April 27, 2009
´There they go again´, borrowing a famous phrase used by our late president Ronald Reagan in the presidential debate. Today´s Greeks—being rebuffed and defeated on all other fields in the battle to subvert and appropriate the legacy of the ancient Macedonians—stubbornly cling to only one whimsical card left—the language of the ancient Macedonians.
In the latest attempt to grab a headline, these propagandists from the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council—(they are neither Macedonian nor have any capacity to council), under the header "Makedonika II - The Ancient Macedonian Words" published on April 21, 2009 state the following:
"The latest, and most complete, monograph on the nationality of the Macedonians, devotes hundreds of pages to the study of Macedonian words, and contains some perceptive critical observations and original views. It concludes that fifty-two of the sixty-five words in the lexica are Greek, while the remaining thirteen include not only genuinely non-Greek words but also ambiguous forms, copyists´ errors and words used by children."
Strange but true, these Greeks would not dare undertake similarly extensive study of the words found in Homer which are identical to modern Macedonian language spoken today in the Republic of Macedonia.]
At the onset, let us state the obvious that most of the evidence obtained about the ancients Macedonians comes from Roman or Greek sources. Second, it is a fact that ancient Greek writers transcribed words, names, events and things pertinent to their interest in a readable Greek version intended for a wider Greek audience and thus the original names which were to be described by these chroniclers received the usual historical heist: the thieving "Greek makeover". In other words things, events, places, religious deities etc., all were called and transcribed into a language that Greeks would readily understand. The fact that these foreign names have suitable Greek etymology should not be surprising; Greeks had equivalent translation of all Egyptian Gods and all Persian commanders´ names had equivalent Greek translation and meanings too.
Therefore, if today´s Greeks find Greek etymology in other peoples´ languages, it is not an indication that the spoken or the written language of the people in question was Greek or related to Greek. When Greeks speak of "proto-Greek languages" or "Greek dialects" one gets the impression that these so-called Greek tongues were so wide-spread in antiquity that deviations from the mainstream Greek language must have been a naturally occurring evolutionary phenomenon characteristic of all other tongues. However, the evidence we have at hand today, does not support such an assumption.
If these Greek tongues were spoken so widely by so many different tribes/people/countries, as today´s Greeks vociferously try to portray it, then the Greek language, consequently—following evolutionary linguistic predispositions—should have been spread in a much wider geographical landmass than the puny land of today´s Greece. On top of it, if one removes the Aegean Macedonia—which they obtained illegally in 1913 with the help of the hypocrite powers of Europe—then there is indeed not much left to talk about.
What other countries today speak Greek? Or to put the same question differently, if the Greek languages were so dominant in antiquity, how come only a few million Greeks are using it today? And once again, if we remove the number of people whom the Greeks forcibly Hellenized and imposed this Greek language upon, then the numbers dwindle even lower than a few million people.
Common wisdom dictates that when you add 2 plus 2 together, you should get 4. Here, Greeks come woefully short. The supposed "truth" professed by these Greeks is devoid of substantive evidence, is unsustainable and is destined to collapse. We have come to a point that we must say enough is enough! Enough with these Greek lies. The numbers do not add up. We have to ask, and this time demand: Where is the beef?
However, if they really want to use numbers to gain some advantage over their adversaries and illuminate their own position, then, they should follow this example: since these Greeks have claimed that Alexander the Great and his Macedonians were Greeks, we´ll take a hard look at the ethnic makeup of Alexander´s army and see if their assertion can withstand the analysis presented here:
"Of the nearly 850 persons listed by Berve, 275 are either certainly or probably ethnic Greeks. Of this number, 126 persons are not associated with Alexander's train, and thus outside present concerns. Of the 149 which remain, 69 - nearly half - are court figures not associated with administration. They include sophists, physicians, actors, athletes, musicians, jugglers, and other entertainers, and a variety of hangers-on. 89 names remain. Of these three are of uncertain ethnic origin. 24 Greeks serve the king in variety of administrative tasks: some are envoys, some are clerks, some financial officers, some act as king's agents in local places. They pop in and out of the historical record as Alexander sees the need to employ them. The remaining 53 Greeks serve specific military functions.
Out of these 53 persons, 22 names are attached to a single unit (the allies from Orchomenos), who, by the way, are dismissed along with the other Greek allies in 330 B.C. (Only a few short years into the expedition). Fourteen other Greeks hold naval appointments, either as ship commanders in the Hydaspes fleet, or in conjunction with Nearchus' ocean voyage. Four Greeks are in charge of mercenary units, and 9 others have unspecified, low- level military assignments. Seven have duties that did not take them beyond Egypt.
In summary, of the 149 known Greeks with official connections to the king, only 35 to 40 held positions of rank- some as officers, some as administrators, but only a handful in top positions."
Now, one is seriously pressed to provide the needed evidence for the assertion held by these Greek propagandists that Alexander's crusade and Alexander's army were Greek. The evidence presented will not support such an act. An army of over 40,000 soldiers cannot possibly be called Greek army where the Greeks representation is so minuscule and largely insignificant. If Greeks like to claim somebody's army, then their rightful claim should be the Persian army of Darius the III, where the number of Greeks exceeded 50,000 paid mercenaries. These Greeks, by the way, were fighting against the Macedonians.
Furthermore, these Greek allies with Alexander, the forces from the Corinthian League, infantry and cavalry, were demobilised from Ecbetana in the spring of 330; [Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17] even the Thessalian cavalry who re-enlisted were dismissed at the Oxus less than a year later (Arr. III.29.5) Alexander now relied on the Macedonian nucleus for front-line work and the mercenaries for support function," writes Bosworth (Conquest and Empire p.271).
So, where in the world is this "Panhellenic crusade"? Where is this Greek army? Where are the Greek commanders, soldiers, etc, etc,. If this was a "Panhellenic crusade" as they would like us to believe, where did the spoils of victory go? Not Athens for sure.
The truth is that there was no Greek army with Alexander. There was no Greek crusade, and certainly, there was nothing Greek with the Ancient Macedonians.
Ειλικρινά δεν ξέρω τι να γράψω μετά από ολο αυτο το σεντονι που γράφτηκε στην online εφημεριδα american chronicle.Τι προσπαθει να πετύχει ο συγγραφέας αυτού του κειμένου;Δεν θέλω να μάθω.Κρυβονται πολλα από οτι καταλαβα στην χθεσινοβράδινη εκπομπή "Εμπόλεμη Ζώνη" του κ.Δανέζη με θέμα "Το σπίτι του δημοσιογράφου".Σοκαριστικές εξιστορήσεις από δημοσιογράφους που σε έκαναν να αναθεωρήσεις πολλα από όσα γνώριζες αλλά που δεν ήθελες να πιστεψεις.
Αυτό που γνωρίζω είναι ότι στην Μακεδονία έχει χυθει πολύ αίμα για να κάθεται ο καθένας να μας γεμίζει με έπεα πτερόεντα.Όταν διαβασα αυτό το αρθρο θεώρησα καλό να το δημοσιευσω.
Λάθος ή όχι αυτο θα το κρίνετε εσείς.Εγώ ένας απλός ανθρωπος είμαι που ζω την κάθε στιγμη..