Alexander "the Great"?
andy...@gmail.com
supports in the past," -Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis,
commenting on the decision to rename Skopje International Airport
"Alexander the Great".
Thus a prominent world leader comments on a debate about someone who
has been dead for 2 millennia. It is useless to point out that most of
the world is completely stupified that such a debate could provoke
such passions in the 21stC; stupid or not, it is taking place. And it
could have far-reaching repercussions.
Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
their own.
Why is this?
I mean, what was so "Great" about Alexander anyway? I'm not trying to
be revisionist here. I have nothing new I'd like to attempt to add to
the historical record, nor am I even suggesting that Alexander was not
"Great". I would like, however, to see *why* people are so determined
to claim him as their own.
Therefore, I would like to ask the following questions:
1) What was so "Great" about Alexander? (this may sound like a silly
question, but please indulge me)
2) What was the net benefit of Alexander's career to the Classical
Greek world?
3) What was the net benefit of Alexander's career to the people he
conquered?
4) What is the Alexander's legacy to the modern world?
Again, I am not trying to be a revisionist mere. I have no
"bombshells" to drop, nor do I intend to use any historical data that
is not (at least generally) agreed-upon by the "historians". And once
again, this is an important issue with real and potentially-lethal
consequences. I spent the better part of yesterday evening Googling
the terms "Alexander", "FYROM", "Macedonia", and "airport". Apart from
the (more or less) objective news reporting, there are innumerable
angry, repetitive and extremely arcane debates going on all over
cyberspace between partisans of this issue. The invective (not to
mention outright abuse) is astonishing, especially since I do not
really believe that people really remember why they are arguing over
Alexander.
In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> "With its announcement today, [Macedonia] once again seeks false
> supports in the past," -Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis,
> commenting on the decision to rename Skopje International Airport
> "Alexander the Great".
>
> Thus a prominent world leader comments on a debate about someone who
> has been dead for 2 millennia. It is useless to point out that most of
> the world is completely stupified that such a debate could provoke
> such passions in the 21stC; stupid or not, it is taking place. And it
> could have far-reaching repercussions.
>
> Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> their own.
>
> Why is this?
>
> I mean, what was so "Great" about Alexander anyway? I'm not trying to
This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue about
the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing, territorial
expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito. The Skopjians are
Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina the
"Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
encouraging and condoning them.
akritas
Read Plutarch and you will find why is GREAT....
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fortuna_Alexandri*/home.html
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "With its announcement today, [Macedonia] once again seeks false
> > supports in the past," -Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis,
> > commenting on the decision to rename Skopje International Airport
> > "Alexander the Great".
>
> > Thus a prominent world leader comments on a debate about someone who
> > has been dead for 2 millennia. It is useless to point out that most of
> > the world is completely stupified that such a debate could provoke
> > such passions in the 21stC; stupid or not, it is taking place. And it
> > could have far-reaching repercussions.
>
> > Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > their own.
>
> > Why is this?
>
> > I mean, what was so "Great" about Alexander anyway? I'm not trying to
>
> This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue about
> the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing, territorial
> expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito.
I don't necessarily disagree. But that's not what I am asking. Why do
both sides in this debate actually *want* Alexander to be such a big
part of their history? I'm not saying they shouldn't. Rather, I just
want to clarify why.
> The Skopjians are
> Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
> until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina the
> "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
> Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
> is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> encouraging and condoning them.
Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
(snip)
andy...@gmail.com
>
I assure you I have read my Plutarch. But what in Plutarch's account
was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
answer questions 1-4?
ERIC
>
> > In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
>
> Read Plutarch and you will find why is GREAT....
>
> http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fo...-
> Hide quoted text -
>
I assure you I have read my Plutarch. But what in Plutarch's account
was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
answer questions 1-4?
Andytoole
Are you enrolled in a first year history course and in need of someone else
to write a little paper for you???
Regards
Eric
andy...@gmail.com
> > > In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
>
> > Read Plutarch and you will find why is GREAT....
>
> >http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fo...
>
> I assure you I have read my Plutarch. But what in Plutarch's account
> was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
> answer questions 1-4?
>
> Andytoole
> Are you enrolled in a first year history course and in need of someone else
> to write a little paper for you???
>
> Regards
> Eric
One-line responses are perfectly okay with me, but why dodge the issue
completyely with sarcasm? If he was so great, you can tell us all why
in less space than you took to cast aspersions, can't you?
Personal attacks solve nothing.
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7156237b-b4c8-47cc...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Personal attacks solve nothing.
Andytoole
I am using a one-liner sarcastic posting as a response because I truly feel
that your 'questions' are both disingenious and poorly mask a hidden agenda.
There have already been some excellent responses to other such seemingly
naive questions you have introduced in this newsgroup. The story of
Alexander, as you very well know, is an intrinsic part of the Greek national
consciousness and has been such for well over 2 millenia.
Now, are you also going to ask why Peter the Great is named the GREAT, or
why Charlemagne is named the GREAT or why Napolean is revered by the French
or why el Cid is important to the Spanish, or, or..............please, spare
us such loaded and leading 'honest' questions..
Regards
Eric
Krater Makedonski
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee6ca598-5cd8-470e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 3:46 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "With its announcement today, [Macedonia] once again seeks false
> > supports in the past," -Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis,
> > commenting on the decision to rename Skopje International Airport
> > "Alexander the Great".
>
> > Thus a prominent world leader comments on a debate about someone who
> > has been dead for 2 millennia. It is useless to point out that most of
> > the world is completely stupified that such a debate could provoke
> > such passions in the 21stC; stupid or not, it is taking place. And it
> > could have far-reaching repercussions.
>
> > Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > their own.
>
> > Why is this?
>
> > I mean, what was so "Great" about Alexander anyway? I'm not trying to
>
> This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue
> about
> the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing,
> territorial
> expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito.
I don't necessarily disagree.
If you knew your stuff then you would most certainly disagree.
But that's not what I am asking. Why do
both sides in this debate actually *want* Alexander to be such a big
part of their history?
I can only tell you from my MACEDONIAN viewpoint. Until very recently (the
beginning of this century), at least officially, Alexander and the ancient
Macedonians were almost totally ignored in what is now Republic of
Macedonia, as, despite what you read or hear, especially in this forum, the
Macedonian national/ethnic awareness amongs the Macedonians was stringently
suppressed at all levels in (Republic of ) Macedonia. Especially
academically (only one (quasi)academic in ancient Macedonian history). In
its place the "YUGOslav brotherhood" was vigorously promoted as a
national/ethnic identity. Macedonia became the only republic in the former
Yugoslavia where "yugoSLAV" was the dominant self identification amongst the
population. It still is for many of the Macedonians living in Republic of
Macedonia and for many Macedonian emigrants", despite the non existence of
"Yugoslavia" now. Thus, your comment/question is not correct/applicable in
respect of the Macedonians. But the time has come for the Macedonians to
learn and tell their own true (hi)story and embrace their past ancestors,
instead of others telling (warping) it on their behalf and falsely claiming
Macedonian history/ancestors as their own, which has lead to absurd
situations such as we are in now, eg, an ignorant cypriot
Turk-wanna-be-Greek :-( "teaching" you Macedonian history and Dora claiming
Alexander as her ancestor.
After many unsuccessful attempts by the Macedonians to liberate themselves
from the turkish yoke, the last one being in 1903, and as you by now know,
in 1912 Macedonia was "liberated" from the Turks, only to be partitioned and
re-enslaved by its 3 new "liberators", the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgar(ian)s,
each claiming that the native Macedonian population was of their "sort" (and
other wierd historical links to the land, eg to Alexander and the ancient
Macedonians, in the case of the sub-Saharans (Greeks)), ignoring the facts
that international statistics showed that the great majority of the
population of that time was something else - Macedonian. Dora Bakoyani
wants, through political means/pressure and historical lies to do the
impossible - by eliminating the historical ties of the contemporary
Macedonians with their ancient ancestors and "inserting" in their place the
"greek ties" and with their now highly developed "amnesia" regarding their
occupation of Macedonia, to ensure once and for all time their occupied part
of Macedonia remains for ever in their hands. The sub-Saharans want to stamp
out once and for all the RIGHTFUL claim of the Macedonians to "their" part
of Macedonia. They know only too well that there are at least couple of
millions of Macedonians with origins from the greek-occupied part of
Macedonia, who live "abroad", the largest number of them right next door, in
Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Bulgaria, and as such they live in
fear that these Macedonians will one day make a claim on their land - the
bread basket of Greece and see this moment as very critical in eliminating
any future Macedonian claims to "their" Macedonia. Hence the "name dispute",
hence their 2.5 million "Macedonians" - mostly settlers-christian refugees
from Turkey and Grkomani (assymilated non Greeks, eg Macedonians, Vlachs,
Albanians, etc), with a smaller number of greek colonisers, hence the
importance of TRUE, scholarly history and lastly, hence our RIGHT to call
ourselves as we wish - MACEDONIANS.
I'm not saying they shouldn't. Rather, I just
want to clarify why.
Hopefully it has been clarified from "our" end.
> The Skopjians are
> Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
> until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina
> the
> "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
> Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
> is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> encouraging and condoning them.
Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
Not "maybe", but a pure grecian-propaganda BS.
(snip)
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7156237b-b4c8-47cc...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 6:47 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
>
> > > Read Plutarch and you will find why is GREAT....
>
> > >http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fo...
> > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > I assure you I have read my Plutarch. But what in Plutarch's account
> > was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
> > answer questions 1-4?
>
> > Andytoole
> > Are you enrolled in a first year history course and in need of someone
> > else
> > to write a little paper for you???
>
> > Regards
> > Eric
>
> One-line responses are perfectly okay with me, but why dodge the issue
> completyely with sarcasm? If he was so great, you can tell us all why
> in less space than you took to cast aspersions, can't you?
>
> Personal attacks solve nothing.
>
> Andytoole
> I am using a one-liner sarcastic posting as a response because I truly feel
> that your 'questions' are both disingenious and poorly mask a hidden agenda.
Hidden agenda? Do you believe that I have a hidden agenda? If so, am I
out of line to enquire as to what you think that might be? The
question is quite neutral, as both sides in this debate venerate
Alexander, and if I am questioning the conventional view of Alexander
I am not taking sides at all, am I?
> There have already been some excellent responses to other such seemingly
> naive questions you have introduced in this newsgroup.
Okay. So why are people afraid of giving more excellent answers on a
subject on which lives could possibly depend?
You may not like my point of view; in fact you may not like what I
write at all. But surely you are not so naive as to expect that
everyone you talk to in cyberspace will agree with you. Compared to
the filth splattered all over the net (in particular in regard to the
Greece-FYROM quarrel) I have to say - in my own defense if for no
other reason - that I am a pretty tame (even lame) fellow.
> The story of
> Alexander, as you very well know, is an intrinsic part of the Greek national
> consciousness and has been such for well over 2 millenia.
I don't dispute that for a second and never have. What I am asking is
why. That is a straightforward, honest question. If you are afraid to
answer it, who is hiding their agenda here?
>
> Now, are you also going to ask why Peter the Great is named the GREAT, or
> why Charlemagne is named the GREAT or why Napolean is revered by the French
> or why el Cid is important to the Spanish, or, or..............please, spare
> us such loaded and leading 'honest' questions..
I would put the 1st question to a Russian, the 2nd to a German (or
Belgian or Frenchman), the 3rd to a Spaniard. This, however, is a
newsgroup that deals directly with Alexander the Great and a
contemporary, potentially-explosive quarrel over his place in history.
As I mentioned, cabinet ministers are involved and political futures
of powerful people are at stake. Questioning why this is the case
cannot, to my mind at least, be seen as "disingenuous". You might also
note that I never stoop to personal attacks to make my points. Who is
being disingenuous here?
I can only conclude that you are unwilling to engage in a debate of
this sort, and respect your right to silence. But as I said before, in
newsgroups silence is often a lot more revealing than words.
>
> Regards
> Eric- Hide quoted text -
andy...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ee6ca598-5cd8-470e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:46 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
> > > This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue
> > > about
> > > the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing,
> > > territorial
> > > expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito.
>
(Andy mumbled)
I don't want to get into any of that, and it's not what I was asking.
What I was asking was what I was asking, nothing more ;-)
You do realize that a lot of what you say above is a) racist and b)
hardly likely to yield results, don't you? To be fair, I left
Agamemnon off a little easy. I ought to have pointed out that if you
are guilty under column a) and b), then so is he.
>
> I'm not saying they shouldn't. Rather, I just
> want to clarify why.
>
> Hopefully it has been clarified from "our" end.
>
> > > The Skopjians are
> > > Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
> > > until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina
> > > the
> > > "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
> > > Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
> > > is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> > > encouraging and condoning them.
>
> > Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
>
> Not "maybe", but a pure grecian-propaganda BS.
And racist. Calling someone a slav is just a statement. Calling a slav
a slave is racist.
Spirit of Truth
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
the recreation of Modern Greece.
But for him, you and all would be slave today.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Krater Makedonski" <jordan...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:481e685b$0$17506$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Silly.
The real Macedonia:
http://www.macedonia.com/english/history/regions1.html
http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/stmapi/mapa3.jpg
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Maps/mapSeq_Map01.html
http://crystalinks.com/mapgreeceancient.gif
The Dardanians, Paeonians, and Illyrians are shown below, and those
are the ancient inhabitants of the Fyrom area....NOT ancient
Macedonians:
http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G01/A01/as0106.htm
http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/stmapi/mapa4.jpg
One only has to look below to see that the current Fyrom Slavic majority
are simply West Bulgarians and have no connection to 'Macedonia' anything:
In a letter to Prof. Marin Drinov of May 25, 1888 Kuzman Shapkarev writes:
"But even stranger is the name Macedonians, which was imposed on us only 10
to 15 years ago by outsiders, and not as something by our own
intellectuals... Yet the people in Macedonia know nothing of that ancient
name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one
on the other. They know the older word: "Bugari", although mispronounced:
they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other
Bulgarians. You can find more about this in the introduction to the booklets
I am sending you. They call their own Macedono-Bulgarian dialect the
"Bugarski language", while the rest of the Bulgarian dialects they refer to
as the "Shopski language". (Makedonski pregled, IX, 2, 1934, p. 55; the
original letter is kept in the Marin Drinov Museum in Sofia, and it is
available for examination and study)
Here is the text in the original:
"No pochudno e imeto Makedonci, koeto naskoro, edvay predi 10-15 godini, ni
natrapiha i to otvqn, a ne kakto nyakoi mislyat ot samata nasha
inteligenciya... Narodqt obache v Makedoniya ne znae nishto za tova
arhaichesko, a dnes, s lukava cel ot edna strana, s glupeshka ot druga,
podnoveno prozvishte; toy si znae postaroto: Bugari, makar i nepravilno
proiznasyano, daje osvoyava si go kato sobstveno i preimushtestveno svoe,
nejeli za drugite Bqlgari. Za tova shte vidite i v predgovora na izpratenite
mi knijici. Toy naricha Bugarski ezik svoeto Makaedono-bqlgarsko narechie,
kogato drugite bqlgarski narechiya naricha Shopski."
And here:
Reference source for Gotse Delchev's numerous utterings of 'We are
Bulgarians'......
http://www.ucc.ie/staff/jprodr/macedonia/macmodnat2.html
Even Gotse Delchev, the famous Macedonian revolutionary leader, whose nom de
guerre was Ahil (Achilles), refers to "the Slavs of Macedonia as
'Bulgarians' in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a
designation was a point of contention" (Perry 1988:23).
In his correspondence Gotse Delchev often states clearly and simply, "We are
Bulgarians" (MacDermott 1978:192,273).
And here:
For fair use only.
http://members.tripod.com/~dimobetchev/documents/ilinden.htm
" Considering the critical and terrible situation that the Bulgarian
population of the Bitola Vilayet found itself in and following the ravages
and cruelties done by the Turkish troops and irregulars, ... considering
the fact that everything Bulgarian runs the risk of perishing and
disappearing without a trace because of violence, hunger, and the upcoming
misery, the Head Quarters finds it to be its obligation to draw the
attention of the respected Bulgarian government to the pernicious
consequences vis-a-vis the Bulgarian nation, in case the latter does not
fulfill its duty towards its brethren of race here in an imposing fashion
which is necessary by virtue of the present ordeal for the common Bulgarian
Fatherland...
...Being in command of our people's movement, we appeal to you on behalf of
the enslaved Bulgarian to help him in the most effective way - by waging
war.We believe that the response of the people in free Bulgaria will be the
same.
... No Bulgarian school is opened, neither will it be opened... Nobody
thinks of education when he is outlawed by the state because he bears the
name Bulgar...
Waiting for your patriotic intervention, we are pleased to inform you that
we have in our disposition the armed forces we have spared by now.
The Head Quarters of the Ilinden Uprising"
Damian GRUEV, Boris SARAFOV, Atanas LOZANTCHEV
This memorandum was handed to Dr.Kozhuharov, the Bulgarian consul in Bitola,
and transmitted by him to the government in Sofia with report N441 from
September 17th, 1903. "
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
>
> Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
> by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
> the recreation of Modern Greece.
Finally a straight answer. First of all, how did Alexander found the
modern age? What did he do to usher it in? As far as I can see, all he
did was conquer the Persian empire (an empire that already existed as
a whole unit and was bigger than that of Alexander). Then what
happened? The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making a
battlefield of it. That's why I am asking exactly what good it all did
to anyone, including the Greeks themselves.
And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so great about it? How were
the Successors better than the rulers who preceded them?
>
> But for him, you and all would be slave today.
That's an interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on how
Alexander prevented the enslavement of Western Europe?
ADR
Andy,
There are countless biographies of Alexander the Great and also
countless histories of the era, all answering your question. I would
not even attempt to answer this.
The fact that people are dead for millenia or for centuries does not
mean that their presence is not felt in today's world. Here in the US
the whole legal debate -and a heated one at that- is what the
"founders thought". There is an intense debate about this that frames
the whole legal and constitutional environment. These guys have been
dead for centuries but there are persons in the Supreme Court who
commute with their spirits. I am not even going to go to Jesus,
Buddha, Mohammed or others for whom books are written virtually daily!
So, this is a redundant question.
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9eacd619-0068-49aa...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I can only conclude that you are unwilling to engage in a debate of
this sort, and respect your right to silence. But as I said before, in
newsgroups silence is often a lot more revealing than words.
Dear Andytoole
Your statement "Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped -
by both sides
in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
their own." explains why I refuse to rise to your bait
Entering into any type of discussion following such a statement as you
provided gives credence or tacitly supports the ridiculous and pathetic
claims by the slavs of the FYROM that they have even an iota of a valid
heritage claim to Alexander and the histories of Classical and Hellenistic
history. By phrasing your 'earnest' questions in such a manner, you are
purposely supporting their ridiculous and absolutely historically
unsupportable claims.
Your suggestion to discuss the 'Alexander the GREAT' issue, as you have
submitted to this newsgroup, is akin to wanting to discuss with someone such
a question as 'Do you still enjoy torturing puppies or do you still beat
your wife'.
There is no element of legitimacy or neutrality in your line of questioning
Regards
Eric
andy...@gmail.com
when describing this debate. Everything ends up getting hopelessly
intertwined with everything else, and everybody has hundreds of
documents, professors, maps, chronicles and archaeological "evidence"
to support their claims.
On balance, it appears that the weight of evidence favours the Greek
position, but one gets the distinct impression that that's just
because they have had a much longer exposure to "western slyness" that
the Fyromian one. Their propaganda is better, but that's all it is.
That of the Fyromians is pretty crude, but that doesn't mean that
their case is any weaker than that of the Greeks.
But all of this is - quite literally - academic. It rarely takes very
long before the accusations, personal attacks and insults (often of a
sickeningly pornographic nature) take over. One envisions a set of
people separated by thousands of miles, yet all red-faced with fury
and pounding their keyboards in an effort to hurl abuse at each other
as quickly as possible. Interestingly, there is an actual shooting war
between the US military and certain sectors of the Iraqi public, and
even they don't seem to be capable of the furious, obscene rancour one
sees in the Greece/Fryom fight.
Yet even this can be put down to the usual "nuts" one unfortunately
has to live with when discussing things on the web. What is difficult
to ignore is the fact that this is actually affecting peoples' lives.
Having a Nato application rejected is a real consequence. Being denied
EU membership is a real consequence. And given the level of venom one
sees, it would not be outrageous to expect that sooner or later
someone is going to die over this.
And if that were to happen, what, exactly, would they have died for?
This "Alexander" question is either serious or it is not. If it is
serious it must be discussed in a civilized manner. If it is not, then
it must be relegated to the angry posters on the internet. I rather
suspect it is serious (even if I still cannot for the life of me
understand why).
On May 4, 9:55 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.ap...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:481e685b$0$17506$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
Spirit of Truth
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eea0c42b-8d15-42c6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 9:50 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
> Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
> by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
> the recreation of Modern Greece.
Finally a straight answer. First of all, how did Alexander found the
modern age? What did he do to usher it in? As far as I can see, all he
did was conquer the Persian empire (an empire that already existed as
a whole unit and was bigger than that of Alexander). Then what
happened?
........................................................................................................
Greek, Greek, Greek....the dissemination of Greek and Greek ideas
....it all flows from what Alexander did.
Map it out yourself, you don't need us to work it out for you.
....................................................................................................... The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making abattlefield of it. That's why I am asking exactly what good it all didto anyone, including the Greeks themselves.And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so great about it? How werethe Successors better than the rulers who preceded them?>> But for him, you and all would be slave today.That's an interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on howAlexander prevented the enslavement of Western Europe?........................................................................................................The Western Civilization would not have happened. Instead,enslavement as of Eastern civilization would have dominated theworld.Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very existence.The Isles of Greece! the isles of greece!Where burning Sappho loved and sung,Where grew the arts of war and peace,Where Delos rose, and Phoebus sprung!Eternal summer gilds them yet,But all, except their sun, is set.The Scian and the Teian museThe hero's harp, the lover's lute,Have found the fame your shores refuse:Their place of birth alone is muteTo sounds which echo further westThan your sires' 'Islands of the Blest'.The mountains look on Marathon--And Marathon looks on the sea;And musing there an hour alone,I dream'd that Greece might still be free;For standing on the Persians' grave,I could not deem myself a slave.A king sate on the rocky browWhich looks o'er sea-born Salamis;And ships, by thousands, lay below,And men in nations;--all were his!He counted them at break of day--And when the sun set, where were they?Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17aa9918-c897-41e8...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
This is the kind of thing that leads me to use words like "arcane"
when describing this debate. Everything ends up getting hopelessly
intertwined with everything else, and everybody has hundreds of
documents, professors, maps, chronicles and archaeological "evidence"
to support their claims.
On balance, it appears that the weight of evidence favours the Greek
position, but one gets the distinct impression that that's just
because they have had a much longer exposure to "western slyness" that
the Fyromian one. Their propaganda is better, but that's all it is.
That of the Fyromians is pretty crude, but that doesn't mean that
their case is any weaker than that of the Greeks.
..................................................................................................
That is very untrue. They ARE West Bulgarians, period. Anyone
who knows anything about actual Balkan history knows that.
Spirit
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eea0c42b-8d15-42c6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 9:50 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
> > by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
> > the recreation of Modern Greece.
>
> Finally a straight answer. First of all, how did Alexander found the
> modern age? What did he do to usher it in? As far as I can see, all he
> did was conquer the Persian empire (an empire that already existed as
> a whole unit and was bigger than that of Alexander). Then what
> happened?
>
> Greek, Greek, Greek....the dissemination of Greek and Greek ideas
> ....it all flows from what Alexander did.
>
> Map it out yourself, you don't need us to work it out for you.
Well, the only comment I have heard on this newsgroup I have read
about the value of ancient Greek culture and ideas was ADR's rather
categorical dismissal of Socrates.
>
> ....................................................................................................... The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making abattlefield of it. That's why I am asking exactly what good it all didto anyone, including the Greeks themselves.And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so great about it? How werethe Successors better than the rulers who preceded them?>> But for him, you and all would be slave today.That's an interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on howAlexander prevented the enslavement of Western Europe?........................................................................................................The Western Civilization would not have happened. Instead,enslavement as of Eastern civilization would have dominated theworld.
Why do you say that? And as far as I can see, the armies of Alexander
and his succesors did a pretty good job of enslaving the East. Were
they supposed to be liberators?
> Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very existence.
That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
admitted that it might have been the other way around.
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
>
> Dear Andytoole
>
> Your statement "Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped -
> by both sides
> in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> their own." explains why I refuse to rise to your bait
Why is this? Do you believe it to be an inaccurate statement?
>
> Entering into any type of discussion following such a statement as you
> provided gives credence or tacitly supports the ridiculous and pathetic
> claims by the slavs of the FYROM that they have even an iota of a valid
> heritage claim to Alexander and the histories of Classical and Hellenistic
> history.
Ergo, they have not a jot, not a single teensy shred of right on their
side? Absolutely none whatsoever? If not, why the fierce debate? Why
not just dismiss the whole thing?
And anyway, that's not what I was asking. What I was asking is what I
was asking. If you dislike me now, you are going to absolutely hate me
for my next statement. I take peoples' refusal to debate me on this as
an oblique compliment. Ain't I a stinker? ;-)
> By phrasing your 'earnest' questions in such a manner, you are
> purposely supporting their ridiculous and absolutely historically
> unsupportable claims.
Eric, only I know what my own motives are, though even I can't be 100%
sure. I would appreciate it if we discussed ideas, not personalities.
>
> Your suggestion to discuss the 'Alexander the GREAT' issue, as you have
> submitted to this newsgroup, is akin to wanting to discuss with someone such
> a question as 'Do you still enjoy torturing puppies or do you still beat
> your wife'.
I think the simile is not a valid one. There is no possibility of
anyone being smeared or slandered in my question, nor is their any
presupposition of such. The answers I am hearing are, however, very
eye-opening in any event. Merely by asking questions about Alexander
that could (and I only say "could") lead to some tarnishing of
Alexander's place in the history books, I seem to be somehow attacking
something very precious, very dear to some peoples' heart, to the
extent that they could concievably get angry or feel some sort of deep
injury.
Is this an incorrect reading?
> There is no element of legitimacy or neutrality in your line of questioning
Why do you say that? Both sides seem to positively worship Alexander,
after all. Both sides ought to be equally suspicious and irritated by
me, shouldn't they?
By annoying both sides equally I may not win any popularity contests,
but I can at least claim *some* sort of impartiality, no?
But I am familiar with the eternal truism that, in debates of this
nature, one is either "for us or against us".
And that is the problem IMHO.
>
> Regards
> Eric
I.N. Galidakis
> On May 4, 8:29 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> Andytoole
>> I am using a one-liner sarcastic posting as a response because I
>> truly feel that your 'questions' are both disingenious and poorly
>> mask a hidden agenda.
>
> Hidden agenda? Do you believe that I have a hidden agenda?
Yes, you do. And if you think we are naive enough to not see behind your
'innocent questions' here, you are either yourself naive or of extremely low
intelligence.
> If so, am I
> out of line to enquire as to what you think that might be?
The usual crap of western propagandists and racists, who come with an 'apparent'
interest of trying to figure out answers to 'innocent, interesting and tough'
questions, but who deep down are just looking for an excuse to devour the Greek
spirit upon first chance. The usual: A wolf in sheep's clothing.
If you really knew the actual worth of the Greek spirit (and Hellenism's value),
you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
In short, we don't *need* people like you here, so feel free to buzz off to some
other newsgroup.
[snip crap]
--
I.N. Galidakis
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba2e1050-f9de-4423...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 10:31 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eea0c42b-8d15-42c6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 9:50 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
> > by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
> > the recreation of Modern Greece.
>
> Finally a straight answer. First of all, how did Alexander found the
> modern age? What did he do to usher it in? As far as I can see, all he
> did was conquer the Persian empire (an empire that already existed as
> a whole unit and was bigger than that of Alexander). Then what
> happened?
> ........................................................................................................
>
> Greek, Greek, Greek....the dissemination of Greek and Greek ideas
> ....it all flows from what Alexander did.
>
> Map it out yourself, you don't need us to work it out for you.
<<<Well, the only comment I have heard on this newsgroup I have read
about the value of ancient Greek culture and ideas was ADR's rather
categorical dismissal of Socrates.>>>
Then you haven't understood anything.
>
> .......................................................................................................
> The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making abattlefield of it.
> That's why I am asking exactly what good it all didto anyone, including
> the Greeks themselves.And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so great
> about it? How werethe Successors better than the rulers who preceded
> them?>> But for him, you and all would be slave today.That's an
> interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on howAlexander
> prevented the enslavement of Western
> Europe?........................................................................................................The
> Western Civilization would not have happened. Instead,enslavement as of
> Eastern civilization would have dominated theworld.
<<<Why do you say that? And as far as I can see, the armies of Alexander
and his succesors did a pretty good job of enslaving the East. Were
they supposed to be liberators?>>>
The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes. Alexander
and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
> Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very
> existence.
<<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the west
too.
Agamemnon
"Krater Makedonski" <jordan...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:481e685b$0$17506$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
The Skopjians own true history is that they are Bulgarian Slavs with no
connection whatsoever to Macedonia or the Macedonians who are ethnic Greeks.
> instead of others telling (warping) it on their behalf and falsely
> claiming Macedonian history/ancestors as their own, which has lead to
> absurd situations such as we are in now, eg, an ignorant cypriot
> Turk-wanna-be-Greek :-( "teaching" you Macedonian history and Dora
> claiming Alexander as her ancestor.
>
> After many unsuccessful attempts by the Macedonians to liberate themselves
> from the turkish yoke, the last one being in 1903, and as you by now know,
> in 1912 Macedonia was "liberated" from the Turks, only to be partitioned
> and re-enslaved by its 3 new "liberators", the Greeks, Serbs and
> Bulgar(ian)s, each claiming that the native Macedonian population was of
> their "sort" (and
The was NO Ottoman province of Macedonia. Skopjia was the capital of the
Ottoman viliyat or Skopjia. The only Macedonia which has existed since
Byzantine times when the Slavs came to the Balkans only included the
territory of the Greek province of Macedonia and Thrace. This area was never
ruled by the Slavs who were the ancestors of the Skopjians. Skopjia was the
capital of the Bulgarian Empire when the Macedonian dynasty ruled Byzantium.
After that Skopjia became part of the Kingdom of Serbia and was known as
Vardarska Banovina. After which it was conquered by the Turks and became the
viliyat of Skopjia. The only people who referred to any territory by the
name of Macedonia in Ottoman times were the Greeks who lived in the part of
the Ottoman province of Rumelia (which included all of Greece) where
Macedonia is today. Macedonia was liberated from the Turks by the Greeks and
this is now the current Greek province of Macedonia. The Skopjians did not
liberate Macedonia. The Skopjians identified themselves as Bulgarians in the
Ottoman census of the time and Vardarska Banovina and the Skopjians that
lived there were conquered by Bulgaria in the first Balkan War and in the
second Balkan War Vardarska Banovina was annexed by Serbia remained under
that name until Tito renamed it Macedonia in 1944 since 40% of it was part
of the former Roman province of that name, which did not even exist when the
Slavs came to live in the area, and nothing to do with the kingdom of
Alexander or his successors, in order to lay claim to northern Greece which
formed the bulk of that province.
> other wierd historical links to the land, eg to Alexander and the ancient
> Macedonians, in the case of the sub-Saharans (Greeks)), ignoring the facts
> that international statistics showed that the great majority of the
> population of that time was something else - Macedonian. Dora Bakoyani
> wants, through political means/pressure and historical lies to do the
> impossible - by eliminating the historical ties of the contemporary
> Macedonians with their ancient ancestors and "inserting" in their place
> the "greek ties" and with their now highly developed "amnesia" regarding
> their occupation of Macedonia, to ensure once and for all time their
> occupied part of Macedonia remains for ever in their hands. The
> sub-Saharans want to stamp out once and for all the RIGHTFUL claim of the
> Macedonians to "their" part of Macedonia. They know only too well that
> there are at least couple of millions of Macedonians with origins from the
> greek-occupied part of Macedonia, who live "abroad", the largest number of
> them right next door, in Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Bulgaria,
> and as such they live in fear that these Macedonians will one day make a
> claim on their land - the bread basket of Greece and see this moment as
> very critical in eliminating any future Macedonian claims to "their"
> Macedonia. Hence the "name dispute", hence their 2.5 million
> "Macedonians" - mostly settlers-christian refugees from Turkey and
> Grkomani (assymilated non Greeks, eg Macedonians, Vlachs, Albanians, etc),
> with a smaller number of greek colonisers, hence the importance of TRUE,
> scholarly history and lastly, hence our RIGHT to call ourselves as we
> wish - MACEDONIANS.
You are a crazy brainwashed fool.
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e9387d0-fac2-4c27...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
(Andy mumbled)
HOGWASH! Skopjian is not a racist term. The occupants of the Ottoman viliyat
of Skopjia were called Skopjians.
>
> I'm not saying they shouldn't. Rather, I just
> want to clarify why.
>
> Hopefully it has been clarified from "our" end.
>
> > > The Skopjians are
> > > Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs
> > > up
> > > until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska
> > > Banovina
> > > the
> > > "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the
> > > existing
> > > Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime
> > > and so
> > > is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> > > encouraging and condoning them.
>
> > Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
>
> Not "maybe", but a pure grecian-propaganda BS.
<<<And racist. Calling someone a slav is just a statement. Calling a slav
a slave is racist.>>>
I didn't call any Slav a Slave.
Agamemnon
"Spirit of Truth" <juneh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FcvTj.13849$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
And on top of their attempt to call their rump-state Macedonia and call
themselves Macedonians and theft of the Star of Vergina to use as their flag
was an act of war against Greece. They knew full well this would be a
provocation when they declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Had
they returned to their historical name of Vardarska Banovina or Republic of
Skopjia there would have been no problem and they would have been invited to
join NATO and the EU by now.
>
>
> Spirit
>
>
>
Agamemnon
"ERIC" <fit...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:qWrTj.244000$pM4.100175@pd7urf1no...
>
>>
>> > In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
>>
>> Read Plutarch and you will find why is GREAT....
>>
>> http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fo...-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I assure you I have read my Plutarch. But what in Plutarch's account
> was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
> answer questions 1-4?
He is called Alexander the Great because there were two Alexander's before
him, Alexander I who fought the Persians in 480 BC and Alexander II who only
ruled for about a year and his deeds was greater than both. His father
Phillip II was called Phillip the Great for the same reason.
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:333b6645-daa8-49af...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 10:13 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
(snip)
>
> Dear Andytoole
>
> Your statement "Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped -
> by both sides
> in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> their own." explains why I refuse to rise to your bait
Why is this? Do you believe it to be an inaccurate statement?
No, my point was made as below:
Andytoole......
I mean no personal attack on you
In answer to your question(s); The Greek 'side' is not a side in a game.
That type of analogy does not fit the situation at hand and, I think, is
not a suitable intellectual avenue to pursue. The Greek 'side' is a body of
historical fact based on archaeological and written evidence. The other
'side', the FYROM 'side', is fabulism.
This situation does not make for a debate; perhaps an exercise in fantasy
fiction writing, but not a debate.
And that is the problem IMHO.
ditto from Eric
Nikolaj
>
> In other words, of what consisted Alexander's "Greatness"?
A little story which might help you:
Story between Alexander the Great and Sadhu via translator in India
(Red Earth and Pouring Rain)
Translator:
He wants to know why you're naked.
Sadhu:
Ask him why he's wearing clothes.
Translator:
He says he's asking the questions here.
Sadhu:
Questions give birth only to other questions.
Translator:
He says people who get funny with him get executed.
Sadhu:
Why?
Translator:
Because he's the King of kings. And he wants you to stop asking
questions.
Sadhu:
King of kings?
Translator:
He came all the way from a place called Greece, killing other kings, so
he's the King of kings, see.
Sadhu:
Fool of fools. Master-Clown of clowns. Maha-idiot of idiots.
Translator:
You want me to tell him that?
Sadhu:
I said it, didn't I?
Translator:
You're crazier than he is. He says he'll kill you. Right here,
right now.
Sadhu:
I'll have to die someday.
Translator:
Listen, don't do this. He's demented, he doesn't realize who you
are, he thinks naked people are poor savages. He'll really kill you.
Sadhu:
I'll really have to die someday.
Translator:
He wants to know why you aren't scared of dying.
Sadhu:
That'd be silly.
Translator:
He says that's not a satisfactory answer.
Sadhu:
What sort of answer would he like?
Translator:
He says you should tell him exactly what mystic path you followed to
reach this sublime state of indifference. And he wishes you would stop
asking questions. Really, this is incredible, I think you've got him
hooked.
Sadhu:
Mystic path?
Translator:
Mystic path. Literal translation.
Sadhu:
When I feel like shitting, I shit; when I feel like eating, I eat.
Translator:
I don't think I've ever seen him like this - he doesn't know
whether to be upset or horribly fascinated. You're very good at
this. He says that shitting when you feel like shitting is
irresponsible, you should have some discipline in your life, instead of
lounging about naked under a big tree. He says that people who shit
when they feel like shitting never do anything with their lives.
Sadhu:
Ask him how often he shits.
Translator:
You want me to ask Alexander of Macedon how often he shits, in public?
Sadhu:
I said it, didn't I?
Translator:
You know, you're starting to get on my nerves with this
answering-questions-with-questions dodge. All right, I'll ask him.
I think he's speechless. I think he's upset.
Sadhu:
O-ho. I thought he looked constipated the moment I saw him.
Translator:
What? What? You want me to tell him that?
Sadhu:
Why not? Tell him that's probably why he's impelled to invade
other nations and massacre tribes and all of that-any student of yoga
will tell you that mistreating the body leads to mental disaster.
Yogic science has shown that people who hold it in are inescapably
driven to behavior like running about slashing at people, besieging
towns, and frivolous acts of bravery.
Translator:
Now you've done it. He has those fits when he gets angry, see,
he's rolling about on the ground. Last time he did that he put a
city of eighty thousand to the torch, no survivors.
Sadhu:
He'd be a lot better off if he shat more often. I wonder what his
per week rate is.
Translator:
I'm not going to ask him that, understand? He'll kill you and all
your friends and probably all the rest of Sindh too. I refuse on the
grounds of conscience. It's my job, but I refuse for the well-being
of all the population of this country.
Sadhu:
There's a yogic cure for constipation. Every morning you take...
Translator:
Shut up. Shut up. You've caused enough trouble for one day.
Sadhu:
You'd be remembered as the man who saved the world from Alexander the
butcher. Get this fellow shitting right and he'd probably go home,
quiet as a lamb.
Translator:
No, no. You're lucky, he's decided killing you would be bad for
his campaign at this moment, he'd look cruel, and then nobody would
surrender. He's having his chroniclers strike this conversation from
the record. Now history will state that Alexander the Great met some
strange naked man under a tree, that's all.
Sadhu:
Well, well. Good luck, friend.
Translator:
Good luck to you too, or is that what one wishes people like you? Now
I'm asking questions?
Sadhu:
Why don't you write this down, or at least the gist of if? Then,
history will remember you as the originator of the world's only
all-comprehensive theory of imperial conquest: the constipation
hypothesis, or the shit-glory affinity.
Translator:
No, thanks. Even if I hated my children, I would wish other curses on
them, not ridicule.
Sadhu:
You'd save the world from a lot of tight-assed murderers.
Translator:
No. No.
Sadhu:
You'll see. All the truly great liberators will admit this theory
into their ruminations and calculations.
Translator:
No.
Sadhu:
And so the world dies, from a surfeit of surly sphincters. It is,
after all, so very simple.
andy...@gmail.com
> andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:29 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Andytoole
> >> I am using a one-liner sarcastic posting as a response because I
> >> truly feel that your 'questions' are both disingenious and poorly
> >> mask a hidden agenda.
>
> > Hidden agenda? Do you believe that I have a hidden agenda?
>
> Yes, you do. And if you think we are naive enough to not see behind your
> 'innocent questions' here, you are either yourself naive or of extremely low
> intelligence.
Well, I can only say that this is not a logical conclusion to draw
about someone you know virtually nothing about.
>
> > If so, am I
> > out of line to enquire as to what you think that might be?
>
> The usual crap of western propagandists and racists, who come with an 'apparent'
> interest of trying to figure out answers to 'innocent, interesting and tough'
> questions, but who deep down are just looking for an excuse to devour the Greek
> spirit upon first chance. The usual: A wolf in sheep's clothing.
Once again, upon what do you base such views of me? I promise not to
get too offended by character attacks if you promise to explain to me
why you feel the way you do about me. Deal?
>
> If you really knew the actual worth of the Greek spirit (and Hellenism's value),
> you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
Why do you believe these to be stupid questions? And isn't this a
"discussion group"; i.e.; isn't discussing things that may be
controversial the whole purpose of newsgroups in general? I doubt you
would prefer the usual filth that people hurl at each other in
discussions like this, but at the end of the day (as I have already
said) I don't really know. But what I am beginning to infer is that
questioning things like hellenism or Alexander or the rest of it is
essentially off limits.
Is this correct?
>
> In short, we don't *need* people like you here, so feel free to buzz off to some
> other newsgroup.
If "people like me" (apparently you know all about me) are so
offensive, why not just pretend that I am posting nothing? Why bother
to respond at all? Simply ignoring me would end any discussions pretty
fast, after all.
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <<<Well, the only comment I have heard on this newsgroup I have read
> about the value of ancient Greek culture and ideas was ADR's rather
> categorical dismissal of Socrates.>>>
>
> Then you haven't understood anything.
Maybe not. That's why I am initiating this discussion.
>
>
>
> > .......................................................................................................
> > > The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making a battlefield of it.
> > > That's why I am asking exactly what good it all didto anyone, including
> > > the Greeks themselves.And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so great
> > > about it? How werethe Successors better than the rulers who preceded
> > > them?
>> But for him, you and all would be slave today.That's an
> > interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on howAlexander
> > prevented the enslavement of Western
> > Europe?........................................................................................................The
> > Western Civilization would not have happened. Instead,enslavement as of
> > Eastern civilization would have dominated theworld.
>
> <<<Why do you say that? And as far as I can see, the armies of Alexander
> and his succesors did a pretty good job of enslaving the East. Were
> they supposed to be liberators?>>>
>
> The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
> Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes. Alexander
> and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
> culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
> superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
Quite a categorical statement. Are you suggesting that freedom of
speech, thought, music etc id not exist prior to the arrival of
Alexander's armies? I doubt you are. And are you suggesting that the
subject peoples of the Hellenistic East were completely free to speak
their minds about their situation in life? Indeed, were the Greeks
themselves free to do so?
I also notice that you left out freedom of franchise, freedom of
assembly etc.
>
> > Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> > been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very
> > existence.
>
> <<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
> claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
> admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
>
> If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the west
> too.
Another interesting point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But do
you have anything to support that claim?
(snip)
andy...@gmail.com
> "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.ap...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
And somehow "people like me" are supposed to keep out of this
discussion. If remarks like this (which you will never catch me
making) are acceptable and my style of debate is not, what does this
say about the level of debate here? Who is really debasing the
discussion?
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7e9387d0-fac2-4c27...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 8:52 pm, "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.ap...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <<<You do realize that a lot of what you say above is a) racist and b)
> hardly likely to yield results, don't you? To be fair, I left
> Agamemnon off a little easy. I ought to have pointed out that if you
> are guilty under column a) and b), then so is he.>>>
>
> HOGWASH! Skopjian is not a racist term. The occupants of the Ottoman viliyat
> of Skopjia were called Skopjians.
>
See below.
>
(snip)
>
> <<<And racist. Calling someone a slav is just a statement. Calling a slav
> a slave is racist.>>>
>
> I didn't call any Slav a Slave.- Hide quoted text -
>
"The Skopjians are
Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs
up
until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska
Banovina the
"Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the
existing
Macedonia which was a province of Greece."
If this is a typo I retract.
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
> And on top of their attempt to call their rump-state Macedonia and call
> themselves Macedonians and theft of the Star of Vergina to use as their flag
> was an act of war against Greece.
There. Somebody said it finally. The name of someone's country and the
use of certain symbols (2000 year-old ones at that!) is an "act of
war". This is not a trivial discusion.
I am not saying tht I agree with Agamemnon on this point, but suffice
it to say that there are those who certainly do.
> They knew full well this would be a
> provocation when they declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Had
> they returned to their historical name of Vardarska Banovina or Republic of
> Skopjia there would have been no problem and they would have been invited to
> join NATO and the EU by now.
Once again, it seems that there are those among us who do indeed
believe that it's all in the name.
I'll ask again. Suppose you are right, Agamemnon. Suppose this does
lead to a war. When the first person in such a war loses their life
(or leg or sanity), what would they have lost it for?
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
>
> > was so "Great" about Alexander? How, in other words, would Plutarch
> > answer questions 1-4?
>
> He is called Alexander the Great because there were two Alexander's before
> him, Alexander I who fought the Persians in 480 BC and Alexander II who only
> ruled for about a year and his deeds was greater than both.
Fair enough. Is that the only reason? And of what consisted the
"greatness" of both?
> His father
> Phillip II was called Phillip the Great for the same reason.
Therefore Philip the Great was merely greater than his father?
>
(snip)
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:333b6645-daa8-49af...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 10:13 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Dear Andytoole
>
> > > Your statement "Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped -
> > > by both sides
> > > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > > their own." explains why I refuse to rise to your bait
>
> > Why is this? Do you believe it to be an inaccurate statement?
>
> No, my point was made as below:
>
(snip)
>
> > Why do you say that? Both sides seem to positively worship Alexander,
> > after all. Both sides ought to be equally suspicious and irritated by
> > me, shouldn't they?
>
> > By annoying both sides equally I may not win any popularity contests,
> > but I can at least claim *some* sort of impartiality, no?
>
> But I am familiar with the eternal truism that, in debates of this
> nature, one is either "for us or against us".
>
> Andytoole......
> I mean no personal attack on you
>
> In answer to your question(s); The Greek 'side' is not a side in a game.
I am aware of this. Although some categorically deny it, there are
those who hold that this entire issue could lead to bloodshed. Hardly
a game. But the Fyromians don't believe that 'their' position is a
side in a game either, do they?
> That type of analogy does not fit the situation at hand and, I think, is
> not a suitable intellectual avenue to pursue. The Greek 'side' is a body of
> historical fact based on archaeological and written evidence. The other
> 'side', the FYROM 'side', is fabulism.
But I might add that both sides' position, as in any issue of
historicity, can be debated. As I have said, on balance the 'Greek'
position is much more sophisticated and based on much more 'hard'
evidence. But only on balance. Leaving the 'Fyromian' position out
completely, there is still plenty of scope for debating someone who
lived more than 2300 years ago, and about whom we only really have the
sketchiest of evidence.
The 'Greek' case may be stronger (and I emphasise *may*), but that
doesn't mean it is flawless or open to debate. In addition, in matters
such as these, what people believe to be right (or even what they want
to believe is right) is far more important than what may be
incontrovertibly 'right' - assuming such a thing is even possible.
>
> This situation does not make for a debate; perhaps an exercise in fantasy
> fiction writing, but not a debate.
That, unfortunately, can be said of historiography in general.
andy...@gmail.com
easily substitute Diogenes for the sadhu ;-)
cheers
On May 5, 6:40 am, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
> andyto...@gmail.com pravi:
andy...@gmail.com
Why not? One would assume that if it was so obviously evident that he
was 'Great' it wouldn't be that diffucult to come up with even a
shorthand explanation as to why.
>
> The fact that people are dead for millenia or for centuries does not
> mean that their presence is not felt in today's world.
Of course it doesn't. But it serves us all well to ask ourselves why
they cast so long a shadow, otherwise we are simply blind slaves to
the past.
> Here in the US
> the whole legal debate -and a heated one at that- is what the
> "founders thought". There is an intense debate about this that frames
> the whole legal and constitutional environment.
And that is an extremely healthy thing, isn't it? That is precisely
why I asked my 4 questions. There's no sense in just taking things as
a given.
> These guys have been
> dead for centuries but there are persons in the Supreme Court who
> commute with their spirits. I am not even going to go to Jesus,
> Buddha, Mohammed or others for whom books are written virtually daily!
>
> So, this is a redundant question
I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion from everything you have
just said, actually.
Panayiotis
"And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece."
(Strabo VII, Frg. 9 [Loeb, H.L. Jones])
======================================
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[Snip]
> Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> their own.
>
> Why is this?
>
[Snip]
andytoole,
If, by reading so many books about Ancient Macedonia and Alexander the
Great, you have not come to a conclusion why his name is among the Great Men
in History, please ask your
compatriots, the Skopjans.
Up to two years ago, you consisered the Bulgarian Czar Samuil as your
national hero. And, you mocked at Alexander the Great as "Alex the Gay".
Hope your memory is still sharp and you do remember this.
Now, FYROMians denounce anything Bulgarian and they consider themselves "the
beloved descendants" of our Macedonian King.
Ask the Skopjans, why they switched from the great Bulgarian King Samuil to
another great man in History, i.e. the Greek Macedonian Alexander the Great.
They must have found something "GREAT" in him.
Panayiotis
Panayiotis
"And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece."
(Strabo VII, Frg. 9 [Loeb, H.L. Jones])
======================================
news:481e685b$0$17506$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
Zhivko,
Your propaganda is known to everyone, very well.
However, you omit one (at least one!) small piece of information!
That is, what percentage of the Ancient Macedonia belongs to FYROM and what
percentage to Greece. If the 90% of Ancient Macedonia (Philip's time)
belongs to Greece, then how can your dreams of "liberating us from Greece"
can become a reality? Isn't this stupid?
St. Paul did not visit any places in present-day FYROM. He visited
Thessalonini, Philippi, Veria, Methoni. All cities belonging to Greece, not
FYROM.
Panayiotis
andy...@gmail.com
> ======================================
> "And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece."
> (Strabo VII, Frg. 9 [Loeb, H.L. Jones])
>
> news:e49c31d1-401d-4647...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > their own.
>
> > Why is this?
>
> [Snip]
>
> andytoole,
> If, by reading so many books about Ancient Macedonia and Alexander the
> Great, you have not come to a conclusion why his name is among the Great Men
> in History, please ask your
> compatriots, the Skopjans.
My compatriots? I find this a somewhat bizarre thing to say,
considering that I am not a 'Skopjan', have never been to Skopje, nor
am I ever likely to do so (although I wouldn't turn down a free
vacation there!).
> Up to two years ago, you consisered the Bulgarian Czar Samuil as your
> national hero.
Did I?
> And, you mocked at Alexander the Great as "Alex the Gay".
No I didn't. In fact, I have a whole pile of books about him, and I
don't really care what his sexual orientation was, considering all the
other more interesting things he got up to during his life.
> Hope your memory is still sharp and you do remember this.
My memory must be failing me, and badly. I don't remember doing or
saying any of this.
> Now, FYROMians denounce anything Bulgarian and they consider themselves "the
> beloved descendants" of our Macedonian King.
In all honesty, there is more than enough denunciation going around
for everyone in this debate, and it comes from both (or all) sides.
And that's really what causes all the problems.
>
> Ask the Skopjans, why they switched from the great Bulgarian King Samuil to
> another great man in History, i.e. the Greek Macedonian Alexander the Great.
Ask them? Why should I ask them something I am not interested in?
> They must have found something "GREAT" in him.
They must have, as they are determined to pursue this issue and don't
seem too worried about the repercussions (neither, apparently, does
anyone else involved).
So I suppose I can assume you're not going to answer the questions
either?
>
> Panayiotis
Nikolaj
> Thank you, Nikolaj! This is going into my archive. One could just as
> easily substitute Diogenes for the sadhu ;-)
>
> cheers
Yes, he could. AFAIK Diogenes also travelled around the-then-India and
was heavily influenced by Jains and Jain philosophy. Jains are mostly
known nowadays from Buddha's experience with them, when he observed
strict asketism, before he discovered his middle path.
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ebaa651-6bc1-4a78...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
See below.
>
(snip)
It's a typo. Slavs.
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f890d39f-54cc-4bf5...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 11:29 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
(snip)
> <<<Well, the only comment I have heard on this newsgroup I have read
> about the value of ancient Greek culture and ideas was ADR's rather
> categorical dismissal of Socrates.>>>
>
> Then you haven't understood anything.
<<<Maybe not. That's why I am initiating this discussion.>>>
>
>
>
> > ...........................................................................限............................
> > > The Diadochoi spent the next few centuries making a battlefield of it.
> > > That's why I am asking exactly what good it all didto anyone,
> > > including
> > > the Greeks themselves.And as far as the Hellenistic era, what's so
> > > great
> > > about it? How werethe Successors better than the rulers who preceded
> > > them?
>> But for him, you and all would be slave today.That's an
> > interesting statement. Would you care to elaborate on howAlexander
> > prevented the enslavement of Western
> > Europe?....................................................................限....................................The
> > Western Civilization would not have happened. Instead,enslavement as of
> > Eastern civilization would have dominated theworld.
>
> <<<Why do you say that? And as far as I can see, the armies of Alexander
> and his succesors did a pretty good job of enslaving the East. Were
> they supposed to be liberators?>>>
>
> The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
> Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes. Alexander
> and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
> culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
> superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
<<<Quite a categorical statement. Are you suggesting that freedom of
speech, thought, music etc id not exist prior to the arrival of
Alexander's armies? I doubt you are. And are you suggesting that the
subject peoples of the Hellenistic East were completely free to speak
their minds about their situation in life? Indeed, were the Greeks
themselves free to do so?>>>
Read Isocrates letter to Nicocles. The east was based on tyrannical
subjugation and servitude. Evagoras began the process of Hellenisation and
bringing civlisation to the east this process was completed by Alexander.
<<<I also notice that you left out freedom of franchise, freedom of
assembly etc.>>>
Those too.
>
> > Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> > been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very
> > existence.
>
> <<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
> claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
> admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
>
> If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the west
> too.
<<<Another interesting point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But do
you have anything to support that claim?>>>
Read some history books. It's all documented from the time of the Persian
War onwards.
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfef0fb5-3dbd-456b...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 12:24 am, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:333b6645-daa8-49af...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 10:13 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Dear Andytoole
>
> > > Your statement "Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped -
> > > by both sides
> > > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > > their own." explains why I refuse to rise to your bait
>
> > Why is this? Do you believe it to be an inaccurate statement?
>
> No, my point was made as below:
>
(snip)
>
> In answer to your question(s); The Greek 'side' is not a side in a game.
I am aware of this. Although some categorically deny it, there are
those who hold that this entire issue could lead to bloodshed. Hardly
a game. But the Fyromians don't believe that 'their' position is a
side in a game either, do they?
As the FYROMians are creating their national consciousness and revising
universally accepted history almost as we write, then yes, I do see their
position as a 'side' in a pathetic game of their own undertaking. In regards
to the Greece-FYROM situation, their game amounts to the theft of a
neighbour's history in order, in part, to support their irredentist
policies.
> That type of analogy does not fit the situation at hand and, I think, is
> not a suitable intellectual avenue to pursue. The Greek 'side' is a body
> of
> historical fact based on archaeological and written evidence. The other
> 'side', the FYROM 'side', is fabulism.
But I might add that both sides' position, as in any issue of
historicity, can be debated.
While I agree that there are no absolutes as far as history is concerned,
there are some events and positions that truly are not debatable. This
situation is one of them.
As I have said, on balance the 'Greek'
position is much more sophisticated and based on much more 'hard'
evidence. But only on balance.
Can you please provide a few of the counterweight arguments that allows the
term 'balance' to enter into this discussion. What 'hard' evidence of
historical fact does the FYROM present that you consider counterbalances
the absolutely enormous body of historical and archaeological evidence
supporting the Greek position. I am truly at a loss here and welcome your
relevant examples.
Leaving the 'Fyromian' position out
completely, there is still plenty of scope for debating someone who
lived more than 2300 years ago, and about whom we only really have the
sketchiest of evidence.
Our discussion is and has been the FYROM
The 'Greek' case may be stronger (and I emphasise *may*), but that
doesn't mean it is flawless or open to debate.
Again, as you utilize the term *may*-what parts of the 'Greek' case do you
find lacking when juxtaposed to those gems of historical data that Skopje
has presented
In addition, in matters
such as these, what people believe to be right (or even what they want
to believe is right) is far more important than what may be
incontrovertibly 'right' - assuming such a thing is even possible.
So, by extension, you would consider that a debate between flat-earthers vs
modern day cosmologists to have credence if the flat-earthers believe
themselves to be correct?
andy...@gmail.com
>
(snip)
> > The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
> > Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes. Alexander
> > and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
> > culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
> > superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
Andy blurted:
>
> <<<Quite a categorical statement. Are you suggesting that freedom of
> speech, thought, music etc id not exist prior to the arrival of
> Alexander's armies? I doubt you are. And are you suggesting that the
> subject peoples of the Hellenistic East were completely free to speak
> their minds about their situation in life? Indeed, were the Greeks
> themselves free to do so?>>>
>
> Read Isocrates letter to Nicocles. The east was based on tyrannical
> subjugation and servitude. Evagoras began the process of Hellenisation and
> bringing civlisation to the east this process was completed by Alexander.
What exactly does that mean "the process of Hellenisation and bringing
civlisation to the east"? Does this mean that everyone in the East was
free to live as their Greco-Macedonian conquerors did?
>
> <<<I also notice that you left out freedom of franchise, freedom of
> assembly etc.>>>
>
> Those too.
Again, did the Sogdians, Phrygians, Egyptians etc get all this?
>
>
>
> > > Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> > > been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's very
> > > existence.
>
> > <<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
> > claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
> > admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
>
> > If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the west
> > too.
>
> <<<Another interesting point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But do
> you have anything to support that claim?>>>
>
> Read some history books. It's all documented from the time of the Persian
> War onwards.
Care to lead me in the right direction? Last I heard, Alexander died
in Babylon, musing about conquering the West, not liberating it.
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
> > > In answer to your question(s); The Greek 'side' is not a side in a game.
>
> > I am aware of this. Although some categorically deny it, there are
> > those who hold that this entire issue could lead to bloodshed. Hardly
> > a game. But the Fyromians don't believe that 'their' position is a
> > side in a game either, do they?
>
> As the FYROMians are creating their national consciousness and revising
> universally accepted history almost as we write, then yes, I do see their
> position as a 'side' in a pathetic game of their own undertaking.
A healthy enough position to take with someone you profoundly disagree
with.
> In regards
> to the Greece-FYROM situation, their game amounts to the theft of a
> neighbour's history in order, in part, to support their irredentist
> policies.
Maybe. But I was originally talkimg about who put the "Great" in
Alexander.
>
> > > That type of analogy does not fit the situation at hand and, I think, is
> > > not a suitable intellectual avenue to pursue. The Greek 'side' is a body
> > > of
> > > historical fact based on archaeological and written evidence. The other
> > > 'side', the FYROM 'side', is fabulism.
>
> > But I might add that both sides' position, as in any issue of
> > historicity, can be debated.
>
> While I agree that there are no absolutes as far as history is concerned,
> there are some events and positions that truly are not debatable. This
> situation is one of them.
To use a properly Classical allusion here, Greece's reaction to
Fyrom's decisions to start renaming things ended up opening a
Pandora's Box, one that I doubt anyone at the time could see coming.
You see, in so vehemently disputing Fyrom's claims to be the inheritor
of Alexander's legacy, Greece inadvertantly got some people asking if
Alexander was *Greek* at all. Action and reaction are equal and
opposite, after all. Prior to all of this, no one would have bothered
even to ask, as Greece was the obvious place to look for the origins
of that Hellenism of which Alexander was such a champion (albeit with
'corrections').
While I still - along with most of the world - agree that the Greek
case is the stronger one, many Greeks seem to be so utterly affronted
by the Fyromian 'challenge' that they are stooping to rather nasty and
underhanded arguments to make their case. In other words, I believe
Greece to be overplaying its hand here. Just because someone has a
stronger argument doesn't preclude them from fighting dirty, after
all. For example; I am a liberal but Michael Moore disgusts me. Why is
this? Because he is willing to use hucksterism, ambush, and character
assassination to make his points. No thank you.
>
> > As I have said, on balance the 'Greek'
> > position is much more sophisticated and based on much more 'hard'
> > evidence. But only on balance.
>
> Can you please provide a few of the counterweight arguments that allows the
> term 'balance' to enter into this discussion.
I think you've heard it all, and most of it is on pretty shaky ground.
But plenty of the 'Greek' position is less than 100% as well. Like I
said, it's just more sophisticated, as the Greeks are more westernized
and have probably been subject to libel laws for a longer period of
time.
> What 'hard' evidence of
> historical fact does the FYROM present that you consider counterbalances
> the absolutely enormous body of historical and archaeological evidence
> supporting the Greek position.
I suggest you put that to the Fyromians. But I rather suspect you've
already heard most of it already. If you don't accept any of it, one
wonders why you pay any attention to it at all, really.
> I am truly at a loss here and welcome your
> relevant examples.
>
> > Leaving the 'Fyromian' position out
> > completely, there is still plenty of scope for debating someone who
> > lived more than 2300 years ago, and about whom we only really have the
> > sketchiest of evidence.
>
> Our discussion is and has been the FYROM
I disagree. The ferocity of the 'Greek counterattack' has had the
effect of putting the 'Greek' position under the microscope along with
the Fyromian one. This has proven rather annoying and uncomfortable.
But then again, the Law of Unintended Consequences is a rather
pitiless thing.
>
> > The 'Greek' case may be stronger (and I emphasise *may*), but that
> > doesn't mean it is flawless or open to debate.
>
> Again, as you utilize the term *may*-what parts of the 'Greek' case do you
> find lacking when juxtaposed to those gems of historical data that Skopje
> has presented
That's not what I was doing. Nutshell: Fyrom's case is weak, but
Greece's, while stronger, is not incontrovertible.
>
> > In addition, in matters
> > such as these, what people believe to be right (or even what they want
> > to believe is right) is far more important than what may be
> > incontrovertibly 'right' - assuming such a thing is even possible.
>
> So, by extension, you would consider that a debate between flat-earthers vs
> modern day cosmologists to have credence if the flat-earthers believe
> themselves to be correct?
No, of course not. But cosmology is a reasonably exact science in
which we have the use of the evidence of our senses. History is not. I
don't believe even you believe the validity of the above comparison,
but I suppose it's possible....
What I am, however, saying is that if you have a group of flat-
earthers who will flatten your nose if you contradict them, it is best
to just shake your head and walk away.
(snip)
andy...@gmail.com
> andyto...@gmail.com pravi:
There is a weird 'brotherhood' of sadhus still existant in India today
called the Aghoris. They remind me of Diogenes in that they do the
exact opposite of what is seen as 'decent' and 'holy', supposedly the
better to illustrate the illusory quality of the duality of human
values: right & wrong; good & evil; pure & impure etc. A pretty foul
bunch, but Diogenes' supposed public indulgence in the basest of
bodily functions and hurling abuse at everyone does spring to mind.
And I came across this one on Mark Mandell's Euroblog on the BBC:
(nb: the views expressed in the following poem are those of its author
alone, and may not necessarily reflect the views of
andy...@gmail.com)
"526. At 10:36 pm on 22 Apr 2008, misirkov wrote:
I was bored...
Barbarians next door:
There once was this guy called 'A Greek'.
Who, despite his ungainly physique,
Considered himself a genuine Antique.
(It would have struck him as rather unpleasant
To know his forefathers were Anatolian peasants;
For it was on the basis of their relation to Plato
That Greece vetoed Macedonia from NATO.)
A sucker for state propaganda,
He saw himself as a new Alexander.
This penchant for that freak they call 'Great'
Incensed him with a feeling of hate
For the Slavs in his neighbouring state;
He denied their existence
With insane persistence
Until the day came when it was all just too late:
For Greek megalomania
Led to Greater Albania
And the 'barbarians' broke in through the gate.
* * *
There once was this old Macedonian
Who found Greek policies somewhat Draconian.
His granddad was killed by the andarti,
So he joined the Greek Communist Party.
When the royalists won the war
The Greeks knocked at his door
And said you ain't gonna live here no more.
They packed off his little daughter Marija
To some strangers in a suburb of Sofia;
His son they sent packing,
His wife got a whacking,
And the old guy ended up in Crimea.
His grandson lives in a place they call FYROM
(Too bad Macedonia never had Truman or Byron!)
Now his standard of living is sh*t;
And Greece has something to do with it.
So he starts dreaming of Alexander
And sucking up the new propaganda.
It's not long before he's forgotten Misirkov
And become a rather Greek kind of a jerk-off."
( ... Potentially very offensive, and while I support the view that
political-correctness has no place in the world of humour, I deeply
apologize in advance to anyone offended by the preceeding. It's not
even a particularly good poem, but I found at least some of his wit
and a few rhyming couplets absolutely first-rate ... )
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20e9a88c-2cb5-4ff1...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 5:12 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
(snip)
> > The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
> > Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes.
> > Alexander
> > and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
> > culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
> > superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
Andy blurted:
>
> <<<Quite a categorical statement. Are you suggesting that freedom of
> speech, thought, music etc id not exist prior to the arrival of
> Alexander's armies? I doubt you are. And are you suggesting that the
> subject peoples of the Hellenistic East were completely free to speak
> their minds about their situation in life? Indeed, were the Greeks
> themselves free to do so?>>>
>
> Read Isocrates letter to Nicocles. The east was based on tyrannical
> subjugation and servitude. Evagoras began the process of Hellenisation and
> bringing civlisation to the east this process was completed by Alexander.
<<<What exactly does that mean "the process of Hellenisation and bringing
civlisation to the east"? Does this mean that everyone in the East was
free to live as their Greco-Macedonian conquerors did?>>>
Yes.
>
> <<<I also notice that you left out freedom of franchise, freedom of
> assembly etc.>>>
>
> Those too.
<<<Again, did the Sogdians, Phrygians, Egyptians etc get all this?>>>
Yes.
>
>
>
> > > Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> > > been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's
> > > very
> > > existence.
>
> > <<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
> > claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
> > admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
>
> > If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the
> > west
> > too.
>
> <<<Another interesting point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But do
> you have anything to support that claim?>>>
>
> Read some history books. It's all documented from the time of the Persian
> War onwards.
<<<Care to lead me in the right direction? Last I heard, Alexander died
in Babylon, musing about conquering the West, not liberating it.>>>
The west was full of tyrannical barbarians.
ERIC
> situation is one of them.
To use a properly Classical allusion here, Greece's reaction to
Fyrom's decisions to start renaming things ended up opening a
Pandora's Box, one that I doubt anyone at the time could see coming.
You see, in so vehemently disputing Fyrom's claims to be the inheritor
of Alexander's legacy, Greece inadvertantly got some people asking if
Alexander was *Greek* at all. Action and reaction are equal and
opposite, after all. Prior to all of this, no one would have bothered
even to ask, as Greece was the obvious place to look for the origins
of that Hellenism of which Alexander was such a champion (albeit with
'corrections').
While I still - along with most of the world - agree that the Greek
case is the stronger one, many Greeks seem to be so utterly affronted
by the Fyromian 'challenge' that they are stooping to rather nasty and
underhanded arguments to make their case. In other words, I believe
Greece to be overplaying its hand here. Just because someone has a
stronger argument doesn't preclude them from fighting dirty, after
all. For example; I am a liberal but Michael Moore disgusts me. Why is
this? Because he is willing to use hucksterism, ambush, and character
assassination to make his points. No thank you.
>
> > As I have said, on balance the 'Greek'
> > position is much more sophisticated and based on much more 'hard'
> > evidence. But only on balance.
If there is a balance, as you state, then there must be evidence presented
by the FYROM that you agree with to add weight to the scale. Please, what
evidence is there on the FYROM 'side' that you accept?
>
> Can you please provide a few of the counterweight arguments that allows
> the
> term 'balance' to enter into this discussion.
I think you've heard it all, and most of it is on pretty shaky ground.
But plenty of the 'Greek' position is less than 100% as well. Like I
said, it's just more sophisticated, as the Greeks are more westernized
and have probably been subject to libel laws for a longer period of
time.
So you are saying that the information provided by such things as hard
archaeological evidence is 'just more sophisticated' ?
> What 'hard' evidence of
> historical fact does the FYROM present that you consider counterbalances
> the absolutely enormous body of historical and archaeological evidence
> supporting the Greek position.
I suggest you put that to the Fyromians.
No, andytoole, I am asking you to explain the position as it is you who made
the point that, on balance, the Greek 'side' *may* be the stronger argument
in this exchange. What evidence and declarations by the FYROM do you give
credence to?
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20e9a88c-2cb5-4ff1...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 5:12 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > The east was already enslaved by Persia and by its predecessors the
> > > Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Medes.
> > > Alexander
> > > and his successors brought freedom of thought, freedom of speech, arts,
> > > culture, sciences, music and drama and put an end to barbarism and
> > > superstition and replaced it with civilisation.
>
> Andy blurted:
>
>
>
> > <<<Quite a categorical statement. Are you suggesting that freedom of
> > speech, thought, music etc id not exist prior to the arrival of
> > Alexander's armies? I doubt you are. And are you suggesting that the
> > subject peoples of the Hellenistic East were completely free to speak
> > their minds about their situation in life? Indeed, were the Greeks
> > themselves free to do so?>>>
>
> > Read Isocrates letter to Nicocles. The east was based on tyrannical
> > subjugation and servitude. Evagoras began the process of Hellenisation and
> > bringing civlisation to the east this process was completed by Alexander.
>
> <<<What exactly does that mean "the process of Hellenisation and bringing
> civlisation to the east"? Does this mean that everyone in the East was
> free to live as their Greco-Macedonian conquerors did?>>>
>
> Yes.
Well, I am afraid I have to disagree rather categorically with you. If
you believe in the equality of Greeks and non-Greeks in the
Hellenistic East, I feel maneuvered into a position where I have to
say that you are simply wrong in this.
Care to address this one, Eric? ADR?
>
>
>
> > <<<I also notice that you left out freedom of franchise, freedom of
> > assembly etc.>>>
>
> > Those too.
Eric? ADR?
>
> <<<Again, did the Sogdians, Phrygians, Egyptians etc get all this?>>>
>
> Yes.
Ad nauseum ..... ?
>
>
> > > > Know too, that Greece would have disappeared very early on andnot have
> > > > been resurrected. Alexander leads to Byron, leadsto Modern Greece's
> > > > very
> > > > existence.
>
> > > <<<That is an interesting point. How exactly does that relate to any
> > > claim that Alexander saved the West? Looks to me as though you just
> > > admitted that it might have been the other way around.>>>
>
> > > If it wasn't for Alexander then the Persians would have enslaved the
> > > west
> > > too.
>
> > <<<Another interesting point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But do
> > you have anything to support that claim?>>>
>
> > Read some history books. It's all documented from the time of the Persian
> > War onwards.
>
> <<<Care to lead me in the right direction? Last I heard, Alexander died
> in Babylon, musing about conquering the West, not liberating it.>>>
>
> The west was full of tyrannical barbarians.
Such as?
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
Andy was rash enough to state:
>
> > > As I have said, on balance the 'Greek'
> > > position is much more sophisticated and based on much more 'hard'
> > > evidence. But only on balance.
>
> If there is a balance, as you state, then there must be evidence presented
> by the FYROM that you agree with to add weight to the scale. Please, what
> evidence is there on the FYROM 'side' that you accept?
I didn't say I accepted any evidence from anyone. Not only that,
history is often a matter of a balance of probabilities. Probably,
some Slav-speaking Fyromians have some DNA kicking around that may
have been found in one of Alexander's peltasts, and probably there are
some modern Greeks who do not.
>
> > Can you please provide a few of the counterweight arguments that allows
> > the
> > term 'balance' to enter into this discussion.
>
> > I think you've heard it all, and most of it is on pretty shaky ground.
> > But plenty of the 'Greek' position is less than 100% as well. Like I
> > said, it's just more sophisticated, as the Greeks are more westernized
> > and have probably been subject to libel laws for a longer period of
> > time.
>
> So you are saying that the information provided by such things as hard
> archaeological evidence is 'just more sophisticated' ?
There is no such thing as 'hard archaological evidence'. Yes, I just
said that ;-)
>
> > > What 'hard' evidence of
> > > historical fact does the FYROM present that you consider counterbalances
> > > the absolutely enormous body of historical and archaeological evidence
> > > supporting the Greek position.
>
> > I suggest you put that to the Fyromians.
>
> No, andytoole, I am asking you to explain the position as it is you who made
> the point that, on balance, the Greek 'side' *may* be the stronger argument
> in this exchange.
This, presumably, is a controversial position?
> What evidence and declarations by the FYROM do you give
> credence to?
define "credence" please
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1d186a6-44b2-4aaf...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
define "credence" please
O.E.D.- 1. The mental action of believing or accepting as true; belief. to
give credence to: to accept (a statement, etc.), or accept the statement of
(a person, etc.), as true; to believe, credit.
Now, my turn, what evidence of the FYROM 'side' do you accept
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Fair enough. None of it. Since you have put it in such starkly clear
language, I don't 'give credence' to any of it. But unfortunately,
this leaves me little choice but to be equally categorical about the
Greek side. Within the framework you have set, I can't even 'give
credence' to the notion that my great grandfather ever existed, so I'm
afraid that I can't 'give credence' to anything about someone who (may
or may not have) lived so long ago as Alexander the Great.
I do recall muttering something about action and reaction and the Law
of Unintended Consequences a while back ......
Krater Makedonski
their occupation/colonisation of (part of) the non-greek populated land
called Macedonia and the ethnic genocide which has followed since and now
they see a chance, through a forced name change for Republic of Macedonia,
to put an end to the existence of the (native/ethnic) Macedonians as a
nation(ality), thus ensuring that they keep their ill gained territory for a
very long time, in the way they have done so in the past - denying the
existence of the Macedonians (and other minorities) within their borders -
thus breaking every human-rights law in the process.
To the Macedonians it is important to tell the rest of the world their side
of the (hi)story, which officially they were not allowed to tell until the
break up of Yugoslavia - that Macedonia neither in ancient times, nor at any
other time, except since the occupation in 1912, has been greek anything and
that the ancient Macedonians are their rightful/logical ancestors, as
opposed to the official "slav" history that was shoved at them.
PS I see that you are accusing me of being a racist, although I have done
nothing that justifies you to hurl such accusations at me. Unlike many of
the posters from "the other side of the fence" who have openly denigrated
and ridiculed my race/ethnicity, even going as far a professing
"extermination", I have never, ever replied in kind, nor will I ever
denigrate myself to ridicule another race in the way many "Greek" posters
have done so here. If you have a problem with "sub-Saharans", as I suspect
you do, then that is only there to tell the greek propagandists here that
they need to dig somewhere else for their ethno-genetic roots, instead of
Macedonia. I see that you, on the other hand, use the insulting "Fyromians"
in some of your posts. I will not say that it is racist, but it definitely
is insulting, invented term and does NOT project you as a knowledgeable,
neutral contributor here.
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e9387d0-fac2-4c27...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 8:52 pm, "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.ap...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ee6ca598-5cd8-470e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:46 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> > > This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue
> > > about
> > > the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing,
> > > territorial
> > > expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito.
>
(Andy mumbled)
> > I don't necessarily disagree.
>
> If you knew your stuff then you would most certainly disagree.
>
> But that's not what I am asking. Why do
> both sides in this debate actually *want* Alexander to be such a big
> part of their history?
>
> I can only tell you from my MACEDONIAN viewpoint. Until very recently (the
> beginning of this century), at least officially, Alexander and the ancient
> Macedonians were almost totally ignored in what is now Republic of
> Macedonia, as, despite what you read or hear, especially in this forum,
> the
> Macedonian national/ethnic awareness amongs the Macedonians was
> stringently
> suppressed at all levels in (Republic of ) Macedonia. Especially
> academically (only one (quasi)academic in ancient Macedonian history). In
> its place the "YUGOslav brotherhood" was vigorously promoted as a
> national/ethnic identity. Macedonia became the only republic in the former
> Yugoslavia where "yugoSLAV" was the dominant self identification amongst
> the
> population. It still is for many of the Macedonians living in Republic of
> Macedonia and for many Macedonian emigrants", despite the non existence of
> "Yugoslavia" now. Thus, your comment/question is not correct/applicable in
> respect of the Macedonians. But the time has come for the Macedonians to
> learn and tell their own true (hi)story and embrace their past ancestors,
> instead of others telling (warping) it on their behalf and falsely
> claiming
> Macedonian history/ancestors as their own, which has lead to absurd
> situations such as we are in now, eg, an ignorant cypriot
> Turk-wanna-be-Greek :-( "teaching" you Macedonian history and Dora
> claiming
> Alexander as her ancestor.
I don't want to get into any of that, and it's not what I was asking.
What I was asking was what I was asking, nothing more ;-)
>
> After many unsuccessful attempts by the Macedonians to liberate themselves
> from the turkish yoke, the last one being in 1903, and as you by now know,
> in 1912 Macedonia was "liberated" from the Turks, only to be partitioned
> and
> re-enslaved by its 3 new "liberators", the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgar(ian)s,
> each claiming that the native Macedonian population was of their "sort"
> (and
You do realize that a lot of what you say above is a) racist and b)
hardly likely to yield results, don't you? To be fair, I left
Agamemnon off a little easy. I ought to have pointed out that if you
are guilty under column a) and b), then so is he.
>
> I'm not saying they shouldn't. Rather, I just
> want to clarify why.
>
> Hopefully it has been clarified from "our" end.
>
> > > The Skopjians are
> > > Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs
> > > up
> > > until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska
> > > Banovina
> > > the
> > > "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the
> > > existing
> > > Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime
> > > and so
> > > is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> > > encouraging and condoning them.
>
> > Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
>
> Not "maybe", but a pure grecian-propaganda BS.
ADR
I am surprised that you do not take your own advice. What do you want
to achieve here? You are only embarrashing yourself. If you want to
find out about Alexander the Great, any local library will do. I do
not think that this board is populated by historians. If you want to
start an argument, and then sit in the middle provoking both sides,
you are succeeding. I am not playing your game. You must certainly
enjoy this. Sometimes, sitting ontop of the fence, it allows you the
opportunity to see the minions fighting below, right??? I have news
for you. You look also small from their viewpoint.
Agamemnon
> Ok! In short, Alexander is important to the Greeks as a "justification"
> for their occupation/colonisation of (part of) the non-greek populated
> land called Macedonia and the ethnic genocide which has followed since and
> now they see a chance, through a forced name change for Republic of
> Macedonia, to put an end to the existence of the (native/ethnic)
> Macedonians as a nation(ality), thus ensuring that they keep their ill
> gained territory for a very long time, in the way they have done so in the
> past - denying the existence of the Macedonians (and other minorities)
> within their borders - thus breaking every human-rights law in the
> process.
>
> To the Macedonians it is important to tell the rest of the world their
> side of the (hi)story, which officially they were not allowed to tell
> until the break up of Yugoslavia - that Macedonia neither in ancient
> times, nor at any other time, except since the occupation in 1912, has
> been greek anything and that the ancient Macedonians are their
> rightful/logical ancestors, as opposed to the official "slav" history that
> was shoved at them.
Look at the effects of the Skopjian brainwashing. Krater Makedonski is
mentally deranged and is living in a fantasy world. He is so brainwashed
that he thinks the Macedonians were Bulgarian Slavs who occupied northern
Greece and he is their descendent.
What language and culture did Alexander spread across the know world. Was it
Bulgarian Slavic culture or was it Greek culture? What language did
Aristotle the teacher of Alexander write all of his works in. Was it the
same language they speak in Skopjia today or the same as the language they
speak in Thessaloniki?
>
> PS I see that you are accusing me of being a racist, although I have done
> nothing that justifies you to hurl such accusations at me. Unlike many of
> the posters from "the other side of the fence" who have openly denigrated
> and ridiculed my race/ethnicity, even going as far a professing
> "extermination", I have never, ever replied in kind, nor will I ever
> denigrate myself to ridicule another race in the way many "Greek" posters
> have done so here. If you have a problem with "sub-Saharans", as I suspect
> you do, then that is only there to tell the greek propagandists here that
> they need to dig somewhere else for their ethno-genetic roots, instead of
> Macedonia. I see that you, on the other hand, use the insulting
> "Fyromians" in some of your posts. I will not say that it is racist, but
> it definitely is insulting, invented term and does NOT project you as a
> knowledgeable, neutral contributor here.
You originate from Fyrom so you are a Fyromian. Macedonians originate from
Greece. Calling you a Macedonian is an offensive and demeaning to all Greeks
especially to the Macedonians since you are nothing to do with them.
If you were a Macedonian you would be speaking Greek and celebrating
Alexander's Hellenisation of the known world and his Dorian and Aeolian
Greek origins and decent from Herakles and Achilles and his worship of the
Greek Gods.
Panayiotis
"And Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece."
(Strabo VII, Frg. 9 [Loeb, H.L. Jones])
======================================
news:2b2fc68a-db39-49f8...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Did I?
>
> Panayiotis
===========================================
andytoole,
I have already replied to your cunning questions. Didn't I say: "They [the
Skopjans] must have found something "GREAT" in him"?
If you find something that looks like gold, but you know it is not, you
don't go around trying to sell it as gold! Unless, you are convinced that it
IS gold!
And, unless you find some fools that are willing to buy it as gold.
Panayiotis
andy...@gmail.com
Well, I seriously doubt anyone is likely to track me down to my
domicile and perpetrate an act of violence upon me, although given the
level of venom surrounding this issue, I suppose it's not totally out
of the question ...
> What do you want to achieve here?
What indeed do any of us want to achieve here? This is a discussion
group, and I am seeking a discussion. Judging from other peoples'
posts, I am not sure that my reasons are the usual reasons for posting
here, as it seems to me as though some people just come here to give
vent to ethnic hatreds and heap abuse on each other. Is this an
unreasonable assumption to make?
> You are only embarrashing yourself.
I can only say that if I don't feel any embarassment (and you can take
my word for it, I do not) then I am not, in fact, embarassing myself.
What does that say about me? I honestly don't care.
> If you want to
> find out about Alexander the Great, any local library will do. I do
> not think that this board is populated by historians.
Actually, I have to differ with the above statement. This board is
positively riddled with historians (or perhaps "historians" is a
better expression), as just about everyone here has delved very deeply
and thoroughly into the past, and like the Tolkien's Dwarves, they
have released a Balrog by delving too deeply.
I have to honestly say that I am impressed by how well-informed some
people here are with regard to history; what is less impressive to me
is what people want to do with the conclusions they have drawn. I
never tire of asking people to beware of hasty conclusions
(particularly in regards to me), but I am (propbably erroneously)
drawing some nasty conclusions myself.
People here indeed do know their history (and again "their" might be
better), but it seems to me that _history_ as I understand the term is
quite different from how it is used here. Again, my powers of
deduction aren't all they might be, but in this debate (and the wider
debate of Greece vs Fyrom or Southeastern Europe in general)
"history" used as a bludgeon to batter the Other. I wear a gold ring
that contains my birthstone, an engraving of the university I
attended, and the word "HISTORY". My view of history has always been
an honest search for what actually happened, and why. A prejudice I
have developed in pursuing my hobby (for that is all it really is, at
the end of the day) has been an extreme aversion to "nationalist
history", as I believe that it is a tendency that leads to truly
Orwellian distortions aimed at oandering to humanity's basest, most
shameful tendencies.
Nationalist history, as far as I understand the term, seems to say the
following:
"We (and by deduction I) are the best. You (you Other People) are not.
It is evident to anyone with even the most basic powers of observation
that this is the case. If you fail to recognize this, you are to be
corrected, even if this means being shouted down, vilified, ridiculed,
etc. If this doesn't yield the desired results, the matter is to be
settled in a non-verbal manner."
Those who have ears, let them hear.
> If you want to
> start an argument, and then sit in the middle provoking both sides,
> you are succeeding.
That's a big "if", and something you and I don't really know.
> I am not playing your game. You must certainly
> enjoy this.
Of course I enjoy this! Don't you? (you are of course under no
obligation to answer this) You asked me why I was here, and I have
answered you to the best of my abilities, and yes - a thousand times
yes! - I enjoy this. Debate is utterly fascinating and engaging.
> Sometimes, sitting ontop of the fence, it allows you the
> opportunity to see the minions fighting below, right???
Nobody is forcing anyone to fight. And the "fight" certainly predates
my arrival on this newsgroup. Once again, your intentions are no
affair of mine, but judging from the fact that I seem to be almost
universally disliked here (or at least my opinions and style are) even
though I have never stooped to personal attack, profanity or bigotry,
I am starting to feel as though my real "crime" is a refusal to take
sides, even as people go through the most strenuous efforts to force
me to do so.
This is, of course, only my opinion.
> I have news
> for you. You look also small from their viewpoint
I do believe I can survive that ...
andy...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Ok! In short, Alexander is important to the Greeks as a "justification" for
> their occupation/colonisation of (part of) the non-greek populated land
> called Macedonia and the ethnic genocide which has followed since and now
> they see a chance, through a forced name change for Republic of Macedonia,
> to put an end to the existence of the (native/ethnic) Macedonians as a
> nation(ality), thus ensuring that they keep their ill gained territory for a
> very long time, in the way they have done so in the past - denying the
> existence of the Macedonians (and other minorities) within their borders -
> thus breaking every human-rights law in the process.
Beware of terms such as "they". I have travelled to Greece and met
nothing but friendly, non-racist, non-crazy people. When you say
"they", you are including every Greek. I know that's annoyingly
moralizing, but it's just an observation on my part.
>
> To the Macedonians it is important to tell the rest of the world their side
> of the (hi)story, which officially they were not allowed to tell until the
> break up of Yugoslavia - that Macedonia neither in ancient times, nor at any
> other time, except since the occupation in 1912, has been greek anything and
> that the ancient Macedonians are their rightful/logical ancestors, as
> opposed to the official "slav" history that was shoved at them.
I'll not be the one to tell anyone to shut up ;-)
>
> PS I see that you are accusing me of being a racist,
I have done nothing of the sort. I said that what you said is racist.
I might honestly believe that certain terminology I use is non-racist
and inoffensive. But if the person on the receiving end feels
otherwise, a little reconsideration might be in order.
> although I have done
> nothing that justifies you to hurl such accusations at me. Unlike many of
> the posters from "the other side of the fence" who have openly denigrated
> and ridiculed my race/ethnicity, even going as far a professing
> "extermination",
I have seen such posts, sadly, but the Greeks don't have a monopoly in
this area, I assure you.
> I have never, ever replied in kind, nor will I ever
> denigrate myself to ridicule another race in the way many "Greek" posters
> have done so here. If you have a problem with "sub-Saharans", as I suspect
> you do, then that is only there to tell the greek propagandists here that
> they need to dig somewhere else for their ethno-genetic roots, instead of
> Macedonia.
I suppose you might want to say the same thing about the Macedonians,
Argentinians, Nepalese and Vikings. At the end of the day (according
to the anthropologists at least) we're all Ethiopians. I have seen the
term "sub-saharan" used as a pejorative. I suspect you might have as
well?
> I see that you, on the other hand, use the insulting "Fyromians"
> in some of your posts. I will not say that it is racist, but it definitely
> is insulting, invented term and does NOT project you as a knowledgeable,
> neutral contributor here.
I knew this one was coming. I'm rather surprised that it took so long
for someone to take exception to my terminology, really ;-)
You are, of course, right on the money here. But the "what do we call
the country east of Albania, north of Greece, west of Bulgaria and
south of Serbia?" question is at the very heart of the debate, isn't
it? Give me a name that will not be offensive to anybody, and I will
use it. But you and I both know that such a name does not exist.
If it did, we wouldn't be at the present impasse, now would we?
Anyway, maybe I ought to have stayed consistent and called the Greeks
something as offensive as "Fyromian" or "Skopjian" or whatever, just
to be equally offensive. Don't worry; I don't think the Greeks on this
newsgroup find me particularly "inoffensive".
> a slave is racist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
andy...@gmail.com
beginning of this thread. You know, those 4 questions that people on
both sides of the debate have found so discomfitting.
People in the 21thC political entity known to itself as the Hellenic
Republic and people in the 21thC political entity known to itself as
the Republic of Macedonia (is this better, Krater? ... heh heh ...)
both believe Alexander to be "Great". I was asking why people think he
was; I was not asking who was his rightful heir.
No one seems interested in answering that question, so let me give
everyone my flawed view - and it's not a nice one.
Alexander was "Great" because he pounded the wits out of anyone who
got in his way. This was usually what the Ancients meant by titles of
this nature. And (now comes the really condemnatory part) I believe
that this is what makes him so attractive to the present Balkan
nationalists. In other words, every Greek ultranationalist and every
Macedonian ultranationalist wants him as his/her forbear as "proof"
that they are the stronger; that they are the ones who are destined to
lord it over everyone else (even if only in terms of bragging
rights).
As I said, that is a pretty awful thing to say about Greeks and
Macedonians, but I am only one person and I am as flawed as anyone
else in my powers of observation and deduction.
The reason this bothers me at all is that I see my life's passion -
classical antiquity - being (IMHO) prostituted to serve the purposes
of sordid 21thC ethnic quarrels; quarrels that have absolutely
*nothing whatsoever* to do with Alexander, Caesar, Mithridates or
Sappho. This isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be
the last. The 18thC French used antiquity to "prove" that their
Republic was the logical heir to ancient Rome. The British did the
same thing at the height of the British Empire. The Germans used it
racially when "proving" first (in 1870) the natural superiority of the
German (Goth) over the Frenchman (Roman/Latin), later the 3rd Reich
used it to "prove" the superiority of the German over everybody else.
Dorians vs helots & Messenians; Germans vs Latins and Slavs.
It's all pseudo-historical (and pseudo-scientific) garbage, as far as
I am concerned. What happened is what happened, and whatever "moral"
you find in it all is nothing more than an opinion.
This blanket statement does, of course, apply to the maniacal ravings
of Yours Truly ;-)
> Panayiotis- Hide quoted text -
ADR
> Nobody is forcing anyone to fight. And the "fight" certainly predates
> my arrival on this newsgroup. Once again, your intentions are no
> affair of mine, but judging from the fact that I seem to be almost
> universally disliked here (or at least my opinions and style are) even
> though I have never stooped to personal attack, profanity or bigotry,
> I am starting to feel as though my real "crime" is a refusal to take
> sides, even as people go through the most strenuous efforts to force
> me to do so.
There is no such thing as "not having a position" or "not choosing
sides". In fact, an uninvolved person benefits the stronger side
(because the math is not changing) and resented both by the stronger
side (for not explicitly voicing one's preference) and the weaker side
(because he is not helping). As a nice person used to say: "the only
things that are in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead
armadillos".
However, you are just beyond this: You are just a provocateur. You
are not seeking knowledge, and you are not seeking a discussion. A
discussion can only occur if you have an opinion (and you have none).
I would be more than glad to engage you in a discussion if you have a
particular opinion and we can discuss the merits of your opinion and
the facts that support it. But this is not the case. This is now a
mudd wrestling in which you think you are an arbitrer. And this is
bad and a little weird.
And no, the members of the group here are not historians. They are
normal people who recount to you their own impressions of their
"common narrative" based on certain facts that they have. Make of it
what you wish but it would be better to either voice an opinion or
just read the mailings.
gogu
news:3afb1bc5-563c-4ec7...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>On May 6, 9:05 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
>However, you are just beyond this: You are just a provocateur.
Then why you and others are still answering him?....
Stop answering his provoking questions and soon he will be history.
andy...@gmail.com
> "Krater Makedonski" <jordan.ap...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:481fb4f9$0$1024$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ok! In short, Alexander is important to the Greeks as a "justification"
> > for their occupation/colonisation of (part of) the non-greek populated
> > land called Macedonia and the ethnic genocide which has followed since and
> > now they see a chance, through a forced name change for Republic of
> > Macedonia, to put an end to the existence of the (native/ethnic)
> > Macedonians as a nation(ality), thus ensuring that they keep their ill
> > gained territory for a very long time, in the way they have done so in the
> > past - denying the existence of the Macedonians (and other minorities)
> > within their borders - thus breaking every human-rights law in the
> > process.
>
> > To the Macedonians it is important to tell the rest of the world their
> > side of the (hi)story, which officially they were not allowed to tell
> > until the break up of Yugoslavia - that Macedonia neither in ancient
> > times, nor at any other time, except since the occupation in 1912, has
> > been greek anything and that the ancient Macedonians are their
> > rightful/logical ancestors, as opposed to the official "slav" history that
> > was shoved at them.
>
> Look at the effects of the Skopjian brainwashing. Krater Makedonski is
> mentally deranged and is living in a fantasy world. He is so brainwashed
> that he thinks the Macedonians were Bulgarian Slavs who occupied northern
> Greece and he is their descendent.
Agamemnon, what exactly is this sort of language supposed to
accomplish? If someone spoke to you that way, would it cause you to
reconsider your position?
>
> What language and culture did Alexander spread across the know world. Was it
> Bulgarian Slavic culture or was it Greek culture? What language did
> Aristotle the teacher of Alexander write all of his works in. Was it the
> same language they speak in Skopjia today or the same as the language they
> speak in Thessaloniki?
This is very flawed logic, and we are all aware of that. West Indian
language and culture is more British than anything else. Are the West
Indians therefore anglo-saxons?
Same for an assimilated Asian or African or whatever living in Canada
or the USA or whatever. I have a friend named _______ Wang. Is he an
anglo-saxon?
>
>
>
> > PS I see that you are accusing me of being a racist, although I have done
> > nothing that justifies you to hurl such accusations at me. Unlike many of
> > the posters from "the other side of the fence" who have openly denigrated
> > and ridiculed my race/ethnicity, even going as far a professing
> > "extermination", I have never, ever replied in kind, nor will I ever
> > denigrate myself to ridicule another race in the way many "Greek" posters
> > have done so here. If you have a problem with "sub-Saharans", as I suspect
> > you do, then that is only there to tell the greek propagandists here that
> > they need to dig somewhere else for their ethno-genetic roots, instead of
> > Macedonia. I see that you, on the other hand, use the insulting
> > "Fyromians" in some of your posts. I will not say that it is racist, but
> > it definitely is insulting, invented term and does NOT project you as a
> > knowledgeable, neutral contributor here.
>
> You originate from Fyrom so you are a Fyromian.
Does this mean people have the right to tell Greeks what to call their
country? Or, as you seem to imply, to just decide for them
unilaterally what their country *is* called? You wouldn't like that, I
suspect, now would you?
> Macedonians originate from
> Greece. Calling you a Macedonian is an offensive and demeaning to all Greeks
> especially to the Macedonians since you are nothing to do with them.
See what I am saying, Krater? It is a truly hopeless situation. Call
someone in "The Republic of Macedonia" a Macedonian, and you enrage
the citizens of the "Hellenic Republic". Call them anything else, and
you enrage them. No wiggle room there at all. It's either infiriate
one or infuriate the other.
>
> If you were a Macedonian you would be speaking Greek and celebrating
> Alexander's Hellenisation of the known world and his Dorian and Aeolian
> Greek origins and decent from Herakles and Achilles and his worship of the
> Greek Gods.
Well, do the modern Greeks worship the same gods? Did they hellenize
the known world? Are they descended from Herakles and Achilles?
Hmmmmm ..... you might be a little more careful in your arguments, as
you might not like where they logically lead.
andy...@gmail.com
> ? "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:3afb1bc5-563c-4ec7...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On May 6, 9:05 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >However, you are just beyond this: You are just a provocateur.
>
> Then why you and others are still answering him?....
> Stop answering his provoking questions and soon he will be history.
You're right, gogu. That way everyone can go back to heaping abuse on
each other and re-fighting the endless, tiresome (but unfortunately
deadly) Balkan quarrels that everyone here seems so addicted to.
Like I said, gogu. What I say might not make me Mr Popularity, but
compare that to the filth one sees elsewhere (including that posted by
people who have regularly debated me here) and I come off looking
pretty good, if I do say so myself.
So what is so offensive in what I say?
andy...@gmail.com
> On May 6, 9:05 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Nobody is forcing anyone to fight. And the "fight" certainly predates
> > my arrival on this newsgroup. Once again, your intentions are no
> > affair of mine, but judging from the fact that I seem to be almost
> > universally disliked here (or at least my opinions and style are) even
> > though I have never stooped to personal attack, profanity or bigotry,
> > I am starting to feel as though my real "crime" is a refusal to take
> > sides, even as people go through the most strenuous efforts to force
> > me to do so.
>
> There is no such thing as "not having a position" or "not choosing
> sides". In fact, an uninvolved person benefits the stronger side
> (because the math is not changing) and resented both by the stronger
> side (for not explicitly voicing one's preference) and the weaker side
> (because he is not helping). As a nice person used to say: "the only
> things that are in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead
> armadillos".
I have a position, as you must know by now. Refusing to take sides
doesn't mean not having a position or being neutral or indifferent. My
position (as I have said all along) is that the only way to deal with
conflict is to resolve it. The problem here isn't that one side is
"right" and the other is "wrong" (or "righter or wronger" etc etc).
The problem is the conflict itself.
>
> However, you are just beyond this: You are just a provocateur. You
> are not seeking knowledge, and you are not seeking a discussion.
This is a completely bewildering statement since I have consistently
attempted to discuss Alexander and his place in history, but it seems
to me that people prefer to discuss personalities (or other things).
In my own defence, I have to point out that it is not I who is
avoiding a discussion here.
> A
> discussion can only occur if you have an opinion (and you have none).
I assure you, I do. I have many ;-)
> I would be more than glad to engage you in a discussion if you have a
> particular opinion and we can discuss the merits of your opinion and
> the facts that support it. But this is not the case. This is now a
> mudd wrestling in which you think you are an arbitrer. And this is
> bad and a little weird.
This was taking place long before my arrival. In fact, I began my
postings on this newsgroup by questioning whether this was about
history or ethnic rivalry. I was assured it was about history, but
ethnic rivalry seems to be the preferred avenue of discussion. It
required considerable effort on my part to stay above that fray, even
though I knew it would draw fire from all sides.
"Bad and a little weird" is not how I would categorize an attempt to
discuss Alexander and his legacy. "Bad and a little weird" is running
back behind the sandbags and lobbing ethnic epithets at each other.
But the devil you know etc etc ...
>
> And no, the members of the group here are not historians. They are
> normal people who recount to you their own impressions of their
> "common narrative" based on certain facts that they have. Make of it
> what you wish but it would be better to either voice an opinion or
> just read the mailings.
I voiced quite an opinion a couple of posts ago. A whopper. What do
you think of that one?
andy...@gmail.com
statements made by Agamamnon - statements that, to give him credit,
actually related to what this thread was initiated to discuss. I
invited yourself and Eric to comment. A topic, a statement, a
challenge to that statement. Isn't that what discussion boards are
for?
I am not asking people to "get past" ethnicity here. But can we leave
the "Fyrom vs Greece" out of at least one thread?
That's my point. Is there something wrong with that?
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:054fce37-77fd-43f6...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Makedonski is in need of psychiatric help. He must be made to confront his
delusion and reject it so he can regain sanity. You are not helping him by
encouraging that delusion.
>
> What language and culture did Alexander spread across the know world. Was
> it
> Bulgarian Slavic culture or was it Greek culture? What language did
> Aristotle the teacher of Alexander write all of his works in. Was it the
> same language they speak in Skopjia today or the same as the language they
> speak in Thessaloniki?
<<<This is very flawed logic, and we are all aware of that. West Indian
language and culture is more British than anything else. Are the West
Indians therefore anglo-saxons?>>>
Twaddle and nonsense. We know historically where the Skopjians came from and
where the Macedonians came from. The Skopjians are Bulgarian Slavs and a
relic of the rump of the Bulgarian Empire that did not set foot in the
Balkans until 600 AD. The Skopjian culture, music, and language is
Bulgarian. Their religion is Sebian Orthodox from when they were
incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbia.
The Macedonians are Greeks who have lived in northern Greece for over 4000
years. Their language is music and culture is Greek and has always been
Greek. Their religion is Greek Orthodox and it's history derives from when
Paul came to Macedonia to preach.
<<<Same for an assimilated Asian or African or whatever living in Canada
or the USA or whatever. I have a friend named _______ Wang. Is he an
anglo-saxon?>>>
One thing he is not is a Macedonian. The Macedonian culture, religion music
and language is Greek and always has been. The Skopjian language, music and
culture is Bulgarian and their religion is Serbian. Theses Skopjians can't
even claim to be Macedonian by assimilation. They are Bulgarian Slavs. Their
DNA shows them to be Bulgarian Slavs. Slavs did not set for in the Balkans
until after 600 AD, 1000 years after Alexander. There is no connection
between either.
The name Macedonia and all of its derivatives is historically copyrighted
and belongs to Greece just like the name Feta. Nobody can use the name
Coca-Cola or Coke as a name for their soft drink without the permission of
Coca-Cola which owns the name and nobody can call their country Macedonia
without the permission of Greece which owns the name. Identity theft and
fraud are both crimes.
> Macedonians originate from
> Greece. Calling you a Macedonian is an offensive and demeaning to all
> Greeks
> especially to the Macedonians since you are nothing to do with them.
<<<See what I am saying, Krater? It is a truly hopeless situation. Call
someone in "The Republic of Macedonia" a Macedonian, and you enrage
the citizens of the "Hellenic Republic". Call them anything else, and
you enrage them. No wiggle room there at all. It's either infiriate
one or infuriate the other.>>>
They are Skopjians or Vardarskans. They must learn to accept that. Stop
mentally destabilising them by reinforcing their brainwashing.
>
> If you were a Macedonian you would be speaking Greek and celebrating
> Alexander's Hellenisation of the known world and his Dorian and Aeolian
> Greek origins and decent from Herakles and Achilles and his worship of the
> Greek Gods.
<<<Well, do the modern Greeks worship the same gods? Did they hellenize
the known world? Are they descended from Herakles and Achilles?>>>
Yes. Christ is depicted in iconography as Zeus. Saint Paul is depicted as
Alexander. All Greeks share the same biological ancestry as Alexander and
are descended from the Gods and Heroes.
<<<Hmmmmm ..... you might be a little more careful in your arguments, as
you might not like where they logically lead.>>>
What?
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9db30524-b86e-4e29...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I also might add that I questione the accuracy of a couple of
> statements made by Agamamnon - statements that, to give him credit,
> actually related to what this thread was initiated to discuss. I
> invited yourself and Eric to comment.
andytoole
I believe I answered your initial posting of this thread by suggesting
(partly in jest and partly in seriousness) that it was not my place or
interest to assist in the production of a 1st year history course term paper
on Alexander.
Regards
Eric
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
(snip)
>
> > Look at the effects of the Skopjian brainwashing. Krater Makedonski is
> > mentally deranged and is living in a fantasy world. He is so brainwashed
> > that he thinks the Macedonians were Bulgarian Slavs who occupied northern
> > Greece and he is their descendent.
>
> <<<Agamemnon, what exactly is this sort of language supposed to
> accomplish? If someone spoke to you that way, would it cause you to
> reconsider your position?>>>
>
> Makedonski is in need of psychiatric help. He must be made to confront his
> delusion and reject it so he can regain sanity. You are not helping him by
> encouraging that delusion.
See what I mean, ADR? Is this the sort of "debate" we should be
having?
>
>
>
> > What language and culture did Alexander spread across the know world. Was
> > it
> > Bulgarian Slavic culture or was it Greek culture? What language did
> > Aristotle the teacher of Alexander write all of his works in. Was it the
> > same language they speak in Skopjia today or the same as the language they
> > speak in Thessaloniki?
>
> <<<This is very flawed logic, and we are all aware of that. West Indian
> language and culture is more British than anything else. Are the West
> Indians therefore anglo-saxons?>>>
>
> Twaddle and nonsense. We know historically where the Skopjians came from and
> where the Macedonians came from. The Skopjians are Bulgarian Slavs and a
> relic of the rump of the Bulgarian Empire that did not set foot in the
> Balkans until 600 AD. The Skopjian culture, music, and language is
> Bulgarian. Their religion is Sebian Orthodox from when they were
> incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbia.
>
> The Macedonians are Greeks who have lived in northern Greece for over 4000
> years. Their language is music and culture is Greek and has always been
> Greek. Their religion is Greek Orthodox and it's history derives from when
> Paul came to Macedonia to preach.
..... who, presumably, was Greek?
>
> <<<Same for an assimilated Asian or African or whatever living in Canada
> or the USA or whatever. I have a friend named _______ Wang. Is he an
> anglo-saxon?>>>
>
> One thing he is not is a Macedonian.
How do you know that? ;-)
Historically-copyrighted? Well, it looks to me as though this whole
thing can be settled in court! Whew. Problem splved! ;-)
> Nobody can use the name
> Coca-Cola or Coke as a name for their soft drink without the permission of
> Coca-Cola which owns the name and nobody can call their country Macedonia
> without the permission of Greece which owns the name. Identity theft and
> fraud are both crimes.
Sue the $%^&$# 's then!!!! ;-)
>
> > Macedonians originate from
> > Greece. Calling you a Macedonian is an offensive and demeaning to all
> > Greeks
> > especially to the Macedonians since you are nothing to do with them.
>
> <<<See what I am saying, Krater? It is a truly hopeless situation. Call
> someone in "The Republic of Macedonia" a Macedonian, and you enrage
> the citizens of the "Hellenic Republic". Call them anything else, and
> you enrage them. No wiggle room there at all. It's either infiriate
> one or infuriate the other.>>>
>
> They are Skopjians or Vardarskans. They must learn to accept that. Stop
> mentally destabilising them by reinforcing their brainwashing.
More racism. I hope you are listening, ADR.....
> > If you were a Macedonian you would be speaking Greek and celebrating
> > Alexander's Hellenisation of the known world and his Dorian and Aeolian
> > Greek origins and decent from Herakles and Achilles and his worship of the
> > Greek Gods.
>
> <<<Well, do the modern Greeks worship the same gods? Did they hellenize
> the known world? Are they descended from Herakles and Achilles?>>>
>
> Yes. Christ is depicted in iconography as Zeus. Saint Paul is depicted as
> Alexander. All Greeks share the same biological ancestry as Alexander and
> are descended from the Gods and Heroes.
Okay Mr Portakalos ;-) (plenty of Irishmen I know say similar
things about the Irish inventing, saving, refining, conquering and
civilizing everything. You're not the only one!)
>
> <<<Hmmmmm ..... you might be a little more careful in your arguments, as
> you might not like where they logically lead.>>>
>
> What?
Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
turned back upon your own argument, demands it.
andy...@gmail.com
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9db30524-b86e-4e29...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I also might add that I questione the accuracy of a couple of
> > statements made by Agamamnon - statements that, to give him credit,
> > actually related to what this thread was initiated to discuss. I
> > invited yourself and Eric to comment.
>
> andytoole
> I believe I answered your initial posting of this thread by suggesting
> (partly in jest and partly in seriousness) that it was not my place or
> interest to assist in the production of a 1st year history course term paper
> on Alexander.
> Regards
> Eric
This is strange. ADR admonishes me for not having an opinion or making
a statement. I challenge a statement which directly relates to the
initial posting (as you correctly point out, Eric) and get another
snide remark.
Then people ask me what my purpose is?
I suppose I have discovered that some topics are simply too close to
the nerve to discuss. Discussing things like "Was Alexander Really so
Great" takes on a vaguely heretical aura, potentially blasphemous
against the "common narrative". Agamemnon at least was willing to
discuss what this thread was supposed to be about, whereas (although I
may be missing some of the intent here) ADR and Eric seem to insist
that I take sides in an undignified and potentially deadly ethnic
quarrel taking place 2300 years after Alexander gazed in wonder at his
last sunset.
gogu is right. If you don't want to discuss what this thread is about,
then don't post anything. Or start a new thread and go back to Us-vs-
Them if that is your thing. As he so rightly points out, that will
settle my has for good, wouldn't it?
ERIC
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c69aea6-75ef-404a...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 4:27 pm, "ERIC" <fitz...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9db30524-b86e-4e29...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I also might add that I questione the accuracy of a couple of
> > statements made by Agamamnon - statements that, to give him credit,
> > actually related to what this thread was initiated to discuss. I
> > invited yourself and Eric to comment.
>
> andytoole
> I believe I answered your initial posting of this thread by suggesting
> (partly in jest and partly in seriousness) that it was not my place or
> interest to assist in the production of a 1st year history course term
> paper
> on Alexander.
> Regards
> Eric
This is strange. ADR admonishes me for not having an opinion or making
a statement. I challenge a statement which directly relates to the
initial posting (as you correctly point out, Eric) and get another
snide remark.
My respone, andytoole, was not a snide remark. You posted a vague and
immensely broad and sophmoric question suitable, as I've already said, for a
term paper or, perhaps, final exam essay question-
Then people ask me what my purpose is?
I think we have established that you are not someone seeking help on a term
paper, correct?? :-)
I suppose I have discovered that some topics are simply too close to
the nerve to discuss. Discussing things like "Was Alexander Really so
Great" takes on a vaguely heretical aura, potentially blasphemous
against the "common narrative".
Nothing of the kind-----in my own and personal "common narrative",
Alexander was a Greek from Macedonia as was, say, Aristotle. A blasphemous
(and pathetic) statement to me would be one that, for example, declared that
he &/or Aristotle were not Greeks and were proto- slav speakers...... as our
neighbours from Skopje are wont to proclaim.
Agamemnon
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69990e5c-b68e-48ca...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 3:36 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
(snip)
>
> > Look at the effects of the Skopjian brainwashing. Krater Makedonski is
> > mentally deranged and is living in a fantasy world. He is so brainwashed
> > that he thinks the Macedonians were Bulgarian Slavs who occupied
> > northern
> > Greece and he is their descendent.
>
> <<<Agamemnon, what exactly is this sort of language supposed to
> accomplish? If someone spoke to you that way, would it cause you to
> reconsider your position?>>>
>
> Makedonski is in need of psychiatric help. He must be made to confront his
> delusion and reject it so he can regain sanity. You are not helping him by
> encouraging that delusion.
<<<See what I mean, ADR? Is this the sort of "debate" we should be
having?>>>
Go talk to a psychiatrist. The worst thing you can do for a psychiatric
patient is reinforce his delusions, brainwashing and fantasies. Those all
have to be confronted.
>
> <<<Hmmmmm ..... you might be a little more careful in your arguments, as
> you might not like where they logically lead.>>>
>
> What?
<<<Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
turned back upon your own argument, demands it.>>>
HOGWASH!
Where were the Skopjians when Saint Paul came to Macedonia?
Wandering the Russian plains. That's where.
The Macedonians were speaking Greek, worshiping the same Gods as the other
Greeks including Christ and spreading Greek culture.
Agamemnon
Skopjians are Bulgarian Slavs. Stop reinforcing their insane delusions.
This a is question of IDENTITY THEFT not Alexander's greatness which has
already been explained to you.
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:799b983c-567a-4699...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
ADR
> Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
> easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
> because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
> Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
> course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
> turned back upon your own argument, demands it.- Hide quoted text -
Since you have directed some comments to me, I will answer. What you
are utilizing is a common diversion in logic and for those who have
read Aristotle, an easy and cheap trick to discern. For example, the
comparison of ancient Macedonians was to the rest of ancient Greeks.
Such a comparison is not cancelled because of any comparison of
ancient Greeks to modern Greeks. There has been no statement by
Agamemnon that what defines a Greek has remained immutable through the
centuries. These are words that you have put in his mouth. Cheap,
transparent and ridiculous tricks that have no place in a serious
discussion which you claim (not persuasively) that you want to have.
That there is an argument does not necessarily mean that both sides
have a valid position. In fact, courts daily find out the opposite.
So, if you want to be a judge, you have been presented the arguments
(I hope). I do not care to further elaborate, as the history of the
area is covered so extensively in so many standard texts writtten by
historians not connected with the present dispute. So, if you cannot
"render a verdict" so far, I can only conclude that you are an idiot
(unlikely), a provocatuer (likely) or just weird (getting some weird
pleasure stirring the crowds). In any case, not be able to have a
definitive opinion by now is intellectually indefensible.
If there is some element of "tribalism" or "racism" in some of the
people posting here is only parethentical to the main argument. There
are always idiots in any cause. My question simply is why on the
basis of such abundant information are you still unable to form an
opinion? Is there something wrong with your higher brain
functions???? Your position in this board is getting more and more
tenuous. I have engaged you previously. I think that on the basis of
this posting, as you will see, neither I, Eric and gogu will likely
engage you any further because we are really getting a clear picture
about the silly and sick game you are playing here.
Mitsos**
else but Uralians and hijack Finnish history as my history.
Thats what FYROManians are doing.
They claim that " Greeks are Ethiopians ".
Which is true in a sense because 200.000 years ago all of humanity come
from what is Ethiopia today.
As it is true that Fins come after Jesus Christ to what is today Finland
and were living before on the Asian site of the Ural mountains.
Don't know how many years this absurdity of those West Bulgarians with a
inferiority complex will go on.
gogu
>On May 6, 2:51 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
>> easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
>> because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
>> Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
>> course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
>> turned back upon your own argument, demands it.- Hide quoted text -
>Since you have directed some comments to me, I will answer. What you
>are utilizing is a common diversion in logic and for those who have
>read Aristotle, an easy and cheap trick to discern. For example, the
>comparison of ancient Macedonians was to the rest of ancient Greeks.
>Such a comparison is not cancelled because of any comparison of
>ancient Greeks to modern Greeks. There has been no statement by
>Agamemnon that what defines a Greek has remained immutable through the
>centuries. These are words that you have put in his mouth. Cheap,
>transparent and ridiculous tricks that have no place in a serious
>discussion which you claim (not persuasively) that you want to have.
In one word: sophistry!
>I do not care to further elaborate, as the history of the
>area is covered so extensively in so many standard texts writtten by
>historians not connected with the present dispute. So, if you cannot
>"render a verdict" so far, I can only conclude that you are an idiot
>(unlikely), a provocatuer (likely)
QED!
>Your position in this board is getting more and more
>tenuous. I have engaged you previously. I think that on the basis of
>this posting, as you will see, neither I, Eric and gogu will likely
>engage you any further because we are really getting a clear picture
>about the silly and sick game you are playing here.
Ditto!
Nashton
> On May 4, 9:50 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> Tool, Alexander is the founder of the modern age. He is followed
>> by Hellenistic, Roman, Orthodox , Renaissance, The West, and
>> the recreation of Modern Greece.
>
<snip>
andytool's posts aren't appearing in my newsreader, so I'll try to
answer his posts via yours.
andytool, there are many resources on the internet and your local
library that will educate you re the influence of Alex the Great all the
way to the present day. Even though I'm not any less or more inclined to
help you out than anybody else, asking silly questions such as these
when the internet is available, is more of a sign of laziness than real
intellectual curiosity when you ask others to educate you.
andy...@gmail.com
Once again, I agree with you. I will, however, once again point out
that the question I am asking is nowhere near as offensive as some
(most?) of the posts on this newsgroup wouldn't make it past even a
very tolerant moderator.
Do you disagree?
In any case, I seem (seem) to be accused of two mutually-exclusive
transgressions: a) I am asking a very stupid (sophomoric) question, b)
I am asking a diabolically sneaky question disguising a nefarious
agenda. This agenda is a) to promote the "Fyromian" side in the modern
debate over Alexander's legacy *and* b) to employ dishonest (and
perverse) intellectual slipperiness in order to *avoid* taking sides.
Therefore, people who wish to attack me (as opposed to my arguments)
have left themselves a huge amount of leeway.
And I am the sophist?
>
> > Then people ask me what my purpose is?
>
> I think we have established that you are not someone seeking help on a term
> paper, correct?? :-)
My term papers were written 20 years ago ;-)
>
> > I suppose I have discovered that some topics are simply too close to
> > the nerve to discuss. Discussing things like "Was Alexander Really so
> > Great" takes on a vaguely heretical aura, potentially blasphemous
> > against the "common narrative".
>
> Nothing of the kind-----in my own and personal "common narrative",
> Alexander was a Greek from Macedonia as was, say, Aristotle. A blasphemous
> (and pathetic) statement to me would be one that, for example, declared that
> he &/or Aristotle were not Greeks and were proto- slav speakers...... as our
> neighbours from Skopje are wont to proclaim.
Hence the level of acrimony of the debate. One can forgive or ignore a
troll (which, presumably, is exactly what I am), but a
blasphemer ..... absolutely never!
andy...@gmail.com
>
(snip)
>
> > Makedonski is in need of psychiatric help. He must be made to confront his
> > delusion and reject it so he can regain sanity. You are not helping him by
> > encouraging that delusion.
>
Laying on his shrink's couch, Andy blathered:
> <<<See what I mean, ADR? Is this the sort of "debate" we should be
> having?>>>
>
> Go talk to a psychiatrist. The worst thing you can do for a psychiatric
> patient is reinforce his delusions, brainwashing and fantasies. Those all
> have to be confronted.
And here I thought this was about Alexander, not Freud ;-)
>
>
Andy:
> <<<Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
> easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
> because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
> Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
> course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
> turned back upon your own argument, demands it.>>>
>
> HOGWASH!
>
> Where were the Skopjians when Saint Paul came to Macedonia?
>
> Wandering the Russian plains. That's where.
Oh? I though Skopje was in Southeastern Europe. How could they have
been Skopjians while wandering around in Russia? (I'm pulling your
leg, BTW)
andy...@gmail.com
> On May 6, 2:51 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Like I said before. The same logic you use against others can just a
> > easily be used against you. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks
> > because they worshipped the Olympian gods etc etc ..... The modern
> > Greeks do not. Therefore the modern Greeks are not Greeks. This is, of
> > course, an absurd thing to say, but the logic of your position, when
> > turned back upon your own argument, demands it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Since you have directed some comments to me, I will answer. What you
> are utilizing is a common diversion in logic and for those who have
> read Aristotle, an easy and cheap trick to discern. For example, the
> comparison of ancient Macedonians was to the rest of ancient Greeks.
> Such a comparison is not cancelled because of any comparison of
> ancient Greeks to modern Greeks. There has been no statement by
> Agamemnon that what defines a Greek has remained immutable through the
> centuries. These are words that you have put in his mouth. Cheap,
> transparent and ridiculous tricks that have no place in a serious
> discussion which you claim (not persuasively) that you want to have.
I didn't put any such words in anyone's mouth (although there seem to
be no shortage of people willing to do the same thing to me). What I
was doing was pointing out (as I have said before) that if you put a
premise under a microscope and examine in it a certain way, it is not
unreasonable to put any counter-premise you have under the very same
microscope. In fact, it would be dishonest not to do so.
>
> That there is an argument does not necessarily mean that both sides
> have a valid position.
Of course not. And when cornered, I have been completely forthcoming
in stating (essentially) that neither side does. This, after having
said that on balance (and this got me into trouble too) the 'Greek'
side is the more persuasive.
> In fact, courts daily find out the opposite.
Sending this issue 'to court' is what I have advocated all along,
isn't it?
> So, if you want to be a judge, you have been presented the arguments
> (I hope).
I suppose I do want to be a judgein a manner of speaking, but at least
I have been consistent in stating that finding right and wrong (which
is ultimately impossible in a historical debate) is not something I am
prepared to attempt. In this case, my emphasis is (and has always
been) conflict resolution. Broken record, I suppose, but I'm not the
only one around here.
> I do not care to further elaborate, as the history of the
> area is covered so extensively in so many standard texts writtten by
> historians not connected with the present dispute. So, if you cannot
> "render a verdict" so far, I can only conclude that you are an idiot
> (unlikely), a provocatuer (likely) or just weird (getting some weird
> pleasure stirring the crowds). In any case, not be able to have a
> definitive opinion by now is intellectually indefensible.
Is it? And in any case (as I have said above), a militant "Fyromian"
would say that I have indeed taken sides, rendered a verdict, and
added my weight (such as it is worth) to the Greek side in the debate.
But in a seriously polarized debate this is not nearly enough; one
must be 100% on one side or the other. I am familiar with debates of
this nature, as well as conflicts of this nature - having dealt with
the Irish one all my life. The conciliator is inevitably damned and
resented by all involved.
I accept this.
>
> If there is some element of "tribalism" or "racism" in some of the
> people posting here is only parethentical to the main argument.
That is an opinion I do not share with you. The reason I say this is
that, with almost no exceptions, you don't even have to ask someone
what their actual opinion is. All you have to do is ask them their
"nationality" and you can have at least a general idea as to what
their position is, won't you? This makes it tribal, or I have a very
poor grasp of the concept of tribalism (which may indeed be the case).
> There
> are always idiots in any cause.
And these 'idiots' are the real menace. Before nasty Balkan-type wars
break out, the fanatics, idiots, or whatever you care to call them are
just a nuisance. Once the fat is in the fire, they are the people who
put the "atrocious" in "atrocity". Ask anyone who lived through the
Bosnian civil war.
> My question simply is why on the
> basis of such abundant information are you still unable to form an
> opinion? Is there something wrong with your higher brain
> functions????
Now now. I have a coherent position that has not changed since I
barged in here. You may not like my position, but it is a position
nonetheless.
> Your position in this board is getting more and more
> tenuous. I have engaged you previously. I think that on the basis of
> this posting, as you will see, neither I, Eric and gogu will likely
> engage you any further because we are really getting a clear picture
> about the silly and sick game you are playing here.
No one has ever been forced to engage me. If you simply refuse to
reply, this debate and my place in goes the way of Julius Caesar. This
has been the case since newsgroups began.
andy...@gmail.com
>
(snip)
>
> It's like if I would claim to be a real Fin and the Finns are nothing
> else but Uralians and hijack Finnish history as my history.
> Thats what FYROManians are doing.
Wait a minute. I think you may have it backwards. The Finns speak a
Uro-Ugrian language which originated (as you correctly point out) in
central Russia. But Finland is where the Finns live, isn't it? And
last I checked, Finland is a wee distance from the Urals.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate ;-)
> They claim that " Greeks are Ethiopians ".
This reductio ad absurdum - a useful technique sometimes, but in this
case I think it is meant as an insult. Personally, I don't care if
someone calls me an Ethiopian, but some slightly-racialist people
might take exception to it. But as I have said before, we are,
ultimately, all Ethiopians.
> Which is true in a sense because 200.000 years ago all of humanity come
> from what is Ethiopia today.
Precisely.
> As it is true that Fins come after Jesus Christ to what is today Finland
> and were living before on the Asian site of the Ural mountains.
> Don't know how many years this absurdity of those West Bulgarians with a
> inferiority complex will go on.
Judginf from the fact that the people of the Balkans (and their
respective diasporas)are still squabbling over someone who died 2300
years ago, don't hold your breath ;-)
andy...@gmail.com
(snip)
>
> andytool, there are many resources on the internet and your local
> library that will educate you re the influence of Alex the Great all the
> way to the present day. Even though I'm not any less or more inclined to
> help you out than anybody else, asking silly questions such as these
> when the internet is available, is more of a sign of laziness than real
> intellectual curiosity when you ask others to educate you.
If you put it down to laziness, I have to disagree. I can assure you
that, for all my various unforgivable faults, laziness - even the
intellectual variant - is not one of them.
Once again, there are a series of conflicting accusations being
levelled at me, and it is difficult to keep track of them.
To sum up, I seem to have been accused of the following:
a) Being uneducated or "sophomoric". This conflicts with the
accusation of
b) Being sneaky and having a hidden agenda. This conflicts with the
charge of
c) Refusing to have a concrete, coherent position. This is not the
same as the charge of
d) Intellectual (or actual) laziness.
As I said, my - shall we say - "detractors" have left themselves with
plenty of scope, haven't they?
Maybe, like my beloved Socrates, I should assume that I am simply
guilty of "wrong doing" and drink my hemlock like the good universal
citizen (cosmopolitan) I am ;-)
andy...@gmail.com
> ? "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:825ab54f-4449-453a-
(snip)
Referring to Andu, ADR said:
> >Since you have directed some comments to me, I will answer. What you
> >are utilizing is a common diversion in logic and for those who have
> >read Aristotle, an easy and cheap trick to discern. For example, the
> >comparison of ancient Macedonians was to the rest of ancient Greeks.
> >Such a comparison is not cancelled because of any comparison of
> >ancient Greeks to modern Greeks. There has been no statement by
> >Agamemnon that what defines a Greek has remained immutable through the
> >centuries. These are words that you have put in his mouth. Cheap,
> >transparent and ridiculous tricks that have no place in a serious
> >discussion which you claim (not persuasively) that you want to have.
>
> In one word: sophistry!
>
And I am accused of not being willing to debate. Amazing, really. As
you yourself must know, gogu, "sophistry" is a virtually unanswerable
charge, and is usually used as a last resort, being nothing more than
an attack on someone's motives. Well, I can't really stop you from
doing that, I suppose, even though (as I have also said) you don't
really know what my motives are.
In any case, I will (for the sake of my many critics) give my own
answers to the 4 (still unanswered) questions I posed at the beginning
of this thread. I realize of course, that it will remain unresponded-
to, but as the "sophist" Socrates said, virtue is its own reward ;-)
1) What was so "Great" about Alexander? (this may sound like a silly
question, but please indulge me)
Alexander's "Greatness" was apparently a result of his conquest of the
Persian Empire. He was a military genius who managed to replace the
upper class of the Achaemenid Empire with Greco-Macedonians, through
sheer force of arms. This was a massively successful replay of the
March of the 10,000 described in Xenophon's Anabasis. The Persians
were not as strong (nor the Greeks as weak) as anyone had previously
supposed, and Alexander successfully exploited his father's forcible
enrollment of the Greek states into the League of Corinth to create a
Pan-Hellenic Army that was to overthrow the Achaemenids.
2) What was the net benefit of Alexander's career to the Classical
Greek world?
This is more complex, and depends upon what you mean by "The Classical
Greek World". Individual Greeks benefitted materially, some becoming
rich and powerful beyond measure. The conquest resulted in the
foundation of many Greek poleis throughout the East, and these were
populated by expatriate Greeks and Macedonians. Thus the scope and
size of the Classical Greek world was expanded immensely. Hellenism
(or rather a mix of Hellenic and Asiatic civilizations) ruled the
East.
But the effect upon the heartland of Classical Greece was less of a
blessing. Classical Greece had proven its lasting value for all time
through its political, social, intellectual and artistic achievements,
and Alexander's conquests were detrimental to almost all of these.
Politically, Classical Greece's achievement was constitutional gov't.
Whether democracy or oligarchy (far and away the most common form of
gov't in Classical Hellas), the backbone of the polis was the yeoman
farmer. Tradesmen and artisans were occasionally dominant, but by and
large the stubbornly patriotic smallholder was supreme. And these
people were essentially wiped out by the economic fallout from
Alexander's conquest. The sudden enormous increase of the money supply
caused by the looting of the Persian treasury concentrated vast wealth
in the hands of military leaders, who used their new wealth to hire
and maintain mercenary armies that hopelessly outclassed the citizen-
armies of the Classical heartland, which were unable to reassert the
independence of the poleis. The end of the polis as a central element
in the power structure of Classical Greece inevitably led to the end
of constitutional government as the dominant force as well.
Economically, the smallholder was all but ruined by the huge amount of
cheap grain made suddenly available by the conquest, especially by the
Ptolemies' ruthlessly efficient exploitation of Egypt. Egyptian
agriculture was so efficient and well-organized that, even after being
very heavily taxed by various levels of the Egyptian bureaucracy, it
was still able to be exported to the Greek manland cheaply enough to
drive locally-produced grain off the market. This means economic
disaster for the yeoman farmer, which in turn contributed to the
generl decline of Classical Greece.
3) What was the net benefit of Alexander's career to the people he
conquered?
As I said before, Alexander merely replaced the ruling Class of the
Achaemenid Empire with a Greco-Macedonian military aristocracy. One
oppressive ruler was replaced by another. Again, in the case of Egypt
(the Successor state for which we have the most information) the lot
of the Egyptian serf (i.e., 90% of the populace actually worsened. The
Ptolemies were much more efficient (and ruthless) than their
predecessors in wringing more wealth out of the population, and
pressed the Egyptian harder than they had ever been pressed by either
native dynasties or the Persians.
Throughout the conquered East, the native population was almost
invariably reduced to (and/or kept in) a state of vassalage or
servitude to the conquerors. The Greco-Macedonian military aristocracy
inhabited cities and continued to live more or less as they always
had, with the exception now that they were living as tribute-supported
garrisons as opposed to yeoman farmers. They also had to deal with a
sovereign monarch who often had the power of veto over their political
activities.
Finally, the Successors broke up the Persian Empire into more-or-less
mutually-hostile kingdoms who then proceeded to war over the spoils
who would fight each other continually until the coming of Rome (and
the Parthians). What had been the "Pax Persica" was interrupted by the
Macedonian conquest, and continual warfare plagued the East
thereafter.
4) What is the Alexander's legacy to the modern world?
It is usually said that Alexander founded the first universal kingdom.
This is the traditional view, but it is hard to sustain it. His
kingdom did not outlast his death, and all we can really say for sure
that he did destroy the Persian Empire and founded a series of cities
and kingdoms that did indeed spread certain elements of hellenism
throughout the East.
The "universal kingdom", one could say, already existed in the form of
the Achaemenid Empire. It was certainly no more oppressive than the
Successor states, and culturally was in many ways superior to them.
Greek civilization is said to have undergone a resurgence with the
"birth" of the Eastern Roman Empire, an empire that bore a far greater
resemblance to the Achaemenid Empire than it did to the civilization
of the Classical Aegean and Ionian Seas, a civilization, BTW, which
between them Philip and Alexander ended up dooming.
There. I have answered my own questions. Those who believe that I am
engaging in dialectical 'judo' (i.e., tricking my opponent into
stating something, then usuing his own momentum against him while
refraining from saying anything concrete myself), can now rest assured
that I have a point to make. If no one cares to debate this issue,
there is precious little I can do about it, but at least it is a
consistent attempt (after 83 posts in this thread) to debate the same
points.
Interestingly, those who accuse me of not taking a position on "the
debate" are themselves disregarding the entire point of this thread,
determined as they seem to be in discussing nothing at all about
Alexander but which 21stC state can more rightfully claim to be his
"heir" - whatever that is supposed to mean.
I suppose an idee fixe is a difficult thing to overcome, and I am no
psychologist. It is, however, somewhat tragic that the legacy of
Classical Greece is taking second place in the minds of Alexanders'
putative heirs to disgusting and ultimately unwinnable ethnic
conflicts. It just seems a shame to see such things dragged into the
gutter to serve such sordid ends.
Mitsos**
> On May 7, 2:48 am, "gogu" <RruminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
>> ? "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:825ab54f-4449-453a-
>
>
> (snip)
>
< snip crap deleted >
Could it be by any change that you have a huge inferiority complex and
suffer from envy?
andy...@gmail.com
Shhhhhhh......
Mitsos, don't you know you're supposed to be boycotting my posts?
And yes, I do suffer from envy. I wish I could believe that reality
were as simple and as right-and-wrong as some people seem to believe
it to be. But I believe that being honest and facing "inconvenient
truths" is of greater value than membership in a tribe.
I've been called weird a few times here. I think my true "weirdness"
lies in my unflinching willingness to illicit hostility if my
conscience (daemon?) conflicts with my normal affable and gregarious
nature.
Maybe there are those who envy *me* for this ....... ;-)
KaripidouMarianna
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee6ca598-5cd8-470e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 3:46pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "With its announcement today, [Macedonia] once again seeks false
> > supports in the past," -Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis,
> > commenting on the decision to rename Skopje International Airport
> > "Alexander the Great".
>
> > Thus a prominent world leader comments on a debate about someone who
> > has been dead for 2 millennia. It is useless to point out that most of
> > the world is completely stupified that such a debate could provoke
> > such passions in the 21stC; stupid or not, it is taking place. And it
> > could have far-reaching repercussions.
>
> > Alexander is obviously venerated - almost worshipped - by both sides
> > in this debate. Each party is fiercely protective of "their" heritage,
> > and both are very touchy about attempts by the other to claim him as
> > their own.
> > I mean, what was so "Great" about Alexander anyway? I'm not trying to
>
> This is not an issue about Alexander or his greatness. It is an issue
> about
> the Skopjian theft of Greek history following the brainwashing,
> territorial
> expansionist and irredentist policy of General Tito.
>I don't necessarily disagree. But that's not what I
> am asking. Why do both sides in this debate
> actually *want* Alexander to be such a big
>part of their history? I'm not saying they shouldn't.
> Rather, I just want to clarify why.
Ooo, gee? Let's see if you can think deeply...
The Greek culture, the Hellenism (the Greek nation) or the Hellenistic
civilisation and culture
became widespread into the world of the Ancient
Near East because of Alexander the Great, the
Greek rurels, Greek officials, etc...( You can see everywhere Greek
inscriptions, Greek letters...)
Why did Alexander the Great ( the Greek rulers,
Greek officials, etc...,) do it? Why?
> The Skopjians are
> Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
> until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina
> the
> "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
> Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
> is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> encouraging and condoning them.
Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
(snip)
gogu
news:fvu4sq$633$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Mhtso!
Den moiaze to styl toy me ayto toy alloy provokatora, toy Henry
Hooray?;-)))))
Vre mpas kai....
Aytos bebaia postarei apo ton canada, alla liga na ksereis apo proxy mporeis
na deikseis oti postareis kai apo to...Tibuktu;-)...
++
andy...@gmail.com wrote:
>O
>
>Shhhhhhh......
>
>Mitsos, don't you know you're supposed to be boycotting my posts?
>
>And yes, I do suffer from envy. I wish I could believe that reality
>were as simple and as right-and-wrong as some people seem to believe
>it to be. But I believe that being honest and facing "inconvenient
>truths" is of greater value than membership in a tribe.
>
>I've been called weird a few times here. I think my true "weirdness"
>lies in my unflinching willingness to illicit hostility if my
>conscience (daemon?) conflicts with my normal affable and gregarious
>nature.
>
>Maybe there are those who envy *me* for this ....... ;-)
>
>
Nice to see you, Andy
andy...@gmail.com
> ? "Mitsos**" <smy...@isgreek.org> ?????? ??? ??????news:fvu4sq$633$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > andyto...@gmail.com the tool wrote:
>
> >> On May 7, 2:48 am, "gogu" <RruminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
> >>> ? "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:825ab54f-4449-453a-
>
> >> (snip)
>
> > < snip crap deleted >
> > Could it be by any change that you have a huge inferiority complex and
> > suffer from envy?
>
> Mhtso!
> Den moiaze to styl toy me ayto toy alloy provokatora, toy Henry
> Hooray?;-)))))
> Vre mpas kai....
> Aytos bebaia postarei apo ton canada, alla liga na ksereis apo proxy mporeis
> na deikseis oti postareis kai apo to...Tibuktu;-)...
You don't have to write in Greek, gogu. And personal attacks solve
nothing.
ADR
> I suppose an idee fixe is a difficult thing to overcome, and I am no
> psychologist. It is, however, somewhat tragic that the legacy of
> Classical Greece is taking second place in the minds of Alexanders'
> putative heirs to disgusting and ultimately unwinnable ethnic
> conflicts. It just seems a shame to see such things dragged into the
> gutter to serve such sordid ends.
See, Andy, I love it when you take a position and decide to be nasty
to the Greek (and other) correspondents here. Irrespective of which
side is right (and one surely is) you have labelled both of them
"disgusting" and "sordid". My man, you are one sick puppy. You do
have an agenda and it is a clever one at that. By calling both the
Greek and FYROM position "sordid" and "disgusting" you have treated
one potential perpetrator and one potential victim in the same
manner. I do not care to state here who is right and who is wrong,
but YOU are definitely wrong.
It is not that data are missing for somebody to make an evaluation of
who is right and who is wrong. Surely, each side will present its own
arguments but the facts can be easily deduced from non-engaged,
neutral sources. You seem to believe that if you cast aspersions to
each side and label them as disgusting and sorbid, you would have done
your duty to mankind. You sir are deluded. And this is the worse
kind of delusion. The delusion of grandeur!!! (you know best and you
have reach such a state of grace that you can call others sordid and
disgusting)
andy...@gmail.com
It did indeed, and you won't catch me disputing this fact. I have
based everything I have written on this subject on commonly-accepted
historiography. It's nothing new, nor is it revolutionary. But it
seems to have taken a lot of people by surprise.
> the
> Greek rurels, Greek officials, etc...( You can see everywhere Greek
> inscriptions, Greek letters...)
In other words, Greco-Macedonians conquered the Persian Empire. This
is not in dispute. I am asking the question of *why* he is called "The
Great". In other words, was he great in the same way that Suleiman was
the "Magnificent"?
> Why did Alexander the Great ( the Greek rulers,
> Greek officials, etc...,) do it? Why?
Sorry, please clarify.
>
> > The Skopjians are
> > Bulgarian Slaves who always identified themselves as Bulgarian Slavs up
> > until 1944 when Tito renamed the Serbian province of Vardarska Banovina
> > the
> > "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" in order to lay claim to the existing
> > Macedonia which was a province of Greece. Identity theft is a crime and so
> > is brainwashing, both in the perpetration of the acts themselves and
> > encouraging and condoning them.
>
> Maybe, but that's not the question I was asking .....
>
> (snip)- Hide quoted text -
++
ADR wrote:
The man is entitled to an opinion, something, by the way, you espouse in
the guise of truth. Whether we agree with his opinions is another
matter entirely, but at least they are the honest conclusions of an
academic in a related field, unlike those, like yourself, on this forum
who will selectively honor history in order to promote some ideology.
What is missing is an honest love of everyone in the area and the
presentation of source materials and news to interest all parties.
ADR
> The man is entitled to an opinion, something, by the way, you espouse in
> the guise of truth. Whether we agree with his opinions is another
> matter entirely, but at least they are the honest conclusions of an
> academic in a related field, unlike those, like yourself, on this forum
> who will selectively honor history in order to promote some ideology.
> What is missing is an honest love of everyone in the area and the
> presentation of source materials and news to interest all parties.- Hide quoted text -
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I think that it is bad when one
uses unacceptable labels such as "sordid" and "disgusting" to broadly
paint the overall discussion in this forum and when one is acting as
no more than a provocateur.
Hmmmm....I do not know what you mean by me "selectively honoring
history". Maybe you can elaborate. I think that I have broad
interests and I have not posted any material that you cannot cross-
check through about 100 sources. If you point an area in which I used
material to promote an "ideology" and did not consider counterveiling
facts, I would be glad to hear. Otherwise, editorializing is just
bad.
gogu
news:4136bde2-9ce0-45fb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>On May 8, 11:19 am, "gogu" <RruminiiSugPu...@Greci.com> wrote:
>> ? "Mitsos**" <smy...@isgreek.org> ?????? ???
>> ??????news:fvu4sq$633$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Mhtso!
>> Den moiaze to styl toy me ayto toy alloy provokatora, toy Henry
>> Hooray?;-)))))
>> Vre mpas kai....
>> Aytos bebaia postarei apo ton canada, alla liga na ksereis apo proxy
>> mporeis
>> na deikseis oti postareis kai apo to...Tibuktu;-)...
>You don't have to write in Greek, gogu. And personal attacks solve
>nothing.
You are an idiot!
No personal attack in my posting you smart ass of a cheap provocateur!
Now get lost!
andy...@gmail.com
>
> You are an idiot!
> No personal attack in my posting you smart ass of a cheap provocateur!
> Now get lost!
I see.
gogu
We remember another similar poster here, don't we?...
LOL
++
ADR wrote:
And other have posted sources which can be crosschecked and etc. What
is missing is an honest love for all of the people in the area and an
acceptance of anything that does not fit the agendas.
His labels are far gentler than other labels filitted around in hatred
on this forum. It owuld be nice if there were fewer arrested adolescents.
>
>
>
choronik
Ma den einai sosta re gogulo?
--
choronik
======
<andy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f542a52-5a54-4df2...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
andy...@gmail.com
> On May 7, 6:07 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I suppose an idee fixe is a difficult thing to overcome, and I am no
> > psychologist. It is, however, somewhat tragic that the legacy of
> > Classical Greece is taking second place in the minds of Alexanders'
> > putative heirs to disgusting and ultimately unwinnable ethnic
> > conflicts. It just seems a shame to see such things dragged into the
> > gutter to serve such sordid ends.
>
> See, Andy, I love it when you take a position and decide to be nasty
> to the Greek (and other) correspondents here. Irrespective of which
> side is right (and one surely is) you have labelled both of them
> "disgusting" and "sordid".
No I haven't.
> My man, you are one sick puppy. You do
> have an agenda and it is a clever one at that. By calling both the
> Greek and FYROM position "sordid" and "disgusting" you have treated
> one potential perpetrator and one potential victim in the same
> manner.
I believe they are in the same boat, really. There are neither perps
nor victims here (at least not in the conventional sense), but I do
believe each side is in a sense victimizing itself.
> I do not care to state here who is right and who is wrong,
> but YOU are definitely wrong.
...whatever that may mean
>
> It is not that data are missing for somebody to make an evaluation of
> who is right and who is wrong.
I disagree. Right and wrong are such absolute concepts that (as I told
Eric a while back), the best we can say when forced to take a side is
that we really don't know. But in an argument in which plenty of
people on each side seem to have made up its mind in advance of
actually looking into the facts of the matter, there is a lot more
than facts that are at stake here.
> Surely, each side will present its own
> arguments but the facts can be easily deduced from non-engaged,
> neutral sources. You seem to believe that if you cast aspersions to
> each side and label them as disgusting and sorbid, you would have done
> your duty to mankind.
But where did I label anyone disgusting and sordid?
> You sir are deluded. And this is the worse
> kind of delusion. The delusion of grandeur!!! (you know best and you
> have reach such a state of grace that you can call others sordid and
> disgusting)
I wish you would do me the courtesy of reading what I have actually
written prior to outburts of this nature. I wouldn't blame you for
getting hot under the collar if I had said such a thing, but the
simple fact is that I didn't. By all means call me into account for
what I have said, but there's no need to put words into peoples'
mouths, as you yourself have said.
The discussion, I believe, was supposed to be about Alexander anyway.