PDA

View Full Version : Why some people believe that Alexander the Great was not Greek when ...



Echetlaeus
27-03-14, 21:36
- He spoke Greek
- He worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks
- His name is Greek
- His father's name is Greek (Philip)
- His mother's name is Greek (Olympias, she comes from Epirus)
- His cousin was another great military genius, Pyrrhus of Epirus
- His favourite heroes were the Argives(= Greeks) of the Trojan War, and especially Achilles
- His teacher was Aristotle (no comments for that)
.
.
.

And above all, why some people that are of another origin, still insist that [Slavs] are Macedonians, when it is clear by the Byzantine chronicles that these people came to the Greek peninsula a thousand years later?

Wilhelm
27-03-14, 22:02
Of course he was greek, or at least hellenic, since he spoke a hellenic language. Don't mind what slavs says.

LeBrok
28-03-14, 04:50
.

And above all, why some people that are of another origin, still insist that [Slavs] are Macedonians, when it is clear by the Byzantine chronicles that these people came to the Greek peninsula a thousand years later? What if people in Macedonia (FYROM) are genetically ancient Macedonians/Greeks and only in minority and Culturally Slavic? Can't they enjoy Alexander as their hero too, just because they speak not Greek language now?


Look at the numbers of Y haplogroups for Macedonia and Northern Greece here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
They are pretty much same people, aren't they?

There is bigger genetic discrepancy between N Greece versus South, than between N Greece and Macedonia (FYROM).

Aberdeen
28-03-14, 05:27
What if people in Macedonia (FYROM) are genetically ancient Macedonians/Greeks and only in minority and Culturally Slavic? Can't they enjoy Alexander as their hero too, just because they speak not Greek language now?


Look at the numbers of Y haplogroups for Macedonia and Northern Greece here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
They are pretty much same people, aren't they?

There is bigger genetic discrepancy between N Greece versus South, than between N Greece and Macedonia (FYROM).

I think what upsets Greeks is that many Macedonians say Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language. That isn't really a historically supportable opinion, IMO, but a lot of Macedonians actually seem to believe it.

LeBrok
28-03-14, 05:34
I think what upsets Greeks is that many Macedonians say Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language. That isn't really a historically supportable opinion, IMO, but a lot of Macedonians actually seem to believe it.
Wow, never heard about this, lol. Although, why to get emotional about such insanity?

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 06:33
What if people in Macedonia (FYROM) are genetically ancient Macedonians/Greeks and only in minority and Culturally Slavic? Can't they enjoy Alexander as their hero too, just because they speak not Greek language now?


Look at the numbers of Y haplogroups for Macedonia and Northern Greece here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
They are pretty much same people, aren't they?

There is bigger genetic discrepancy between N Greece versus South, than between N Greece and Macedonia (FYROM).

There is a solution for that: FYROM should be part of Greece and the people living there, since they are Greek (as you say), should learn the Greek language as well.

LeBrok
28-03-14, 07:44
There is a solution for that: FYROM should be part of Greece and the people living there, since they are Greek (as you say), should learn the Greek language as well.
Shouldn't the solution belong to the people in a democratic way? If anything Greek history should teach you this.

Sile
28-03-14, 08:00
- He spoke Greek
- He worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks
- His name is Greek
- His father's name is Greek (Philip)
- His mother's name is Greek (Olympias, she comes from Epirus)
- His cousin was another great military genius, Pyrrhus of Epirus
- His favourite heroes were the Argives(= Greeks) of the Trojan War, and especially Achilles
- His teacher was Aristotle (no comments for that)
.
.
.

And above all, why some people that are of another origin, still insist that [Slavs] are Macedonians, when it is clear by the Byzantine chronicles that these people came to the Greek peninsula a thousand years later?

He spoke Macedonian to his troops, and not Greek. It is documented many times while addressing his troops.
He knew Greek because he was taught Greek, It was suppose to be the civilizalized language in its time. It's like in medieval and renaissance, Italy, france, germany, england, Spain etc all send their sons ( if they could afford it ) to be taught Latin, because it showed civilization more than the other languages.

Epirotes and Macedonians where closely related along with the Molossians and the other 13 epirote tribes in the area, but they where classified as Barbarians by the hellenic Greeks.

Ancient Macedonians, language was not Greek or slavic or thracian or illyrian............it was Macedonian and is extinct now like illyrian and thracian are

Engel
28-03-14, 08:58
Alexander the great as far as recorded history is concerned, is portrayed as Macedonian
and present day Macedonians do not consider themselves as greek

Dorianfinder
28-03-14, 12:37
When people struggle to communicate it's usually because of an emotional issue, in this case it is political.

The debate is cultural and historical but the solution and the problem's origin is political.

This is a political problem and has to do with national identity and political affiliation (first it was national boundaries following Balkan war, then it morphed into an issue of cold war boundaries), not ethnicity. The issue of who and what it means to be Macedonian began with the Balkan war between the Greeks and Bulgarians (not so much the Yugoslavs) in northern Greece. Bulgarians aligned themselves with Germany resulting in them losing land to Greece ... however the humiliation of these 'other' Greeks was perpetuated for years following the iron curtain cutting through Greece dividing Greeks into communists (assisted by the Yugoslavs/USSR/Bulgarians) and royalists (UK/France/USA). This civil war tore Greek society in two, some communists went north into exile to Yugoslavia, the USSR and Bulgaria complicating matters, creating anti-Greek propaganda which was in actual fact anti-Royalist but this line became blurred. Many Greek children from communist families in Greece were sent to schools in Yugoslavia and many lost track of their parents and ended up in orphanages. The problem is political, to be patriotic and Greek has somehow always been an issue for pro-communist Greek families ... how could they support a state that failed them to such an extent. People outside Greece (Westerners) and many fanatics within today's Balkan region don't understand this and simply take a nationalistic view. The irony of the situation is that the Western powers supported Greece in it's attempt to have sovereignty over northern Greece during the cold war, a challenge with so many Greek communist supporters around and Greece's northern borders purely communist neighbors. This was ugly business and many people were not 'Greek enough' to stay in certain areas ... some were of mixed background or had a grandfather or brother who was a communist supporter.

Greece as a country supported democracy, assisted in the fight at every turn as its sovereignty depended on the defeat of communism. Bare in mind that Greek society was too fragmented and the cold war too intense to allow an alliance between all Greeks, full blood, half blood and/or naturalized over time. In the north most mixed Greek families had some Slavic ancestry which meant, extended family with communist ideas.

Many years later, both Greece and the ex-Yugoslavia are democratically governed and Bulgaria is an EU member with Greece. The problems of a bygone era will continue to plague the region long after the cold war has ended.

Was Alexander the Great a communist or a royalist? A moot point, exactly!

kamani
28-03-14, 15:19
Macedonia as it rapidly expanded in the Balkans, it became a multi-ethnic society and to maintain such a state, one needs an alphabet and a state language. Since Greeks were the most literate at the time and possesing an alphabet, their language and alphabet was borrowed by the Macedonian state. However this borrowed official language was written in the Greek alphabet but the words were a mix of Greek, Thracian, and Illyrian, to address all the various ethnicities within the state. The question still remains what was the original language of the Macedonians ? (Greek, Illyrian, or Thracian) I don't believe there is enough evidence to definitely answer this question.

Aberdeen
28-03-14, 15:24
Whatever language the ancient Macedonians spoke, it certainly wasn't a Slavic language, since proto-Slavic probably didn't split into various languages until about 1500 years ago, with the Serbs arriving in the Balkans shortly after that. The current claims of Macedonians that Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language and the current claims of Greeks that Alexander definitely spoke Greek seem to have to do with modern boundary issues.

ElHorsto
28-03-14, 15:30
The current claims of Macedonians that Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language

Do you have evidence of someone claiming this?

Taranis
28-03-14, 15:40
Do you have evidence of someone claiming this?

The dispute is very much real:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13884844

"Alexander statue stokes Macedonia EU row" (this video is three years old)

ElHorsto
28-03-14, 15:51
The dispute is very much real:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13884844

"Alexander statue stokes Macedonia EU row" (this video is three years old)

I'm aware of this dispute, but also in this video I can't hear anybody claiming that ancient Macedonia spoke slavic.

Taranis
28-03-14, 15:57
Whatever language the ancient Macedonians spoke, it certainly wasn't a Slavic language, since proto-Slavic probably didn't split into various languages until about 1500 years ago, with the Serbs arriving in the Balkans shortly after that. The current claims of Macedonians that Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language and the current claims of Greeks that Alexander definitely spoke Greek seem to have to do with modern boundary issues.

In my opinion the Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Greek, although a rather divergent one. The most crucial difference is that *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ of Archaic Greek were pronounced as *b, *d, *g in Ancient Macedonian. The best example for this the place name "Berenikē" (now Benghazi in Libya), which is ancient Macedonian in origin and means "bearer of victory" (Pherenikē). In modern Greek is "pherō" (the word "pheromone" comes from this), and in ancient Macedonian this would have been *berō. You might argue - by a bit of a stretch - that this was due to an adstratal influence from another Indo-European language branch, as in all northern European branches of IE *bh, *dh, *gh became *b, *d, *g (not just Slavic, but also Albanian, Baltic, Celtic and Germanic).

But of course, you are totally correct that in any case Ancient Macedonian was totaly unaffiliated with the Slavic languages, as Slavic languages only started to be spoken on the Balkans during the Migration Period.

Aberdeen
28-03-14, 16:27
Do you have evidence of someone claiming this?

I've been told that by some Macedonian emigrants living in Canada. Others admit that the language of Alexander wasn't Slavic, but say that ancient Macedonian wasn't related to Greek at all, and that they're the descendants of Alexander but now speak a Slavic language, which they feel shouldn't prevent them from supporting the idea of a "Greater Macedonia" that includes part of what is now Greek, Albanian and Bulgarian territory. Other Macedonian speakers from Greece say that to be Macedonian is to be Greek, although they consider themselves to be a distinct cultural group within Greece, one that's Slavic speaking because of historical events. I'm sure that if you talked to enough Macedonians, you'd hear other interpretations of what it's all about. Nothing is ever simple in the Balkans. But a number of Macedonians do use various arguments as to why Macedonia should be allowed to expand into include territory that's currently part of other countries, and they seem to particularly want to claim part of Greece.

Aberdeen
28-03-14, 16:30
In my opinion the Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Greek, although a rather divergent one. The most crucial difference is that *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ of Archaic Greek were pronounced as *b, *d, *g in Ancient Macedonian. The best example for this the place name "Berenikē" (now Benghazi in Libya), which is ancient Macedonian in origin and means "bearer of victory" (Pherenikē). In modern Greek is "pherō" (the word "pheromone" comes from this), and in ancient Macedonian this would have been *berō. You might argue - by a bit of a stretch - that this was due to an adstratal influence from another Indo-European language branch, as in all northern European branches of IE *bh, *dh, *gh became *b, *d, *g (not just Slavic, but also Albanian, Baltic, Celtic and Germanic).

But of course, you are totally correct that in any case Ancient Macedonian was totaly unaffiliated with the Slavic languages, as Slavic languages only started to be spoken on the Balkans during the Migration Period.

So ancient Macedonian was probably a dialect that was intermediary between Greek and one of the other ancient Balkan languages? That would make sense, but I hope your scholarly comments don't attract the attention of those folk who want to argue about whether ancient Albanian was Illyrian, Theban or whatever else. There's already a thread about that and it's quite convoluted.

ElHorsto
28-03-14, 17:31
I've been told that by some Macedonian emigrants living in Canada.
Others admit that the language of Alexander wasn't Slavic, but say that ancient Macedonian wasn't related to Greek at all, and that they're the descendants of Alexander but now speak a Slavic language, which they feel shouldn't prevent them from supporting the idea of a "Greater Macedonia" that includes part of what is now Greek, Albanian and Bulgarian territory. Other Macedonian speakers from Greece say that to be Macedonian is to be Greek, although they consider themselves to be a distinct cultural group within Greece, one that's Slavic speaking because of historical events. I'm sure that if you talked to enough Macedonians, you'd hear other interpretations of what it's all about. Nothing is ever simple in the Balkans. But a number of Macedonians do use various arguments as to why Macedonia should be allowed to expand into include territory that's currently part of other countries, and they seem to particularly want to claim part of Greece.

Maybe. I only encountered the argument where Macedonians use their slavic part of identity to claim parts of greece, exactly like greeks use their greek identity to claim the ancient macedonian aspect of macedonian identity. I did not see yet anybody claiming Alexander the Great using the slavic argument, exactly because it is absurd.
It is possible that even some macedonians get confused by the complex tit-for-tat argument chain, because their identity is hybrid: slavic + ancient macedonian. The latter is claimed by greeks by the way.

mihaitzateo
28-03-14, 19:20
- He spoke Greek
- He worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks
- His name is Greek
- His father's name is Greek (Philip)
- His mother's name is Greek (Olympias, she comes from Epirus)
- His cousin was another great military genius, Pyrrhus of Epirus
- His favourite heroes were the Argives(= Greeks) of the Trojan War, and especially Achilles
- His teacher was Aristotle (no comments for that)
.
.
.

And above all, why some people that are of another origin, still insist that [Slavs] are Macedonians, when it is clear by the Byzantine chronicles that these people came to the Greek peninsula a thousand years later?

Greeks were a mixture of more people,speaking same language,when Alexander Macedon was living.
When East Roman Empire took birth and adopted Greek as language,you can say for sure that Greek native speakers became a very various gathering of people.
I think they were calling themselves rather Romans,than Greeks.
However,some Turks conquered East Roman Empire and lots of population switched to Turkish.
The people that remained on the area that today belongs to Greece,or so were also quite mixed.
So what are you telling here ,that Alexander Macedon is of same ethnicity with today Greek speakers is just nonsense.
Alexander Macedon was not speaking today Greek language,he was speaking ancient Greek which is not exactly same language with today Greek.
What are you saying,that "Alexander Macedon was Greek" is as true as you would say that ancient Romans were same as today inhabitants of Italy or to say,Trajan was Italian or to say ,Augustus was Italian.
Now,go read more and stop preaching non-sense.
And to add one more thing,people of Macedonia have all the right to use that name,as North Germany is still called Prusia and Latvia and Lithuania are not saying Prusia is name that belongs to Balto-Slavic speakers,as Russians are still use the name Russia and Sweden are not telling Russia should stop using that name,because is linked to Rus,which is named of Swedes,how they were called some 1000 years ago and so on.

kamani
28-03-14, 19:44
In my opinion the Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Greek, although a rather divergent one. The most crucial difference is that *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ of Archaic Greek were pronounced as *b, *d, *g in Ancient Macedonian. The best example for this the place name "Berenikē" (now Benghazi in Libya), which is ancient Macedonian in origin and means "bearer of victory" (Pherenikē). In modern Greek is "pherō" (the word "pheromone" comes from this), and in ancient Macedonian this would have been *berō. You might argue - by a bit of a stretch - that this was due to an adstratal influence from another Indo-European language branch, as in all northern European branches of IE *bh, *dh, *gh became *b, *d, *g (not just Slavic, but also Albanian, Baltic, Celtic and Germanic).

that's interesting, I think an example of this would be the word φίλε, file, fila (Greek) - dude,brother(English) - vela, vella (Albanian). It seems the soft "f" in Greek corresponds to its stronger vocal version "v" in Albanian.

Sile
28-03-14, 20:21
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.

mihaitzateo
28-03-14, 20:36
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.

That is a quite nice saying.
Alexander Macedon was an Old Macedonian.
No one knows what happened to Old Macedonian people.
Sure, no one denies that they were speaking a dialect of Ancient Greek.
Today Greek language is born from Ancient Greek language.
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon
Macedon was gave to that country meaning maybe tall people.
Were not the native people from there conquered by some Greek language and after switched to Greek language?
Later,were not they conquered by other Greek speakers and maybe changed their Greek dialect again?
I do not know.
But I think rather the people who ruled that place changed ,maybe some Slavic speakers conquered the people there.

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 21:33
Shouldn't the solution belong to the people in a democratic way? If anything Greek history should teach you this.

Please study Greek history thoroughly and try to understand Isocrates.

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 21:40
Greeks were a mixture of more people,speaking same language,when Alexander Macedon was living.
When East Roman Empire took birth and adopted Greek as language,you can say for sure that Greek native speakers became a very various gathering of people.
I think they were calling themselves rather Romans,than Greeks.
However,some Turks conquered East Roman Empire and lots of population switched to Turkish.
The people that remained on the area that today belongs to Greece,or so were also quite mixed.
So what are you telling here ,that Alexander Macedon is of same ethnicity with today Greek speakers is just nonsense.
Alexander Macedon was not speaking today Greek language,he was speaking ancient Greek which is not exactly same language with today Greek.
What are you saying,that "Alexander Macedon was Greek" is as true as you would say that ancient Romans were same as today inhabitants of Italy or to say,Trajan was Italian or to say ,Augustus was Italian.
Now,go read more and stop preaching non-sense.
And to add one more thing,people of Macedonia have all the right to use that name,as North Germany is still called Prusia and Latvia and Lithuania are not saying Prusia is name that belongs to Balto-Slavic speakers,as Russians are still use the name Russia and Sweden are not telling Russia should stop using that name,because is linked to Rus,which is named of Swedes,how they were called some 1000 years ago and so on.

Do you understand that your arguments have no scientific proof. It is quite goofy to say that Neohellenic is not the same with Ancient Greek. Of course it is not the same the way you see it! Do you expect a language to be exactly the same after 2500 years? The point is that modern Greek have ancient roots, and it is precisely this part that links modern Greeks with the Ancients.

You said that quite a lot of people mixed with Turks(or other races). Please, provide evidence about the magnitude of admixture. Just saying it is naive.

Was Alexander Greek just because he spoke the same language with the rest of the Greeks? Just because of that someone would say no, nonetheless it is not only the language, but rather a plethora of characteristics, some of them have been mentioned before. Just look at the name of his friends and generals, this will give you an insight I suppose.

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 21:47
Using language to define ones ethnicity is stupid, today, tomorrow and in the ancient past. Language does not define ethnicity.

Speaking Greek does not make you Greek.
Speaking slavic does not make you a slav
Speaking latin does not make you a Roman.

I hope we do NOT believe that the people who speak English today, all around the world are ethnically English!

To conclude - Alexander was Macedonian ethnically, stated Macedonian.............The Macedonian of Alexanders time has disappeared from the face of history, it does not exist, it is gone, can we agree with this instead of bringing up the stupidity of today's nationality in reference to the ancient past.

Your statement indicates correlation and not causality. If you understand the pieces of the "puzzle" you will understand the causality as well.

Aberdeen
28-03-14, 21:55
Your statement indicates correlation and not causality. If you understand the pieces of the "puzzle" you will understand the causality as well.

That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.

Sile
28-03-14, 22:02
That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.

He is basically saying,
that since Alexanders father Philip II conquered Greece , then his greatness/glory made him Greek in Greek eyes...........but if he never attacked Greece, he would not be great and then would never be known as a Greek , but instead a lowly Macedonian ( barbarian )

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 22:04
That's quite a cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?

As Sile has pointed out, Alexander was fluent in both Macedonian and Greek, because of his education. That didn't make him Greek until he conquered most of the known world as the Greeks understood that term. The Macedonians seem to have considered themselves to be cousins of the Greeks but the Greeks seem to have considered the Macedonians to be barbarians, although they wouldn't have said that in front of Philip or Alexander. Therefore the idea of ancient Macedonian as a very divergent dialect of Greek (or possibly even a cross between ancient Greek and some other Balkan language) makes sense to me.

A dialect does not mean a different language. I do not agree that Attic Greek is that different from Macedonian Greek to a level that people from these places would not understand each other.

Understand this first:
"μέλλω γάρ σοι συμβουλεύειν προστῆναι τῆς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁμονοίας καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους στρατείας: ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν πείθειν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας συμφέρον, τὸ δὲ βιάζεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον." Isocrates, "Philip (6)".

More or less Isocrates tells Philip to start war against the barbarians because it will be best for all Greeks. Clearly he does not consider Macedonians as barbarians!

Sile
28-03-14, 22:19
A dialect does not mean a different language. I do not agree that Attic Greek is that different from Macedonian Greek to a level that people from these places would not understand each other.

Understand this first:
"μέλλω γάρ σοι συμβουλεύειν προστῆναι τῆς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁμονοίας καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους στρατείας: ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν πείθειν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας συμφέρον, τὸ δὲ βιάζεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον." Isocrates, "Philip (6)".

More or less Isocrates tells Philip to start war against the barbarians because it will be best for all Greeks. Clearly he does not consider Macedonians as barbarians!

Ask any professors of languages and they will state that there is no such thing as a language, they are ALL dialects. The term language is only used by nations as a form of status for that nation. We still see this today......pre 2006 Montenegrin was a dialect, they then became a nation and Montenegrin dialect became Montenegrin language overnight. This is how its worked in the past and will work in the future.

Echetlaeus
28-03-14, 22:31
And also recall where the house of Greek Gods, that is Mount Olympus, is at.

Sile
28-03-14, 22:59
And also recall where the house of Greek Gods, that is Mount Olympus, is at.

where is this sentence taking us to?

Aberdeen
29-03-14, 01:13
He is basically saying,
that since Alexanders father Philip II conquered Greece , then his greatness/glory made him Greek in Greek eyes...........but if he never attacked Greece, he would not be great and then would never be known as a Greek , but instead a lowly Macedonian ( barbarian )

That's my reading of history, yes. In one of his speeches, the Third Phillipic, Demosthenes, the Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as: "... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia..". However, after Phillip defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC, he appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". Of course, the fact that the Greeks claimed that Macedonians were barbarians doesn't prove they weren't related, but it's worth noting that during the long war between the Macedonians and the Persians, far more Greeks fought for the Persians than for the Macedoneans.

Echetlaeus
29-03-14, 02:47
That's my reading of history, yes. In one of his speeches, the Third Phillipic, Demosthenes, the Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of Philip II as: "... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia..". However, after Phillip defeated Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC, he appointed himself "Commander of the Greeks". Of course, the fact that the Greeks claimed that Macedonians were barbarians doesn't prove they weren't related, but it's worth noting that during the long war between the Macedonians and the Persians, far more Greeks fought for the Persians than for the Macedoneans.

I like you bro, I really like you ... Why you do not cite Isocrates as well, hmm, why?
Now, to the point. Are you talking about the Greeks of the Asia Mino who at that time were under the Persian rule?

And by the way, Demosthenes was supporting for the superiority of Athens as the ruler of the Greeks, although signs of "demise" have appeared many years ago.

Aberdeen
29-03-14, 02:52
I like you bro, I really like you ... Why you do not cite Isocrates as well, hmm, why?
Now, to the point. Are you talking about the Greeks of the Asia Mino who at that time were under the Persian rule?

And by the way, Demosthenes was supporting for the superiority of Athens as the ruler of the Greeks, although signs of "demise" have appeared many years ago.

Ah, yes, Isocrates saying to Phillip "why don't you try to appease us, instead of slaughtering or enslaving us". An old man's hope for peace. And of course there were differences of opinion among the Greeks as to how to response to Phillip. If they weren't hopelessly divided in a crisis, they wouldn't have been behaving like Greeks.

Echetlaeus
29-03-14, 03:05
Ah, yes, Isocrates saying to Phillip "why don't you try to appease us, instead of slaughtering or enslaving us". An old man's hope for peace. And of course there were differences of opinion among the Greeks as to how to response to Phillip. If they weren't hopelessly divided in a crisis, they wouldn't have been behaving like Greeks.

Are you a historian?

Aberdeen
29-03-14, 11:20
Are you a historian?

No, I'm just a simple, semi-literate woodcutter, although I have learned a lot from Wikipedia. Why do you ask?

Echetlaeus
29-03-14, 16:35
No, I'm just a simple, semi-literate woodcutter, although I have learned a lot from Wikipedia. Why do you ask?

I like the sarcasm ...

I am asking this for should you were a historian you probably know more about this specific topic, this would also put more weight in your statements (and mine of course). I am not historian either. I like to call myself a lover of history though.

Aberdeen
29-03-14, 21:30
I like the sarcasm ...

I am asking this for should you were a historian you probably know more about this specific topic, this would also put more weight in your statements (and mine of course). I am not historian either. I like to call myself a lover of history though.

I'm not a historian but it's something that's always interested me, so I have read quite a bit of it and even took some history courses in university, although it wasn't my major. My interest in DNA and genetics is much more recent, so I'm much less well read in that area.

lynxbythetv
02-09-19, 04:39
ok heres a tongue in cheek theory, sort of.

while makedos means the tall ones in greek, the etymology ia quite simple ie the "macs" by the "don" aka the clan by the river. oddly called "mac/mak"

as the illyrians were likely indo-european invaders moreso of the celtic variety, hence albanian being related to P celtic then its not out of the question to think that the MAC'DON were celtic derived also. Did they swing around claymores and wear kilts ? maybe alexander the great was irish, Alex McDon.

he was supppsed to have blondish hair and to be quite pale. no population that is E and J is throwing up blonde and pales.
sorry for being a culture vulture feel free to shut me down, im no expert on ancient greek history/culture aside from what ive read on these sites over the years, and movies.



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

davef
02-09-19, 07:35
He was Greek, and he did not look Irish. The artwork at the top of this page hints at what he looked like:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-265/

Salento
02-09-19, 08:14
He was Greek, and he did not look Irish. The artwork at the top of this page hints at what he looked like:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-265/

I think that in some of the depictions Alexander looks like the “Boss” :)

(maybe A was from NJ) lol

https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTIwNjA4NjMzNzIxNzUxMDUy/alexander-the-great-wc-9180468-1-402.jpg

https://static.spin.com/files/2015/07/GettyImages-85853613-1494x1000.jpg

davef
02-09-19, 08:26
I think that in some of the depictions Alexander looks like the “Boss” :)

(maybe A was from NJ) lol

https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTIwNjA4NjMzNzIxNzUxMDUy/alexander-the-great-wc-9180468-1-402.jpg

https://static.spin.com/files/2015/07/GettyImages-85853613-1494x1000.jpg
The resemblance is there!

lynxbythetv
02-09-19, 08:45
He was Greek, and he did not look Irish. The artwork at the top of this page hints at what he looked like:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-265/isnt that a depiction made some time later.

look at it like this. the root of tall,long, big in greek is makednos, correct. well the root of that is the macedonians themselves but when you have a closer look at the etymology it more lines up with with the scottish word for son, which is "mac" and the indo-european word for river. what do we have the MACDONS.

sons of the river.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

lynxbythetv
02-09-19, 08:48
I think that in some of the depictions Alexander looks like the “Boss” :)

(maybe A was from NJ) lol

https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTIwNjA4NjMzNzIxNzUxMDUy/alexander-the-great-wc-9180468-1-402.jpg

https://static.spin.com/files/2015/07/GettyImages-85853613-1494x1000.jpgnah bro in that depiction he looks middle eastern. ehhhh yeh i see some resemblance.

did the persians make this ?
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

Salento
02-09-19, 16:43
nah bro in that depiction he looks middle eastern. ehhhh yeh i see some resemblance.

did the persians make this ?


I have no idea who made it, but He doesn't look anything like the real Jesus.

lynxbythetv
03-09-19, 08:27
ive given this a bit of thought. the macedonians were not greek, it doesnt make sense. why were they the tall ones, they were obviously different from greeks.

if they arent a remant from the indo european invasions or closely related to the illyrians then its logical to conclude they were serbs, without the R1A but R1B. perhaps that was illyrian.

consider it like this. romanians, albanians and bulgarians are some of the shortest europeans, so we can count them out. ok we could include albanians, but not the E haplogroup ones. E haplogroup equals shortass.

so we are left with either croatians or serbs.

cant believe people have been arguing who the macedonians were for so long without having a look at modern pops and their current heigh and how the greeks described macedonian traits.







Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

Jovialis
03-09-19, 17:28
so we are left with either croatians or serbs.



So now we know where you are from.

blevins13
03-09-19, 22:04
- He spoke Greek
- He worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks
- His name is Greek
- His father's name is Greek (Philip)
- His mother's name is Greek (Olympias, she comes from Epirus)
- His cousin was another great military genius, Pyrrhus of Epirus
- His favourite heroes were the Argives(= Greeks) of the Trojan War, and especially Achilles
- His teacher was Aristotle (no comments for that)
.
.
.

And above all, why some people that are of another origin, still insist that [Slavs] are Macedonians, when it is clear by the Byzantine chronicles that these people came to the Greek peninsula a thousand years later?

I am not sure if Alexander is a Greek name, it was used earlier by the Trojan Prince Paris, who was also called Aleksander.....as far as I recall he was the only Alexander in the Iliad. This reason alone raises a lot of doubt on the Macedonian And Greek connection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_(mythology)


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Salento
04-09-19, 04:51
Alexander was a Greek from Macedon.

Everybody knows that.

No need to Consult the Mystic Oracle of Google for a link.

Alexander would have certainly agreed with everything I said.

dosas
04-09-19, 07:46
I am not sure if Alexander is a Greek name, it was used earlier by the Trojan Prince Paris, who was also called Aleksander.....as far as I recall he was the only Alexander in the Iliad. This reason alone raises a lot of doubt on the Macedonian And Greek connection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_(mythology)


Alexander (Αλέξανδρος) as a name has an easily discernible etymology in both ancient and modern Greek language. Αλέξ from the verb alekso/αλέξω=protect και ανδρός from the genitive noun andros/ανδρός="of man". So Alexander is the synthesis of the words 'protector of man'.

What etymologies in other languages are there?

blevins13
05-09-19, 00:18
Alexander (Αλέξανδρος) as a name has an easily discernible etymology in both ancient and modern Greek language. Αλέξ from the verb alekso/αλέξω=protect και ανδρός from the genitive noun andros/ανδρός="of man". So Alexander is the synthesis of the words 'protector of man'.

What etymologies in other languages are there?

......so the Trojan were Greeks....your name explanation is more like the video below
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9whwwTK6I

This word connections are hard to buy for reasonable minds. Aleksander was a Trojan name.....and Iliad shows Aleksander was not a Greek name.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

dosas
05-09-19, 17:46
......so the Trojan were Greeks....your name explanation is more like the video below
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9whwwTK6I

This word connections are hard to buy for reasonable minds. Aleksander was a Trojan name.....and Iliad shows Aleksander was not a Greek name.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Your ad homs, in combination with your ***** video, not to mention your complete lack of referencing, speak volumes of your capacity for discourse.

blevins13
05-09-19, 19:17
Your ad homs, in combination with your ***** video, not to mention your complete lack of referencing, speak volumes of your capacity for discourse.

Here you are referring to yourself I guess. I mentioned reference.....I can put it for you in APA style, but this does not change the fact that Paris was called Aleksander and that is the first use of the name for a man. If you have an earlier use mention it, I will be glad to learn it.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

dosas
05-09-19, 20:31
Here you are referring to yourself I guess. I mentioned reference.....I can put it for you in APA style, but this does not change the fact that Paris was called Aleksander and that is the first use of the name for a man. If you have an earlier use mention it, I will be glad to learn it.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Alexander: First ever recorded usage in Mycenean Linear B (feminine anthroponym). Of course, you could have at least wikipedia'd it yourself, but you chose to ***** with your typical Balkan conspiracy narrative.

source:

Tablet MY V 659 (61). "The Linear B word a-re-ka-sa-da-ra". Palaeolexicon. Word study tool of ancient languages. "MY 659 V (61)". DĀMOS Database of Mycenaean at Oslo. University of Oslo. Raymoure, K.A. "a-re-ka-sa-da-ra-qe". Deaditerranean. Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B.

Angela
05-09-19, 20:41
Alexander: First ever recorded usage in Mycenean Linear B (feminine anthroponym). Of course, you could have at least wikipedia'd it yourself, but, of course, you chose to ***** with your typical Balkan conspiracy narrative.

source:

Tablet MY V 659 (61). "The Linear B word a-re-ka-sa-da-ra". Palaeolexicon. Word study tool of ancient languages. "MY 659 V (61)". DĀMOS Database of Mycenaean at Oslo. University of Oslo. Raymoure, K.A. "a-re-ka-sa-da-ra-qe". Deaditerranean. Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B.

It just never ends, does it? I am beyond tired of it.

LABERIA
05-09-19, 20:43
Alexander: First ever recorded usage in Mycenean Linear B (feminine anthroponym). Of course, you could have at least wikipedia'd it yourself, but you chose to ***** with your typical Balkan conspiracy narrative/nonsense.

source:

Tablet MY V 659 (61). "The Linear B word a-re-ka-sa-da-ra". Palaeolexicon. Word study tool of ancient languages. "MY 659 V (61)". DĀMOS Database of Mycenaean at Oslo. University of Oslo. Raymoure, K.A. "a-re-ka-sa-da-ra-qe". Deaditerranean. Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B.
Please. The author of this scientific discovery is a greek, nickname Midas, Historum forum.

blevins13
05-09-19, 21:15
It just never ends, does it? I am beyond tired of it.

I don’t understand what is the problem here Angela, the exchange here is civil.......the Greek member is mentioning a female name to support that Aleksander was used before by Greeks in Linear B writing. I am genuinely curious to see that why Trojan were using this name for males before Greeks. And Arekasadaraqe means as well protector of men? Or something else in Greek language?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
05-09-19, 22:27
Why would you fixate on origins of a name to determine if he was Macedonian/Greek or not?

Names travel, like pots travel. It need mean nothing at all if by chance it's first found in parts of Anatolia. My maternal first cousin's half German Swiss son is named Patrick. Does that mean he has part Irish ancestry? No, it doesn't. I think it was a stupid choice, but it has nothing to do with ancestry at all. Likewise, her sister's son is named Archimedi because it's a family name in her husband's Venetian family. Is he Greek? No, he isn't. Meaningless.

What does it matter if it first appears in Mycenaean as a female name? The basic form was there. There are lots of names which have both a male and female version. Piero/Piera, Michele/Michela, Gino/Gina, Alessandro/Alessandra. Lots of writings were lost. Among those that survived, we find the female version. Why on earth wouldn't there be a male version? If it's there it's there, no matter who found it.

This is trivia, imo, and you're too smart and sensible to be going down this rabbit hole.

By all important measures, Alexander was a Macedonian Greek. Just like Julius Caesar was a Roman. We have too many writings from this period for there to be any doubt. End of story.

Why waste your time on this?

blevins13
06-09-19, 00:12
Why would you fixate on origins of a name to determine if he was Macedonian/Greek or not?

Names travel, like pots travel. It need mean nothing at all if by chance it's first found in parts of Anatolia. My maternal first cousin's half German Swiss son is named Patrick. Does that mean he has part Irish ancestry? No, it doesn't. I think it was a stupid choice, but it has nothing to do with ancestry at all. Likewise, her sister's son is named Archimedi because it's a family name in her husband's Venetian family. Is he Greek? No, he isn't. Meaningless.

What does it matter if it first appears in Mycenaean as a female name? The basic form was there. There are lots of names which have both a male and female version. Piero/Piera, Michele/Michela, Gino/Gina, Alessandro/Alessandra. Lots of writings were lost. Among those that survived, we find the female version. Why on earth wouldn't there be a male version? If it's there it's there, no matter who found it.

This is trivia, imo, and you're too smart and sensible to be going down this rabbit hole.

By all important measures, Alexander was a Macedonian Greek. Just like Julius Caesar was a Roman. We have too many writings from this period for there to be any doubt. End of story.

Why waste your time on this?

Why waste time, why ask question, why hypothese, why research, is human nature.

At the beginning of the thread was said Alexander was a Greek name, but this is not true, its earliest form is Trojan.
In addition I ask you is there any distinction between being hellenized example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daorson
and being Greeks...
Do you also consider Romanians (probably latinized Dacian) italian? What about Corsicans that used to speak Italian, due you consider them French? Or people that have adopted French language?

As for Macedonians, how are you able to distinct if they are a hellenized tribe or a Greek tribe indeed, especially after Bronze Age collapse. Is there any DNA research to support your claim?
Thanks for your time hopefully not wasted.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
06-09-19, 02:39
Does it matter? Does any of it matter? The important thing, surely, is that he was the product of Greek civilization? He was a Greek speaker, taught by Greeks in Greek thinking, worshipped Greek gods, and thought of himself as spreading Greek civilization.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of his genetics, how can it be settled at the present time? We have no samples from his area and time period, so discussions just generate into t-rolling because of jealousy of the Greeks from my point of view.

Do I think Alexander was like a modern or even ancient Peloponnesian or an Athenian or Ionian Greek? I doubt it, but I don't know. I could punt and say maybe he was like the modern day Macedonians, but Alexander was about a thousand years, give or take, before the Slavic migrations, so that's probably wrong.

Until we get some ancient samples from the "Macedonians" of his day we're just not going to know are we? Since the Slavic in the Balkans is on a north/south cline, maybe he will be closer to modern day Greeks further south than Macedonia.

Or maybe he'll turn out to be like the Illyrians and Thracians, who seem to be closer to North Italians than to modern people from the Balkans.

Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then, I'm absolutely sure about one thing: trying to find the earliest place a form of his name was recorded tells us bupkis. That's zero, nada. It may be of academic value, but it will tell us nothing about his genetics.

As for the Corsicans, I'm a great believer in self-determination for ethnic groups. I think that Corsicans refer to themselves as "Corsicans" primarily, but also as French citizens, or French citizens of Corsican ancestry. That Corsican ancestry is genetically very close to Tuscan and Ligurian ancestry, and their language is close to Tuscan, but if they don't want to identify as Italian that's fine with me. I'd certainly welcome them if they wanted to switch over. Same goes for the people of Nizza and surrounding areas.

As for a lot of the people in the Alto-Adige areas, they are Italian citizens but are not Italians genetically and don't want to be. That's fine with me. I hope they secede. Good riddance.

The Romanians are a different story. They may speak a Latin language, but I don't know how much actual ancestry from the Romans they carry. That's completely different from the people of Corsica or Nizza. I actually have some experience with Romania, and the ones I met were quite proud of their Italian connection, although they didn't claim to be Italian. That would be silly. Nice, educated people the ones with whom I had dealings. Then there's some of the ones I've met on these Boards. Mad as hatters some of them. You Balkanites can keep those. :)

matadworf
06-09-19, 02:55
Does it matter? Does any of it matter? The important thing, surely, is that he was the product of Greek civilization? He was a Greek speaker, taught by Greeks in Greek thinking, worshipped Greek gods, and thought of himself as spreading Greek civilization.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of his genetics, how can it be settled at the present time? We have no samples from his area and time period, so discussions just generate into t-rolling because of jealousy of the Greeks from my point of view.

Do I think Alexander was like a modern or even ancient Peloponnesian or an Athenian or Ionian Greek? I doubt it, but I don't know. I could punt and say maybe he was like the modern day Macedonians, but Alexander was about a thousand years, give or take, before the Slavic migrations, so that's probably wrong.

Until we get some ancient samples from the "Macedonians" of his day we're just not going to know are we? Since the Slavic in the Balkans is on a north/south cline, maybe he will be closer to modern day Greeks further south than Macedonia.

Or maybe he'll turn out to be like the Illyrians and Thracians, who seem to be closer to North Italians than to modern people from the Balkans.

Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then, I'm absolutely sure about one thing: trying to find the earliest place a form of his name was recorded tells us bupkis. That's zero, nada. It's a ridiculous discussion leading nowhere.

As for the Corsicans, I'm a great believer in self-determination for ethnic groups. I think that Corsicans refer to themselves as "Corsicans" primarily, but also as French citizens, or French citizens of Corsican ancestry. That Corsican ancestry is genetically very close to Tuscan and Ligurian ancestry, and their language is close to Tuscan, but if they don't want to identify as Italian that's fine with me. I'd certainly welcome them if they wanted to switch over. Same goes for the people of Nizza and surrounding areas.

As for a lot of the people in the Alto-Adige areas, they are Italian citizens but are not Italians genetically and don't want to be. That's fine with me. I hope they secede. Good riddance.

The Romanians are a different story. They may speak a Latin language, but I don't know how much actual ancestry from the Romans they carry. That's completely different from the people of Corsica or Nizza. I actually have some experience with Romania, and the ones I met were quite proud of their Italian connection, although they didn't claim to be Italian. That would be silly. Nice, educated people the ones with whom I had dealings. Then there's some of the ones I've met on these Boards. Mad as hatters some of them. You Balkanites can keep those. :)

I honestly believe he'll end up being genetically close to modern day mainland Greeks (Epirus, Thessaly, Peloponnese, Rumeli) and Southern Albanians precisely due to the latter Slavic admixture in post classical age populations of continental Greece. Ancient Macedonia was Paleo Balkan and may have had higher IE than Southern mainland Greece but compared to modern mainland populations the difference is most likely negligible.

dosas
06-09-19, 06:33
Does it matter? Does any of it matter?

Angela, I want to give some perspective on inter-Balkan politics. You have to understand that since the communist collapse, even up until now, all the newly created states had to build a new ethnic narrative to bind their people into a newly created state. Thus, there was a spike in the rise of nationalistic social and political forces, in some cases seeking military/border expansion towards their neighbors (in the north,east, south, etc.)

In the case of Greece, a clear victor (along with then the Kingdom of Serbia) of the Ottoman collapse, the northern borders of were constantly disputed even up to the Yalta Peace Treaty in 1945 and a bit later. Modern West Balkan Nationalism, mostly due to its continuous exclusion from the European space and its constant political and military turmoil, has been persistent in finding all sorts of ways to de-legitimize Greek rule over its borders. Since they can't do it using modern or Roman historical sources (too detailed) they have to dive more into the past, into the ancient world (even the Bronze Age in forums like this) and squabble over every little detail they think they can find that will support the narrative that, in our case, Alexander is not an ancient Hellenic name (even though its etymology is exactly just that) and so on.

The solution, in my opinion at least, is the eventual incorporation of these countries into the EU space, where the rule of European Law will put a stop to their expansionist dreams. Look at Bulgaria and Greece, for example. Bitter and mortal enemies in the past, best bros and neighbors in current times. The Bulgarian community in the city where I live is the biggest and most economically prosperous, as well.

End of off-topic. Carry on.

Ownstyler
06-09-19, 07:14
You have to understand that since the communist collapse, even up until now, all the newly created states had to build a new ethnic narrative to bind their people into a newly created state.

More like since 1832. But it does not matter. You can still contrast arguments without personalized attacks. No need to rationalize what you perceive as bias. If you are right, present your case more convincingly.

blevins13
06-09-19, 10:15
Does it matter? Does any of it matter? The important thing, surely, is that he was the product of Greek civilization? He was a Greek speaker, taught by Greeks in Greek thinking, worshipped Greek gods, and thought of himself as spreading Greek civilization.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of his genetics, how can it be settled at the present time? We have no samples from his area and time period, so discussions just generate into t-rolling because of jealousy of the Greeks from my point of view.

Do I think Alexander was like a modern or even ancient Peloponnesian or an Athenian or Ionian Greek? I doubt it, but I don't know. I could punt and say maybe he was like the modern day Macedonians, but Alexander was about a thousand years, give or take, before the Slavic migrations, so that's probably wrong.

Until we get some ancient samples from the "Macedonians" of his day we're just not going to know are we? Since the Slavic in the Balkans is on a north/south cline, maybe he will be closer to modern day Greeks further south than Macedonia.

Or maybe he'll turn out to be like the Illyrians and Thracians, who seem to be closer to North Italians than to modern people from the Balkans.

Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then, I'm absolutely sure about one thing: trying to find the earliest place a form of his name was recorded tells us bupkis. That's zero, nada. It may be of academic value, but it will tell us nothing about his genetics.

As for the Corsicans, I'm a great believer in self-determination for ethnic groups. I think that Corsicans refer to themselves as "Corsicans" primarily, but also as French citizens, or French citizens of Corsican ancestry. That Corsican ancestry is genetically very close to Tuscan and Ligurian ancestry, and their language is close to Tuscan, but if they don't want to identify as Italian that's fine with me. I'd certainly welcome them if they wanted to switch over. Same goes for the people of Nizza and surrounding areas.

As for a lot of the people in the Alto-Adige areas, they are Italian citizens but are not Italians genetically and don't want to be. That's fine with me. I hope they secede. Good riddance.

The Romanians are a different story. They may speak a Latin language, but I don't know how much actual ancestry from the Romans they carry. That's completely different from the people of Corsica or Nizza. I actually have some experience with Romania, and the ones I met were quite proud of their Italian connection, although they didn't claim to be Italian. That would be silly. Nice, educated people the ones with whom I had dealings. Then there's some of the ones I've met on these Boards. Mad as hatters some of them. You Balkanites can keep those. :)

I honestly believe (till proven wrong by means of research) Aleksander situation was very similar to yours, US Citizens but with Italian roots (not sure how far are you with Americanization process), in his case Hellenized individual that was still using his domestic tang with his people (obviously not a Greek dialect or why bother mentioning).
This is to answer the initial question of this thread.

In addition I am wondering, and probably you might be a good candidate to answer, why Italians do not consider Illyricani Roman Emperor Italian, compered with Alexander their latinization process should have been more advanced than his hellenization.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

dosas
06-09-19, 13:53
More like since 1832. But it does not matter. You can still contrast arguments without personalized attacks. No need to rationalize what you perceive as bias. If you are right, present your case more convincingly.

Sorry, I don't expect someone from the other side of the Atlantic to understand the capacity of human rights violations that have taken place in the Central/West Balkans since the 90s. Of course, your country's foreign policy at the time was partly responsible for the violence that has transpired, violence that's only been temporarily on ice, and brewing ever since, waiting for a rematch.

Also, I fail to see a mod tag under your name, so keep your censoring attempts and passive/aggressive advice to yourself. Thanks.

Angela
06-09-19, 14:39
I honestly believe (till proven wrong by means of research) Aleksander situation was very similar to yours, US Citizens but with Italian roots (not sure how far are you with Americanization process), in his case Hellenized individual that was still using his domestic tang with his people (obviously not a Greek dialect or why bother mentioning).
This is to answer the initial question of this thread.

In addition I am wondering, and probably you might be a good candidate to answer, why Italians do not consider Illyricani Roman Emperor Italian, compered with Alexander their latinization process should have been more advanced than his hellenization.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Blevins, you keep assuming that you know the particulars of Alexander's ethnicity and its closeness or lack thereof to both ancient and modern Greeks. You don't. No one does. Why keep arguing about something completely unknown from a scientific perspective?

Perhaps Alexander's relationship genetically to the Greeks of his day was like the relationship between, say, the "Germans" and the Swiss Germans, if one can imagine the Swiss Germans going on a conquering spree. :) Or maybe like the relationship between the North Germans and the Danes. We can't possibly know yet.

You can't use me as some type of barometer. When I'm in America, which is most of the time, I feel very Italian. When I'm in Italy I feel American, at least where politics and the bureaucracy are concerned, and, indeed, where any institutional aspects are concerned. I guess I'm hovering somewhere over the Atlantic. :) I have a great loyalty to America, speak English every day, my children and husband are Americans, but in every cultural way from food, to what kind of daughter, wife, mother, I am, to how I go about most of my daily life, to my emotional responses, I am still very Italian. My Sardinian friend says I have the heart and sensibility of an Italian but the irony of an American. Sometimes I think I'm actually more Italian than the Italians, certainly than very young Italians.

Already before the end of the Republic there was a profound feeling among the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula that they were, indeed, "Italians", that "Italia" was a place apart in the empire. The Social War was all about being recognized as such. That spread to people of the Cispadana and Transpadana as well. It continued into the Empire. All decrees were for "Italia and the provinces". I detail all of it in this thread on Northern Italy in the Roman Era based on the book of the same name.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39142-Northern-Italy-in-the-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

By the first-second century AD the majority of the people in the Empire considered themselves "Romans". They didn't consider themselves Italians and were not thought of as such by the Italians themselves. Illyrians might have been "Romans", but they weren't "Italians".

That's why it's so amusing that people think a sense of Italian identity is so recent. There was just a hiatus where only the most educated held on to that sense of identity.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39142-Northern-Italy-in-the-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

Ownstyler
06-09-19, 16:04
Sorry, I don't expect someone from the other side of the Atlantic to understand the capacity of human rights violations that have taken place in the Central/West Balkans since the 90s. Of course, your country's foreign policy at the time was partly responsible for the violence that has transpired, violence that's only been temporarily on ice, and brewing ever since, waiting for a rematch.

Also, I fail to see a mod tag under your name, so keep your censoring attempts and passive/aggressive advice to yourself. Thanks.

Wow! I didn't know seeing a flag could trigger such hysteria. I won't waste my time here anymore.

dosas
06-09-19, 17:23
Wow! I didn't know seeing a flag could trigger such hysteria. I won't waste my time here anymore.

No need to get salty, dude. I don't care about your personal investment in this.

blevins13
06-09-19, 17:59
Blevins, you keep assuming that you know the particulars of Alexander's ethnicity and its closeness or lack thereof to both ancient and modern Greeks. You don't. No one does. Why keep arguing about something completely unknown from a scientific perspective?

Perhaps Alexander's relationship genetically to the Greeks of his day was like the relationship between, say, the "Germans" and the Swiss Germans, if one can imagine the Swiss Germans going on a conquering spree. :) Or maybe like the relationship between the North Germans and the Danes. We can't possibly know yet.

You can't use me as some type of barometer. When I'm in America, which is most of the time, I feel very Italian. When I'm in Italy I feel American, at least where politics and the bureaucracy are concerned, and, indeed, where any institutional aspects are concerned. I guess I'm hovering somewhere over the Atlantic. :) I have a great loyalty to America, speak English every day, my children and husband are Americans, but in every cultural way from food, to what kind of daughter, wife, mother, I am, to how I go about most of my daily life, to my emotional responses, I am still very Italian. My Sardinian friend says I have the heart and sensibility of an Italian but the irony of an American. Sometimes I think I'm actually more Italian than the Italians, certainly than very young Italians.

Already before the end of the Republic there was a profound feeling among the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula that they were, indeed, "Italians", that "Italia" was a place apart in the empire. The Social War was all about being recognized as such. That spread to people of the Cispadana and Transpadana as well. It continued into the Empire. All decrees were for "Italia and the provinces". I detail all of it in this thread on Northern Italy in the Roman Era based on the book of the same name.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39142-Northern-Italy-in-the-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

By the first-second century AD the majority of the people in the Empire considered themselves "Romans". They didn't consider themselves Italians and were not thought of as such by the Italians themselves. Illyrians might have been "Romans", but they weren't "Italians".

That's why it's so amusing that people think a sense of Italian identity is so recent. There was just a hiatus where only the most educated held on to that sense of identity.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39142-Northern-Italy-in-the-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

Exactly my point:
“You don't. No one does. Why keep arguing about something completely unknown from a scientific perspective?”

And this answer the question of this thread....but I do believe in what I mentioned previously.

In addition for the Illyricani Emperors, they were Roman Citizens, but do you claim they were from Italic tribes and/ or Latin tribes? This is what i meant. If you claim that. Illyricani emperor were Latin by origin because they spoke Latin and you are American by origin because now you speak also English and there is nothing to discuss further....let’s agree that we disagree in this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

RagnarofMacedon
17-09-19, 04:14
11419

Macedonian language wasn't Greek dialect...

dosas
17-09-19, 15:06
The Pella Curse Tablet. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet)

LABERIA
17-09-19, 16:43
The Pella Curse Tablet. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet)

European Union (https://europa.eu/)

xzit
18-09-19, 14:22
Does it matter? Does any of it matter? The important thing, surely, is that he was the product of Greek civilization? He was a Greek speaker, taught by Greeks in Greek thinking, worshipped Greek gods, and thought of himself as spreading Greek civilization.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of his genetics, how can it be settled at the present time? We have no samples from his area and time period, so discussions just generate into t-rolling because of jealousy of the Greeks from my point of view.

Do I think Alexander was like a modern or even ancient Peloponnesian or an Athenian or Ionian Greek? I doubt it, but I don't know. I could punt and say maybe he was like the modern day Macedonians, but Alexander was about a thousand years, give or take, before the Slavic migrations, so that's probably wrong.

Until we get some ancient samples from the "Macedonians" of his day we're just not going to know are we? Since the Slavic in the Balkans is on a north/south cline, maybe he will be closer to modern day Greeks further south than Macedonia.

Or maybe he'll turn out to be like the Illyrians and Thracians, who seem to be closer to North Italians than to modern people from the Balkans.

Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then, I'm absolutely sure about one thing: trying to find the earliest place a form of his name was recorded tells us bupkis. That's zero, nada. It may be of academic value, but it will tell us nothing about his genetics.

As for the Corsicans, I'm a great believer in self-determination for ethnic groups. I think that Corsicans refer to themselves as "Corsicans" primarily, but also as French citizens, or French citizens of Corsican ancestry. That Corsican ancestry is genetically very close to Tuscan and Ligurian ancestry, and their language is close to Tuscan, but if they don't want to identify as Italian that's fine with me. I'd certainly welcome them if they wanted to switch over. Same goes for the people of Nizza and surrounding areas.

As for a lot of the people in the Alto-Adige areas, they are Italian citizens but are not Italians genetically and don't want to be. That's fine with me. I hope they secede. Good riddance.

The Romanians are a different story. They may speak a Latin language, but I don't know how much actual ancestry from the Romans they carry. That's completely different from the people of Corsica or Nizza. I actually have some experience with Romania, and the ones I met were quite proud of their Italian connection, although they didn't claim to be Italian. That would be silly. Nice, educated people the ones with whom I had dealings. Then there's some of the ones I've met on these Boards. Mad as hatters some of them. You Balkanites can keep those. :)


There is no way a sample that South of the Balkans is gonna plot with North Italians. Nothing extra in Albanians has been introduced in the Balkans since like the Bronze Age that had any large genetic impact. And almost nothing in Greeks except for Pontic maybe.


Republic of Macedonia for the most part was inhabited by Ilyrians and Thracians and not Ancient Macedonians. Though the Macedonians were probably hybrids of Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians they seem to of become Greeks by the time of Alexander.

Ancient Balkan samples found close to or within Albanian and Greek lands do plot with Albanians and Greeks. Macedonian Slavs have extra Slavic ancestry. Their genetics vary a lot depending on the individual. Macedonians that are the least Slavic influenced basically more or less cluster next to a lot of Albanians and Greeks. Same thing for Bulgarians and even a lot of Romanians. The non-Slavic influenced ones are basically genetically like Albanians, Greeks etc.

in terms of clustering, Alexander most certainly would plot with Greeks or some Albanians. given also the geographic area. You seem to totally neglect the geographic area or where these samples are found.

It's only in Croatia those samples plotted with North Italians. Almost Every other sample or area of the Balkans seem to of been basically like Albanian and Greek or East of Tuscans/North Italians. To understand this you can also just look at Serbian genetics where they get a lot of Greek rather than North Italian.


There are no Thracian samples that have ever been found that clustered with North Italians. Most of the Thracian samples found clustered where some Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs and Romanians clustered,. Though Bulgarians , Macedonian Slavs and Romanians are also on average more Slavic than both Albanians and Greeks.

Those Ilyrian samples were found in Croatia. Of course they aren't going to cluster with Croatians , Serbs or Bosniaks who are like partially Slavic atleast. Nor are they gonna cluster fully with Albanians since they are geographically more North. It's like expecting South Italians to cluster with North Italians. Other Ilyrian samples found closer to Albanian lands do cluster with Albanians etc.

Those samples found in Croatia aren't going to cluster with Albanians because they are geographically more North. Same way many Albanian people don't cluster with each other. There is a difference in clustering among every population depending on the size of the geographic area they inhabit, it isn't an argument to put forth that these people were different populations once upon a time which you people seem to do.

Those samples found in Croatia and Albanians are just part of a bigger Illyrian cluster that has eventually gone extinct. You people take this clustering way too serious.

Despite those North Ilyrian samples clustering with North Italians and Iberians they literally have nothing to do with those people. They share a common origin with Albanians paternally (J2b2-L283 and R1b-By611) and they spoke a similar language to Albanian or Proto-Albanian. They also share a common autosomal origin anyway. They are basically like North Western shifted Ghegs.

You can see this by many of the pre-slavic toponyms of the Western Balkans connected to the Albanian language as also suggested by scholars like Johan Georgh von Hahn. For example the word Dalmatia where the J2b2-L283 was found , an YDNA very common in North Albanian people:


'' The name Dalmatae appears to be a cognate of the modern Albanian word delme, meaning "sheep".The Illyrian town of Delminium probably shares this etymology.

''The name Dalmatia derives from the name of the Dalmatae tribe, which is connected with the Illyrian word delme meaning "sheep".''






Considering the J2b2-l283 that was found in Dalmatia shows that the man who suggested this connection was actually right ^


This is because the Illyrians most likely spoke a common language. The difference in clustering is only natural and isn't an argument to claim they are different populations.

You could have South Albanians clustering with Greeks instead of North Albanians yet they literally have nothing to do with Greeks or look like Greeks. They are actually closer to North Albos, linguistically and even phenotypically, still. A half Norwegian, Half Romanian clustering with Austrians doesn't mean that person is Austrian.

But of course I noticed this fetish among non-Balkanites to claim ancient Balkan people and I also noticed some agenda among South-Slavs to pretend as if Paleo-Balkan people were all different so they can distance themselves from Albanians as much as possible due to their chauvunistic complexes.


Except for some Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians there is no reason for ancient Balkan samples to be like Serbs or Bosniaks or Croats due to the later Slavic influx. So not sure where you got the idea that ancient Balkan samples aren't like modern Balkanites which they basically are when you compare them to non-Slavic Balkanites depending on their location in the Balkans. They just aren't like Slavic Balkanites who are genetically Slavic also.

But they are like modern non-Slavic Balkanites for sure. One way or the other, if not always through clustering it is through language, Y-DNA and culture. And even when they don't cluster they still show a genetic overlap. But this has been cut off or gone extinct due to the large Slavic influx that occurred later on.

By using the logic in clustering that you use, you might as well claim modern Albanian people aren't the same since they cluster so different or even modern Germans or any populations. Clustering literally means nothing in a lot of cases.Of course there is gonna be a difference in clustering especially between people that inhabit or inhabited a larger geographic area

Paleo-Balkan people clustered east of Italians like many still do (Albanians, Greeks, Romanians etc) In some areas there seem to of been an overlap where Italians fall into the Balkan cluster and some Illyrians / Thracians fall into the Italian/Iberian cluster basically.





Seems also an agenda among some of you Italian users here to actually suggested that Balkan Slavs are native to the Balkans which they aren't as they also show high IBD sharing with East Europeans basically going by even peer reviewed studies. They are like at least partially Slavic but the results vary from individual to individual. A lot of their paternal ancestry are also connected to Slavs.

bigsnake49
18-09-19, 15:28
What people do not understand is that there was no Greek Nation back in classical times. There were a lot of city states. When we are talking about city states do not imagine a megalopolis of 10million people. A town of 10,000 people and its surroundings thought of itself as a city state. Their geographic areas were limited. Some had kings others were more democratically inclined.People did not think of themselves as Greeks but as Thebans, Athenians, Spartans, etc. Also there were a lot of dialects of Greek spoken due to isolation. Where as most think of Classical Greek as Attic Greek, Spartan Greek, Aelian/Thesprotian, Ionian were spoken in their respective areas.
Now let's talk about ancient Macedonians. What we call ancient Macedonians lived in a small area around Pella. They certainly did not live around Skopje. Later on they expanded to neighboring areas through conquest and making of alliances and eventually united all Greeks under their leadership. By the time of Alexander the Great we know they thought of themselves as Greeks. If we can judge their language by the Pella curse tablet they spoke some form of Dorian Greek. Were there local words not shared with other areas, absolutely. A 100 yrs ago if you got a Pontic Greek and a Cretan from Sfakia I doubt they could communicate with each other very effectively. Isolation does strange things to languages.
What is called Macedonia or Northen Macedonia right now has absolute nothing to do with ancient Macedonians. They were local Ilyrians or Thracians that were conquered by the Macedons of Pella. It's like the Thessalians calling themselves Macedonians because they too fell under the Macedonian influence. Might as well have the Persians, Anatolians or Afghanis call themselves Macedonians because they were also conquered by Alexander the Great.

Angela
18-09-19, 18:14
There is no way a sample that South of the Balkans is gonna plot with North Italians. Nothing extra in Albanians has been introduced in the Balkans since like the Bronze Age that had any large genetic impact. And almost nothing in Greeks except for Pontic maybe.


Republic of Macedonia for the most part was inhabited by Ilyrians and Thracians and not Ancient Macedonians. Though the Macedonians were probably hybrids of Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians they seem to of become Greeks by the time of Alexander.

Ancient Balkan samples found close to or within Albanian and Greek lands do plot with Albanians and Greeks. Macedonian Slavs have extra Slavic ancestry. Their genetics vary a lot depending on the individual. Macedonians that are the least Slavic influenced basically more or less cluster next to a lot of Albanians and Greeks. Same thing for Bulgarians and even a lot of Romanians. The non-Slavic influenced ones are basically genetically like Albanians, Greeks etc.

in terms of clustering, Alexander most certainly would plot with Greeks or some Albanians. given also the geographic area. You seem to totally neglect the geographic area or where these samples are found.

It's only in Croatia those samples plotted with North Italians. Almost Every other sample or area of the Balkans seem to of been basically like Albanian and Greek or East of Tuscans/North Italians. To understand this you can also just look at Serbian genetics where they get a lot of Greek rather than North Italian.


There are no Thracian samples that have ever been found that clustered with North Italians. Most of the Thracian samples found clustered where some Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs and Romanians clustered,. Though Bulgarians , Macedonian Slavs and Romanians are also on average more Slavic than both Albanians and Greeks.

Those Ilyrian samples were found in Croatia. Of course they aren't going to cluster with Croatians , Serbs or Bosniaks who are like partially Slavic atleast. Nor are they gonna cluster fully with Albanians since they are geographically more North. It's like expecting South Italians to cluster with North Italians. Other Ilyrian samples found closer to Albanian lands do cluster with Albanians etc.

Those samples found in Croatia aren't going to cluster with Albanians because they are geographically more North. Same way many Albanian people don't cluster with each other. There is a difference in clustering among every population depending on the size of the geographic area they inhabit, it isn't an argument to put forth that these people were different populations once upon a time which you people seem to do.

Those samples found in Croatia and Albanians are just part of a bigger Illyrian cluster that has eventually gone extinct. You people take this clustering way too serious.

Despite those North Ilyrian samples clustering with North Italians and Iberians they literally have nothing to do with those people. They share a common origin with Albanians paternally (J2b2-L283 and R1b-By611) and they spoke a similar language to Albanian or Proto-Albanian. They also share a common autosomal origin anyway. They are basically like North Western shifted Ghegs.

You can see this by many of the pre-slavic toponyms of the Western Balkans connected to the Albanian language as also suggested by scholars like Johan Georgh von Hahn. For example the word Dalmatia where the J2b2-L283 was found , an YDNA very common in North Albanian people:


'' The name Dalmatae appears to be a cognate of the modern Albanian word delme, meaning "sheep".The Illyrian town of Delminium probably shares this etymology.

''The name Dalmatia derives from the name of the Dalmatae tribe, which is connected with the Illyrian word delme meaning "sheep".''






Considering the J2b2-l283 that was found in Dalmatia shows that the man who suggested this connection was actually right ^


This is because the Illyrians most likely spoke a common language. The difference in clustering is only natural and isn't an argument to claim they are different populations.

You could have South Albanians clustering with Greeks instead of North Albanians yet they literally have nothing to do with Greeks or look like Greeks. They are actually closer to North Albos, linguistically and even phenotypically, still. A half Norwegian, Half Romanian clustering with Austrians doesn't mean that person is Austrian.

But of course I noticed this fetish among non-Balkanites to claim ancient Balkan people and I also noticed some agenda among South-Slavs to pretend as if Paleo-Balkan people were all different so they can distance themselves from Albanians as much as possible due to their chauvunistic complexes.


Except for some Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians there is no reason for ancient Balkan samples to be like Serbs or Bosniaks or Croats due to the later Slavic influx. So not sure where you got the idea that ancient Balkan samples aren't like modern Balkanites which they basically are when you compare them to non-Slavic Balkanites depending on their location in the Balkans. They just aren't like Slavic Balkanites who are genetically Slavic also.

But they are like modern non-Slavic Balkanites for sure. One way or the other, if not always through clustering it is through language, Y-DNA and culture. And even when they don't cluster they still show a genetic overlap. But this has been cut off or gone extinct due to the large Slavic influx that occurred later on.

By using the logic in clustering that you use, you might as well claim modern Albanian people aren't the same since they cluster so different or even modern Germans or any populations. Clustering literally means nothing in a lot of cases.Of course there is gonna be a difference in clustering especially between people that inhabit or inhabited a larger geographic area

Paleo-Balkan people clustered east of Italians like many still do (Albanians, Greeks, Romanians etc) In some areas there seem to of been an overlap where Italians fall into the Balkan cluster and some Illyrians / Thracians fall into the Italian/Iberian cluster basically.





Seems also an agenda among some of you Italian users here to actually suggested that Balkan Slavs are native to the Balkans which they aren't as they also show high IBD sharing with East Europeans basically going by even peer reviewed studies. They are like at least partially Slavic but the results vary from individual to individual. A lot of their paternal ancestry are also connected to Slavs.

Seems like you haven't been here for very long. Nobody with any active brain cells doubts that there was Slavic genetic influence in the Balkans. Nor does anyone who has read the scientific papers doubt that there is still a large influence from the people of "Old Europe" or that the people of the Balkans are very similar to one another.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/WestEurasia_admixture_crop.png/400px-WestEurasia_admixture_crop.png


Stop posting revisionist a-scientific nonsense or you won't be here long.

valentinavalley2
19-09-19, 18:42
Alexander the Great was Greek, him being Illyrian is a dumb suggestion. There is more evidence that Achilles wasn’t Greek.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valentinavalley2
19-09-19, 18:49
Alexander the Great was a Greek, but when he conquered Paeonia the people spoke there an Illyrian language, they lost a lot of their land to Macedonians, the Macedonian empire conquered them, while the Illyrian tribe known as the Paeonians fought against it. True Alexander may have had Illyrian and Thracian soldiers in his army, but the Ottoman Empire had Albanians soldiers, does that make the Ottoman Empire Albanian? No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LABERIA
19-09-19, 21:28
I was not able to understand how this relates to the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)
According to the page of Wiki posted by this Greek member:

The Pella curse tablet is a text written in a distinct Doric Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Greek) idiom, found in Pella (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella), the ancient capital of Macedon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)), in 1986.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet#cite_note-1)....
...These suggest that a Doric Greek dialect was spoken in Macedonia, as was previously proposed based on the West Greek forms of names found in Macedonia.
Even a biased source like Wiki admit that these suggest.
The Pella tablet prove only that the text was written in Greek. People can rise different theories, but are simply theories. Pella tablet can not prove the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians. You are using english language in this forum. Are you an English or an American, etc?
The official language of the European Union is the English language and every year the administration of this Union produce millions of documents written in English language. Is European Union a British Empire? And there is too much talking about the BREXIT in these days.

blevins13
20-09-19, 11:07
According to the page of Wiki posted by this Greek member:

Even a biased source like Wiki admit that these suggest.
The Pella tablet prove only that the text was written in Greek. People can rise different theories, but are simply theories. Pella tablet can not prove the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians. You are using english language in this forum. Are you an English or an American, etc?
The official language of the European Union is the English language and every year the administration of this Union produce millions of documents written in English language. Is European Union a British Empire? And there is too much talking about the BREXIT in these days.

Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

valentinavalley2
20-09-19, 16:00
According to the page of Wiki posted by this Greek member:

Even a biased source like Wiki admit that these suggest.
The Pella tablet prove only that the text was written in Greek. People can rise different theories, but are simply theories. Pella tablet can not prove the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians. You are using english language in this forum. Are you an English or an American, etc?
The official language of the European Union is the English language and every year the administration of this Union produce millions of documents written in English language. Is European Union a British Empire? And there is too much talking about the BREXIT in these days.

Yes but Alexander himself declared himself a Greek. I believe Achilles wasn’t Greek, Achilles would curse Greeks he would pray to Zeus to help the Trojans against Greeks. but Alexander the Great was Greek.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Angela
20-09-19, 17:54
For goodness' sakes, for most of linguistics, the evidence can only "suggest" conclusions. NO ONE WAS AROUND TO HEAR THEM.

This is all just special pleading to find any technicality to "SUGGEST" Alexander wasn't Greek.

valentinavalley2
20-09-19, 20:03
For goodness' sakes, for most of linguistics, the evidence can only "suggest" conclusions. NO ONE WAS AROUND TO HEAR THEM.

This is all just special pleading to find any technicality to "SUGGEST" Alexander wasn't Greek.

There is no evidence to say he wasn’t Greek, apart from rumours about his mum being half barbaric, and him having non Greeks in his army along with Greeks, but that’s not very uncommon in armies.

He was Greek, if any of the “Greek” heroes turn out not to be Greek it would probably most likely be Achilles and not Alexander the Great any smart Albanian who’s studied Alexander the Great knows he was Greek and not Illyrian, unless his mother really was half Illyrian, that still makes him a Greek with Illyrian ancestry, it doesn’t take away his Greek origins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bigsnake49
24-09-19, 21:35
There is a lot of tendency among the Albanians and "Northern Macedonians" to diminish everything Greek and to claim Greek accomplishments as their own. For God's sake, St Jerome is claimed by at least 4 nationalities and he was a Roman.

valentinavalley2
24-09-19, 21:56
There is a lot of tendency among the Albanians and "Northern Macedonians" to diminish everything Greek and to claim Greek accomplishments as their own. For God's sake, St Jerome is claimed by at least 4 nationalities and he was a Roman.

Albanians don’t claim to be Greek, or Macedonians rather Albanians claim Paeonians who were an Illyrian Tribe. We also claim there are theories Alexander’s mother was half barbaric but she was also Greek from her dads side. We also claim that Troy wasn’t between Greeks but also others such as the Pelasgians, Illyrians and Thracians, of course Illyrians sided with Trojans, and Trojans are said to have visited Apollonia, in illyria.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Angela
25-09-19, 01:46
What's the genetic distance of Albanians to ancient samples from that area, i.e. from mytrueancestry.com

I'm at 10.28 to the "Illyrian/Dalmatian" sample, but there are northern Italians who are closer.

Ancient dna might indicate a more complicated story.

bigsnake49
25-09-19, 02:40
What's the genetic distance of Albanians to ancient samples from that area, i.e. from mytrueancestry.com

I'm at 10.28 to the "Illyrian/Dalmatian" sample, but there are northern Italians who are closer.

Ancient dna might indicate a more complicated story.
10.28 is pretty far away but on the other hand it's to an ancient sample.

torzio
25-09-19, 04:25
Albanians don’t claim to be Greek, or Macedonians rather Albanians claim Paeonians who were an Illyrian Tribe. We also claim there are theories Alexander’s mother was half barbaric but she was also Greek from her dads side. We also claim that Troy wasn’t between Greeks but also others such as the Pelasgians, Illyrians and Thracians, of course Illyrians sided with Trojans, and Trojans are said to have visited Apollonia, in illyria.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never heard trojans where aligned with ilyrians.....trojans and thracians yes, actually east of troas lands on the coast was thracian lands , north of trojans, where thracians, samothrace island as well as lesbos where ancient thracian lands

torzio
25-09-19, 04:30
10.28 is pretty far away but on the other hand it's to an ancient sample.
I am a north italian and i am much closer

1. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 7.349 - SZ28 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 99% match vs all users

2. Illyrian / Dalmatian (1200 BC) ..... 7.971 - I3313 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users


3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.665 - SZ36 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

4. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 9.851 - CL36 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

5. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 10.03 - SZ43 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

6. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 10.08 - NS3c (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 99% match vs all users

valentinavalley2
25-09-19, 11:00
I never heard trojans where aligned with ilyrians.....trojans and thracians yes, actually east of troas lands on the coast was thracian lands , north of trojans, where thracians, samothrace island as well as lesbos where ancient thracian lands

It’s a theory, because Paeonians were classified as Illyrians and they are often mentioned in the Iliad, so were Dardanians, and Trojans often visited Apollonia. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were connected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Salento
25-09-19, 15:52
I am a north italian and i am much closer

1. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 7.349 - SZ28 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 99% match vs all users

2. Illyrian / Dalmatian (1200 BC) ..... 7.971 - I3313 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users


3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.665 - SZ36 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

4. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 9.851 - CL36 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

5. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 10.03 - SZ43 (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 98% match vs all users

6. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 10.08 - NS3c (Click for more info) (https://mytrueancestry.com/c/main.py#)
Top 99% match vs all users



I3313 Illyrian / Dalmatian 1200 BC shared identified DNA segments

https://i.imgur.com/p1KjOHE.jpg

Nik
26-09-19, 21:05
There is no evidence to say he wasn’t Greek, apart from rumours about his mum being half barbaric, and him having non Greeks in his army along with Greeks, but that’s not very uncommon in armies.

He was Greek, if any of the “Greek” heroes turn out not to be Greek it would probably most likely be Achilles and not Alexander the Great any smart Albanian who’s studied Alexander the Great knows he was Greek and not Illyrian, unless his mother really was half Illyrian, that still makes him a Greek with Illyrian ancestry, it doesn’t take away his Greek origins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First of all, the issue is more complex and simple than we make it to be in the same time. All these tribes who lived next to each other were very similar to identical, and for sure Proto-Hellenes were brothers/cousins of the exact same stock as Proto-Illyrians and Thracians.

What made them different after 1000 years? The amount of local intermixing, assuming the Hellenes inherited far more local genes than the more Northern Illyrians and Thracians were the population could have been more scarce, but also the further South (or any direction) the more diluted would have been the blood of the tribes, e.g. the Hellenes didn't come overnight from North Eastern Europe to Southern Greece.

So considering this, personally I see an obvious connection between the local unknown culture of Greece and its appropriation by the incoming Hellenes. For sure their forefathers who dwelt more North were identical to the Illyrians and Thracians in their appearance, way of life, etc. The caste system of India comes to mind with such an example.

Now back on the topic, all those small tribes around the area of South Illyria, Paeonia, Epirus, Makedonia, Emathia, Mygdonia, Orestis, etc. were a bunch of highlanders cousins to each other. What fate brought for them later on is different depending on the situation, as some adopted the city states system of the Southern Hellenes while others remained barbaric in way of life and tongue.

Even proper Illyrians were accepted to the Olympic games and the coins from Skodra (the capital of the strongest Illyrii proprie dicti tribes) were written in Greek, yet it doesn't make them Greeks.

Did we inherit Alexander's biography book where he proudly says 100 times how Greek he was? No.

Did he spread Greek culture? Of course. How different was the Greek culture from it's neighbours? It seems not so much, they're both Indo-European with Balkan influence and right next to each other.

Was this amazing culture we are all fascinated about really Greek (Indo-European)? Maybe not, maybe partially.

Were the true Athenians and Spartans were the same? Maybe not. Maybe the Spartans descended more from pure blooded Dorians/Hellenes and were physically more Northern, while the Athenians were assimilated locals of the Mediterranean type who inherited a way more advanced culture influenced by the even more advanced Aegean, Hittite, Egyptian, Phoenician, etc. cultures.

So Alexander was a cultured rich prince with a hot temper and spirit of a ruthless yet fair and curious conqueror. He wasn't a poor Illyrian ruthless warrior whose main profession was piracy nor a well mannered sophisticated Athenien "softie".

Hope that makes sense and answers the question as we're not talking about modern nations with established borders where even if different, people of the same nation were indirectly "forced" to mix with one another and still create an identity, even genetically. Although in the Balkans luckily that's not yet the case as the nations are still very young.

bigsnake49
27-09-19, 17:11
There were 230 Greek tribes. Makednoi, the progenitors of Macedonians among them. They were a nomadic, pastoralist society that wandered around Thessaly, Epirus, Western Macedonia for centuries, before settling first around Aigai and later Pella. Other Greek tribes were also on the move sometimes displaced by stronger, more aggressive tribes.

Angela
27-09-19, 22:42
Posts have been deleted which were off topic or insulting.

This thread is now closed.