Frequently Asked Questions on Macedonia
Compiled by
Alexandros Gerbessiotis
(e-mail address: alex@endor.harvard.edu)
(c) Copyright 1992,1993 by Alexandros Gerbessiotis.
All rights reserved.
HTML Design and minor changes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The material presented here is based on various sources. These
sources are included at the end of this document or mentioned
when first used.
In cases we need to write text in Greek the following transli-
teration of the greek alphabet will be used:
abgdezhuiklmnjoprstyfxcv
ABGDEZHUIKLMNJOPRSTYFXCV
As an example AUHNAI is spelled A Theta Eta N A I
The term Macedonia is used to describe the geographic region that
evolved into the area called Macedonia in modern Greece. This
area seems to coincide with the area called Macedonia in ancient
times.
Republic of Skopje (or Skopje in short) and Skopjans are the
terms used to describe the ex-Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia
and the various ethnic groups living there (especially the ones
who call themselves "Macedonians"). With reference to ancient
times the lands of the Republic of Skopje were divided among
various tribes, the Bardanians in the north (including the area
where the city of Skopje is presently located), the Paeonians in
the south and the Illyrians in the west.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- What were the borders of ancient Macedonia?
- When did the first hellenic tribes reside in the area later
called by them Macedonia?
- What is the meaning of the word 'Macedon'? References.
- The Macedonian state until the end of the 6th century BC.
- What were the relations of Macedonia with the other two Greek
Kingdoms of Thessaly and Epeiros?
- What were the relations between the Macedonians and the Il-
lyrians?
- What was the Macedonian form of government?
- What did ancient Greek writers write about Macedonia?
- "Hellas" and "Macedonia". When was the first
time that the
word Hellas was used to describe the country inhabited by people
belonging to hellenic (greek) tribes?
- Was the Macedonian tongue a greek dialect or not?
- "ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI" ?
- There is a reference in a work by Pausanias that may give
the impression that Macedonians, around 214-213BC, were speaking
a non-Greek language.
- Did Demosthenes believe the Macedonians were barbarians?
- Is there any reference by Demosthenes to an incident that
can lead us to conclude that he and his fellow
Athenians be-
lieved that Macedonians indeed spoke a greek dialect?
- Is it possible [ignoring historic evidence that shows that
this was not the case] that Macedonians had spoken a non-greek
language before 340BC and within a 10-20 year period every Ma-
cedonian was fluent in the attic dialect?
- Who may have 'hellenized' ancient Macedonians, if we we as-
sume, despite proof for the contrary, that they were not a greek
tribe ?
- Isocrates used the phrases "ALOFYLON
TO GENOS", "OYX
OMOFYLOY GENOYS". Do they mean "of other
tribe" or "of other
race"?
- Skopjans accuse us Macedonians in Greece of changing
the
names of our cities into Greek ones some time in the 20th century
instead of using the slavic names assigned to these cities since
"ancient" (sic) names. They claim that Edessa for example should
not be called so but VODEN instead, and Thessaloniki should be
called SOLUN.
- Skopjans claim that when Slavs descended to the Balkan pen-
insula, in the 7th century AD, Macedonians vanished and there was
a kind of 'slavicization' of Macedonia which 'gave birth' to the
"Slavic-Macedononians" as Skopjans claim they are (at least some
of them), the supposedly deserved ancestors of ancient Macedoni-
ans. Are such claims true say up to 15th century AD?
- Do the Skopjans have desires on Macedonia, Greece?
- When did 'Macedonians' of the Skopjan type first appear?
- What was the population distribution of
Macedonia, the
Republic of Skopje, and parts of Bulgaria in the years of Otto-
man rule?
- What is the nationality of the Vlachs?
- Was the Bulgarian King Samuel of Skopjan nationality as some
Skopjans claimed he was?
- What is the size of the Greek minority in the Republic of
Skopje.
- Macedonia and the (Greek) War of Independence.
- When was the first time the word ``Macedonia'' was defined
to include lands of the nowadays Rep. of Skopje?
- What were the views of the Bulgarian Exarchate on the popu-
lation composition of Macedonia.
- Did all the Greeks in Macedonia speak Greek only in the late
19th century?
- What were the events that followed the Berlin Congress of
1878?
- The Neuilly treaty of 1920.
- Communism and Macedonia.
- Bulgaria and Germany in World War II.
- What are the intentions of the Communists
still ruling
Skopje towards the region of modern-day Greece called Macedonia
since ancient times?
- Skopjan claims on Greece (continued).
- Why Skopjans use the term "Aegean macedonia"?
- What do some Skopjans claim that the population composition
of Macedonia is?
- Bulgarian statements on Skopje in the late fifties [after
the Tito-Stalin breakup].
- Skopjan minority claims.
- Are there any Slavs living in Greece? When the
last few
Slavs left Greece? Are there any Slavophone living in
Greece?
Where are they living? Who are they?
- A brief history of the Bulgarian-origin terrorist group IMRO
(Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization )
founded one
hundred years ago (1893).
- GENERAL REFERENCES
Thucydides (II 99) defined ancient Macedonia as the area extend-
ing to the east as far as the lands of mountain Paggaion, east
of river Strymon, to the south to the Thermaikos Bay, Chalcidice,
river Pineios (the border with Thessaly) and the Kambounia moun-
tains, to the north up to (including) the city of Pella, south of
the lands of Paeonians, and to the west to the mountains (Pindos,
Tymfe etc) that separate Macedonia from Epeiros and ancient Il-
lyria (today's Albania).
Macedonia, as defined by Thucydides, coincides with the region
of Macedonia of modern Greece minus some lands of the Chalcidice
prefecture.
In later dates the borders of the Macedonian State (that is, the
lands ruled by the Macedonian Kings) varied and depending on the
circumstances it extended westwards up to the Adriatic Sea,
eastwards up to river Evros and beyond, and to the north up to
the city of Lychnidon between the lakes of Brygies and Lyhnetis
[the translation of some Greek names into English may seem weird.
Blame me for this.]. References pointing to the borders of the
Macedonian state can be found in Strabo, VII.
The terms Macedonia and Macedonian State may seem analogous to
the terms Great Britain and British Empire.
The first hellenic tribes of Dorians and Achaeoi resided in Ma-
cedonia in prehistoric times, first in Emathia near mountain Ver-
mion and later expanded northwards and eastwards to cover the
lands outlined in Question 1. Herodotos mentioned that around
the 9th century BC the Macedonian State had the city of Aegae as
its capital and that either Caranos or Perdikkas was considered
the founder of the Macedonian dynasty.
[ Note: The ancient royal city of Aegae is located in modern
day Vergine in the Emathia prefecture of Greece. Excavations
which began in 1976 by the late Professor Manolis Andronikos re-
vealed that the site of the city was indeed located near Vergina
and not near Edessa as many archaeologists, Professor Andronikos
included, previously believed. It was Professor N. G. L. Ham-
mond who in 1968 first suggested that Vergina was the place to
look for Aegae, a belief peculiar even to himself at that time.
The first royal tombs in Vergina were excavated in 1976-1977 and
one of them is believed to belong to Philippos II, father of
Alexander the Great. ]
According to Herodotos, the Makednoi (Macedonians) who crossed
Doris and moved to Peloponnesos were later called Dorians. Since
the term Dorians is much more well known than the term Makednoi
we shall also use it to identify the latter people in the discus-
sion to follow.
The Dorians who formed the Macedonian state came in contact
with the local Pelasgic population whose size was much smaller
than the one residing at the sea shores and the islands of South-
ern Greece. It is for this reason that German Historian K. Bel-
loch considered the Macedonians the purest Greeks of any other
part of Greece (Gr. Geschichte, I, 1a, p92). The
Dorians(Makednoi) of Macedonia were larger in number than those
who moved southwards. This is because those who moved southwards
were reduced in number either due to attrition or to settlements
in the areas they visited along their movement to Southern
Greece.
Such a place of permanent residence for some Makednoi(Dorians)
was Doris. When these Dorians (known until then as Makednoi
only) moved to Peloponnesos they became known there as Dorians
(that is, the people [coming] from Doris).
The word Macedon (Gk: Makedvn) is very likely to come from the
greek word 'makednos' first mentioned in Homer's Odyssey (Od.
H106), and later by Herodotos, who called 'Makednon eunos' the
various Doric tribes among which he included the Macedonians
(Her. I.56, VIII.43).
The word 'Makednos' has the meaning of long, tall, and high-
lander. Some archaeologists believe that the Macedonians were
called so because they were tall. Nowadays the meaning of
'highlander' is more prevalent. This is because Macedonians used
to live early in prehistoric times in the mountains of Vermio in
Greece.
The greek words Macetia (Gk: MAKETIA) and Macetae (Gk: MAKETAI)
were also used in early times to identify Macedonia and the Ma-
cedonians.
The biblic Hettieim or Kitim and Kitiaioi originate from Maketia
and Maketai.
Hesiod in Theogonia, written in the middles of 8th century BC,
claimed that Makednos and Magnes who used to live in the lands
around mountain Olympos and Pieria were sons of Zeus and Thyias,
daughter of Deukalion. This suggests that the other Greeks of
that time believed that the Macedonians and Magnetes belonged to
the same tribe (a hellenic one).
Hellanikos, who lived at the time of Herodotos, considered Ma-
cedon son of Aeolos. Apollodoros considered Macedon son of Lykaon
and thus grandson of the king of Argos Pelasgos and Lykaon king
of Arcadians whose 50 sons became leaders of various greek
tribes. On the other hand Aelianos considered Lykaon, King of
Emathia and Pindos, son of Macedon.
Aeschylus, in Iketidai, had the king of Argos Pelasgos boasting
that his family was ruling the lands beyond Pindos and Dodoni
up to river Strymon (that is including Macedonia, the one part of
modern day Greece).
The Macedonians until the 6th century BC lived isolated from the
other Greeks a pastoral life known as transhumant pastoralism
moving their herds to the mountain pastures in the spring and to
the lowland pastures in the winter (see N. G. L. Hammond).
Their language was affected by the way of their life and was not
as linguistically developed as that of Athens. Macedonians built
their houses on hilltop and well-protected areas and retained the
lifestyle of the original Dorians possibly emphasized by the need
of intermittent wars needed to preserve their own existence.
A German historian and linguist, O. Hoffmann, considered Ma-
cedonians a greek tribe that first lived in the mountains of Pin-
dos then moved towards the lands of river Haliakmon and in some
unknown time towards the valley of river Axios.
The first contact between the Macedonians and other Greeks
(those of Chalcidice) occurred at the end of the 6th century BC
when Amyntas I, father of Alexander I, conquered Anthemounta in
Chalcidice. This contact terminates the isolationism of the Ma-
cedonian State and signifies a new era of participation in the
events taking place in the hellenic world by forging alliances
with various city-states, becoming an enemy of other ones, and
switching sides, as fit to the interests of the State.
There are some people who advocate the thesis that the Macedoni-
ans were not Greek. An English archaeologist, St. Casson, ob-
served that it was difficult to give a definition of what could
be considered 'hellenic'. If one, according to him, included in
such a definition everything found north or south of the
Korinthos bay (in Peloponnesos, Southern Greece) between the 10th
and 8th century BC, then Macedonia should be considered greek.
The people, according to Casson, living in Macedonia were using
the same jewels with those living in Sparta, Olympia, Delphoi,
Aegina, and Argos. This at least proves the close relations of
the people living in these areas in the first centuries of the
1st millenium BC.
The recent excavations in Vergina confirm the conclusions of Cas-
son for the remaining centuries.
Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly were all inhabited by Greek
tribes. Epeiros, Macedonia and Thessaly had more in common than
any other Greek state. All three were kingdoms [monarchies], a
form of government highly disliked by the Greeks in the South
[Sparta being a sole exception had two kings]. For Epeiros and
Macedonia monarchy was the result of the pastoral life which
forced people to live in areas surrounded by mountains and be
isolated from the other Greeks.
Despite references by Thucydides that the Epeirotians were not
Greek, excavations in Epeiros in the 1950s proved such claims of
Thucydides to be totally untrue, since it can now be proved that
Molossians, Athamanians, Chaones and Thesprotians and other peo-
ple living in Epeiros [known collectively as Epeirotians] were
Greek, speaking Greek and writing in Greek throughout the life-
time of Thucydides and even before that according to the archaeo-
logical evidence found so far.
Ancient Greeks (Iliad P.234) believed that Dodoni in Epeiros was
the center of the Hellenic world and that the names Hellas and
Hellenes were first given to the people of Epeiros also called
Graecoi, the root of the English word 'Greek'. For more details
we refer to Aristotle's Meteorologica 352a, 34.
Macedonians were in close contacts with both the Thessalians and
the Epeirotians. Marriages among the members of the royal fami-
lies of the three kingdoms were common. Olympias, mother of Alex-
ander the Great, was a Molossian princess. Molossians believed
that the founder of their tribe was Neoptolemos son of homeric
Achilles. Macedonians and Epeirotians were many times allies in
wars against their common enemy, the Illyrians. Diodoros (XV 13)
mentioned that in a single battle following an Illyrian invasion
of Macedonia 15,000 Epeirotians were killed, a quite high
number, by the Greek standards of that time.
The Illyrians were Indoeuropeans and used to live in nowadays Al-
bania and the western-northwestern part of the Republic of
Skopje. They were not a greek tribe. Nowadays Albanians can be
considered descendants of the ancient Illyrians although many
other people lived in Illyria in various times (such as Greeks,
Latins, Germans, Slavs, and Turks). The modern albanian language
seems to have greek elements but these elements were most prob-
ably introduced in the older illyrian language during the hel-
lenistic and roman periods and later, in the byzantine times,
when Illyrians appeared to be speaking Greek.
Various authors have supported the thesis that Illyrians and Ma-
cedonians belonged to the same (non-greek) tribe and spoke the
same (non-greek) language. Given that it has been proved beyond
any reasonable doubt (see following questions) that the language
spoken by ancient Macedonians was a greek dialect such claims are
not true. An ancient writer Polyvios (XXVII 8,9) wrote that Ma-
cedonians were using translators in their contacts with the Il-
lyrians, which implies that they were not speaking the same
language.
Illyrians used to live up to the hellenistic and roman years a
primitive life raiding neighboring areas. Raids by Illyrians,
whenever they were able to cross the mountain passes, in Ma-
cedonia and Epeiros were frequent [See also Question 5]. In the
early 4th century BC, when the succession to the Macedonian
throne was problematic Illyrians invaded Macedonia and occupied
most of the lands of the Macedonian State. They were driven out
of the State only with the combined efforts of Macedonians,
Epeirotians, Thessalians and the settlers of Chalcidici.
It was mentioned in a previous question that the Macedonian State
was a kingdom. The form of government reminded that found in
Iliad and Odyssey. The rule of the Macedonian king was not abso-
lute and his 'hetairoi', as the Macedonian soldiers were called,
were consulting the king sometimes quite vociferously. It was not
uncommon even for Alexander the Great to have to convince his Ma-
cedonian soldiers for his future actions and to request their ap-
proval. The institution of 'hetairoi' had its roots in Homer
(Iliad D 204, 532, E 663, Z 170,260) where the Myrmidon soldiers
of Achilles were called so.
Aeschylus (Iketidai, 250) and Herodotus (V 22) believed that
Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Herodotos claimed that the
Macedonians (called at that time Makednoi) who moved to Pelopon-
nesos from Doris were later called Dorians.
[The English translation of the works by Herodotus we use is due
to A. D. Godley and published by Harvard University Press
in the US, and Willian Heineman Ltd in Great Britain as part of
the Loeb Classical Library]
In Herodotus
Book I, 56 (page 53) it is mentioned "These races, Ionian and
Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian
and the second an Hellenic people. The Pelasgian stock has never
yet left its habitation, the Hellenic has wandered often and
afar. For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land
of Phthia, then in the time of Dorus son of Hellen the country
called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus; driven by the Cadmeans
from this Histiaean country it settled about Pindus in the parts
called Macednian; thence again it migrated to Dryopia, and at
last came from Dryopia to Peloponnesos, where it took the name of
Dorian".
Elsewhere, VIII-43 (referring to the naval battle in Salamis)
Herodotos wrote
"The Peloponnesians that were with the fleet were, firstly, the
Lacedaemonians, with sixteen ships, and the Corinthians with the
same number of ships as at Atemisium; the Sicyonians furnished
fifteen, the Epidaurians ten, the Troezinians five, the people
of Hermione three; all these, except the people of Hermione were
of Dorian and Macedonian stock, and had last come from Erineus
and Pindus and the Dryopian region. The people of Hermione are
Dryopians, driven by Heracles and the Malians from the country
now called Doris.". In another passage Herodotos described how
the Macedonian state had been founded (VIII,136-138).
There is one passage in Thucydides that describees the Molossians
and other Epeirotian tribes among the 'barbarians'. It was
proved following the excavations in Epeiros in 1950-1960 that
the Molossians and other Epeirotian tribes were Greek, speaking
Greek, and writing in Greek well before Thucydides' time. Thus
Thucydides was wrong for these tribes. He was also wrong if he
claimed, as some translators allege, that Macedonians had not
been a greek tribe. Thucydides had also accused the Eurytanes,
another Greek tribe, of being barbarians for their bad and
improper use of the greek language and their aboriginal customs.
The misinterpreted passage of Thucydides is given below.
In Thucydides IV,124,1 (Loeb edition by C.F. Smith) the following
passage appeared.
"The total hellenic force was about three thousand; the cavalry
that went with them, Macedonians and Chalcidians, were all told
a little less than one thousand, and there was besides a great
multitude of barbarians".
[In Gk: "MAKEDONVN JYN XALKIDEYSIN OLIGVN ES XILIOYS, KAI ALLOS
OMILOS TVN BARBARVN POLYS"]
This passage is sometimes misinterpreted so that Macedonians and
Chalcidians for that matter appear to be considered barbarians
by Thucydides. That this is not so can follow from an analysis
of this passage. First, no one ever considered the Chalcidians,
whose number is added to that of Macedonians, barbarians. Second,
Thucydides distinguishes Macedonians and Chalcidians on the one
hand and barbarians on the other by using the adjective few
(Gk: OLIGVN) for the former and many for the latter (Gk:POLY).
These two adjective clearly indicate a contradistinction.
Euripides lived many years and died in Macedonia. Many of his
tragedies were written and played while he was in Macedonia.
This would have been impossible, had the Macedonians been
'barbarians' (non-Greek). This is because in one of these
tragedies, 'Iphigeneia in Aulis', the Greek superiority over
the barbarians is emphasized. The following epigram in memory of
Euripides which is attributed by some authors to Thucydides may
give us more light to the actual beliefs of the people of that
time (and possibly Thucydides)
"MNHMA MEN ELLAS APAS' EYRIPIDOU, OSTEA D' ISXEI
GH MAKEDVN, H GAR DEJATO TERMA BIOU".
In brief, Macedonia, the land that holds the bones of Euripides
is considered part of Greece.
Polyvios (VII 11,4, V 103,9, XVIII, XXXiV 7,13 , VII 9,1 IX 37,7)
clearly stated his belief that Macedonia was greek, part of
Greece, and considered Achaeans and Macedonians of the same race.
The same beliefs were shared by Strabo as well as Titus Livius,
to name a few other writers. It is also interesting to note that
Polyvios describing the Balkan Peninsula he says that it includes
Greece, Illyria and Thrace. One can thus deduce that he includes
Macedonia in Greece. Had he not done so, he could have listed her
separately.
Plutarchos(Flam. XI) describes Titus Contus Flamininus during the
Isthmia celebrations claimed that Macedonia prevented barbarian
barbarian attacks against Southern Greece.
Arrhianos' work is full of references to "Macedonia and the other
Greece".
Although the words Hellas and Hellen (and the other two English
equivalents Greece and Greek) have been used to describe the
country and the people of modern day Greece, their use in ancient
times differed in various periods of time.
The usage of these words to describe the various hellenic
tribes as a whole was unknown to the people of the Homeric poems.
In Iliad, the words Hellen (Gk: ELLHN) and Hellas (Gk: ELLAS) de-
fined a small greek tribe and the land inhabited by them in
Thessaly. (Iliad B' 683) "OI T' EIXON FUIHN HD' ELLADA KALLI-
GYNAIKA, MYRMIDONES DE KALEYNTO KAI ELLHNES KAI
AXAIOI". At some earlier line (B' 530) there is a reference to
the word "PANELLHNVN". This word since the time of Aristarchos
has been considered to be absent in the original poem and was ad-
ded at some later time.
Plutarchos (Lykourgos 6) wrote about the message brought from
Delphoi to Sparta by Lykourgos " DIOS (S)ELLANIOU KAI AUHNAS
(S)ELLANIAS IERON IDRYSAMENON...". Because of this reference, it
is believed that the words "Hellas" and "Hellen" became more
widely used after the dispersion of the Dorians. It is also pos-
sible that they were sacred words possibly related to the
(S)elles priests of the Dodonian Zeus.
[the parenthesized (S) is to mean that the S say in the word SEL-
LANIOY was later dropped from use thus giving ELLANIOY.]
The words Hellas and Hellen became more widely used some time in
the 8-7th century BC and in the 5th century BC we find the first
references of them to describe the lands and the Greek people
living south of river Peneios. In the 4th century BC and later
they were also used to describe the various hellenic (greek)
tribes as a whole. The passage from Herodotos (I,56), mentioned
in a previous Question indicated another use of these words, that
of distinguishing Ionian Greeks from Dorian Greek.
Since the Macedonians were pretty much isolated from the Greeks
of Southern Greece up to the early 5th century BC, the words
'Hellas' and 'Hellen' were not used by them to describe collec-
tively the lands of various hellenic tribes, as this was also
true for all the other greek tribes until the 8-7th century BC.
Hence when the Macedonians initiated contacts with other Greek
tribes they continued to use the word 'Macedonian' to describe
themselves instead of the collective 'Hellen(es)'. This is the
reason various authors (such as Isocrates, Philippos 154) use the
term "Hellenes" and "Macedonians" on the one hand and 'barbari-
ans" on the other to distinguish the greek tribes (of Macedoni-
ans and other Hellenes) from the non-greek ones (barbarians).
The intellectual Athenians of the 4th century gave yet another
definition for the word "Hellen" (Isocrates, Panegyrikos 50 ),
that of the person having an Athenian educational background,
"... the name 'Hellenes' suggests no longer the people but an in-
telligence, and that the title 'Hellenes' is applied rather to
those who share our [note: the 'our' refers to the Athenians]
culture than to those who share a common blood".
It is also believed (N.G.L. Hammond,page 6) that the distinction
made by authors of Macedonians and Hellenes differentiates only
the descendants of Hellen from the descendants of Thyia, as in
the genealogy provided by Hesiod. According to Hesiod, Deucalion
had a son Hellen and a daughter Thyia. The ancestors of Hellen
were Dorus, Xouthus (whose son was Ion) and Aeolus. Thyia had
two sons Magnes and Macedon. According to Hellanikos on the oth-
er hand, Macedon was a son of Aeolus.
Yes it was a greek (doric) dialect.
We shall break this discussion into two parts. The first one
consists of evidence found prior to the excavations in Vergina by
the late Professor Manolis Andronikos. The second one consists
of evidence found mainly since then. This evidence leads beyond
any doubt to the conclusion that the Macedonians spoke a greek
dialect which was basically a doric one, it borrowed words and
was influenced by the aeolic dialect spoken by the Thessalian
neighbours of Macedonians, and also borrowed few words of Phrygic
and Illyrian origin.
The Thessalian (aeolic) influence convinced some researchers that
the genealogy of Makedon given by Hellanikos (see Question 3) was
more accurate than that given by Hesiodos.
In the volume "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civili-
zation" Professor M. Sakellariou examined the words known to be
unique in the macedonian dialect of greek and related their root
to the roots of words of other Greek dialects. Summarizing, many
of the words that were previously considered of non-Greek origin
were also in (rare) use in other parts of Greece.
There have been made various claims that the Macedonians up to
some time in the 4th century BC used to speak a non-Greek
language and at that time (around 340BC) were 'hellenized' by the
Athenians and thus learned how to speak the attic dialect. These
claims can be easily proved to be totally false even if one uses
only pre-Vergina evidence.
Below we present various views on the topic.
(I) Pre-Vergina evidence.
Fr. Sturz (in "De Dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina", 1808) con-
cluded that the Macedonian tongue was a greek doric dialect. Au-
gust Flick, O. Hoffmann, Otto Abel, and Karl Belloch, as well as
Georg Busolt, Fritz Geyer, Ulrich Wilcken, Helmuth Berve, Gustave
Glotz, P. Roussel, P Pouquet, A Jarde, R Cohen, J. Bury,, St.
Casson, W. Heurtley, D. Hogarth, J. de Waele, just to name a few
(non-Greek) historians and archaeologists, shared the same views.
On the other hand, there were some historians and writers such as
M. Vasmer (Revue du ministere d' instruction publique de Russie,
1908), P Kretschmer and Bulgarians G. Kazarow and Vlad. Georgiev
that rejected this thesis. Georgiev attempted to show that Ma-
cedonians were member of a Thracoillyrian nation thus speaking
illyrian, a non-greek language. That this was not the case was
shown in Question 6. G Weigand also shared the opinions of
these authors. G. Hatzidakes rejected these theses in various
texts and among them in "Zur Abstammung der alten Makedonier
(eine ethnologische Studie)". For more details we refer to
Daskalakis (page 104).
Coins found in Macedonia have inscriptions in greek and are dated
from the early 5th BC century. Such found coins are the following
ones.
i) An octadrachm of Alexander I (circa 478BC).
ii) Coins from the reign of Archelaos (413-399BC) and
Amyntas III (393-370BC).
iii) the ring of Sindos with the word Gk:'DVRON' (Gift)
dated around 480BC.
These coins are dated well before 340BC, the time of the alleged
"hellenization" of Macedonians.
Macedonians had their own month names. If one accepts the thesis
that Macedonian were 'hellenized' by the Athenians some time
around 340BC hen one can safely assume that these names must be
identical to those used by the Athenians. If not, they would show
the linguistic roots of the Macedonians prior to their alleged
who claimed that Dorians and Macedonians belonged to the same
tribe (Herodotos claimed that the Macedonians who descended to
southern Greece after crossing Doris became known as Dorians) and
thus Macedonians were a Greek tribe, the month names of Macedoni-
ans were Greek and were different from the ones used by the
Athenians. The list of these names used by the Macedonians and
the list of month names of the Lacedaemonians (who were Dorians)
have a common intersection, the names Artemisios and Apellaios.
Persians when first occupied Macedonia during their conquests in
Europe around 510-480BC described the people living in Macedonia
as "The Greeks wearing a shield-like hat" and who were non other
than the Macedonians themselves. This incident occurred long be-
fore the alleged "hellenization" of Macedonians.
It is believed that the worship of the 12 Olympian Gods had
started in Macedonia (as related to their place of ``residence''.
Mountain Olympos is located in Pieria and both these names are
Greek. It is claimed the magnificent view of Mt. Olympos when
viewed from Macedonia, while its view from the south (Thessaly)
is hindered by other mountains, inspired the Macedonians and
from the the other Greeks to consider this mountain the residence
of their Gods.
Athenian comedies used to make fun of the idioms and the di-
alects of other Greeks like those of Spartans, Boeoteans and of
course Macedonians. Some time in the 5th century BC a comedy en-
titled "Pausanias or Macedonians?" written by the Athenian
Strattis was played in Athens. In various parts of this comedy a
Macedonian explains how various words of the attic dialect are
called in the Macedonian dialect.
It can be inferred from these references that Macedonians spoke a
Doric greek dialect. In a work of the ancient writer Athenaios,
one can find samples of the work of Strattis. In an article writ-
ten by A. Koerte quoting Athenaios VII,323b we can find in that
comedy of Strattis the following conversation: "STRATTIS GOYN EN
MAKEDOSIN EROMENOU TINOS ATTIKOY VS AGNOOYNTOS TO ONOMA KAI
LEGONTOS: H SFYRAINA D' ESTI TIS;" FHSIN O ETEROS " KESTRAN MEN
YMMES VTTIKOI KIKLHSKETE".
In English (as it appeared in the article by M. Sakellariou) an
Athenian asks "sledfish, what do you mean?" and a Macedonian re-
plies "wha ye Attics ca' a hammer-fush, ma freen" i.e. in my own
words, which i hope do not change the meaning of this phrase
"what you Attics call a hammer-fush, (we call a) freen".
One can appreciate the value of the Macedonian's reply for the
object under discussion fi he does not forget that as is clear
from many passages in Aristophanes the attic comedians made their
non-Greeks speak broken Greek with an a mixture of barbarian
words (some of them imaginary) while Lacedaemonians, Boeotians,
Macedonians and other Greeks spoke their own dialects. The
Macedonian's reply is in good Greek with dialect (ymmes, sfyrai-
na) and archaizing elements (kiklhskete). Both YMMES and SFYRAINA
are not attic words but they are Greek. Therefore claims that
Athenians "hellenized" Macedonians seem to be baseless. It is
also noted that these words were used by the Macedonians some
time in the 5th century BC that is at least 50 years before their
alleged hellenization.
An ambassador from Macedonia speaking to the Aetolians in 200BC
observed that the Macedonians, the Aetolians and the Arkanians
all spoke the same language.
The expressions "aneboa makedonisti", "makedonisti th fvnh" have
been taken by opponents of the thesis that the Macedonians were
Greeks as indicating that their language differed from Greek. One
can claim that these formulation indicate a Greek dialect (cf [In
Greek] "aiolizein th fvnh", "attikizei", "attikisti",
"boivtiazein","dvrizein" etc).
To those who are more interested in the characteristics of the
dialect of Greek spoken by the Macedonians read the article by M.
Sakellariou in "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civil-
ization" are available on request. In general few words of non-
greek origin were used in the Macedonian dialect of greek an most
of these words were proper names. Some of them were names of
Egyptian deities worshipped in Macedonia after the 3rd century
BC. Even in the times of Herodotos (II 153, III 27, IV 155, VI
27) barbarian (non-greek) names were in use by Greeks. Strabo
VII 7,1 (C321) also mentioned various names of non-greek origin
such as KEKROPS (Greek: KEKROC) KODROS, AIKLOS (Gk: A.I.KLOS),
KOTHOS (Gk: KOUOS), DRYMAS (Gk: DRYMAS) KRINAKOS (Gk: KRINAKOS).
It should also be mentioned that many place-names in ancient Ma-
cedonia (and modern-day Macedonia of Greece) are of Greek origin
and of use in other areas of Greece as well. Such names are: Ar-
gos (Gk: ARGOS), also found in Thessaly and Peloponnesos.
Arnissa(Gk: ARNISSA) reminds of Arnen (Gk: ARNHN) of Thessaly
and Boeotia. Arethoussa (Gk: AREUOYSSA) also found in Ithaca,
Boeotia, Syracuses. Prasias a lake and a city name is also found
in Athens as PRASIAI, and many other ones (such as Oedomenae, Pe-
tra, Fila, Gortynia, Pynda etc).
Many other words of the Macedonian dialect are of ancient doric
origin such as [the macedonian-doric and attic equivalent names
are shown in Greek only]: santoria = svthria, zereuron = bereu-
ron , barauron xarvn = xairvn arkon = argos dvraj = uvraj danon =
uanon , uanatos kadaron = kauaron sarisa = dory (from the verb
sairv, sarvnv) etc. Some other words of the macedonian dialect
of greek can be traced back in the Homeric poems: amalos =
apalos indea = meshmbrian ( indion hmar) leykanih = laimos lisson
= omalon , leion (lygos = rabdos).
Fore more details see the work of Geyer Fr., where he showed
that the names of macedonian months and festivities although they
could not be found anywhere in classic Greece were archaic Greek
ones and showed the doric origin of the Macedonians.
The fact that Macedonians participated in various celebrations
like the Amphictyonies and the Phocica also show the belief of
themselves and the other Greeks in their origin. It is for these
reasons that Professor F. Papazoglou in "Historija Hellenizma",
Belgrade, 1967 claimed that Macedonians were Greeks, a claim also
supported by Heinz Kreissing in "Povijest Hellenizma", Zagreb,
1988.
Prof. Arnold Toynbee in "The Greeks and their Heritages", Oxford
University Press, 1981 also claimed that ancient Macedonians were
Greeks.
(II) Post-Vergina evidence.
The excavations in Vergina have brought to light many
tombs that buried ancient Macedonians. There are inscription on
these tombs with the names of the deceased person and those of
his/her progenitors. All names found so far have been Greek.
Given that some of these tombs are dated from the 350BC era,
one can conclude that by some time in late 5th century Macedoni-
-ans have been naming their children with Greek names. And si-
-nce contacts with the Athenians were rare to non-existent
at that time one can safely conclude that claims that Macedoni-
-ans were not Greeks and were only 'helllenized' in the 4th cen-
-tury BC are false.
Published information on the excavations in Vergina is
mostly in the form of papers submitted to various conferences.
Those who claim that the Macedonians were not a Greek tribe con-
sidered this expression as evidence that the language of the Ma-
cedonians was a non-greek one. Previous questions (Question 10)
discussed the refutation of this thesis in more detail. A dis-
cussion of this phrase only will be dealt here. It is based on
that of the book by Daskalakis (see references).
The expression "ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI" was first found in the works
of Plutarchos (ALEXANDORS LI, 4) and that of the Latin Kurtius
Rufus. The phrase is found in the following passage [ In Greek:
"TVN DE SVMATOFYLAKVN ENOS, ARISTOFANOYS, FUASANTOS YFELESUAI,
KAI TVN ALLVN PERIEXONTVN KAI DEOMENVN, ANAPHDHSAS (cf Alexan-
dros) ANEBOA MAKEDONISTI KALVN TOYS YPASPISTAS (TOYTO D' HN SYM-
BOLO UORYBOU MEGALOU), KAI TON SALPIGKTHN EKELEYSE SAHMAINEIN,
KAI PYJ EPAISEN, VS DIATRIBONTA KAI MH BOYLOMENON..." ]
On the other hand Arrhianos, whose sources included lost works
of Alexander's co-fighters and eye witnesses, describing this ep-
isode that resulted in the death of Kleitos used the following
phrase: " ALEJANDROS DE EBOA ANAKALVN TOYS YPASPISTAS". No
reference to MAKEDONISTI appeared in Arrhianos' version of the
episode. This may lead to the conclusion that the word "MAKEDON-
ISTI" was somehow added at some later time, or the interpretation
that has been given to it by some translators was not the one in-
tended by Plutarchos. It is also noted that references to the
expression "Macedonia and the other Greece" are numerous in his
work.
In Plutarchos' rendition of the episode the distinction between
ANEBOA (called, shouted, roared) and KALVN (calling) is evident.
Given the explanatory statement "TOYTO D' HN SYMBOLO UORYBOY
MEGALOY" ('this was a sign of great noise') it can be concluded
that ANEBOA referred to some kind of password used by ALEXANDER
the Great to call his YPASPISTAS (sort of bodyguards) in cases of
emergencies only, that is why its use caused great disturbance.
The absence of MAKEDONISTI in Arrhianos' rendition seems to agree
with this interpretation. Let alone the fact that following this
incident Alexander talked to his YPASPISTAS in attic greek.
The expression "aneboa makedonisti", if this indeed appeared in
the original text, is no more different from other similar ex-
pression "aiolizein th fvnh", "attikizei", "attikisti",
"boivtiazein","dvrizein" which were used to denote various di-
alects of ancient greek.
A Latin writer Kurtius (other than the aforementioned Kurtius
Rufus) gave a description of this episode similar to that of Ar-
rhianos. No reference to MAKEDONISTI was made by him and he only
wrote "that Alexander ordered via a trumpet call his soldiers to
gather outside the royal tent".
There is another passage in the work of Kurtius Rufus describing
the trial of Filotas which is being used by proponents of the
thesis that the Macedonians spoke a non-greek language. Allegedly
Filotas during his trial used the attic dialect forcing Alexander
to accuse him of not using his(Filotas's) mother tongue (ma-
cedonian, supposedly a non-greek language). Subsequently, Alex-
ander also accused Filotas of being unwilling to learn how to
speak his mother tongue! This passage contains several contrad-
ictions notwithstanding the one that Filotas was not capable of
speaking his mother tongue. Alexander on the other hand, alleged-
ly accuses Filotas of detesting the macedonian dialect but ac-
cording to Filotas' reply this accusation is spelled by Alexander
in the attic rather than the macedonian dialect! This fact alone,
had this episode really happened, could have been used against
Alexander himself as a counter argument and accusation. It is
this reference to Alexander that made H. Bardon, publisher of
Rufus's works to wonder how it was possible for Alexander to
fall in such a contradiction and to accuse others of something
that he himself was fighting for.
Neither Arrhianos, who lived closer to the era this episode oc-
curred, nor Plutarchos present this incident mentioned in the
work of Kurtius Rufus. H. Bardon, French publisher of Rufus's
works (pub. Belles Lettres vol 1 page 201 note 1) commenting on
the alleged speech of Filotas said that Kurtius Rufus was accus-
tomed to rhetoric artifices and as a result historic truth suf-
fered in that part of his work. All in all it can be safely con-
cluded that this passage was more of a product of the rhetoric
talents of Rufus thus attributing to Filotas a speech Filotas
never gave rather than presenting the actual events. Writers who
lived well before Rufus and close to the time of the incident
were not aware of such a speech by Filotas
Advocates of the thesis that the Macedonian spoke a non-greek
language claim that this language was spoken by them up to some
time in mid 4th century BC. At that time Macedonians within few
years were fully hellenized and since then they have been speak-
ing Greek.
[Long but relevant Parenthesis. Skip it if not interested:
Some of these advocates accept a Skopjan point of view that all
Macedonians perished and thus vanished when Slavs first appeared
in the Balkan peninsula in the 7th century AD. All of a sudden
these new Slavs became heir-apparents of the Macedonians, were
granted presumably by Marshall Tito the exclusive right to be
called 'Macedonians' and named the Bulgarian idiom also consist-
ing of Greek, Turkish, and Albanian words formed at least ~1000
years after their descent to the Balkans "the Macedonian
language".
Some of them, possibly all, claim that this Slavic origin
language was the language spoken by the Macedonians before their
alleged the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced to these and other
Slavs along with many greek words by two Macedonian(Greek) broth-
ers, Kontantinos (later called Cyril) and Methodios from Thes-
saloniki. It is quite interesting to know how these Macedonian
brothers escaped the fate of other fellow Macedonians and didn't
perish during the descent of Slavs in the Balkan peninsula, as
the advocates of Skopjans claimed that it had happened.]
According to Pausanias (Messenians IV 29, 1 ) the residents of
Messene a night around 214-213BC first thought that the Lacedae-
monians had attacked them. Later, by the arms and the voices,
realized that those who attacked them were soldiers led by king
Demetrios. Since at that time a Demetrios was King of Macedonia,
it was assumed that the attackers were Macedonians. Some authors
claimed that the 'voices' reference was to mean that the Ma-
cedonians (attackers) were speaking a non-greek language at that
time, an argument not accepted for the Macedonians of that time
by almost everyone.
Later on, it was realized that the Demetrios in question was not
the king of Macedonia, son of Philippos E', but Demetrios the
Pharian, an Illyrian, who was later killed during this campaign
against Messene.
No. Proponents of the thesis that Macedonians spoke a non-greek
language accept (usually...) that the Macedonian kings were
Greeks but were ruling non-Greek people. Given the evidence that
has been found in the past years from archaeological excavations
they have started claiming that the kings and the upper-class
had been Greek-speakers but the lower class was not.
Now to explain the "NO". One may claim that it should have been a
"YES" and they would point to the "To Philippos" speech of the
orator where he claimed that from these barbarian Macedonians one
could not even buy slaves. I will let Professor A. Holm in his
work "The history of Greece from its commencement to the close of
the independence of the Greek nation", translated from German,
London New York, Macmillan, 1894-1898, Volume III, page 206 to
explain this passage from the speech of Demosthenes:
"That the Greeks did not consider the Macedonians as barbarians
is proved involuntarily by Demosthenes (To Philippos 3, 31) where
he states that "OYD ANDRAPODON SPOYDAION HN PROTEROY" from
Macedonia, which stripped of its rhetoric means the Macedonians
did not provide the Greeks with slaves, the meaning of which of
course was that the Macedonians were not considered barbarians,
like the Thracians, Phrygians..."
Given this, the discussion below seems to be redundant.
Demosthenes, an Athenian orator and politician in various
speeches of his and most notably in Olynthiakos G' and later,
when it was very clear to him that the power of Athens was fading
away and Macedonia was the new power in the hellenic world, ac-
cused Philippos II of many things including that of being bar-
barian. This is not surprising for Demosthenes who spent his
whole life advocating the superiority of Athens over the other
hellenic states, even if that required that some Greek city-
states were to be destroyed or to suffer for Athens to remain the
leader of Greece [See, For the Megalopolitans,5].
In his Third Olynthiakos, 16, Dmeosthenes wrote "Is he (Philip-
pos) not our enemy? Are not our possessions in his hands? Is he
not a barbarian? Is he not anything that you choose to call him?
In God's name, when we have let everything go, when we have all
but put everything into his hands, shall we then inquire at large
who is responsible for it all?" There are no explicit accusations
of Macedonians as a whole of being so (barbarians). Given that
such an assertion against Philippos is shared by noone and given
so many references in antiquity to his descent [Herodotos, Thu-
cydides, Isocrates, Hesiodos, Hellanikos] in various texts any
other discussion on this question seems pointless. In one trans-
lation of this speech by John Edwin Santys in "The first Philip-
pic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes", Macmillan and Co, the
translator commented on this passage Argos [Herodotos VIII 137,
IX 45, Thucydides II 99,2, V 80,2] and one of Philip's ances-
tors, Alexander A', had as a Greek been allowed to compete at
the Olympic games [Herodotos V 22]. Demosthenes, however, in his
hatred of Philip, never acknowledges his Greek descent. ... of
breath as he gasps out this final and comprehensive phrase of vi-
tuperation. In such a spasmodic utterance no one need be
surprised either at the presence of hiatus or at the concurrence
of several short syllables". Those who believe that this phrase
of Demosthenes is not a term of abuse but truth are those who be-
lieve that President-elect Clinton is indeed 'Bozo' as Presint
Bush claimed, which I doubt that even President Bush believes.
There is also another reason that this accusation against Philip-
pos on behalf of Demosthenes was more of a figure of speech than
anything else.
Demosthenes's mother (or his maternal grandmother) was a Skythi-
an, a non-Greek anf thus a non-Athenian. Had his accusation been
taken seriously we could have been accused and for a good reason
of being a barbarian himself.
In fact Aeschines (On the Embassy, 78) expressed this opinion by
saying ".... KAI TAYTA, V DHMOSUENES, EK TVN NOMADVN SKYUVN TO
PROS MHTROS VN GENOS", that is, "you, Demosthenes, a descendant
through your mother of the nomad Skythians" as well as (Against
Ctesiphon, 172) "TA D' APO THS MHTROS [DHMOSUENHS] SKYUHS, BAR-
BAROS, ELLHNIZVN TH FVNH" that is, "and by his mother's side
[Demosthenes is] a Scythian, a Greek speaking Barbarian", and
earlier in that passage Aeschines accused Demothenes of being a
slanderer "EJ' HS YMIN O PERIERGOS KAI SYKOFANTHS [DEMOSTHENES]
GEGENHTAI". [Some authors believe that Kleovouli, mother of
Demosthenes, was daughter of Gylon who settled in Crimaea and
married a Scythian woman.]
Let alone the fact that Demosthenes, an 'honorable' Athenian ci-
tizen, was bribed later by the Persians (barbarians) to write
speeches against Philippos and at the same time was also accus-
ing Philippos of bribing Athenians and various Athenians of being
bribed by Philippos. Demosthenes would also look very silly
since another Athenian, Isocrates, in, To Philippos,108 wrote
considered Philippos an Hellen and urged him to unite all Hel-
lenes and lead them in a war against the Barbarians.
In one of his speeches, On the Embassy 305, Demosthenes in his
effort to accuse orator Aeschines of inconsistent and possibly
traitorous behavior accused Aeschines of calling Philippos 'bar-
barian' and 'devil'. In his Third Philippic, 31, Demosthenes ac-
cused Philippos of being "he is a pestilent Macedonian, from
whose country it used not to be possible to buy even a slave of
any value" [There were no slave in the Macedonian state as op-
posed to other greek city-states]. On the other hand in the Third
Olynthiac Demosthenes commended the Athenians on extracting
10,000 talents from Macedonia and bringing them into the Acropo-
lis many years earlier, in the fifth century BC.
Accusations by Aeschines on the past and present behavior of
Demosthenes such as of inflicting wounds on himself and bringing
suit for malicious assault, (in Against Ctesiphon, 212), of
becoming a teacher in order to extract large amounts of money
from his pupils (in Against Timarchus, 171), of taking money
from his clients for writing speeches to be delivered in court
and then revealing the contents of these speeches to their op-
ponents (in On the Embassy, 165), of belittling young Alexander
by claiming that he would prove incompetent and would never stir
out of Macedonia (Against Ctesiphon 160), of later seeking favor
from Alexander (same,162), of his insincerity and cowardice
(against Ctesiphon 150-152), are omitted.
The following remark made by an ancient writer commenting on
Demosthenes's accusation of Philippos (Olynthiakos G' 16) being a
barbarian highlights the beliefs of all other Greeks as well as
the real beliefs of Demosthenes: "YBRISAI TOYTON (meaning FILIP-
PON DEMOSUENHS) BOYLOMENOS KALEIN BARBARON, EPEI <EI> TO ALHUES
SKOPHSEI, EYRHSEI AYTON ELLHNAN ARGEION KAI APO HRAKLEOYS TO
GENOS KATAGOMENON, VS PANTES OI ISTORIKOI MARTYROYSIN...". In
short the accusation on behalf of Demosthenes was just a slander
since every historian at that time knew that Philippos was Greek
in descent.
Yes. Demosthenes in a speech of his (in Greek: PERI THS
PARAPRESBEIAS[On the Embassy?] 197,229) described an incident in
which Frynonas, an Athenian, while traveling to Olympia had his
luggage taken by Macedonian soldiers. Frynonas acted later as an
Athenian ambassador to Philippos II. Philippos II ordered his
soldiers to return the taken property to Frynonans and apologized
for his soldiers not knowing that that time was a period of re-
ligious festivities. Had the Macedonian soldiers not spoken a
greek dialect Philippos II would have used that as an excuse,
Demosthenes would have been very keen to pointing this out in his
speech, and taken up with great delight, as we may guess, the op-
portunity to accuse not only Philippos but also his soldiers of
barbarian behavior. Nevertheless, he didn't do that because he
knew that the Macedonians spoke a greek dialect.
No lack of understanding between the Macedonians and the Atheni-
ans at that time (at the time that the alleged "hellenization" of
Macedonians was about to begin) has been reported in any ancient
text.
Demosthenes, as an ambassador of Athens visited Macedonia twice.
This happened before his now famous (or infamous) speeches
against Philippos. During his two visits and afterwards never
complained of Macedonians being "barbarians", or speaking a non-
greek language. On the contrary we was dazzled by the riches of
the palace of Philippos in Pella.
The answer is no, unless one sites as an example the races in
Star Trek: The Next Generation (Trademark by Paramount Pictures)
who are all fluent in English no matter how alien or young or
French for that matter are:-)
Arrhianos presented many instances of Alexander the Great talking
to his fellow Macedonian soldiers in greek(attic) and not say,
in their supposedly non-greek mother tongue. Wouldn't his sol-
diers feel more comfortable in their mother tongue (a supposedly
non greek one)?
This is a question that noone could give an answer. Assuming
that ancient Macedonians were not speaking Greek the large number
of doric and thus non-attic words found in their spoken language,
let alone place-names, month-names, attributes to Gods and
Godesses, festival names etc seem to zero the probability that
Athenians were the ones who hellenized them. The large number of
archaic greek words not used by other Greeks of that time pre-
clude any other greek city-state or kingdom of the classic times
to be responsible for that alleged 'hellenization'. Remembering
the not so friendly relations between the Macedonians and the
Athenians, the vastness of the Macedonian kingdom as opposed to
that of the city state of Athens, and its population -Macedonians
were able to form sizeable armies, by Greek standards- it is
highly unlikely that any other Greek state or Athens could have
undertaken such an enormous task and had it completed in a 10-20
year period.
On the other hand, Alexander A' when he initiated his otherwise
brief contacts with the Greeks in the South he was able to talk
to them in Greek fluently. If Macedonians were to be hellenised
in the 4th century BC there would have been no way for Alexander
A' to speak greek. If he and his family were the only Greek
speakers in Macedonia it would have been highly unlikely that he
and his family had retained the ability to speak Greek fluently.
One of the tragedies Euripides first presented in Macedonia was
Ihpigeneia in Aulis and Ekavi. In Iphigeneia (1400) and Ekavi
(1199) "OYPOT' AN FILON / TO BARBARON GENOIT' AN ELLHSIN GENOS /
OYD AN DYNAITO", the greek superiority over the Barbarians was
highlighted. It would have been be too dangerous for him to ex-
press such opinions to a non-greek audience (if Macedonians were
not Greek and spoke a non-Greek language). Let alone the fact
that the language of his tragedies was Greek.
We discussed in previous paragraphs the various interpretations
of the word Hellen (Greek) in various times in antiquity. The
word Hellen used to describe in homeric times the people living
in some place (the Myrmidones in Thessaly) and later (possibly)
those living in Epeiros if one believes that the Selloi of
Epeiros, also called Graecoi, were later became known as Hel-
lenes. Only in the 8-7th century BC was the word Hellen used to
describe as a whole various Greek (hellenic) tribes. Since at
that time Macedonians were in constant wars with the Illyrians an
other non-greek tribes and had little contacts with the other
Greek tribes in the South the term Hellenes with its new meaning
was not familiar to them.
Thus distinction between Hellenes and Macedonians used by writers
at that time (who nevertheless had no doubt of the Greekness of
the Macedonians) shouldn't be a ssource of false claims. The fol-
lowing excerpt of Isocrates' speech highlights this.
(Isocrates. Philip. 154): " HN GAR TAYTA PRATTHS, APANTES SOI
XARIN EJOYSI, OI MEN ELLHNES YPER VN AN EY PASXVSI, MAKEDONES D'
HN BASILIKVS ALLA MH TYRANNIKVS AYTVN EPISTATHS, TO DE TVN ALLVN
GENOS, HN DIA SE BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS APALLAGENTES ELLHNIKHS
EPIMELEIAS TYXVSIN"
Although Isocrates distinguished Hellenes from Macedonians by in-
cluding in the first term the at that time accepted interpreta-
tion of "the greek tribes living south of river Peneios", he
nevertheless believed that the the people who got rid of the
"BARBARIKHS DESPOTEIAS" (barbarian rule) with the assistance of
Macedonians are now ruled and taken care of ("ELLHNIKHS EP-
IMELEIAS TYXVSIN") by people (Macedonians) belonging to Greek
tribes.
Isocrates is well known for suggesting that Philippos II (In
his speech: To Philippos) lead a panhellenic hegemony, consisting
only of Greeks, that will unify all Hellenic tribes and lead
them in a war against the barbarians [To Philippos, 115,80,127-
128,8,16]. A reference by him to Macedonians as "OYX OMOFYLOY
GENOYS"(TO Philippos,108) there, has been interpreted by some to
mean "of other race" rather than "of other tribe" thus earning
him many supporters among the ones who claim that Macedonians
were not Greek. It seems quite weird that Isocrates would like
the leader of a "barbarian tribe" to unite all Hellenes, includ-
ing his own "barbarians".
The answer to this misinterpretation of the "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS"
will become apparent shortly.
In the same text (To Philippos,32) Isocrates wrote "UHBAIOI DE
TON ARXHGON TOY GENOYS YMVN TIMVSI" that is that Isocrates was
aware of the Macedonian-Doric connection and/or the legend that
the Macedonian kings were considered descendants of Heracles. The
'founder of your tribe' refers to Heracles. If 'GENOYS'(of
TRIBE) were to mean RACE (the hellenic one in particular) Iso-
crates would have used HMVN (that is, 'founder of our tribe') in-
stead of YMVN (that is, 'founder of your tribe').
This meaning of the word GENOS (tribe rather than race) can also
be found in Herodotos (I, 56, mentioned in question 8) where the
Lacedaemonians are of "DVRIKOU GENOUS' (Doric, presumably, tribe)
while the Athenians are of "IVNIKOY" (Ionian, presumably, tribe).
Had GENOS meant race onee must conclude that wither Iones (say,
Athenians) or Dorians(say Spartans) were not Greek. It is worth
mentioning that in that same passage Herodotos used the word
'EUNOS' (nowadays it means 'people'...) for the ancient Pelasgian
and Hellenic people ('EUNH'). Herodotos included the Ionians in
the Pelasgian and Dorians in the Hellenic people, although both
were hellenic (greek) tribes. So much for confusing terms...
In VIII,144, Herodotos distinguished Hellenic tribes from the
Barbarians on the basis of 'blood' and 'speech' (OMAIMON and
OMOGLVSSON) rather than of race or tribe which didn't have very
specific meanings at that time.
The following references in addition to the previous ones, show
that the word "FYLON", "GENOS" had at that time the meaning of
the english word TRIBE rather than that of RACE, thus "ALOFYLON
GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON GENOS" means "of other (not of the
same) tribe", as this was true for the Athenians (ionic tribe)
and Macedonians (doric one). The interpretation "of other (not
of the same) race" for
"ALOFYLOY GENOS" and "OYX OMOFYLON" is thus incorrect.
a) Thucydides (I, 141) : Pericles talking about the Peloponne-
sians said "PANTES TE ISOCHFIOI ONTES KAI OYX OMOFYLOI TO EF'
EAYTON EKASTOS SPEYDH" that is, he considered Peloponnesians
not "OMOFYLOI" to the Athenians. Since everyone considered both
Peloponnesians and Athenians to be Greek, 'OMOFYLOI' had thus the
meaning of the 'same tribe' rather than of 'same race'.
b) Dicaiarchos : "FYLH DE KAI FYLETAI PROTERON VNOMASUHSAN EK
THS EIS TAS POLEIS KAI TA KALOYMENA EUNH SYNODOY GENOMENHS;
EKASTON GAR TVN SYNELUONTVN FYLON ELEGETO EINAI". Same meaning as
before.
c) Herodotos (VIII, 144) distinguishes Hellenic tribes from Bar-
barians depending on the "OMAIMON" (same blood) and "OMOGLVSSON"
(same tongue) but not of the "OMOFYLON" (same tribe)`
d) Euripides (Her. Main. 1200) agreed with Herodotos,
e) Eustathios (93,3) assigned the meaning of tribe to 'FYLON'.
It was known to Isocrates (as attested in the same speech) the
tradition relating Macedonians and Dorians and the "ALOFYLOY" was
pointing out this difference between the Athenians and Macedoni-
ans. Later in his speech Isocrates asked Philippos to unite the
Hellenes and drive them against the barbarians. He also suggested
that Philippos should lead only Greeks against the barbarians.
Had Macedonians been considered barbarians (i.e. had an interpre-
tation of and suggestions would have been at least absurd and of-
fending rather than encouraging and flattering, as they were in-
tended to be.
In another part of its speech/letter Isocrates mentions that
Philippos rules people (Macedonians) of not his own tribe-race.
Some claim that this is a proof of the non-Greekness of
Macedonians in the sense that considering Philippos to be Greek
(according to the legend of his family's descent) the tribe-race
is to mean that the people he ruled were not Greeks. The accurate
meaning of this phrase can only be derived by reading the whole
passage. Isocrates suggests to Philippos that the kind of rule
(monarchy) that was so successful in Macedonia is not guaranteed
to be successful in the city-states of Southern Greece. Thus, he
should choose another form of government when he (Philippos)
becomes hegemon of all Greece. In order to support this he cites
the example of his ancestors who unable to rule Argos, since at
that time monarchies were detested in Southern Greece and the
trend was the establishment of city-states, were only successful
in ruling another tribe, that of Macedonians.
Cities in Macedonia, the ancient kingdom and the province of
Greece, still have the names they had in antiquity, at least for
the cities that existed at that time. The names of some of these
cities may not be even of Greek origin, thus showing that Skopjan
claims are not only false but at least silly or absurd.
The Skopjans claim that the Macedonian city of Edessa in the Pel-
la prefecture of Macedonia, Greece, should not be called so but
Voden instead. They also claim that we Macedonians changed the
name of the city from the slavic one "VODEN" into the "greek" one
EDESSA. The city of EDESSA has been called so since prehistoric
times. It is amusing to point out that many believe the name
Edessa is not of Greek, but possibly of phrygic origin denoting a
place rich of waters. Edessa has always been famous of her water-
falls. Others may claim that the suffix "-dessa" may indicate
'water' in some prehistoric form of the greek word (GK:YDVR) for
water. This connection of the name 'EDESSA' with 'water' had con-
fused many historians until 1976. They used to believe that Edes-
sa was ancient Aegae, the royal city of the Macedonian Kings.
They thought that the word 'Aegae' was derived not from the word
'aega' (she-goat) as this is related with the myth of the crea-
tion of the Macedonian state by Karanos, but from the doric pre-
fix Aeg- denoting 'water' (cf Edessa). In Doric, 'aegae' means
'(water) waves' (The 'Aegean Sea' is an obvious example). Given
that both names Edessa and Aegae have to do with 'waters' archa-
elogists thought that Edessa=Aegae.
This argument was put in rest by Nicholas L. G. Hammond in 1968
when he suggested that Vergina and not Edessa was the ancient Ae-
gae, a correct assertion as it was proved in 1976 by the excava-
tions of M. Andronikos in Vergina. Though Vergina is not on the
sea shore of Thermaikos Bay it is believed that in the BC centu-
ries the present lands separating Vergina from the sea were wet-
lands.
It is noted that the slavic word VODEN also denotes 'water'. It
is also worth mentioning that the city of Skopje whose name is
probably derives from the greek one 'Skopia', was invariably
called 'Uskub', 'Skupoi', 'Skup', 'Skopje', and as of few years
ago 'Skoplje'.
Another Example is the city of Kastoria in Western Macedonia,
Greece. Skopjans prefer to call it Kostur and suggest that
Greeks should call it so. The name of the city 'Kastoria' comes
from the mythical hero Kastor (Castor) brother of Polydeukes, son
of Leda and Zeus.
Regarding Thessaloniki (called Salonica or Saloniki also in En-
glish) if one opens an ancient map he will realize that the name
of the city has been Thessaloniki and not Solun (as Skopjan sug-
gest that we should call the city) since ancient times.
The distinction between Macedonians, Thessalians, Athenians,
Spartans and Lacaedemonians in antiquity which indicated among
other things greek tribes of distinct customs, spoken dialects
ceased to exist with the passage of time. As of the hellenistic
period almost all Greeks were using the attic dialect for their
communication while all the other dialects (of greek) were
dropped from regular use. The rise of Christianity erased dis-
tinctions based in religious matters and the place of residence
was then used distinguish say Thessalians from Macedonians and
Athenians. Their common greek dialect (the attic one) though
evolved differently in various regions thus giving the various
dialects of modern greek.
To say that Macedonians vanished some time in the 7AD century is
to claim that the Greeks (many of them ancestors of doric people
called Macedonians, other possibly ancestor of other aeolic, dor-
ic or ionic people, others of mixed parentage) residing in Ma-
cedonia were all killed at that time, an absurdity.
Around 688, emperor Justinian B', after the defeat of the Bulgars
and Slavs in lower Moissia transferred all the Slavs in the
northern european part of his empire (that is of Macedonia and
Thrace of nowadays Greece and territories covering the Rep. of
Skopje, Albania and parts of Bulgaria) to Asia Minor. These were
estimated to be 80,000 but probably were more than that since two
years later the emperor preparing for a war against the Arabs
conscripted 30,000 men from this population to his army. These
Slavs subsequently switched sides and supported the Arabs. The
emperor for retribution killed all the remaining Slavs in Asia
Minor.
About one hundred years later, in 773AD, the Bulgarian popula-
tion in the Balkans was reduced after repeated defeats in battles
with the Byzantine emperors. When the Bulgars decided to
strengthen their army and find new recruits they marched to Thes-
saly, since there were no Slavs in Macedonia, to capture a small
Slavic tribe living there. On their way there they were annihi-
lated by the Byzantine forces. In the next century forced move-
ments of Slavic populations from Greece to Asia Minor continued.
The conclusion is that the Byzantine emperors did everything pos-
sible to clear up the northern territories (including Macedonia
and Thrace of modern day Greece) of their empire of Slavs.
Various non-Greek sources indicate that not only Macedonia of
modern day Greece but also Rep. of Skopje (the latter, if not en-
tirely, at least predominantly) were Greek till the late 15th
century AD.
C. Jirecek, in "Geschichte der Serben" claimed that Macedonians
were always Greek and all the area south of the line defined by
the cities Achris-Skopje-Nissa-Sofia-Aimos-Messimbria was greek
(an assertion also confirmed by other authors such as Th.
Mommsen, A. Karnach).
Hertzberg (in "Geschichte Byzantinissen") (Vol B, Book A, Chapter
Gamma, page 184, 1906 edition). said that in 1282, the popula-
tion below the line Euxinus Pontus- Aimos-Kustendil-Skopje-
Skutari was Greek, in tongue, in customs and working for the
greek interests.
One can then wonder when the Bulgarian idiom spoken by the
Skopjans was in use say in the lands of nowadays Rep. of Skopje,
let alone in antiquity [since Skopjans claim that the Slavic
idiom spoken by the Slavs who descended to the Balkans in the 7th
AD century was used by the ancient Macedonian 1000-1500 years
earlier!].
The French historian Haumant, in "La formation de la Yugoslavie",
mentioned that in the 13th century the area from Prisreni to Nis-
sa was empty of people. If there were no Slavs there, then how
and when the "Macedonians" of Skopjan type appeared in Macedonia
and the Republic of Skopje? This is the reason Albanians
(~70%?) occupy the region of Cossyphopedio (Kosovo).
Hertzberg, in "Geschichte Byzantinissen", mentioned that when in
the 14th century Dushan shared his kingdom with his son he kept
the greek area south of Skopje and gave his son the northern Ser-
bian areas (this is also confirmed by a Czech historian, Jire-
cek). All his orders were then written in Greek and not in any
idiom like the onenow spoken in the Republic of Skopje.
In 1350 when John Katakouzenos was in the city of Verhoia
representatives of all big greek cities (Skopje included) visited
him and asked for help. Jirecek mentioned in his book that at
this time Skopje was a greek city inhabited mainly by Greeks
despite being part of the Serbian kingdom for more than a centu-
ry. Following Dushan's death around 1355 his son's empire began
to collapse. Dushan's brother, Symeon, proclaimed himself an em-
peror and accorded himself the surname of "Palaeologos" in an at-
tempt to gain the favor of the Greek population of his
kingdom(empire). He also wrote his orders in Greek (and not in
any strange called slavic idioms).
Soon the Greeks gained the control of the garrisons of various
greek cities (such as Verhoia, Edessa, and Skopje). Officials
in Dushan's empire quickly abandoned these greek cities and
moved to Prisreni and later to Krusevach. The greek inhabitants
remained in the areas they had been living for many centuries, if
not millenia.
Since even in the years of Dushan, when the slavic influence and
control in the areas of Macedonia(Greece), western part of Al-
bania, Republic of Skopje and Yugoslavia (Serbia+Kosovo) was at
its peak Macedonian Greeks were not "slavisized", how was that
possible under the Ottoman rule, when after the defeat of Serbia
by the Ottomans circa 1459, the Slavs migrated to the north and
the area south of the city of Skopje was inhabited by Greeks
only? If the strong presence of Slavs at that time didn't cause
the Macedonians to vanish how was that possible to happen be-
fore? How come the vanished Macedonians of 7th AD survived as
late as 15th AD? and later?
Greece claims that Skopjans, who are evidently non-Greeks, by
using to identify themselves a hellenic (greek) name that still
identifies a region in modern Greece, the people living in that
region, and their thousands year old heritage, implies territori-
al claims on behalf of Skopje. Such opinions were shared by US
officials when the late Marshall Tito, in 1944, created a (now
former) Yugoslav Socialist Republic of "Macedonia".
There are many Skopjan provocations supporting Greece's position.
1) The use of Slavic names for Greek cities instead of the Greek
ones (they prefer to call Thessaloniki, Solun, to call Kastoria ,
Kostur, to call Florina, Lerin, to call Edessa, Voden etc),
beyond the usual changes that the translation of various names
from one language to another requires. The use of Slavic toponyms
is intended to cast a doubt on the greekness of the various
places in Macedonia. This is also confirmed by the fact that the
Skopjans never use the term say "Greek Macedonia" but speak of
the "Aegean Macedonia" (see discussion below).
2) The use of the term "Aegean Macedonia" (a term invented and
used by Skopjans and by people of similar desires) instead of
say the more acceptable and less suspicious "Greek Macedonia" to
identify Macedonia, Greece (that is the region called Macedonia
in Greece). This can be interpreted as an attempt to present
this part as a member of a whole (usually called "Greater Ma-
cedonia") yet "unliberated". The Bulgarian oriented (terrorist)
organization called IMRO (founded in the beginning of the 20th
century) and the current political party VMRO of the Republic of
Skopje expressed and express such claims quite often.
3) [From [7]]: A calendar for the year 1981 was published in
Skopje and circulated around the world that had on its cover the
word "macedonija" written in the Slavic script. Under this word
a warrior appeared, like the old Commitadjis [Bulgar terrorists
who in the late 19th and early 20th century intended to include
Macedonia and Thrace of Greece, Rep of Skopje as well as areas of
nowadays Bulgaria to then Bulgaria], with the bayonet fastened on
his rifle. Under him the well known Statue of Liberty (yes! the
one in New York!) was depicted. This statue is supported on a
map of the Balkan Peninsula and largely on Macedonia, Greeece.
Under this picture it is written in english "Independent and Free
Macedonia" (implying that Macedonia, Greece was not free at that
time!!!).
Maps depicting Macedonia, Greece, as part of the Republic of
Skopje have been published recently (November 1992) in Skopje ac-
cording to various reports.
4)[From [7]]: In 1973 a large size picture book was circulated in
many languages which shows "the immigrants" from the other two
sectors of "Macedonia" (supposedly the "Aegean Macedonia" of
Greece, as Macedonia is euphemistically called by the Skopjans,
and the "Pirin Macedonia" as the southwestern part of Bulgaria is
also called by the Skopjans) "who have not been liberated yet",
to "nostalgically" visit the "free" "Macedonia" of Skopje. This
book, entitled MACEDONIAN VISTAS is still under circulation (at
the time of the writing of reference [7], i.e. 1984) in the book-
stores of Belgrade and Skopje.'
5) More recently maps found in various Skopjan cultural centers
around the world include various areas of Greece in their Skopjan
state (Thessaly is included in some cases).
6) In early 1992 a currency was printed in skopje depicting the
White Tower a landmark of Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia,
Greece.
This fall it was decided in Rep. of Skopje that the coat of arms
of the Republic of Skopje would be the coats of arms of the royal
family of Philippos II, father of Alexander the Great. The coat
of arms, a sun, was depicted in a gold larnax found in the grave
of Philippos II, in Vergina, Macedonia, Greece, by the late Pro-
fessor Manolis Andronikos. There have been announcements recently
in Greek newspapers by Greek archaelogists that the so-called
Vergina-Star has also been found elsewhere in Greece (Attica)
and these occurrences are dated around the early 5th century BC
(~470BC).
It is open to the reader to decide what the Slavs of Skopje, who
descended in the Balkans in the late 7AD century that is 1000
years after the death of Philippos II, have to do with a greek
tribe, the coat of arms of their Greek Kings, and their greek
heritage. It seems that the Skopjans will never stop claiming
other people's heritage.
[The following are take from reference [8]].
7) June 1951: A book is published entitled '"Slavomacedonian"
fighters'. The hero of the Greek war of independence Markos
Botsaris is referred to as "Marc Botsar" allegedly a "Macedonian"
of the Skopjan type.
8) September 2, 1951
The Interior Ministry (of Yugoslavia) gives a certificate to a
person born in Agia Paraskevi, Macedonia, Greece. Macedonia is
referred to as "People's Republic of Aegean Macedonia"
(For your own information, Greece has never been a
People's Republic, as this term is used by Communists).
9)November 1951. The Geography book for the third grade of High
School for the students of the then Socialist Republic that is
now Rep. of Skopje allegedly mentioned that "our borders with
Greece are just physical and not national ones, since the Aegean
Macedonia remains under the rule of Greece".
10) End of 1960: The Government in Belgrade adopted a law that
officially recognised as time served to the Yugoslavian Armed
Forces the time served by Greek Communist guerillas in Greek-
communist organizations, other than EAM-ELAS, fighting against
the Greek government during the greek civil war 1944-1949. Par-
ticipation in EAM-ELAS (1941-1949) has been recognised since
1954.
11) February 1961: The filming of a movie entitled something like
"Revolutionaries in Thessaloniki" began at that time in Skopje.
The topic of the movie was a Bulgarian terrorist act in Thes-
saloniki in April 1903, when the city was under Ottoman rule. The
Bulgars are depicted in the film as "Macedonians" (of the skopjan
type), and the terrorist event is depicted as part of the "fight
of Macedonians for independence".
This is just a small sample of the Skopjan provocations.
Tito by the end of the WWII created a Yugoslav Socialist Republic
that he called "Macedonia". The inhabitants of this new Republic
were called "Macedonians". The following figures of Yugoslavian
censuses show this.
According to preliminary results of the 1921 Yugoslavian census
[Yugoslavia was called then "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and
Slovenes"], as these can be found in [8], the ethnic composition
of Yugoslavia at that time was:
Ethnic composition (in thousands, percentages)
Serbs+Croats 8,946 74.4
Slovenes 1,024 8.5
Other Slavs 174 1.5
Germans 513 4.3
Hungarians 472 3.9
Albanians 441 3.7
Romanian 229 1.9
Italians 12 0.1
Others 201 1.7
The final results of this census, classified according to
language spoken by these people where as follows:
(million) (percentages)
YugoSlavs 9,931 83
other slavs 176 1.5
germans 505 4.2
hungarians 467 3.9
albanians 439 3.7
romanians 231 1.9
turks(albanians) 150 1.3
Italians 12 0.1
Other 69 0.6
According to their religion:
(million) (percentages)
Orthodox 5,593 46.7
Catholics 4,708 39.3
Muslims 1,345 11.2
Protestants 229 1.9
Jews 64 0.5
Greek-catholics40 0.4
Other 3 0.01
As one can see, in 1921 there were no "Macedonians" and no "ma-
cedonian" language.
After the 1948 census the following figures were released.
We have
(in thousands)
Serbs 6,547
Croats 3,784
Slovenes 1,415
"Macedonians" 809
Mavrovounians 425
(Montenegrians)
Muslims 808
It is interesting that a new nationality of "Macedonians" ap-
peared in this census with a population of 809,000 while 27 years
ago no such nationality existed. It is also interesting to note
that according to this census no Albanians lived in Yugoslavia in
1948 while the 1921 census indicated the existence of ~441,000
Albanians. This albanian population is hidden under such terms
(nationalities?) as "Macedonians", Mavrovounians, and Muslims.
One can thus conclude that this 1948 census not only created new
imaginary nationalities, like "Macedonians", but also erased
existing ones. It seems creation and eradication of nationalities
was a major hobby of the late Marshall Tito.
According to the religion of the people living in Yugoslavia one
gets the following:
(percentages)
Orthodox 49.53%
Catholics 36.77%
Muslims 12.52%
Other Christians 1.14%
jews 0.04%
Minorities (in thousands)
Albanians 750
Hungarians 496
Vlachs 102 (where did they come from? The Vlachs of
Macedonia that resided in Yugoslavia
after the Balkan Wars were under 30,000.)
Turks 98
Slovaks 83
Italians 79
Gypsies 72
Bulgarians 61
Russenoi* 37
Germans 55
Romanians 64
Jews 6.8
Greeks 1.8
Czechs 39
* This is the translation of this term into English from Greek.
It is surprising that the Greek minority in Yugoslavia is only
1,800. We simply note that during the Greek civil of 1944-1949
Yugoslavia fully supported the Greek Communists and around 28,000
children were abducted and sent to Yugoslavia. Most of these
children never returned to their parents. It is believed that the
majority of them remained in Yugoslavia.
In 1912 Greeks and Bulgars living in the Ottoman Empire agreed on
the number of members to the Ottoman Parliament each group would
select. It was agreed that in each Vilaet (Regions of the Otto-
man Empire) the number of Greek and Bulgarian representatives
would be as follows.
Vilaet of Adrianoypoli Greeks 8 Bulgarians 1
" of Thessaloniki and
Monastirion Greeks 10 Bulgarians 5
" of Cossyphopedio Greeks 0 Bulgarians 2
(Kosovo)
No references to other Slavs, nor any protests of any kind, were
filed after the elections. It can thus be assumed that the
Greek:Bulgar as well as Greek:Slav proportion of the population
in these vilaets was reflected in this arrangement.
Other (mainly of non-greek origin) sources from which one can
draw conclusions on the population of various ottoman ruled
areas are:
An Italian, Amadore Virgili, in "La questiona roma rumeliota"
(1907, page 107) gave the following statistics for the population
of the two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monastirion.
Thess:Greeks 362,000, Turks 423,500, Bulgars 198,000, Serbs 1400
Monast:Greeks 280,000, Turks 223,000, Bulgars 143,000, Serbs 6070
A German General [Von Der Golt in "Balkanwirren und ihre grunde"
(1904)] who served in Turkey and organised the Turkish Army
claimed the following statistics for the two vilaets:
Muslims 730,000, Greeks 580,000, Bulgars 266,000, Serbs 19,000,
Jews 60,000
Therefore a statement that Macedonia was predominantly "slavic"
(with slavs like the ones residing in nowadays Skopje) seems to
be incorrect. Nowadays Macedonia in Greece included parts of the
two vilaets of Thessaloniki and Monasterio. Parts of the
Monasterio vilaet today belong to Albania and Republic of SKopje.
Parts of the Thessaloniki vilaet to Rep. of Skopje and Bulgaria.
There was a third vilaet, that of Skopje extending north in
today's southern Serbia.
There are various other statistics that more or less agree with
these figures.
There are also figures given by 4 writers that are quite strange.
According to There were:
the following
author:
Goptchevitch Greeks 201,140 Bulgar 57,600 Serbs 2,048,320
V. Kantcheff Greeks 225,152 Bulgar 1,184,036 Serbs 700
M. Brancoff Greeks 190,047 Bulgar 1,172,136 Serbs -
Zolotovich Greeks - Bulgar 1,334,583 Serbs -
It is not very difficult to guess the nationalities of the 4
writers.
Other figures on the population of these two vialets (also extra-
polated from the number of schools and pupilsa attending these
schools) are the following ones (some of the authors counted only
specific groups of people such as Bulgars and/or Greeks).
(figures are in thousands)
Gr: Greeks Bu:Bulgars Se:Serbs
Speliotopoulos Gr 731 Bu 232
Fokas " 636 " 348
Virgilli " 642 " 341 Se 16.5
Nikolaides " 655 " 332 " 22.8
VOn der Golts " 580 " 266 " 19
V. Colocotroni " 572 " 253
Ecum. Patr * " 650 " 332 " 12
Hilmi Pasa ** " 664 " 391 " 30
* Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
** Hilmi Pasa, Turkish Governor(??).
After the population exchanges in the 1920s, ~380,000 Turks left
Greece and 538,253 Greeks came to Macedonia from Asia Minor. In
1919 in the treaty of Neuilly it was decided that the Bulgarian
population residing in Greece would immigrate to Bulgaria and the
Greek population living in Bulgaria would immigrate to Greece by
1924. The time limit was extended to 1932 after through an appli-
cation of the Bulgarian Government which the then Greek Govern-
ment accepted. Approximately 66,000 Bulgars left Greece at that
time according to a report of the League of Nations (the precur-
sor of the United Nations). About ~52,000 Bulgars left Greece.
Given that the 1928 Greek census gives for Macedonia a population
of 1,412,477 this means that there were close to 850,000 Greeks
in Macedonia before the arrival of the Greeks from Asia Minor.
Considering the annual population increases one can conclude
that an estimate of at least 660,000 for the Greeks in the two
vilaets of Monasterio and Thessaloniki (and of Macedonia) is a
quite accurate one.
Although this topic seems to be irrelevant it may not be so.
What exactly the nationality of Vlachs is, historically speak-
ing, is an open question. The ones living in Greece consider
themselves Greeks, and no one is going to object to what they be-
lieve for themselves. Among them one can count the national
benefactors Averof and Tositsas.
In the beginning of this century there was a controversy of what
the nationality of the Vlachs really was. Since the Vlachs used a
Latin oriented language it was claimed that they were of Romanian
nationality (that is, the nationality of the people living in
Romania).
A Greek historian, N Kazazes, early this century, wrote that a
Romanian politician once said
"The Romanian people had desires on the beautiful Transylvania,
where so many Romanians were living. But this was impossible be-
cause our relations with the AustroHungarian empire would have
been jeopardised. So the non-existent subject of the Romanians in
Macedonia was invented."
(Source: "The Macedonian Problem" by N. Kazazes, 1907,page
105).
The 'Romanian Vlachs' question was invented mainly by Gustav
Weigand. According to him the Vlachs were considered Romanians
(and not say Romans, of the Roman empire) because the Vlachs were
using a greco-latin dialect.
Other historians of that time, such as Momsen, Krumwacher(sp?),
and Korting dismissed such claims. Edward Stanford wrote in 1877
that Greek-Vlachs were to Greeks what Welsh were to English.
No matter how you call them (the Greek Vlachs) be it Romans or
Romanians or Vlachs they call themselves Greeks.
An additional reason for the "romanisation" of the Vlachs was the
desire of the Romanians to use them in their negotiations with
the Bulgars related to the future of the area of Dobrucha. The
Romanians would have favored the idea to 'transfer' their claims
on the Vlachs to Bulgaria in exchange for Bulgars granting them
rights on that region. This was mentioned by a Romanian Prince,
Brancovan, in a book of his.
Skopjans in order to by-pass the now established truths about the
greekness of the ancient Macedonians and build a future for their
so-called "macedonian nationality" and acquire historical rights
to the Macedonian area claim that the infrastructure and popula-
tion of the kingdom which Samuel established for a period of
close to 18 years with the city of Achris as its capital was "Ma-
cedonian" (of the Skopjan type). They also claim that Samuel was
also a "macedonian" (of the Skopjan type) even though certain
historias today believe that he was an Armenian. They also claim
that Samuel as a ruler of a state that also included Macedonia
was himself a Macedonian and that the state he established was
the first "Macedonian state" (of the Skopjan type). Regarding
Samuel, he was a Bulgarian king and not a "Macedonian" one, and
the state he founded was a Bulgarian one as well. It is for this
reason that the emperor Vasileios II of the Byzantine empire, who
defeated Samuel, is known in history as Vasileios the Bulgar-
slayer and not as Vasileios the "macedonian"-slayer.
This fact is supported by historians such as Vasiliev and
Levtchenko.
There is another piece of evidence which shows that the Skopjan
claims that Samuel was a "Macedonian" are ridiculous. An inscrip-
tion from the city of Monastirio dated 1017 has been preserved
where John, nephew of Samuel and son of his elder brother Aaron
is mentioned to be of Bulgarian descent. This inscription has
been published in the book written by Gordana Tomovic "Morfologi-
ja Cirilickin Natpisa na Balkann", Belgrade, 1974, page 33.
It is worth mentioning that the area of Achris ws inhabited in
the Roman and Byzantine periods by Greeks. The book "The tombs of
Trebenitse" by Keramopoullos (page 490) shows inscriptions from
that period referring to persons with Greek names only. On one
inscription the God of Lychnetis was Heracles Megistos.
The size of the Greek minority in the Republic of Skopje is offi-
cially estimated to be close to 1,000-2,000 people. This figure
is so reliable that recently a German official has asked the
Skopjans to perform a new census. It would't be surprising that
Skopjans hide Greeks under such names as Vlachs. It is also noted
that during the Greek civil war of 1944-1949 close to 28,000
Greek children were abducted by communists (including Skopjan
ones) and transferred to Southern Yugoslavia that is toaday's
Republic of Skopje. It is unknown under which label this popu-
lation and their descendants are counted. Some Greek estimates
raise the size of the Greek minority in Skopje to around 50,000.
Macedonia, while under the rule of the Ottoman empire, was mainly
inhabited by Greeks, Turks and Bulgars. There was also a signi-
ficant Jewish population in the city of Thessaloniki most of whom
arrived there from Spain in the late 15th century.
Macedonians [to mean only the Greek-nationality population of
Macedonia] expected to be liberated and join the then newly
founded Greek state as a compensation for their sacrifices and
contributions to the (Greek) War of Independence. They were led
in this effort by the enthusiastic but inexperienced leadership
of Emmanuel Pappas, a member of Phillike Etaereia. The Macedoni-
ans of Chalcidice revolted in May 1821 and for a brief moment
threatened to throw the Turks out of the city of Thessaloniki.
Due to their inexperience they were easily suppressed by the
Turks by November 1821. The countryside was ravaged and the
Greek population of Thessaloniki was massacred and forced to move
out of the city.
The second round of the revolt began in February 1822 when the
kleftae and armatoloi of mountains Olympos and Vermion along with
the inhabitants of the city of Naoussa declared that city free
(of the Ottoman rule). The Turks deployed troops brought to
Greece from Asia Minor, and by April the revolt was subdued.
Naoussa was destroyed, the men were killed, and the women and
children were taken as slaves. After this, many Macedonian
fighters fled to Southern Greece to continue fighting the Turks
alongside the Peloponnesians and the other Greeks.
The failure of the Macedonian revolt is mainly attributable to
the inexperience of the rebels and the proximity of the area to
Constantinople. Although the revolt failed, it provided great
help to the rebels of Southern Greece because it tied a number of
Turkish forces in Macedonia. The price paid by the Macedonians
was heavy. The previously flourishing greek community of Thes-
saloniki was destroyed and the Greek population of the city was
reduced by around 70%. The Jews took over the leading role among
the communities residing in the city.
Once more in their long history, Macedonians sacrificed them-
selves for the common good of all Greeks.
After the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 which ended with a Rus-
sian victory the two parties signed what became known as the
treaty of San Stefano (1878).
The chief Russian negotiator was Count Ignatiev, the Panslavist
Russian Ambassador at Constantinople between 1864-1877. The
statistics used by Ignatiev during these negotiations, when he
gave a new definition to the word ``Macedonia'', were provided
to him by a Bosnian, Kerkovic. The San Stedano treaty
provided for the creation of ``Greater Bulgaria'' that would in-
clude the then Bulgarian state, Eastern Rumelia, parts of today's
Albania as far to the west as the city of Koritsa, and ``Ma-
cedonia'' which was then first defined to include what is known
nowadays as Republic of Skopje, the southwestern part of nowadays
Bulgaria, and Macedonia (of Greece). It is interesting to note
that the three Turkish vilaets covering this ``Macedonia'' were
the vilaets of Thessaloniki, Monastirio and parts of the vilaet
of Kossovo. The city of Skopje was in the vilaet of Kossovo.
Even the most extremist Bulgarian nationalists celebrated on
the good news.
The other European powers objected to this settlement because
they feared that it would give Russia the ability to seize easi-
ly Constantinople. One of these powers, Austria-Hungary, was
displeased by the prospect of Bulgaria holding the port of Thes-
saloniki as this would have barred its own descent to this port
through Bosnia.
In the Berlin Congress, held weeks later, in the summer of 1878,
the arrangements of the San Stefan Treaty (regarding Bulgaria)
were cancelled with the full agreement of Russia since Russia
did not want to risk a war against the other European Powers.
The ``Macedonia'' of the San Stefano treaty thus remained under
Ottoman rule divided into various vilaets and sandjaks. It is
ironic that this new definition of ``Macedonia'', invented for
the purpose of delivering lands of the Ottoman empire to Bulgaria
on the occasion of the San Stefano Treaty, outlived that Treaty
and is still used by some people to define Macedonia.
The end result of the San Stefano treaty was that it gave Bul-
garia the pretext to actively interfere in ``Macedonia'', as it
would become apparent from later events in the region.
One of the main events that helped increase the Bulgarian in-
fluence in the part of the Ottoman empire to be called 'San-
Stefano ``Macedonia'' eight years later was the creation of the
Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 which took over responsibility for
the orthodox Bulgars living in the Ottoman empire.
The Greek War of Independence in the first half of the nineteenth
century had its repercussions among the natives of Macedonia. Ma-
ny Macedonians of joined their compatriots in Southern Greece in
that War. Simultaneously a national awakening was observed among
the Bulgars living at that time in Macedonia. It should be noted
that the term ``Bulgar'' at that time was used to denote the
labouring and illiterate masses living in Macedonia irrespective
of ethnic origin. That awakening was mainly due to the Russian
Panslavists. Russia supported the subsequent uprising of the
Slavs against the Turks in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Around 1830,
a scholar, Venelin explored Bulgaria and collected material but
also invented other. He claimed that the Bulgars had taught the
Russians the (Cyrillic) alphabet and were responsible for the
conversion of Russians to christianity. One of his followers,
Rakowski claimed in 1859 that Zeus (the ancient Olympian God),
Demosthenes (yes, the Athenian orator), Alexander the Great,
and the Souliot hero of the Greek War of Independence Markos
Botsaris were all Bulgars. He also claimed that St Paul preached
Christianity to Bulgars first and not to Greeks. Such claims
quickly spread among the Bulgars living in Macedonia and beyond.
Verkovic who wrote an ethnography on Macedonia and became the
top Russian expert on Macedonia claimed that he had `discovered'
Bulgarian (ancient) songs about Alexander the Great. Krstovic
claimed that Aristotle spoke Bulgarian but wrote in Greek in
order to educate the southern barbarians [Note:Krstovic seemed to
believe that Aristotle, a Bulgar to him, was civilized, while
the southern barbarians, i.e. the Southern Greeks such as the
Athenians were not during the classic period. Such claims were
made despite the obvious fact that Bulgars first appeared in the
Balkans sometime in the 7th century AD]. Krstovic also considered
Bulgars Constantine the Great, Cyril and Methodios, the hero
of the Greek War of Independence, Karaiskakes and many other
Greek and Serbian national heros. Such ideas were believed not
only in Russia (among the Bulgars were a fact of life) but also
in Western Europe, especially after the creation of the
Bulgarian Exarchate in 1878 as it can be seen in the opinions
expressed by various European politicians, scholars journalists
and some scholars of that time also reflected in their belief
that Macedonia was Bulgarian.
The Exarchate had the blessings of Count Ignatiev of Russia, who
in 1878 would lead the Russians in their negotiations with
the Turks leading to the San Stefano Treaty. The Bulgarian ex-
archate also became responsible for the education of the Bul-
garian population and at the same time tried to strengthen the
Bulgarian consciousness of those Bulgars living under the Ottoman
rule. At the same time, through underground activities and the
use of force, the Bulgars tried to force the Bulgar-speaking
Greek population to declare themselves Bulgars and not Greeks.
In [9] the following excerpts appear from a report prepared in
1885 by the Secretary-General of the Bulgarian Exarchate describ-
ing the situation in Macedonia: [the writer of the report inter-
prets Macedonia as the ``Macedonia'' of the San Stefano Treaty]
" It is a sad fact but we must admit that the largest part of
the Bulgarian population of Macedonia does not have a Bulgarian
national conscience... If Europe were to demand today that the
Macedonian people decide on their fate and say to which national-
ity they belong, we are certain that the largest part of the Ma-
cedonian people and of Macedonia would slip away from our hands.
If we exclude two or three regions of Northern Macedonia, the in-
habitants of the other regions are ready to declare that they are
Greeks. If the Great Powers were to intervene and demand a ple-
biscite to solve the Macedonian problem the Greeks would come out
as winners."
[D. Missev-Obreikov "Report on the Present Situation of Bulgarism
in Macedonia"]
The Bulgarians had thus realised that if they were to increase
their influence in Macedonia they had to deal not with the Turk-
ish or Serbian influence but with the Greeks. Many foreign
travelers who journeyed Macedonia during the 19th century have
attested the existence, not only of a Greek-speaking population
but also a Slav-speaking (Slavophone) one which considered them-
selves Greek even though they did not speak Greek, except possi-
bly a few words.
No. As we have mentioned in the previous question, a number of
Greeks living in Macedonia as well as Bulgaria, and the lands of
Rep. of Skopje (the San Stefano ``Macedonia'') were Slav-speakers
(Slavophones) speaking a Bulgarian idiom. Although this may seem
strange, given the circumstances of that time was not. There
were also a large number of Turking-speaking muslims in Asia
Minor at that time. Some of these Turkish-speaking Greeks were
forced under the threat of death by the Turks to move to Russia
(or better, ex-USSR) in the beginning of the 20th century.
These are nowadays Russian-speakers (i.e. Slav-speakers) living
in Azerbaijan and other newly created republics. These Greeks
have probably not spoken Greek for the past 5-6 centuries.
The existence of Bulgar speaking Greeks in Macedonia is attested
in the book by James Baker "Die Turken in Europa", Stuttgart
1878,pp19-20, quoted by Djoko Slijepcevic in "The Macedonian
Question: The struggle for Southern Serbia", Chicago, The Ameri-
can Institute for Balkan Affairs, 1958, pp87. According to Baker
"I asked some Bulgarian peasants in Macedonia about their na-
tionality, and they immediately replied 'Rum' which, indeed, is
the name peculiar to the Greek population of Asia Minor. They in-
sisted that they were Greeks. 'If this is so', i told them, 'why
do you speak Bulgarian at home?"' 'Because our forefathers did
so', they replied. although we are Greeks'."
In early 1890's various Bulgarian groups were organized in the
Ottoman empire advocating a more revolutionary program in Ma-
cedonia that would result in the Bulgarization of the area. One
such group was IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organiza-
tion) which was organized around 1893 and whose members included
Gotse Deltchev, Damjan Grujev, Pere Tochev, Petar Pop Arsov, and
other Bulgarians from Bulgaria and San-Stefano ``Macedonia''.
This organization aimed at uniting ``Macedonia'', by any possi-
ble means, into a single entity.
In response to this, Macedonians, with financial help from their
kinship in then Greece and also from abroad, organized themselves
and tried to protect the Greek-speaking and Bulgar-speaking
Greek-Macedonian, and especially those living small villages,
from Bulgarian abuses. Wherever this was not possible and espe-
cially in areas where Bulgars were the majority, as it was the
case in the north and central part of today's Rep of Skopje, it
was common to have a member of a family declaring himself a Bul-
gar and another one declaring himself a Greek. Whole Greek vil-
lages, when under pressure from Bulgars, used to declare them-
selves Bulgarian to avoid destruction from the Bulgars.
In the beginning of the 20th century, when the situation got
worse, both sides (Greek and Bulgarian) went many times to ex-
tremes although one may observe that the Bulgarian side was
mainly responsible for that. At the same time the consciousness
of the few Serbs living in San-Stefano ``Macedonia'' (in today's
Republic of Skopje) was also awakened and Serbia got involved into
these rivalries as well.
The Balkan Wars erupted because of these rivalries. The Bulgari-
an atrocities towards the Macedonians of Eastern Macedonia can
be summarized in the following remark of Elizabeth Barker ("Ma-
cedonia: Its place in Balkan Power Politics", London, The Royal
Institute of International Affairs, 1950,pp19-20) cited in [9]
"The Bulgarian occupation authorities in Greek eastern Macedonia
has behaved towards the Greek population with brutality singular-
ly inappropriate in supposed liberators. An Inter-Allied Commis-
sion in 1919 reported that 94 villages had been entirely demol-
ished, that 30,000 people had died of hunger, blows, and disease
during the occupation, that 42,000 had been deported to Bulgaria,
and that 16,000 had fled to [my note: then] Greece".
The treaty of Neuilly brought peace to the relations of Bulgaria
with her adversaries. A convention between Greece and Bulgaria,
known as the Neuilly Treaty, entering force on August 9, 1920
provided for the voluntary exchange of populations between Bul-
garia and Greece in order to avoid mistreatment of the alien po-
pulations in the two countries.
IMRO, still active, objected to the implementation of the ex-
change of populations because this would eliminate the Bulgarian
element in Greece and would eliminate Bulgaria's claim on Ma-
cedonia. A number of Slavs who had expressed their desire to mi-
grate to Bulgaria thus chose not to.
During the wars, prior to 1920, close to 16,000 Greeks and 30,000
Bulgars fled to their respective homelands and after the Neuilly
Treaty the corresponding numbers were 30,000 and 53,000 [the fig-
ures were taken from [9]]. Still, some Bulgars, following IMRO's
suggestions remained in Greece. Some others who, due to intermar-
riage, were not sure of their allegiance to either country also
did not leave. Their presence was not noticed due to the chaotic
situation in Greece following the Greek defeat of 1922 by the
Turks and the subsequent forced exchange of populations between
Greece and Turkey. The only minority (since the Bulgars were sup-
posed to go according to the Neuilly Treaty) left in Greece was a
Moslem one in Thrace.
The situation in Southern Serbia was quite complicated since a
large number of Bulgars were still residing there. These were to
be named in the 1940s ``Macedonians'' by Tito in order to elim-
inate the Bulgarian influence on this territory of then Yugosla-
via.
In September 1924 a Greco-Bulgarian agreement, to be known as the
Kalfov-Politis Protocol, was concluded. This protocol provided
for the treatment of Bulgars/Greeks who had not yet left their
alien countries under the Neuilly Treaty. The then Greek govern-
ment appeared to accept the view that the Bulgar-speaking Greeks
and the Bulgar-speaking Bulgarians (who had not left) still liv-
ing in Greece were Bulgarians. It was soon realized that this
agreement was a mistake and the Bulgar-speaking Greeks protested
the agreement. Serbia also protested this agreement because these
people were recognized as Bulgarians and not Serbs. Subsequent
protests by both Bulgaria and Serbia, for various reasons, con-
vinced the then Greek government not to insist on calling these
people Bulgarians. The League of Nations, on March 14, 1925 re-
lieved Greece of any obligations under the Kalfov-Politis Proto-
col. Since then, Greece considered them Greeks (including the
Bulgars still living in Greece at that time). The Metaxas' dic-
tatorship, who tried to force the abandonment of the Bulgarian
idiom by these people, alienated some of them. The situtation
was to be resolved only after World War II when the remaining
Bulgars and possibly some alienated Bulgar-speaking Greeks (vari-
ous sources estimated their number upwards 60,000) finally left
Greece (see also following questions).
Following the Balkan Wars and WWI, Bulgaria lobbied Soviet Union
to support her position on the Macedonian problem that is the the
political future of San-Stefano ``Macedonia'' in case of a com-
munist victory in the Balkans.
Bulgarians did not and still do not accept the existence of a
``macedonian nationality'' (the way Skopjans do) but use the term
``macedonian'' population to refer to the population of the San-
Stefano ``Macedonia'', whose definition was only political and
had nothing to do with the historic region of Macedonia. Thus,
the resolution of the Sixth Communist Balkan Conference promised
that "... In setting up the ideal of a workers' and peasants'
government, the communist parties and the Communist federation of
the Balkans will assure peace, independence and liberty of
development of all the peoples of the Peninsula, that it will be
a voluntary union of independent Balkan Republics, including the
Republic of Macedonia and Thrace".
[This text is quoted in the book by Barker cited earlier, pp5-51,
as quoted in [9].]
It is noted that this text indicates that Bulgaria wanted to see
all Northern Greece taken away from Greece. Bulgaria had aspira-
tion not only on Macedonia but also on Greek Thrace. This is in
line with earlier Bulgarian claims (see question on Illyrians)
that ancient Macedonians were Illyrians (or Thraco-Illyrians) and
that they (Bulgarians) are ancestors of either the Illyrians or
the Thracians. The Bulgarians realising that it was difficult
for the lands of San-Stefano ``Macedonia'' to become parts of
Bulgaria, rallied for an independent ''Macedonia'' to appease
objections from the Communist parties of Yugoslavia and Greece
and also gain the support of the Soviet Union.
Separately, Bulgarian communist representatives and IMRO,
represented by Alexandrov, Protogerov and Chaoulev, signed a man-
ifesto which also included the following (see [9]) " IMRO de-
clares that it is fighting and will fight with all the means per-
mitted by the revolution:
1) For the liberation and the reunion of the separated parts of
Macedonia
[My Note: that is the San-Stefano Russian defined ``Ma-
cedonia''] in a
fully autonomous and independent political unit, within its na-
tural
geographical and ethnic frontiers.
2) For the democratization of the States bordering on Macedonia
[My Note: presumably Greece, and Yugoslavia-Serbia. Only com-
munist countries were considered democratic!] and for their union
in a Balkan federation which alone can guarantee the political
existence of an independent Macedonia and the independence of
the other Balkan peoples."
That is, the existence of any ``Macedonian'' state would re-
quire the ``democratization'', a la Hungary and Czechoslovakia,
of at least Greece.
THe Greek communist party lost support for its decision to sup-
port the Bulgarians. In 1927, Yannis Kordatos, editor of the Com-
munist party newspaper "Rizospastes", accused the party leader-
ship by writing in Greek Macedonia, since the Greek bourgeoisie
has already deported the Slav population [My Note: following the
Neuilly treaty] and had settled greek refugees, the Communist
party raised, nevertheless, the issue. This policy was the coup
de grace (for the Party) which was dissolved not on account of
the attacks of the Government but because it was DISAPPROVED BY
THE WORKERS, since communism in Greece acted as the ally of BUL-
GARIAN CHAUVINISM". [Quoted from [9], capitalization as it ap-
parently appeared in the original text.]
After the Italian invasion of Greece through Albania and the sub-
sequent war between the two countries, the Bulgarian Government
began to think about joining the Axis. A member of the Bulgarian
Parliament, Peter Doumanov, declared: "Two million [sic] Bulgari-
ans are under foreign domination. Germany, with a population of
70 million shook the entire Europe for two million fellow nation-
als living in Czechoslovakia. We, Bulgarians, with a population
of six million and with two million co-nationals as minorities,
i.e. one third of our population, we dare not openly fight for
our minorities in Macedonia and Thrace. Some may say that Bul-
garia is not Germany; BULGARIA SHOULD BECOME FOR THE BALKANS WHAT
GERMANY IS FOR EUROPE." [Note: emphasis is mine. The term Thrace
refers to the Greek Thrace. The term Macedonia probably refers
to Macedonia although it may also refer to the lands of San-
Stefano ``Macedonia'' that is Macedonia and the lands of the Rep.
of Skopje.]
This speech raised protests in Yugoslavia (newspaper Politika,
Dec 6,1940). Until that time Bulgaria avoided open provocations
although she was secretly negotiating with the Germans for an
exit to the Aegean Sea, through Greece [Macedonia and Thrace].
Germany accepted these terms on January 18, 1941. On February 8,
German General Liszt and Bulgarian General Boider signed an
agreement allowing Bulgaria to occupy the area of Greece stretch-
ing from river Evros to river Strymon, that is Greek Thrace and
Eastern Macedonia.
Following the invasion and subsequent defeat of Greece by Germany
in the spring of 1941, Bulgaria occupied or as some Bulgarians
claimed, 'liberated' the Greek lands mentioned in Liszt-Boider
agreement. Bulgarian Premier Filov in an interview with the
German newspaper Borsen Zeitung on November 11, 1941 said: "in a
few days we will begin with the colonization of the Aegean
area... Thousands of Bulgarian families will be transported and
settled in this area within the next weeks and months" [My Note:
So much for Bulgarian claims about alleged Bulgarian minorities
in neighboring countries, as far as Greece was concerned.]
At the end of WWII the feelings of the Greeks and especially of
those living in the areas occupied by the Bulgarians toward their
Bulgarian neighbors prompted a British to remark that " the
only brotherly sentiment which Greek Macedonians felt towards
the Bulgars was a disposition to raise Cain".
Elizabeth Barker similarly wrote " Although Greeks were relieved
by the belated Bulgarian withdrawal, they were left with an
overpowering hatred of all Bulgars, whether pro-German or Com-
munist. In fact the average Greek probably detested and feared
the Bulgarian communists, who represented the great Slav menace
to Greece from the north, even more than he had hated their
predecessors".
Among the Bulgars still living in Greece at that time, some of
them sided with the pro-German Bulgars who occupied parts of
Greece during WWII. These, at the end of WWII, naturally left
Greece. Some other (pro-communist ones) joined various communist
oriented guerilla groups. These groups were controlled by the Yu-
goslavs of Tito and after WWII sided with the Greek communist
guerillas who turned in the meantime against the Greek Govern-
ment. After the communist defeat in the subsequent greek civil
war they finally left Greece, 28-29 years after the signing of
the Neuilly Treaty that first provided for their departure from
Greece.
After the establishment of the People's Republic of Macedonia,
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of "Macedonia" is-
sued the following declaration
"Macedonian people: In your three-year popular liberation
struggle you achieved your unity and you established your own
army and set the foundations of the federate Macedonian state.
With the participation of the entire Macedonian people against
the fascist [My note: that is, the non-communists] occupiers in
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece you will achieve
the union of all parts of Macedonia which the Balkan imperial-
ists seized in 1913 and 1918.
As for the demand for the complete unification of the macedonian
people, there are today on your side all the other peoples of
Yugoslavia, the Anti-fascis People's Liberation Council of
Yugoslavia and the heroic People's Liberation Army of Yugosla-
via."
[in "Ten year from the Establishment of the P.R. of Macedonia",
Skopje 1954, as quoted in [9].]
Three months later Milovan Djilas in a speech at Kolarac de-
clared that the "question of the unification is today before the
Macedonian people who have the right to unite themselves wherever
they may live".
He further explained that the unification of "Macedonia" was
not merely a theoretical question but one of vital interest to
the security of Yugoslavia.
It is noted that the first 'premier' of the new republic of
"Macedonia" was Dimitar Vlahov who had been an outspoken Bul-
garian during the first decade of the 20th century, was an
elected Bulgarian delegate to the Turkish Parliament, became
leader of the "United" IMRO in 1925, and in the following years
declared himself an "authentic Macedonian"...
On August 2, 1945 general Vukmanovic declared in a speech in
front of a crowd in Skopje (quoted in [9]) "Comrades, you know
very well that there is a part of the Macedonian people which is
still enslaved [sic]. We must openly state this case. We are not
the only ones to do this; there are tens of thousands of Ma-
cedonian men and women who suffer and mourn today under the
yoke of the Greek monarcho-fascist bands."[Bulletin(Skopje) Aug
10,1945]
The Skopjan intentions, when they use the term ``Aegean Ma-
cedonia'' are summarized in the following excerpts from an arti-
cle that appeared in the newspaper Borba on August 26, 1946 enti-
tled "Aegean Macedonia" which reads as follows (quoted in [9]).
" Greek imperialists have no right to keep the Macedonians any
longer under their yoke... extermination of our populations in
Greece and to their right and request to opt and unite themselves
with their breathren in Yugoslavia"
[Note: As a Macedonian myself, I don't want to have anything to
do with these Skopjans not now, not in the future, not any time.]
A month later, on Sept 22, the Premier of the PR Macedonia Dimi-
tar Vlahov delivered a speech in Monastir published in Nova Ma-
cedonija on Sept 26, 1946 which referred to Macedonia as fol-
lows:
" We openly declare that Greece has no right whatsoever over Ae-
gean Macedonia.... The Macedonian people are struggling fot their
union within the Macedonian People's Republic which is is an in-
tegral part of the Federal People's Republic of Macedonia."
Hristo Antonofsky an extremist Skopjan gave the following ethno-
logical composition of Macedonia, Greece [for the period around
1941]
"Macedonians" (of the Skopjan type) 258,000
Greeks 250,000
"Caramanlides" 210,000
Armenians 80,000
Lazi and other caucasians... 74,000
Others 37,000
[source: Hristo Antonofksi: "Egejska Makedonija" (Skopje,
Go na Zdruzhanieto na be Galcite od Eg. Makedonija, 1951),p50. ]
In addition to discovering new nationalities Antonofski excluded
from the count the population of Thessaloniki, the Chalcidice
peninsula, and the Kozani prefecture of Macedonia.
After the creation of the People's Republic of "Macedonia", Yu-
goslavs embarked in an attempt to change the Bulgarian idiom spo-
ken by the Skopjans. They removed Bulgarian words and replaced
them with Serbo-Croatian ones. Bulgars then claimed that the pur-
pose of the creation of a new "macedonian' language "was not to
unite the Macedonian people or advance their culture but to
suppress and supplant the Bulgarian language spoken and read by
all Slav Macedonians" In addition, P Gevgeliev wrote in "Skopje
revives macedonian spectre", Free Bulgaria,pp229-230,
" it is true that we have given up the teaching of "Macedonian
history", a high falutin term for the ravings of a handful of
maniacs in Skopje who are so far gone in their nationalistic
dementia and mental aberration as to claim that the present "Ma-
cedonian" people are descendants of Alexander the Great. These
"historians" seem to overlook the fact that the Slav tribes came
to this territory fully a thousand years after the death of
Alexander the Macedon."
How many supposedly "Macedonians" of the Skopjan type are in
Greece? Well, the Skopjans and their supporters cannot agree to
a reasonable figure.
Once Radio Belgrade (Dec 14, 1950) claimed this number was
250,000. On August 28, 1953 Yugopress claimed it was 120,000.
The current claim depends on the weather :-), the mood of the es-
timator, and the outcome of some (probably highly biased) random
number generator :-) :-).
Excluding a number of Polish and Hungarian immigrant workers as
well as few Yugoslav illegal workers residing in Greece particu-
larly during the summer months, there are no other Slavs living
in Greece.
Skopjans claim that there is a sizeable Slavic minority in the
region Macedonia of Greece. One can easily find out that there is
not such a minority.
The answer to the second part of the question has been given in
various answers to previous Questions. The Neuilly Treaty ar-
ranged for the exchange of the Greek Population living in Bul-
garia and the Bulgarian (Slavic) population living in Greece.
Their departure was finally completed in the late 1940s (See
questions 32 and 34 for more details).
There are various Slavophones living in Greece most of whom are
of Greek nationality. These are:
a) Few Bulgar-speaking Greeks living in Western Macedonia who may
still speak this language. Their presence in Macedonia as well as
their Greekness have been noted by many non-greek authors. For
references to this check previous questions. Many of them fought
against the Bulgars in the late 19th and early 20th century, like
capetan Kottas from the village of Roulia, against the Germans
and the Bulgarians during WWII and the Greek communists in the
following greek civil war. As time passes the bulgarian language
is dropped from usage just as this also happened with Turkish to
the Turkish speaking Greeks who came in Greece from Asia Minor in
1922-1923.
b) Russian-speaking Greeks (some known as Pontian-Greeks) who are
coming to Greece following the disintegration of the former USSR.
These Greeks used to live in northern Turkey before they were
expelled from there. Some of them have not been Greek-speakers
for centuries, being previously Turkish-speakers (the Greeks of
Azerbaidjan and Kazahktsan fall in this category).
c) The Muslim Pomaks living in Greek Thrace and who are governed
by the Lausanne Peace Treaty signed (among others) by Greece and
Turkey which provided for the treatment of the Greek minority in
Constantinople (nowadays Istanbul) and the muslim minority in
Greek Thrace (Western Thrace). Turks like to consider Pomaks as
Turks, and Bulgars as Bulgarians. Pomaks were forcefully bulgari-
sed by the Bulgars - that's why they are not so friendly to them-
and until some time in the 15-17th century were Christinas when
they became Muslims under the threat of death by the Turks. In
the past years Turkey has been trying to convince Pomaks to
abandon their language and start speaking Turkish. Due to this
connection of the Pomaks and the Bulgars it is not much of a
surprise that the Pomakian language looks like the one spoken by
the Skopjans (sans the Serbo-Croatian words added to the Skopjan
"Macedonian" idiom after 1945 to differentiate it from Bulgarian
and some extra archaic greek and turkish influences found in
the Pomakian idiom).
[This discussion contains excerpts from previous questions so
that it can become as self-contained as possible. Despite this,
reading of questions Q27-Q41 is still advised.]
One of the main events that helped increase the Bulgarian in-
fluence in the part of the Ottoman empire to be called 'San-
Stefano ``Macedonia'' in 1878 was the creation of the Bulgarian
Exarchate in 1870 which took over responsibility for the orthodox
Bulgars living in the Ottoman empire.
In early 1890's various Bulgarian groups were organized in the
Ottoman empire advocating a more revolutionary program in Ma-
cedonia that would result in the Bulgarization of the area. One
such group was IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organiza-
tion) which was organized around 1893 and whose founders included
Gotse Deltchev, Damjan Grujev, Pere Tochev, Petar Pop Arsov, and
other Bulgarians from Bulgaria and San-Stefano ``Macedonia''.
Since it was clear that European powers would never accept to
Macedonia being part of Bulgaria, IMRO was aiming at uniting
``Macedonia'', by any possible (even violent) revolutionary means
into a single entity and thus declaring a Macedonian state,
which in the beginning would co-exist with Bulgaria then uniting
with Bulgaria when the conditions in Europe would be favorable to
such a union (although IMRO did not openly declare this
intention). IMRO was theoretically open to all people living
in 'San Stefano Macedonia' be them Bulgars, Serbs, Greeks, Jews
etc. Except for few Bulgar-speaking Greeks who joined IMRO on the
belief that they were to fight the Turks and not fight for
Bulgaria, no other non-Bulgars joined it. Even these Greeks, when
it became clear to them what the intentions of IMRO really were
departed and fought against it (such as capetan Kottas from
the village of Roulia). Thus, after 1900 the only members of IMRO
were Bulgars living in the Ottoman empire as well as others from
Bulgaria.
IMRO within a year from its creation came under Bulgarian-state
control and financed mainly by the Bulgars in Sofia. The creation
in 1894, of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary
Organization organization was to this direction. The `Adrianople'
of this definition was referring to the then turkish vilaet of
Adrianople which included the whole of nowadays Greek Thrace. The
Bulgars since that time had eyes not only on Macedonia but also
on Thrace (as the occupation during WWII of both these areas of
Greece also suggests). IMRO thus began to be under the control of
the Supreme (Macedonian) Committee located in Sofia, Bulgaria.
Relations between IMRO and the Supreme Commitee and between IMRO
and the Bulgarian Exarchate were not without tensions. Besides
leadership ambitions between the leaders of IMRO and SC, the two
organization wanted to achieve the same objectives (Bulgarian
control over Macedonia) differently. IMRO favored the creation of
a separate Bulgarian state that of Macedonia. SC wanted the union
of Macedonia to Bulgaria as the articles of the San-Stefano
Treaty dictated. On the other hand the Bulgarian Exarchate
objected to IMRO's revolutionary (and violent) means of achieving
its target. It preferred more peaceful means that would involve
the creation of schools educating the Bulgar-speaking population
regardless of nationality and possibly providing monetary support
to this population. The members of the SC were called Supremists
(Vrhovists), while the IMRO members of the terrorist bands in
Macedonia were called comitadjis. In 1898, the Supreme Committee,
under the leadership of Sarafov, prevailed and IMRO thus came
under full Bulgarian control. By that time it was clear to every
non-Bulgarian member of IMRO the intentions of that organization.
A terrorist campaign against the Greek population of Macedonia
which began in 1893 intensified at that time. One reason for this
was the inaction of the Greek Government mainly following the
Greek defeat by the Turks in 1897. Because of this, the Turks
tolerated the Bulgarian actions against the Greek population of
Macedonia. This was to change only in the period of 1904-1908
when the first Greek bands with full support from Greece began to
organize themselves and supplemented the few ones present in
Macedonia since 1900 (whose organization was due to the efforts
of the Bishop of Kastoria Germanos Karavaggelis and the monetary
support of Macedonians living in Europe). Serbian bands were also
active in ''San Stefano Macedonia'' at that time, but their pre-
sence and activity was mostly limited in the lands of nowadays
Rep. of Skopje. The Balkan wars of the 1912-1920s erupted from
these rivalries of Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs and Turks.
One member of IMRO in the perior 1903-1908 was Dimitar Vlahov who
was also elected as a Bulgar representative in the Ottoman
Parliament. After the Balkan wars and the defeat of the Greeks
by the Turks in 1922 the situation in Macedonia clarified with
the forced population exchanges between Turkey and Greece and the
voluntary exchanges between Greece and Bulgaria. Because of these
population exchanges all Turks left Macedonia (or the Greek part
of ''San Stefano Macedonia'', if one follows the alternative
definition of the term ''Macedonia'' ), and almost all Bulgars
left Greece. The Neuilly Treaty was to bring peace in the
relations of Bulgaria with her adversaries. A convention between
Greece and Bulgaria, known as the Neuilly Treaty, entering force
on August 9, 1920 provided for the voluntary exchange of
populations between Bulgaria and Greece in order to avoid
mistreatment of the alien populations in the two countries.
IMRO, still active, objected to the implementation of the ex-
change of populations because this would eliminate the Bulgarian
element in Greece and would eliminate Bulgaria's claim on Ma-
cedonia. A number of Slavs who had expressed their desire to mi-
grate to Bulgaria thus chose not to do so due to pressures from
IMRO.
During the wars, prior to 1920, close to 16,000 Greeks and 30,000
Bulgars fled to their respective homelands and after the Neuilly
Treaty the corresponding numbers were 30,000 and 53,000. Still,
some Bulgars, following IMRO's suggestions remained in Greece.
Some others who due to intermarriage were not sure of their
allegiance to either country also did not leave. Their presence
was left noticed due to the chaotic situation in Greece following
the Greek defeat of 1922 by the Turks and the subsequent forced
exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. The only
minority (since the Bulgars were supposed to go following the
Neuilly Treaty) left in Greece was a Moslem one in Thrace.
The situation in Southern Serbia was quite complicated since a
large number of Bulgars were still residing there. These were to
be named in the 1940s ``Macedonians'' by Tito in order to elim-
inate the Bulgarian influence on this territory of then Yugosla-
via.
Around 1921, IMRO was ruled by Protogerov and Alexandrov,
both ex-"Supremists" (Vrhovists) who advocated a nationalistic
Bulgarian policy. The "Centralists" advocated, just like the old
IMRO, that an independent Macedonia was the only way towards a
Bulgarian Macedonia. This latter faction within IMRO included as
members Athanasov, Panitsa, Dimitar Vlahov kai Hadji-Dimov who in
1921 formed a new group inside IMRO. All four of them were
leftists, either communists (like Hadji-Dimov) or socialists who
were to become communist at a later time (such as Vlahov). By
1924 these two groups murdered the leaders of each other. First
Alexandrov, then Hadji-Dimov and later Panitsa were murdered. In
1925 the surviving leaders Protogerov and Vlahov splitted and
Vlahov founded United-IMRO. Although United-IMRO did not have as
many followers as IMRO itself, it was nevertheless followed by
socialists who had not yet declared themselves communists. In
1936 Vlahov dissolved United-IMRO and went to Moscow. He returned
to Yugoslavia in 1943 after being invited by Tito and became
Prime Minister of the then newly formed, by Tito, People's
Republic of Macedonia. A revisionist history of IMRO by Vlahov
interpreted the fight of IMRO from 1893-1920 as a fight of
``Macedonian'' (of the Skopjan type) and not Bulgarian poor
peasants of low classes against the Turkish land owners. He also
attacked the Supremists and accused them of (which was naturally
true since all IMRO members were then Bulgars) being under the
guidance of the Bulgarians in Sofia and thus being indifferent to
the independent "Macedonian" movement for independence. All these
were being told by a person who was elected as a Bulgar in the
Ottoman Parliament.
Following the Balkan Wars and WWI, Bulgaria lobbied Soviet Union
to support her position on the Macedonian problem that is the the
political future of San-Stefano ``Macedonia'' in case of a com-
munist victory in the Balkans.
Bulgarians did not and still do not accept the existence of a
``macedonian nationality'' (the way Skopjans do) but use the term
``macedonian'' population to refer to the population of the San-
Stefano ``Macedonia'', whose definition was only political and
had nothing to do with the historic region of Macedonia. Thus,
the resolution of the Sixth Communist Balkan Conference promised
that "... In setting up the ideal of a workers' and peasants'
government, the communist parties and the Communist federation of
the Balkans will assure peace, independence and liberty of
development of all the peoples of the Peninsula, that it will be
a voluntary union of independent Balkan Republics, including the
Republic of Macedonia and Thrace".
It is noted that this text indicates that Bulgaria wanted to see
all Northern Greece taken away from Greece. Bulgaria had aspira-
tion not only on Macedonia but also on Greek Thrace. This is in
line with earlier Bulgarian claims that ancient Macedonians
were Illyrians (or Thraco-Illyrians) and that they (Bulgarians)
are ancestors of either the Illyrians or the Thracians. The
Bulgarians realising that it was difficult for the lands of
San-Stefano ``Macedonia'' to become parts of Bulgaria, rallied
for an independent ''Macedonia'' to eliminate objection from
the Communist parties of Yugoslavia and Greece and also gain the
support of the Soviet Union.
Separately, Bulgarian communist representatives and IMRO,
represented by Alexandrov (before his murder), Protogerov and
Chaoulev, signed a manifesto which also included the following
(see [9]) "IMRO declares that it is fighting and will fight with
all the means permitted by the revolution:
1) For the liberation and the reunion of the separated parts of
Macedonia [My Note: that is the San-Stefano Russian defined
``Macedonia''. The two three pieces are "Macedonia" (Skopje)
and what the Skopjans call Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia
(what we Macedonians in Greece call simply Macedonia)] in a fully
autonomous and independent political unit, within its natural
geographical and ethnic frontiers.
2) For the democratization of the States bordering on Macedonia
[My Note: presumably Greece, and Yugoslavia-Serbia. Only com-
munist states were considered democratic by the two signatories.]
and for their union in a Balkan federation which alone can
guarantee the political existence of an independent Macedonia
and the independence of the other Balkan peoples."
During WWII, Bulgars sided with the Germans and their reward for
that was the occupation of Macedonia and Thrace of Greece.
At the end of WWII the feelings of the Greeks and especially of
those living in the areas occupied by the Bulgarians toward their
Bulgarian neighbors prompted a British to remark that " the
only brotherly sentiment which Greek Macedonians felt towards
the Bulgars was a disposition to raise Cain".
Elizabeth Barker similarly wrote " Although Greeks were relieved
by the belated Bulgarian withdrawal, they were left with an
overpowering hatred of all Bulgars, whether pro-German or Com-
munist. In fact the average Greek probably detested and feared
the Bulgarian communists, who represented the great Slav menace
to Greece from the north, even more than he had hated their
predecessors".
Among the Bulgars still living in Greece at that time, some of
them sided with the pro-German Bulgars who occupied parts of
Greece during WWII. These, at the end of WWII, naturally left
Greece. Some other (pro-communist ones) joined various communist
oriented guerilla groups. These groups were controlled by the Yu-
goslavs of Tito and after WWII sided with the Greek communist
guerillas who turned in the meantime against the Greek Govern-
ment. After the communist defeat in the subsequent greek civil
war they finally left Greece, 28-29 years after the signing of
the Neuilly Treaty that first provided for their departure from
Greece.
It is noted that the first 'premier' of the new republic of
"Macedonia" was Dimitar Vlahov, who had been an outspoken Bul-
garian during the first decade of the 20th century, was an
elected Bulgarian delegate to the Turkish Parliament, became
leader of the "United" IMRO in 1925, and in the following years
declared himself an "authentic Macedonian".
[1] K. J. Belloch "Griechische Geschichte" I-IV (2nd edition)
Berlin-Leipzig 1912-1917.
[2] St. Casson. "Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria", Oxford 1926.
[3] Ap. B. Daskalakis. "The hellenism of Ancient Macedonia",
(In Greek) Athens 1960.
[This text has also been translated into English. The english
edition was published around 1964.]
[4] Geyer Fr. "Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II",
Muenchen 1930.
[5] O. Hoffmann "Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum",
Goettingen 1906.
[6] M. Sakellariou, a chapter on the Macedonian dialect of Greek
in "Macedonia: 4000 years of Greek history and civilization"
edited by M. Sakellariou, EKDOTIKI ATHINON.
[7] N. Martis "The falsification of Macedonian History". Ikaros
Publications, Athens 1984.
[8] D. Zagles "To Makedoniko Problhma kai oi Notioslayoi"
(in Greek), Athens.
[9] Evangelos Kofos "Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia"
Institute for Balkan Studies (ETAIREIA MAKEDONIKON SPOYDON -
IDRYMA MELETON HERSONISOY TOY AIMOY), THESSALONIKI, 1964.
[10] Hammond, N. G. L. (Nicholas Geoffrey Lampriere).
"The miracle that was Macedonia", Sidgwick & Jackson great
civilization series. London: Sidgwick and Jackson;
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
[11] P. Hidiroglou "The Pomaks in Greece and their relations
with Turkey" (In Greek), Herodotos Publications, 1989.
(c) Copyright 1992,1993 by Alexandros
Gerbessiotis.
All rights reserved.
HTML Design and some minor changes Copyright © 2000 Christos Sideris -
Real Macedonia Project. All rights reserved.
Revised: 24/08/00 .