 1,800. We simply note that during the Greek civil of 1944-1949 Yugoslavia fully supported the Greek Communists and around 28,000 children were abducted and sent to Yugoslavia. Most of these children never returned to their parents. It is believed that the majority of them remained in Yugoslavia.
Q22) What was the population distribution of Macedonia, the Republic of Skopje, and parts of Bulgaria in the years of Ottoman rule?
In 1912 Greeks and Bulgars living in the Ottoman Empire agreed on the number of members to the Ottoman Parliament each group would select. It was agreed that in each Vilaet (Regions of the Ottoman Empire) the number of Greek and Bulgarian representatives would be as follows.
Vilaet of Adrianoypoli Greeks 8 Bulgarians 1
" of Thessaloniki and
Monastirion Greeks 10 Bulgarians 5
" of Cossyphopedio Greeks 0 Bulgarians 2
(Kosovo)
No references to other Slavs, nor any protests of any kind, were filed after the elections. It can thus be assumed that the Greek: Bulgar as well as Greek: Slav proportion of the population in these vilaets was reflected in this arrangement.
Other (mainly of non-greek origin) sources from which one can draw conclusions on the population of various ottoman ruled areas are:
An Italian, Amadore Virgilli, in "La questiona roma rumeliota" (1907, page 107) gave the following statistics for the population of the two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monastirion.
Thess:Greeks 362,000, Turks 423,500, Bulgars 198,000, Serbs 1400
Monast:Greeks 280,000, Turks 223,000, Bulgars 143,000, Serbs 6070
A German General [Von Der Golt in "Balkanwirren und ihre grunde" (1904)] who served in Turkey and organized the Turkish Army claimed the following statistics for the two vilaets:
Muslims 730,000, Greeks 580,000, Bulgars 266,000, Serbs 19,000, Jews 60,000
Therefore a statement that Macedonia was predominantly "Slavic" (with Slavs like the ones residing in nowadays Skopje) seems to be incorrect. Nowadays Macedonia in Greece included parts of the two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monasterio. Parts of the Monasterio Vilaet today belong to Albania and Republic of Skopje. Parts of the Thessaloniki Vilaet to Rep. of Skopje and Bulgaria. There was a third Vilaet, that of Skopje extending north in today's southern Serbia.
There are various other statistics that more or less agree with these figures.
HAVE FUN !!!
Republik of Vardar... :wink:
:lol:
Part-2
Q12) There is a reference in a work by Pausanias that may give the impression that Macedonians, around 214-213BC, were speaking a non-Greek language.
Advocates of the thesis that the Macedonian spoke a non-greek language claim that this language was spoken by them up to some time in mid 4th century BC. At that time Macedonians within few years were fully hellenized and since then they have been speaking Greek.
Long but relevant Parenthesis. Skip it if not interested: Some of these advocates accept a Skopjan point of view that all Macedonians perished and thus vanished when Slavs first appeared in the Balkan peninsula in the 7th century AD. All of a sudden these new Slavs became heir-apparents of the Macedonians, were granted presumably by Marshall Tito the exclusive right to be called 'Macedonians' and named the Bulgarian idiom also consisting of Greek, Turkish, and Albanian words formed at least 1000 years after their descent to the Balkans "the Macedonian language".
Some of them, possibly all, claim that this Slavic origin language was the language spoken by the Macedonians before the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced to these and other Slavs along with many greek words by two Macedonian (Greek) brothers, Kontantinos (later called Cyril) and Methodios from Thessaloniki. It is quite interesting to know how these Macedonian brothers escaped the fate of other fellow Macedonians and didn't perish during the descent of Slavs in the Balkan peninsula, as the advocates of Skopjan claimed that it had happened.
According to Pausanias (Messenians IV 29, 1) the residents of Messene a night around 214-213BC first thought that the Lacedaemonians had attacked them. Later, by the arms and the voices, realized that those who attacked them were soldiers led by king Demetrios. Since at that time a Demetrios was King of Macedonia, it was assumed that the attackers were Macedonians. Some authors claimed that the 'voices' reference was to mean that the Macedonians (attackers) were speaking a non-greek language at that time, an argument not accepted for the Macedonians of that time by almost everyone.
Later on, it was realized that the Demetrios in question was not the king of Macedonia, son of Philippos E', but Demetrios the Pharian, an Illyrian, who was later killed during this campaign against Messene.
Q13) Did Demosthenes believe the Macedonians were barbarians?
No. Proponents of the thesis that Macedonians spoke a non-greek language accept (usually...) that the Macedonian kings were Greeks but were ruling non-Greek people. Given the evidence that has been found in the past years from archaeological excavations they have started claiming that the kings and the upper-class had been Greek-speakers but the lower class was not.
Now to explain the "NO". One may claim that it should have been a "YES" and they would point to the "To Philippos" speech of the orator where he claimed that from these barbarian Macedonians one could not even buy slaves. I will let Professor A. Holm in his work "The history of Greece from its commencement to the close of the independence of the Greek nation", translated from German, London New York, Macmillan, 1894-1898, Volume III, page 206 to explain this passage from the speech of Demosthenes:
"That the Greeks did not consider the Macedonians as barbarians is proved involuntarily by Demosthenes (To Philippos 3, 31) where he states that "OYD ANDRAPODON SPOYDAION HN PROTEROY" from Macedonia, which stripped of its rhetoric means the Macedonians did not provide the Greeks with slaves, the meaning of which of course was that the Macedonians were not considered barbarians, like the Thracians, Phrygians..."
Given this, the discussion below seems to be redundant.
Demosthenes, an Athenian orator and politician in various speeches of his and most notably in Olynthiakos G' and later, when it was very clear to him that the power of Athens was fading away and Macedonia was the new power in the Hellenic world, accused Philippos II of many things including that of being barbarian. This is not surprising for Demosthenes who spent his whole life advocating the superiority of Athens over the other Hellenic states, even if that required that some Greek city-states were to be destroyed or to suffer for Athens to remain the leader of Greece [See, For the Megalopolitans,5].
In his Third Olynthiakos, 16, Demosthenes wrote
"Is he (Philippos) not our enemy? Are not our possessions in his hands? Is he not a barbarian? Is he not anything that you choose to call him? In God's name, when we have let everything go, when we have all but put everything into his hands, shall we then inquire at large who is responsible for it all?"
There are no explicit accusations of Macedonians as a whole of being so (barbarians). Given that such an assertion against Philippos is shared by no one and given so many references in antiquity to his descent [Herodotos, Thucydides, Isocrates, Hesiodos, Hellanikos] in various texts any other discussion on this question seems pointless. In one translation of this speech by John Edwin Santys in "The first Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes", Macmillan and Co, the translator commented on this passage Argos [Herodotos VIII 137, IX 45, Thucydides II 99,2, V 80,2] and one of Philip's ancestors, Alexander A', had as a Greek been allowed to compete at the Olympic games [Herodotos V 22]. Demosthenes, however, in his hatred of Philip, never acknowledges his Greek descent. ... of breath as he gasps out this final and comprehensive phrase of vituperation. In such a spasmodic utterance no one need be surprised either at the presence of hiatus or at the concurrence of several short syllables". Those who believe that this phrase of Demosthenes is not a term of abuse but truth are those who believe that President-elect Clinton is indeed 'Bozo' as President Bush claimed, which I doubt that even President Bush believes.
There is also another reason that this accusation against Philippos on behalf of Demosthenes was more of a figure of speech than anything else.
Demosthenes mother (or his maternal grandmother) was a Skythian, a non-Greek and thus a non-Athenian. Had his accusation been taken seriously we could have been accused and for a good reason of being a barbarian himself.
In fact Aeschines (On the Embassy, 78) expressed this opinion by saying ".... KAI TAYTA, V DHMOSUENES, EK TVN NOMADVN SKYUVN TO PROS MHTROS VN GENOS", that is, "you, Demosthenes, a descendant through your mother of the nomad Skythians" as well as (Against Ctesiphon, 172) "TA D' APO THS MHTROS [DHMOSUENHS] SKYUHS, BARBAROS, ELLHNIZVN TH FVNH" that is, "and by his mother's side [Demosthenes is] a Scythian, a Greek speaking Barbarian", and earlier in that passage Aeschines accused Demothenes of being a slanderer "EJ' HS YMIN O PERIERGOS KAI SYKOFANTHS [DEMOSTHENES] GEGENHTAI". [Some authors believe that Kleovouli, mother of Demosthenes, was daughter of Gylon who settled in Crimaea and married a Scythian woman.]
Let alone the fact that Demosthenes, an 'honorable' Athenian citizen, was bribed later by the Persians (barbarians) to write speeches against Philippos and at the same time was also accusing Philippos of bribing Athenians and various Athenians of being bribed by Philippos. Demosthenes would also look very silly since another Athenian, Isocrates, in, To Philippos,108 wrote considered Philippos an Hellen and urged him to unite all Hellenes and lead them in a war against the Barbarians.
In one of his speeches, On the Embassy 305, Demosthenes in his effort to accuse orator Aeschines of inconsistent and possibly traitorous behavior accused Aeschines of calling Philippos 'barbarian' and 'devil'. In his Third Philippic, 31, Demosthenes accused Philippos of being "he is a pestilent Macedonian, from whose country it used not to be possible to buy even a slave of any value" [There were no slaves in the Macedonian state as opposed to other greek city-states]. On the other hand in the Third Olynthiac Demosthenes commended the Athenians on extracting 10,000 talents from Macedonia and bringing them into the Acropolis many years earlier, in the fifth century BC.
Accusations by Aeschines on the past and present behavior of Demosthenes such as of inflicting wounds on himself and bringing suit for malicious assault, (in Against Ctesiphon, 212), of becoming a teacher in order to extract large amounts of money from his pupils (in Against Timarchus, 171), of taking money from his clients for writing speeches to be delivered in court and then revealing the contents of these speeches to their opponents (in On the Embassy, 165), of belittling young Alexander by claiming that he would prove incompetent and would never stir out of Macedonia (Against Ctesiphon 160), of later seeking favor from Alexander (same,162), of his insincerity and cowardice (against Ctesiphon 150-152), are omitted.
The following remark made by an ancient writer commenting on Demosthenes' accusation of Philippos (Olynthiakos G' 16) being a barbarian highlights the beliefs of all other Greeks as well as the real beliefs of Demosthenes:
"YBRISAI TOYTON (meaning FILIPPON DEMOSUENHS) BOYLOMENOS KALEIN BARBARON, EPEI <EI> TO ALHUES SKOPHSEI, EYRHSEI AYTON ELLHNAN ARGEION KAI APO HRAKLEOYS TO GENOS KATAGOMENON, VS PANTES OI ISTORIKOI MARTYROYSIN...".
In short the accusation on behalf of Demosthenes was just a slander since every historian at that time knew that Philippos was Greek in descent.
Q14) Is there any reference by Demosthenes to an incident that can lead us to conclude that he and his fellow Athenians believed that Macedonians indeed spoke a greek dialect?
Yes. Demosthenes in a speech of his (in Greek: PERI THS PARAPRESBEIAS[On the Embassy?] 197,229) described an incident in which Frynonas, an Athenian, while traveling to Olympia had his luggage taken by Macedonian soldiers. Frynonas acted later as an Athenian ambassador to Philippos II. Philippos II ordered his soldiers to return the taken property to Frynonans and apologized for his soldiers not knowing that that time was a period of religious festivities. Had the Macedonian soldiers not spoken a greek dialect Philippos II would have used that as an excuse, Demosthenes would have been very keen to pointing this out in his speech, and taken up with great delight, as we may guess, the opportunity to accuse not only Philippos but also his soldiers of barbarian behavior. Nevertheless, he didn't do that because he knew that the Macedonians spoke a greek dialect.
No lack of understanding between the Macedonians and the Athenians at that time (at the time that the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians was about to begin) has been reported in any ancient text.
Demosthenes, as an ambassador of Athens visited Macedonia twice. This happened before his now famous (or infamous) speeches against Philippos. During his two visits and afterwards never complained of Macedonians being "barbarians", or speaking a non-greek language. On the contrary we was dazzled by the riches of the palace of Philippos in Pella.
Q15) Is it possible [ignoring historic evidence that shows that this was not the case] that Macedonians had spoken a non-greek language before 340BC and within a 10-20 year period every Macedonian was fluent in the attic dialect?
The answer is no, unless one sites as an example the races in Star Trek: The Next Generation (Trademark by Paramount Pictures) who are all fluent in English no matter how alien or young or French for that matter are
Arrhianos presented many instances of Alexander the Great talking to his fellow Macedonian soldiers in Greek (attic)) and not say, in their supposedly non-greek mother tongue. Wouldn't his soldiers feel more comfortable in their mother tongue (a supposedly non greek one)?
Q16) Who may have 'hellenized' ancient Macedonians, if we assume, despite proof for the contrary, that they were not a greek tribe ?
This is a question that none could give an answer. Assuming that ancient Macedonians were not speaking Greek the large number of Doric and thus non-attic words found in their spoken language, let alone place-names, month-names, attributes to Gods and Goddesses, festival names etc seem to zero the probability that Athenians were the ones who hellenized them. The large number of archaic greek words not used by other Greeks of that time preclude any other greek city-state or kingdom of the classic times to be responsible for that alleged 'hellenization'. Remembering the not so friendly relations between the Macedonians and the Athenians, the vastness of the Macedonian kingdom as opposed to that of the city state of Athens, and its population -Macedonians were able to form sizeable armies, by Greek standards- it is highly unlikely that any other Greek state or Athens could have undertaken such an enormous task and had it completed in a 10-20 year period.
On the other hand, Alexander A' when he initiated his otherwise brief contacts with the Greeks in the South he was able to talk to them in Greek fluently. If Macedonians were to be hellenized in the 4th century BC there would have been no way for Alexander A' to speak greek. If he and his family were the only Greek speakers in Macedonia it would have been highly unlikely that he and his family had retained the ability to speak Greek fluently.
One of the tragedies Euripides first presented in Macedonia was Iphigeneia in Aulis and Ekavi. In Iphigeneia (1400) and Ekavi (1199) "OYPOT' AN FILON / TO BARBARON GENOIT' AN ELLHSIN GENOS / OYD AN DYNAITO", the greek superiority over the Barbarians was highlighted. It would have been be too dangerous for him to express such opinions to a non-greek audience (if Macedonians were not Greek and spoke a non-Greek language). Let alone the fact that the language of his tragedies was Greek.
Q17) Isocrates used the phrases "ALOFYLON TO GENOS", "OYX OMOFYLOY GENOYS". Do they mean "of other tribe" or "of other race"?
We discussed in previous paragraphs the various interpretations of the word Hellen (Greek) in various times in antiquity. The word Hellen used to describe in Homeric times the people living in some place (the MYRMIDONES in Thessaly) and later (possibly) those living in Epeiros if one believes that the Selloi of Epeiros, also called Graecoi, were later became known as Hellenes. Only in the 8-7th century BC was the word Hellen used to describe as a whole various Greek (Hellenic) tribes. Since at that time Macedonians were in constant wars with the Illyrians and other non-greek tribes and had little contacts with the other Greek tribes in the South the term Hellenes with its new meaning was not familiar to them.
Thus distinction between Hellenes and Macedonians used by writers at that time (who nevertheless had no doubt of the Greekness of the Macedonians) shouldn't be a source of false claims. The following excerpt of Isocrates' speech highlights this.
(Isocrates. Philip. 154):
" HN GAR TAYTA PRATTHS, APANTES SOI XARIN EJOYSI, OI MEN ELLHNES YPER VN AN EY PASXVSI, MAKEDONES D' HN BASILIKVS ALLA MH TYRANNIKVS AYTVN EPISTATHS, TO DE TVN ALLVN GENOS, HN DIA SE BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS APALLAGENTES ELLHNIKHS EPIMELEIAS TYXVSIN"
Although Isocrates distinguished Hellenes from Macedonians by including in the first term the at that time accepted interpretation of "the greek tribes living south of river Peneios", he nevertheless believed that the people who got rid of the "BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS" (barbarian rule) with the assistance of Macedonians are now ruled and taken care of ("ELLHNIKHS EPIMELEIAS TYXVSIN") by people (Macedonians) belonging to Greek tribes.
Isocrates is well known for suggesting that Philippos II (In his speech: To Philippos) lead a pan Hellenic hegemony, consisting only of Greeks, that will unify all Hellenic tribes and lead them in a war against the barbarians [To Philippos, 115,80, 127-128,8,16]. A reference by him to Macedonians as "OYX OMOFYLOY GENOYS"(TO Philippos,108) there, has been interpreted by some to mean "of other race" rather than "of other tribe" thus earning him many supporters among the ones who claim that Macedonians were not Greek. It seems quite weird that Isocrates would like the leader of a "barbarian tribe" to unite all Hellenes, including his own "barbarians".
The answer to this misinterpretation of the "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS" will become apparent shortly.
In the same text (To Philippos,32) Isocrates wrote "UHBAIOI DE TON ARXHGON TOY GENOYS YMVN TIMVSI" that is that Isocrates was aware of the Macedonian-Doric connection and/or the legend that the Macedonian kings were considered descendants of Hercules. The 'founder of your tribe' refers to Hercules. If 'GENOYS'(of TRIBE) were to mean RACE (the Hellenic one in particular) Isocrates would have used HMVN (that is, 'founder of our tribe') instead of YMVN (that is, 'founder of your tribe').
This meaning of the word GENOS (tribe rather than race) can also be found in Herodotos (I, 56, mentioned in Question 8) where the Lacedaemonians are of "DVRIKOU GENOUS' (Doric, presumably, tribe) while the Athenians are of "IVNIKOY" (Ionian, presumably, tribe). Had GENOS meant race one must conclude that either Iones (say, Athenians) or Dorians (say Spartans) were not Greek. It is worth mentioning that in that same passage Herodotos used the word 'EUNOS' (nowadays it means 'people'...) for the ancient Pelasgian and Hellenic people ('EUNH'). Herodotos included the Ionians in the Pelasgian and Dorians in the Hellenic people, although both were Hellenic (greek) tribes. So much for confusing terms...
In VIII,144, Herodotos distinguished Hellenic tribes from the Barbarians on the basis of 'blood' and 'speech' (OMAIMON and OMOGLVSSON) rather than of race or tribe which didn't have very specific meanings at that time.
The following references in addition to the previous ones, show that the word "FYLON", "GENOS" had at that time the meaning of the English word TRIBE rather than that of RACE, thus "ALOFYLON GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS" means "of other (not of the same) tribe", as this was true for the Athenians (ionic tribe) and Macedonians (Doric one). The interpretation "of other (not of the same) race" for "ALOFYLOY GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON" is thus incorrect.
Thucydides (I, 141) : Pericles talking about the Peloponnesians said "PANTES TE ISOCHFIOI ONTES KAI OYX OMOFYLOI TO EF' EAYTON EKASTOS SPEYDH" that is, he considered Peloponnesians not "OMOFYLOI" to the Athenians. Since everyone considered both Peloponnesians and Athenians to be Greek, 'OMOFYLOI' had thus the meaning of the 'same tribe' rather than of 'same race'.
Dicaiarchos : "FYLH DE KAI FYLETAI PROTERON VNOMASUHSAN EK THS EIS TAS POLEIS KAI TA KALOYMENA EUNH SYNODOY GENOMENHS; EKASTON GAR TVN SYNELUONTVN FYLON ELEGETO EINAI". Same meaning as before.
Herodotos (VIII, 144) distinguishes Hellenic tribes from Barbarians depending on the "OMAIMON" (same blood) and "OMOGLVSSON" (same tongue) but not of the "OMOFYLON" (same tribe).
Euripides (Her. Main. 1200) agreed with Herodotos.
Eustathios (93,3) assigned the meaning of tribe to 'FYLON'.
It was known to Isocrates (as attested in the same speech) the tradition relating Macedonians and Dorians and the "ALOFYLOY" was pointing out this difference between the Athenians and Macedonians. Later in his speech Isocrates asked Philippos to unite the Hellenes and drive them against the barbarians. He also suggested that Philippos should lead only Greeks against the barbarians. Had Macedonians been considered barbarians the suggestions would have been at least absurd and offending rather than encouraging and flattering, as they were intended to be.
In another part of its speech/letter Isocrates mentions that Philippos rules people (Macedonians) of not his own tribe-race. Some claim that this is a proof of the non-Greekness of Macedonians in the sense that considering Philippos to be Greek (according to the legend of his family's descent) the tribe-race is to mean that the people he ruled were not Greeks. The accurate meaning of this phrase can only be derived by reading the whole passage. Isocrates suggests to Philippos that the kind of rule (monarchy) that was so successful in Macedonia is not guaranteed to be successful in the city-states of Southern Greece. Thus, he should choose another form of government when he (Philippos) becomes hegemon of all Greece. In order to support this he cites the example of his ancestors who unable to rule Argos, since at that time monarchies were detested in Southern Greece and the trend was the establishment of city-states, were only successful in ruling another tribe, that of Macedonians.
Q18) Skopjans accuse us Macedonians in Greece of changing the names of our cities into Greek ones some time in the 20th century instead of using the Slavic names assigned to these cities since "ancient" (sic) names. They claim that Edessa for example should not be called so but VODEN instead, and Thessaloniki should be called SOLUN.
Cities in Macedonia, the ancient kingdom and the province of Greece, still have the names they had in antiquity, at least for the cities that existed at that time. The names of some of these cities may not be even of Greek origin, thus showing that Skopjan claims are not only false but at least silly or absurd.
The Skopjans claim that the Macedonian city of Edessa in the Pella prefecture of Macedonia, Greece, should not be called so but Voden instead. They also claim that we Macedonians changed the name of the city from the Slavic one "VODEN" into the "greek" one EDESSA. The city of EDESSA has been called so since prehistoric times. It is amusing to point out that many believe the name Edessa is not of Greek, but possibly of Phrygic origin denoting a place rich of waters. Edessa has always been famous of her waterfalls. Others may claim that the suffix "-dessa" may indicate 'water' in some prehistoric form of the greek word (GK:YDVR) for water. This connection of the name 'EDESSA' with 'water' had confused many historians until 1976. They used to believe that Edessa was ancient Aegae, the royal city of the Macedonian Kings. They thought that the word 'Aegae' was derived not from the word 'aega' (she-goat) as this is related with the myth of the creation of the Macedonian state by Karanos, but from the Doric prefix Aeg- denoting 'water' (cf Edessa). In Doric, 'aegae' means '(water) waves' (The 'Aegean Sea' is an obvious example). Given that both names Edessa and Aegae have to do with 'waters' archaelogists thought that Edessa=Aegae.
This argument was put in rest by Nicholas L. G. Hammond in 1968 when he suggested that Vergina and not Edessa was the ancient Aegae, a correct assertion as it was proved in 1976 by the excavations of M. Andronikos in Vergina. Though Vergina is not on the sea shore of Thermaikos Bay it is believed that in the BC centuries the present lands separating Vergina from the sea were wetlands.
It is noted that the Slavic word VODEN also denotes 'water'. It is also worth mentioning that the city of Skopje whose name is probably derives from the greek one 'Skopia', was invariably called 'Uskub', 'Skupoi', 'Skup', 'Skopje', and as of few years ago 'Skoplje'.
Another Example is the city of Kastoria in Western Macedonia, Greece. Skopjans prefer to call it Kostur and suggest that Greeks should call it so. The name of the city 'Kastoria' comes from the mythical hero Kastor (Castor) brother of Polydeukes, son of Leda and Zeus.
Regarding Thessaloniki (called Salonica or Saloniki also in English) if one opens an ancient map he will realize that the name of the city has been Thessaloniki and not Solun (as Skopjan suggest that we should call the city) since ancient times.
Q19)Skopjans claim that when Slavs descended to the Balkan peninsula, in the 7th century AD, Macedonians vanished and there was a kind of 'slavicization' of Macedonia which 'gave birth' to the "Slavic-Macedonians" as Skopjans claim they are (at least some of them), the supposedly deserved ancestors of ancient Macedonians. Are such claims true say up to 15th century AD?
The distinction between Macedonians, Thessalians, Athenians, Spartans and Lacaedemonians in antiquity which indicated among other things greek tribes of distinct customs, spoken dialects ceased to exist with the passage of time. As of the Hellenistic period almost all Greeks were using the attic dialect for their communication while all the other dialects (of greek) were dropped from regular use. The rise of Christianity erased distinctions based in religious matters and the place of residence was then used distinguish say Thessalians from Macedonians and Athenians. Their common greek dialect (the attic one) though evolved differently in various regions thus giving the various dialects of modern greek.
To say that Macedonians vanished some time in the 7AD century is to claim that the Greeks (many of them ancestors of Doric people called Macedonians, other possibly ancestor of other Aeolic, Doric or ionic people, others of mixed parentage) residing in Macedonia were all killed at that time, an absurdity.
Around 688, emperor Justinian B', after the defeat of the Bulgars and Slavs in lower Moissia transferred all the Slavs in the northern European part of his empire (that is of Macedonia and Thrace of nowadays Greece and territories covering the Rep. of Skopje, Albania and parts of Bulgaria) to Asia Minor. These were estimated to be 80,000 but probably were more than that since two years later the emperor preparing for a war against the Arabs conscripted 30,000 men from this population to his army. These Slavs subsequently switched sides and supported the Arabs. The emperor for retribution killed all the remaining Slavs in Asia Minor.
About one hundred years later, in 773AD, the Bulgarian population in the Balkans was reduced after repeated defeats in battles with the Byzantine emperors. When the Bulgars decided to strengthen their army and find new recruits they marched to Thessaly, since there were no Slavs in Macedonia, to capture a small Slavic tribe living there. On their way there they were annihilated by the Byzantine forces. In the next century forced movements of Slavic populations from Greece to Asia Minor continued.
The conclusion is that the Byzantine emperors did everything possible to clear up the northern territories (including Macedonia and Thrace of modern day Greece) of their empire of Slavs.
Various non-Greek sources indicate that not only Macedonia of modern day Greece but also Rep. of Skopje (the latter, if not entirely, at least predominantly) were Greek till the late 15th century AD.
C. Jirecek, in "Geschichte der Serben" claimed that Macedonians were always Greek and all the area south of the line defined by the cities Achris-Skopje-Nissa-Sofia-Aimos-Messimbria was greek (an assertion also confirmed by other authors such as Th. Mommsen, A. Karnach).
Hertzberg (in "Geschichte Byzantinissen") (Vol B, Book A, Chapter Gamma, page 184, 1906 edition). said that in 1282, the population below the line Euxinus Pontus-Aimos-Kustendil-Skopje-Skutari was Greek, in tongue, in customs and working for the greek interests.
One can then wonder when the Bulgarian idiom spoken by the Skopjans was in use say in the lands of nowadays Rep. of Skopje, let alone in antiquity [since Skopjans claim that the Slavic idiom spoken by the Slavs who descended to the Balkans in the 7th AD century was used by the ancient Macedonian 1000-1500 years earlier!].
The French historian Haumant, in "La formation de la Yugoslavie", mentioned that in the 13th century the area from Prisreni to Nissa was empty of people. If there were no Slavs there, then how and when the "Macedonians" of Skopjan type appeared in Macedonia and the Republic of Skopje? This is the reason Albanians (70%?) occupy the region of Cossyphopedio (Kosovo).
Hertzberg, in "Geschichte Byzantinissen", mentioned that when in the 14th century Dushan shared his kingdom with his son he kept the greek area south of Skopje and gave his son the northern Serbian areas (this is also confirmed by a Czech historian, Jirecek). All his orders were then written in Greek and not in any idiom like the one now spoken in the Republic of Skopje. In 1350 when John Katakouzenos was in the city of Verhoia representatives of all big greek cities (Skopje included) visited him and asked for help. Jirecek mentioned in his book that at this time Skopje was a greek city inhabited mainly by Greeks despite being part of the Serbian kingdom for more than a century. Following Dushan's death around 1355 his son's empire began to collapse. Dushan's brother, Symeon, proclaimed himself an emperor and accorded himself the surname of "Palaeologos" in an attempt to gain the favor of the Greek population of his kingdom(empire). He also wrote his orders in Greek (and not in any strange called Slavic idioms).
Soon the Greeks gained the control of the garrisons of various greek cities (such as Verhoia, Edessa, and Skopje). Officials in Dushan's empire quickly abandoned these greek cities and moved to Prisreni and later to Krusevach. The greek inhabitants remained in the areas they had been living for many centuries, if not millennia.
Since even in the years of Dushan, when the Slavic influence and control in the areas of Macedonia Greece), western part of Albania, Republic of Skopje and Yugoslavia (Serbia+Kosovo) was at its peak Macedonian Greeks were not "slavisized", how was that possible under the Ottoman rule, when after the defeat of Serbia by the Ottomans circa 1459, the Slavs migrated to the north and the area south of the city of Skopje was inhabited by Greeks only? If the strong presence of Slavs at that time didn't cause the Macedonians to vanish how was that possible to happen before? How come the vanished Macedonians of 7th AD survived as late as 15th AD? and later?
Q20) Do the Skopjans have desires on Macedonia, Greece?
Greece claims that Skopjans, who are evidently non-Greeks, by using to identify themselves a Hellenic (greek) name that still identifies a region in modern Greece, the people living in that region, and their thousands year old heritage, implies territorial claims on behalf of Skopje. Such opinions were shared by US officials when the late Marshall Tito, in 1944, created a (now former) Yugoslav Socialist Republic of "Macedonia".
There are many Skopjan provocations supporting Greece's position.
The use of Slavic names for Greek cities instead of the Greek ones (they prefer to call Thessaloniki, Solun, to call Kastoria , Kostur, to call Florina, Lerin, to call Edessa, Voden etc), beyond the usual changes that the translation of various names from one language to another requires. The use of Slavic toponyms is intended to cast a doubt on the Greekness of the various places in Macedonia. This is also confirmed by the fact that the Skopjans never use the term say "Greek Macedonia" but speak of the "Aegean Macedonia" (see discussion below).
The use of the term "Aegean Macedonia" (a term invented and used by Skopjans and by people of similar desires) instead of say the more acceptable and less suspicious "Greek Macedonia" to identify Macedonia, Greece (that is the region called Macedonia in Greece). This can be interpreted as an attempt to present this part as a member of a whole (usually called "Greater Macedonia") yet "un-liberated". The Bulgarian oriented (terrorist) organization called IMRO (founded in the beginning of the 20th century) and the current political party VMRO of the Republic of Skopje expressed and express such claims quite often.
3) [From [7]]: A calendar for the year 1981 was published in Skopje and circulated around the world that had on its cover the word "macedonija" written in the Slavic script. Under this word a warrior appeared, like the old Commitadjis [Bulgar terrorists who in the late 19th and early 20th century intended to include Macedonia and Thrace of Greece, Rep of Skopje as well as areas of nowadays Bulgaria to then Bulgaria], with the bayonet fastened on his rifle. Under him the well known Statue of Liberty (yes! the one in New York!) was depicted. This statue is supported on a map of the Balkan Peninsula and largely on Macedonia, Greece. Under this picture it is written in English "Independent and Free Macedonia" (implying that Macedonia, Greece was not free at that time!!!).
Maps depicting Macedonia, Greece, as part of the Republic of Skopje have been published recently (November 1992) in Skopje according to various reports.
[From [7]]: In 1973 a large size picture book was circulated in many languages which shows "the immigrants" from the other two sectors of "Macedonia" (supposedly the "Aegean Macedonia" of Greece, as Macedonia is euphemistically called by the Skopjans, and the "Pirin Macedonia" as the southwestern part of Bulgaria is also called by the Skopjans) "who have not been liberated yet", to "nostalgically" visit the "free" "Macedonia" of Skopje. This book, entitled MACEDONIAN VISTAS is still under circulation (at the time of the writing of reference [7], i.e. 1984) in the bookstores of Belgrade and Skopje.'
More recently maps found in various Skopjan cultural centers around the world include various areas of Greece in their Skopjan state (Thessaly is included in some cases).
In early 1992 a currency was printed in Skopje depicting the White Tower a landmark of Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia, Greece.
[NOTE: This was not an officially sanctioned banknote but a souvenir banknote printed by some Skopje company. Still it is interesting why these things would be popular enough to make and sell in Skopje. - ce107]
This fall it was decided in Rep. of Skopje that the coat of arms of the Republic of Skopje would be the coats of arms of the royal family of Philippos II, father of Alexander the Great. The coat of arms, a sun, was depicted in a gold larnax found in the grave of Philippos II, in Vergina, Macedonia, Greece, by the late Professor Manolis Andronikos. There have been announcements recently in Greek newspapers by Greek archaelogists that the so-called Vergina-Star has also been found elsewhere in Greece (Attica) and these occurrences are dated around the early 5th century BC (470BC).
It is open to the reader to decide what the Slavs of Skopje, who descended in the Balkans in the late 7AD century that is 1000 years after the death of Philippos II, have to do with a greek tribe, the coat of arms of their Greek Kings, and their greek heritage. It seems that the Skopjans will never stop claiming other people's heritage.
[The following are take from reference [8]].
June 1951: A book is published entitled '"Slavomacedonian" fighters'. The hero of the Greek war of independence Markos Botsaris is referred to as "Marc Botsar" allegedly a "Macedonian" of the Skopjan type.
September 2, 1951: The Interior Ministry (of Yugoslavia) gives a certificate to a person born in Agia Paraskevi, Macedonia, Greece. Macedonia is referred to as "People's Republic of Aegean Macedonia." (For your own information, Greece has never been a People's Republic, as this term is used by Communists).
November 1951: The Geography book for the third grade of High School for the students of the then Socialist Republic that is now Rep. of Skopje allegedly mentioned that "our borders with Greece are just physical and not national ones, since the Aegean Macedonia remains under the rule of Greece".
End of 1960: The Government in Belgrade adopted a law that officially recognized as time served to the Yugoslavian Armed Forces the time served by Greek Communist guerillas in Greek-communist organizations, other than EAM-ELAS, fighting against the Greek government during the greek civil war 1944-1949. Participation in EAM-ELAS (1941-1949) has been recognised since 1954.
February 1961: The filming of a movie entitled something like "Revolutionaries in Thessaloniki" began at that time in Skopje. The topic of the movie was a Bulgarian terrorist act in Thessaloniki in April 1903, when the city was under Ottoman rule. The Bulgars are depicted in the film as "Macedonians" (of the skopjan type), and the terrorist event is depicted as part of the "fight of Macedonians for independence".
This is just a small sample of the Skopjan provocations.
Q21)When did 'Macedonians' of the Skopjan type first appear?
Tito by the end of the WWII created a Yugoslav Socialist Republic that he called "Macedonia". The inhabitants of this new Republic were called "Macedonians". The following figures of Yugoslavian censuses show this.
According to preliminary results of the 1921 Yugoslavian census [Yugoslavia was called then "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"], as these can be found in [8], the ethnic composition of Yugoslavia at that time was:
Ethnic composition (in thousands) (percentages)
Serbs+Croats 8,946 74.4
Slovenes 1,024 8.5
Other Slavs 174 1.5
Germans 513 4.3
Hungarians 472 3.9
Albanians 441 3.7
Romanian 229 1.9
Italians 12 0.1
Others 201 1.7
The final results of this census, classified according to language spoken by these people where as follows:
(million) (percentages)
Yugoslavs 9,931 83.0
other Slavs 176 1.5
Germans 505 4.2
Hungarians 467 3.9
Albanians 439 3.7
Romanians 231 1.9
Turks (Albanians) 150 1.3
Italians 12 0.1
Other 69 0.6
According to their religion:
(million) (percentages)
Orthodox 5,593 46.7
Catholics 4,708 39.3
Muslims 1,345 11.2
Protestants 229 1.9
Jews 64 0.5
Greek-Catholics 40 0.4
Other 3 0.01
As one can see, in 1921 there were no "Macedonians" and no "Macedonian" language.
After the 1948 census the following figures were released. We have
(in thousands)
Serbs 6,547
Croats 3,784
Slovenes 1,415
"Macedonians" 809
Mavrovounians 425
(Montenegrians)
Muslims 808
It is interesting that a new nationality of "Macedonians" appeared in this census with a population of 809,000 while 27 years ago no such nationality existed. It is also interesting to note that according to this census no Albanians lived in Yugoslavia in 1948 while the 1921 census indicated the existence of 441,000 Albanians. This Albanian population is hidden under such terms (nationalities?) as "Macedonians", Mavrovounians, and Muslims. One can thus conclude that this 1948 census not only created new imaginary nationalities, like "Macedonians", but also erased existing ones. It seems creation and eradication of nationalities was a major hobby of the late Marshall Tito.
According to the religion of the people living in Yugoslavia one gets the following:
(percentages)
Orthodox 49.53%
Catholics 36.77%
Muslims 12.52%
Other Christians 1.14%
Jews 0.04%
Minorities (in thousands)
Albanians 750
Hungarians 496
Vlachs 102 (where did they come from? The Vlachs of
Macedonia that resided in Yugoslavia
after the Balkan Wars were under 30,000.)
Turks 98
Slovaks 83
Italians 79
Gypsies 72
Bulgarians 61
Russenoi* 37
Germans 55
Romanians 64
Jews 6.8
Greeks 1.8
Czechs 39
* This is the translation of this term into English from Greek.
It is surprising that the Greek minority in Yugoslavia is only 1,800. We simply note that during the Greek civil of 1944-1949 Yugoslavia fully supported the Greek Communists and around 28,000 children were abducted and sent to Yugoslavia. Most of these children never returned to their parents. It is believed that the majority of them remained in Yugoslavia.
Q22) What was the population distribution of Macedonia, the Republic of Skopje, and parts of Bulgaria in the years of Ottoman rule?
In 1912 Greeks and Bulgars living in the Ottoman Empire agreed on the number of members to the Ottoman Parliament each group would select. It was agreed that in each Vilaet (Regions of the Ottoman Empire) the number of Greek and Bulgarian representatives would be as follows.
Vilaet of Adrianoypoli Greeks 8 Bulgarians 1
" of Thessaloniki and
Monastirion Greeks 10 Bulgarians 5
" of Cossyphopedio Greeks 0 Bulgarians 2
(Kosovo)
No references to other Slavs, nor any protests of any kind, were filed after the elections. It can thus be assumed that the Greek: Bulgar as well as Greek: Slav proportion of the population in these vilaets was reflected in this arrangement.
Other (mainly of non-greek origin) sources from which one can draw conclusions on the population of various ottoman ruled areas are:
An Italian, Amadore Virgilli, in "La questiona roma rumeliota" (1907, page 107) gave the following statistics for the population of the two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monastirion.
Thess:Greeks 362,000, Turks 423,500, Bulgars 198,000, Serbs 1400
Monast:Greeks 280,000, Turks 223,000, Bulgars 143,000, Serbs 6070
A German General [Von Der Golt in "Balkanwirren und ihre grunde" (1904)] who served in Turkey and organized the Turkish Army claimed the following statistics for the two vilaets:
Muslims 730,000, Greeks 580,000, Bulgars 266,000, Serbs 19,000, Jews 60,000
Therefore a statement that Macedonia was predominantly "Slavic" (with Slavs like the ones residing in nowadays Skopje) seems to be incorrect. Nowadays Macedonia in Greece included parts of the two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monasterio. Parts of the Monasterio Vilaet today belong to Albania and Republic of Skopje. Parts of the Thessaloniki Vilaet to Rep. of Skopje and Bulgaria. There was a third Vilaet, that of Skopje extending north in today's southern Serbia.
There are various other statistics that more or less agree with these figures.
HAVE FUN !!!
Republik of Vardar... :wink: