Why some people believe that Alexander the Great was not Greek when ...

[dosas]

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]

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

[dosas]

......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

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

[blevins13]

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

[dosas]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

[Angela]

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]

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

[Angela]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[dosas]

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]

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

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/thread...taly+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/thread...taly+Roman+Era

[Ownstyler]

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]

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]

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/thread...taly+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/thread...taly+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

[RagnarofMacedon]

78787 (8).jpg

Macedonian language wasn't Greek dialect...

[dosas]

The Pella Curse Tablet.

[LABERIA]

The Pella Curse Tablet.

European Union

[xzit]

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]

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.