Zdrastvuyite! Boris here again, hopefully with some useful comments. The main one is that we all seem to have ignored the construction of the east-west Via Egnatia in the second century BC, which opened up Macedonia as much as the E90 is doing now. Text follows (most of it stolen, as always !)

"The reign of Augustus in 8 BC began a long period of peace, prosperity and wealth for Macedonia, although its importance in the economic standing of the Roman world diminished when compared to its neighbor, Asia Minor.

The economy was greatly stimulated by the construction of the Via Egnatia. This was a Roman road constructed by Ancient Rome in the 2nd century BC. It crossed the Roman provinces of Illyricum , Macedonia , and Thrace, running through territory that is now part of modern Albania, the Republic of Macedonia, Greece, and European Turkey.

Through the installation of Roman merchants in the cities, and the founding of Roman colonies, the Imperial government brought, along with its roads and administrative system, an economic boom, which benefited both the Roman ruling class and the lower classes. With vast arable and rich pastures, the great ruling families amassed huge fortunes in the society based on slave labour."

(In short, Macedonia was then populated by a Roman merchant class with a probably Illyrian serf/slave class. No mention of the Greeks at all, unless they were serfs / slaves (unlikely - they were more likely to be itinerant professionals like doctors and lawyers.)

We have all somehow ignored the construction of the Via Egnatia in 188 BC between present-day Durres (the port for Italy- Brindisi) and Istanbul, via firstly the Macedonian mountain towns and then all the Thracian coastal towns. This must have re-vitalised the local economy considerably, and also aided population movement (and of course, rapid movement of the Roman Legions.)

Macedonia was probably never the same again; today's E90 east-west super-highway following much the same route is but a modern-day successor.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

Jim -

In valediction one final (but neutral) point. For equally good local political reasons, the Greeks and Turks have gone in opposite directions in appointing their military commanders.

To avoid a recurrenence of the "Colonels" episode, the Greeks have understandably insisted that all commanders are personally appointed by the government in power. This means that commanders' politics may well take precedence over their military experience. Nothing wrong with that, in so far as the Greek government knows that it can count on the personal loyalty of its military command structure. But the converse is that individual commanders may lack experience and detailed military knowledge.

In Turkey, it is the exact opposite / converse. Back in 1917 Kemal Ataturk observed that political patronage from the Sultan's political establishment was holding back talented young blood from military command, and promoting tired-out "has-beens". So on assuming power in 1920, Ataturk and his "Young Turks" assured that command of the military was in non-political hands, and given to the best officer competent to do the job. This still remains as part of Ataturk's "legacy".

This had two effects:

(1) the Turkish military command simply had more years' experience "on the job" than did the Greeks (or the Italians too).

(2) the Turkish military became non-political to the extent of occassionally blatantly ignoring obvious political realities (like in Cyprus in 1974.)

I am not taking sides ! However, of the two countries' military commanders, I think I know which one knows better how to dismantle a jammed gun in the battlefield !

(Or how to defend invasion of a mountainous area like Macedonia (North), to take one purely hypothetical example. )

Epaminondas: As always, I enjoy the back and forth commentary. However, I have not as of yet dismissed the Turks at all. While all your points bring light to the potential "ifs" that could take place we should equally credit the Hellenic side as well. I believe that previous lessons have been learned and I do not believe that the old addage "past behaviour predicts future behaviour" holds water today.

As far as the guns go on the island, there is no doubt that eventually they would be silenced but the point I was making is that amphibious craft would face a flurry of artillary power and they would face heavy losses. Regarding the Turkish airforce, keep in mind that there are three air force bases that have rapid reactionary responders to intercept Turkish aircraft.

At the end of the day, this is wild speculation that is very fascinating. And I also suspect that top military officials in Greece have not dismissed the recent developments.

Nontheless, only time will tell as to what will happen.

Good talking to you.

Jim: thanks for your thoughts. I looked up the earlier Greek/Turkish war 1920-23 (which tore up the Treaty of Sevres and replaced it with the much less favourable (to Greece) Treaty of Lausanne). Basically, Greece badly miscalculated Turkish military resources and the effect of Kemal Ataturk taking over from the Sultans.

Not sure that the guns on Rhodes would do much to harm Turkey - the Turkish shore opposite is barren heath and headland. And the Turkish air force would certainly attack them from the seaward/"wrong" side (just like the British guns at Singapore in 1940 !)

The one factor I didn't mention before is the Alexandroupolis oil pipeline factor. This runs from Burgas in Bulgaria to Alexandroupolis in Greece, neatly avoiding the Turkish fronter at Edirne. Turkey rather covets this....

As regards Bulgarian / Turkish relations, some 10% of the Bulgarian population is Turkish, and inter-community relations are now cordial again after the brief repression of the 1980s. Turkish names can be used, the description "Turkish" can be used within Bulgaria (unlike in Greece), and there are guaranteed seats in the Bulgarian parliament (again unlike Greece). Or so my counterpart, Director Aydan Osman Ahmedov, told me in the Bulgarian agriculture Ministry three years ago (one look at his name tells one which minority he comes from !)

Anyway, doubtless more has yet to emerge. (But WHY has Turkey taken the initial action to send a senior military mission to Skopje ? This is fact, not supposition, and cannot be easily dismissed. )

Well, this may or may not help discussion, but here is a URL link to a thorough and objective source of Macedonian ancient history:

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/GreeceMacedonia.htm

It lists the history of Macedonia from the earliest days until the Roman takeover in 146 BC. They appear to have been a Phoenician / semi-Hellenic people of "semi-barbarous habits", ostracised by their more civilised southern brethren until they won control over Greece in the fifth century BC by force of arms alone, under king Amyntas III (392-370 BC).

This was followed by the reign of kings Philip I to Philip VI (except that Philip V murdered Philip VI !) which ended with Roman occupation in 146 BC. Philip V rather antagonised the Romans by allying himself with Hannibal of Carthage in the Second Punic War (also ending in 146 BC with the Roman 'ethnic cleansing' of Carthage !), hence the fairly tough terms with which Rome destroyed Macedonian towns and deported much of the governing semi-Hellenic population of Macedonia to Thrace, leaving the Illyrian serfs in Macedonia to await their new Roman overlords.

The whole story makes Shakespear's Macbeth sound like a childrens' tea party by comparison ! Most of the Macedonian royal dynasty appear to have been murdered by members of their own family, and even Alexander was not immune (as per the wedding brawl where he killed a royal relative !)

Which prompts the thought - "Macedonia" as a title has such a bloody and violent past that many would prefer to forget about it (a bit like "MacBeth" in Scottish history - curiously with the same three initial letters.) Actors never name the play "MacBeth" for fear of a curse - they talk instead about the "Scottish Play", so perhaps we should all re-name Macedonia as the "Northern Greek Independent Republic" instead?

After all, we already have in Europe the "Republic of Ireland" as well as "Northern Ireland", so there is a good precedent.

Just a thought or two - comments welcome !

Epaminondas - I suspect that you are a former military man or servered in the region because you have excellent knowledge. To add to the discussion however, and Gaius please contribut, three is better then two as two is better then one doing the talking. However, the islands I suspect would give Turkish airpower a hell of a time given the sky net of AA batteries and the 150mm guns pointed at the Turkish coast. The Turkish coast line would be turned to dust before Rodos and Lesvos got sacked. I think the overall focus is being placed on land and amphibious warfare whereas I would give the battle for air supremacy some much needed attention.

To give my input however, on the battle hardned fighters to the East. While this is fact, battles they have faced against the PKK, I would venture to say that it is much different to combat a guerilla force that is equipped with Cold War relics as opposed to a modern military with excellent training and some of the most modern military hardware.

Also, lets not forget the battle for the Agean. Unless the 6th fleet is planning on intervening (again!) I do not believe that Turkey will have the same luck.

Regarding low-flying aircraft. While your point is valid, the tanks are not stationed to make a push forward but to stop a southern push. Low-flying aircraft would be very susceptible to AA guns and missile batteries, not that the AA blanket is a sure fire guarantee but it is definately a problem for air craft coming in from Skopja.

The war game you are talking about is very interesting, but I think that for Greece's part they would initally focus on playing a defensive battle and any counter attack would come from Thrace for Greece and potentially from Asia Minor to open up a beach head.

As far as cordial relations go with Bulgaria I think that Turko-Bulgar relations are over stated. Currently Greece has standing agreements with Bulgaria Greece has full access to Air fields in Burgas, which would give Greek fighter/bombers an excellent striking position. And as a point, Greco-Bulgar relations have much improved since the 1940-50s.

Lastly, lets keep in mind that the main Turkish military naval yard is within range of Greek artillary guns stationed on the islands. This is coupled by the fact that Greece is aquiring the French made "Scalp" which has an approx. strike range of 1000km something that posses a serious threat to Turkish naval power.

This is not withstanding of course that FYROM will need to assign a treat of aggression with Turkey against Greece in order to allow Turkish forces to strik from their territory something I suspect they wont do.

However, bases in Skopja also pose a serious logistical issue for the Turks as their forces for all intents and purposes would not have support unless FYROM is planning on contributing which again it is unlikely give the proximity of Albania and their itchy trigger finger to gain lost territory and the Serbs who would love to move south of Kosovo.

But to state the obvious Epaminondas, this is a very interesting war game scenario.

Cheers

Most of this is just (interesting !) speculation. The only hard fact is that a senior Turkish military mission did indeed arrive in Skopje a month ago, under General Ilker Basbug, and that presumably they were not just visiting to sample the local coffee !

So, assuming that a Turkish military presence is established in Skopje as a result, what happens then ?

Turkey could mount a "pincer" attack on Greece from both Edirne and Skopje, using tanks in the first instance and lighter-armed mobile units in the second case, owing to the difference in terrain.

Turkey could also do precisely the same thing against Bulgaria, although this is less likely as Turkey depends on transit through Bulgaria for the bulk of its EU exports. Also Turkish-Bulgarian relations are now cordial, which is never the case with Greece.

Turkey could also strike northwards from Skopje towards Kosova or Serbia, though the reason for doing so is not yet apparent. Finally, it could strike west into Albania, now another NATO member-nation, for reasons again unclear, except Albania has long been a source of instability in the region.

The current secular Turkish government has no mandate to support Moslem groups in Albania or Kosovo, but there could be some pressure in Ankara from the religious parties to do so.

In short - watch this space. But once the Turks are let in to a country, it is very hard to get them out again (look at Cyprus !)

Jim - sorry, I forgot Izmir / Smyrna and the Greek offshore islands. If serious hostilities were to break out, Turkey would certainly seize Rodos and Lesvos
fairly quickly (at this point the Treaty of Lausanne gets thoroughly torn up !) How far the Xanthi and Komotini "Moslem" community in northern Greece (i.e. Turkish in all but name) who have been protected by Lausanne hitherto, might react to such moves, is a very open question to which there is no firm answer as yet. Interesting point, though, as it might provide a "fifth column" inside Greece's borders.

Definitely an interesting war game....hypothetical, of course.

Jim - thanks.

Not sure that the Greek heavy armour would work too well north of Gevgelija (the frontier point on the main Salonika road north to Skopje), for the same reason that the Turks wouldn't use it coming south: the territory is simply far too mountainous and the number of valley roads is very few. Very easy to knock out tanks with low-flying aircraft (or guerilla mountain bands with long-range mortars) under those conditions, as was done to the Serbs during the recent Balkan Wars.

Secondly, if you've been following what the Turks (with US connivance) have been doing in northern Iraq in Kurdistan and the nearby region, their crack troops are "battle-hardened", whereas the Greeks are not. (Also some of them have also fought in Afghanistan, though I am not entirely sure on which side !)

Thirdly, although (as you say) Turkey was given rather an easy ride in invading Cyprus, what they did was well-planned and a useful template to follow in future (also still within living memory of those senior in command, which is quite important.)

As regards the Evros river, IIRC the Greek left bank is handicapped by the proximity of the Bulgarian frontier (assuming that Bulgaria stays neutral), whereas the Turkish side has uninterrupted road and rail access all the way to Istanbul.

Lovely war-game territory, even so.

Epaminondas - To the contrary I am hardly being over confident about the Turks. However, the idea that they would be able to open a second front with light armourd vehicles is a bit over stating the fact. That portion of Greece is defended by three major military bases all of which have heavy armour available. Which is ideal as the Turks, as you already stated would not be able to bring in tanks but our armour could counter any light armour.

Evros on the other hand has the ability to deploy tanks and cross over Evros much quicker than the Turks. Alternatively I would offer this even if the Turks do cross over with mobile divisions the moible artillary that is stationed near by would certainly prove to be a challege for Turkish armour.

The primary concentration of Turkish military hardware is focused in Simerni aka Izmir and along the coast bording with the Greek islands.

I am not saying that it will be easy or that Greece wont face major losses but I think that we should not be very quick to give to much credit to Turkish military power. Certainly they are a force to be taken seriously but Greek terrain is easier to defend than others.

Regarding 1974. Your point is vaild but I offer you this. The succesful invasion of Cyprus is accredited to several factors. 1)Greece did not have a signficant military force to repel the Turkish incursion; 2)Cyprus had nothing in terms of military power to contribute; 3) the U.S. 6th fleet intervened with a blockade of Greek military aircraft, both heavy lift transport and fighter craft. This is not withstanding the fact that Greek military forces were much farther away then the scenario you are talking about with a two pronged attack from Turkey.

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Jim - I think you're being a bit over-sanguine about the Turks (remember Cyprus in 1974 and how effectively they invaded, taking the Greek Cypriots completely by surprise).

The main thrust of any invasion would come from Thrace and the Edirne region, as you say, though the river Evros (100km of border between Greece and Turkey) is not well defended on the Greek side. And as level meadowland it is ideal "tank country".

In contrast, the mountainous terrain of Republika Makedonija and Makedonia Hellenika is not at all well suited to tank warfare (as the Germans found out in the 1944 Ardennes offensive in Belgium - don't use tanks in mountains !) However, it would be perfectly feasible for Turkey to directly fly in light armoured motored troops which are suitable for mountain conditions (a bit like today's Afghanistan), to supplement their main thrust across the Evros river with tanks. Thus the "second front" on the Macedonian border could be quite effective.

It all reminds me a bit about the war games we used to play in NATO...

Cheers

Epaminondas: Also as a follow up I particularly liked your comment regarding the strategic potential that Turkey is exploring in FYROM that is definately something to consider given the uneasy relations between Turkey and Greece. However, I would look at the strategic significance under a different light. The likelihood that Turkey actually builds military instalations in FYROM is not totally unlikely however, I would not over state the possiblity either. It is not a defacto case at this point and I would venture to say that even if a military base was built in FYROM it is unlikely that Turkey would station a significant force that could conduct open warfare with Greece if an invasion was on their mind. If mobilization is Turkey's primary concern I would venture to say they need to rethink this position because Greece's military bases that are along the border with FYROM are adequately equipped to deal with a potential invasion force. Even more, Turkey's prior point of entry would be from Thrace because that is the only link that would afford Turkey the ability to traverse Greek territorial land with their mobile divisions. Any base in FYROM would be a deversionary tactic. In any event I would venture to say that Greece would not let any Turkish military mobilization along the border with FYROM go unanswered. And I suspect neither would the EU.

Your thoughts.

Cheers.

I have only seen a couple of bloggers on here actually contribute anything of significance other then Greek bashing. People, if you want to debate do so without the childish attitude. Even the most pastionate individual knows when to step back give things a moment and contribute something insightful.

At any rate, Epaminondas: I don't know how well made the website you are offing is. It has a few insightful articles but I would not be very quick to use them as an academic source or anything primarily because the focus of the website from what I gathered thus far is to conduct Greek bashing. True scholarly websites or sources offer a variety of articles and/or debate both sides of the issue. This is strictly one sided and many of the contributors are not academics either. I see it more as an opinion based website then anything else. Somewhat insightful but not the best.

Cheers.

Without taking sides, this URL link will disabuse anybody of the motion that this is still a name-calling or posturing issue. It's potentially much more serious than that.

URL is:

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/macedonia/

This is getting a bit serious; possibly an instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The Greek position on the "name issue" has apparently thrown fyr Macedonia into the arms of Turkey. A high-level military mission headed by General Ilker Basbug visited Skopje from 24 June onwards to discuss setting up Turkish military bases on fyr Macedonian territory. More details can be found from the newly set up "Turkish-Macedonian Friendship" site on:

http://turkeymacedonia.wordpress.com/

This site is well-funded and very professionally set out, with a multiplicity of journalists' contributions. The first item actually concerns Bulgaria, but scroll down and you'll get plenty of Macedonian items, none of them at all favourable to Greece.

One has to ask oneself how the Greek government has got itself into this mess. In attempting to placate domestic political opinion (which, to put it kindly, is "unreconstructed"), it has managed to engineer a situation where its most deadly enemy is now positioned on two of its borders rather than just one.

Any military expert would tell you that this is a classic pre-invasion manoeuvre, and very often a successful one, especially as it would force Greece to fight on two fronts, not just one - a sure recipe for defeat, as Germany has discovered twice.

This must be the "Own Goal" prize of the century so far ! One wonders what Greece will do for an encore ?

So?

I would welcome the kind people from the slavic nation of Bardari that once belonged to Yugoslavia, aka. FYROM, to point to us a single ancient stele that bears inscriptions in slavic. You won't find any, they are written in GREEK.

The Moderators were quite right to close previous discussion on this bad-tempered site. If I may summarise:

- the Macedonians have shown poor judgment in erecting statues of Alexander and generally provoking the Greeks. But it is their land, and they have a right (under UN Law) to name their own territory as they like.

- the Greeks have been intransigent throughout and have relied on sometimes shaky historical arguments to bolster their case. In particular, nobody really disputed that Alexander thought he was Greek by adoption, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since, and the Romans thoroughly decimated (and resettled in Thrace) the Macedonian population after the Fourth Macedonian War in 146 BC, in which there was no Greek involvement whatsoever - so the historical link and the Greek "continuity" argument was then lost for ever.

If, as a result of Greece's continued intransigence, Greece ends up with a militant Albanian state taking over Macedonia, the Greek "veto" to Macedonia's joining NATO will stand out as one of the greatest political "own goals" of all time. But it wouldn't be the first "own goal" that Greece has scored in
its foreign relations: 1913 and 1946-49 come to mind too, quite apart from the Colonels' regime from 1968 to 1977.

As the "cradle of democracy", Greece has given birth to some very odd children. Macedonia may do no better, but at least it deserves the chance to develop its own solution under its own name.

NOTE;TO ALL GREEKS TRYING TO FALSIFY THE HISTORY OF MACEDONIA.THE MACEDONIANS ARE A TRUE RACE OF PEOPLE OF CELTIC AND BALKAN STOCK AND DO NOT RESEMBLE GREEKS IN ANY WAY WHICH WILL BECOME OBVIOUS BY DNA TESTING.THE GREEKS AND BULGARS STOLE MACEDONIAN LAND AND THEN LAID FALSE CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP.IN THE MID 1900,S MACEDONIANS WERE FORCED OFF THERE OWN LAND BY GREEKS,WHO THEN BROUGHT DISPLACED PERSONS FROM ASIA MINOR TO SETTLE ON MACEDONIAN LAND.ALSO THE GREEKS TRYING TO FORCE MACEDONIA TO CHANGE THE NAME IS A JOKE.MACEDONIA BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF MACEDONIA AS IT DID TO THEIR ANCIENT ANCESTORS.GREEKS,GO GET A LIFE,LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN ISSUES AND STOP LIVING A LIE

you stupid greeks had no poblem when macedonia was split up in 3 pieces in 1913 , all of greece knew that was stolen land and hence kept you mouths shut. If a country belived that neighbours are stealing their land that country would have done everything to prevent it from happening, but nothing was said or done because it didnt belong to the greeks !

once again, this topic seems to be too difficult for some to have a civilised discussion about.
half the comments deleted and the posters banned, hope we don't have to do the same with the other posters here...

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

To Gandalf
Tell me, "friend", when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?

Leave David alone, he has nothing to do with his life now that he is retired and needs to feel important to the world.

which reminds me David, if the world hates Hellas, and since the world discards people when they become old, then it appears that you have more things in common with Greece than you think.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Watch it and learn something !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgn_4z_0KVs

greeks can scream and fight but macedonia will live,there is an old saying when the dogs bark they dont bite but when the dogs dont bark they bite,the greeks are barking but they wont bite,the macedonians are quite and staying positive they will bite.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Student videos are universally awful wherever one goes in Europe (except for Poland, where the Lodz university school of professional cinematography has had its influence), so I wouldn't conclude too much from this clip.

Ari, talking about misleading stundents...Attached is a video of students from FYROM when they are asked where does their countries borders end....and what garbage they are feeding them about a greater Macedonia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTUqfuTbk_s

Not at all - I just regard "Mythos" as being a tad symbolic. As for Ouzo - any nation that invents that foul drink must have reasons to forget its past !
A bit like absinthe in France of the 1890s - worse days were to come in 1914-18.

Aristotle, you bring "mythos" into your conversations quite often. Maybe you should take your libation qualities to the next level...next time order a small glass of OUZO with an ice cube. It might repair the chemical inbalance that you exert.

sorry - typo - for "Aristo" read "Aries" !

I'm sorry, Aristo, but ancient history certainly CAN be re-written. All you need to do is to retain precisely the same recorded events, but apply a different conjecture as to "why" things happened. This is why the Marxist approach to ancient history is so illuminating, notably about the Peloponnesian War (read it sometime - I recommend Eric Hobsbawn).

I probably need to stress in this forum that the Marxist dialectic as applied to history - ancient and modern - is NOT Communist. It is slightly deterministic, and it stresses economic forces as mainly dictating politics, but it does NOT predicate the class struggle. (That is left for Marxism-Leninism, a heavy distortion of pure Marxism, which is what the Communists espoused.)

In pure Marxist terms, ancient Hellas and ancient Macedonia were both "slave" or "helot" societies, as most of the economic gain was carried out by slave labour. There are six levels of societal development, in ascending order: 1 (primitive peoples) to 6 (fully developed modern economy). On this scale ancient Hellas and Macedonia both score "2". (A bit difficult to extrapolate this to today's world, where both Macedonias probably score "5".)

By the way, what do you mean by "psychic characteristics" of Spaniards, Irish etc ? Is this theological or something. If not, and you are arguing that they are inherently different, this is even more deterministic than pure Marxism is !

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Aristo
As you can i am sure understand climate and landscape always have repercussions on human behaviour either making them either calm and and indulgent or intransigent
and jumpy
The psychic characteristics of a Spaniard,a Prvencal,an Italan ,and a Greek,cannot be the same as the one af an Irish, a Brit, a Breton Dane or a Dutch.
Once and for all Karamanlis refered
to ancient History so stop playing the tune each time.
Real history about post 1900 will
start to be written in about 20-30
may be 50 years from now without conjectures or speculations.

Aries - much effort in Northern Europe has been expended in ensuring that children learn a "harmonised" history in (say) France and Germany, or Austria and Slovenia, under both UN and EU auspices. A pity that this somehow can't place farther south.....

As Goethe said, all history is merely a process of linking known facts by informed conjecture: the earlier the history, the fewer the facts and the more conjecture, and vice versa. The one exception is probably the history of the Roman Empire, which was extraordinarily well-documented by the standards of the time (hence all those detailed maps ! We even used to have one in school on the classroom wall.)

New linkages and conjectures (and occasionally new facts!)of course emerge over the years, making history a rather fluid and ever-changing entity. This is where Karamanlis was being "courageous" in claiming that "History is written and cannot be changed".

(In this sense "courageous" is the current euphemism for 'fool-hardy' !)

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

With respect to Nikos, "brainwashing" goes on both sides of the Macedonian border (look at the very recent UNHCR report on Greek Macedonia, available elsewhere on this site).

It does seem that the history of the region that we learn in Western, Northern or Eastern Europe is not the same history as is taught in Greek schools, especially as regards 1913 and after. Sometimes the Greek version seems more akin to myth than anything else (hence my earlier comment about Mythos beer !)

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

DNA evidence by Swiss Igenia proves that modern Greeks have more slavic genes than Macedonians. In fact Macedonians are predominantly genetically closest to the ancient Macedonians which really explains the whole story.
I guess Greeks dont like facts, they like 'mythology' just like their German makers.

The Macedonian claim to being the descendants of classical Macedonians is not very strong. They happen to be right about the utter lack of a Greek claim to Alexander's homeland, but that doesn't make them primarily the descendants of those who lived there.

The most reasonable background for them to claim is the Slavic, especially because they speak a Slavic language. The problem there is that their Slavic language wasn't "discovered" till the middle of the twentieth century. For centuries before that, it was simply assumed to be Bulgarian.

Poor Macedonia, why is there such trouble in finding an identity for you?

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Aristotle
Best of beers are by far Belgian
et quelques bieres Trappistes
des Pays-Bas.
I enjoyed very when in the UK
"Sandy" draught with lime.

I must admit - Jim Igor - that I have not heard the Greek legend about Jason and the Argonauts founding Macedonia, but then in myth anything is possible....

Possibly another half-litre of Mythos (a very appropriately-named Greek beer) might help me understand it better.....better than Kamienitsa, anyway !

Jimmy boy the Brainwashed.
The region that today forms FYROM has been inhabited since Paleolithic times. What is now modern FYROM was settled by the Paionians and Dardani, peoples of mixed Thraco-Illyrian origin. The Paionians founded several princedoms which coalesced into a kingdom centered in the central and upper reaches of the Vardar and Struma rivers. In 360-359 BC Paionian tribes were launching raids into Macedon to support Illyrian invasions .
Under Philip II of Macedon (359–336 BC), Macedonia expanded into the territories of the neighboring Paionians, Thracians, and Illyrians. Among his conquests he annexed the regions of Pelogonia and Southern Paionia. The kingdom of Paionia, then ruled by Agis, roughly corresponding to the territory of what it now FYROM was reduced to a semi-autonomous, subordinate status. Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) managed to briefly extend Macedonian power not only over the Balkans, but also to the Persian empire, Ancient Egypt and lands as far east as the fringes of India inaugrating thus the so called Hellenistic Period
The roman province of Macedonia was officially established in 146 BC, after the Roman Quintus Caecilius Metellus defeated Andriscus of Macedon in 148 BC, and after the four client republics established by Rome in the region were dissolved. The province incorporated Epirus Vetus, Thessaly, and parts of Illyria and Thrace. In the 3rd century or 4th century, the province of Macedonia was divided into Macedonia Prima (in the south) and Macedonia Salutaris (in the north).

Republic of Macedonia should end any and all negotiations over the name NOW. The would be no name issue if Macedonia was not participating in the process, 125 countries call us Macedonia. There is no need for further discussion or negotiation. We have made enough compromises, flag change etc, what compromises have the Greeks made?
Enough is Enough!

Most of Greek Macedonia is in fact populated by Pontian Greeks who came from Turkey after the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. They have NOT been in Macedonia for 3000 years as claimed.

Also, Macedonia was two states under the Roman Empire, not one: the northern state is more or less today's "fyroM", and the southern one more or less the same as the Greek province, called Macedonia since 1988 (gosh, isn't THAT a long time ago ! 3000 years it isn't)

Hey guys...
Macedonia is Macedonia.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

You Greeks should stop puting claim on Macedonian History. Why dont you talk about Greek History if you have anything to say and tell us how you lost your marbles thats your History and stop sticking your nose in Macedonia. You have to rialize you are not Macedonians the Romans gave you the name Greek. Alexander the Great King of Macedonia demolished you greeks and you still call yourselves Macedonians.
You have changed borders three times once in 1830 once in 1881-1897 and 1913 so wich is your true border. You are nothing but extreme right, racist and expansionist. Slogans like 'Macedonia is Greek' is only your thurst for glory becuase your whole History is based on mythology.
You lost your marbles go and ask your Turkish Otomans brothers to give them back to you.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Hey guys... You're smart, and you have access to the internet. Just do your own research and you'll discover that you have no association with "Macedonia" and "Macedonians". You are brainwashed Slavs, and that's about it...

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

greeks have no say for macedonia or mr.nimetz what to do or not to do can only be in the world one only macedonia that is REPOBLIC OF MACEDONIA''