Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 1

message: Joy wrote: moved category to the article's category, and marked it as such
Ninio wrote: + Category : Ancient Greece
157.228.103.110 wrote: Macedon is part of Ancient Greece , hence the categorization.
Joy wrote: yes, and this is indicated by the fact that its *category* is a subcategory of the ancient Greek category
Ninio wrote: That's why the 'upper level' category needs to be added. It's *easier* to browse other subcategories and relevant articles
But there's no point in categorization if we don't subcategorize. What's next, putting everything into the "Ancient history" category? Just "History"?
No, just the most cognate (relative, concurrent if you like) categories, in order to browse through relevant articles and try to get a better understanding of the subject(s) or issue(s) in question.It's the epitome of classification.Besides there are various categorization techniques with a much less corresponding core (see Wikipedia: Category schemes). Ninio 02:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that explains why all of Ancient Macedon has to be micro-classified under Ancient Greece when it's already classified as a whole under it. Sure, those kings are related to the other ancient Greek kings, but if we start duplicating every parent category, where does it end? Don't you see the slippery slope? --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it does not. Please read the sentence above with understanding. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you can't expect much patience for something that can trigger nationalist edit wars — be it Greek or Slavic Macedonian or Bulgarian or whatever, there's little or no difference for someone who has to clean up the mess — after the years of vandalism Wikipedia has endured because of the topic. It needs to be handled, not ignored, because it'll just escalate eventually. And escalation on the scale of fifty articles is not something I'd like to witness or have to intervene in. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorization of this article and those related to it 

message: Can anybody wanting to argue the distinction of these terms have a look at Greek (name) and Hellenes? The short story is, they are equivalent. As it happens, the Greek gouvernment (!) tried to replace 'Greek' with 'Hellenic' in English use. In linguistics, most certainly, there is no notion of a "Hellenic" branch ancestral, but not identical with the Greek branch. It is a matter of choice whether you prefer to speak of "Greek dialects" or of "Hellenic languages", the two are identical. Now if, for example, Macedonian had some features unique to Greek, but were lacking others (e.g. loss of s, but no de-voicing), one could introduce a new term like "Hellenoid" or "Graeco-Macedonian", or "Graeco-Illyrian" etc. These are however not terms currently used. Any "Graeco-Something" group would seem to be identical with "Balkans languages" (Illyrian, Phrygian, Thracian, maybe Dacian and Armenian, ask Decius, I don't know the details). My point is, you cannot just coin a term "Hellenic" that by definition extends to "Greek and Macedonian, but nothing else", that would just be arbitrary. Of course, Greek nationalists seem inclined to do exactly that, but they do not have the authority to just redefine linguistic terminology. thank you. dab (ᛏ) 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me throw in my inexpert 2 drachmae, based on 1yr of Anc Gk Hist: Greek=Athens/Sparta, Hellenic=Macedonia. Hellenic came to =Greek thanks to Alex3 & conquest of Egypt (esp).  Trekphiler 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Greek" vs. "Hellenic"

message: Berenike meant 'Victory-bearing', bere being from PIE *bher (=to bear), while in Greek (all dialects) the form became phere. Macedonian changed 'bh' to 'b'. Latin also changed 'bh' to 'f' here (fero) as in Greek, while Albanian like Macedonian changed it to 'b' (barrë). Anyway, yet another example of Macedonian having voiced, while all the Greek dialects have unvoiced (ph,th). Decius 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that's what I was trying to say. But you seem to claim examples of intervocalic s? Are there any examples of that? I imagine the "Hellenists" claim the voicing is secondary: since there very few voiceless aspirates in PIE, the de-voicing would in principle be reversible (assuming that the orthography berenike represents phonematic /bherenike/) dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berenike 

message: This controversy on whether or not the ancient Macedonians can be considered Hellenes should even have its own Wikipedia article, so it can be expanded with many quotes. Miskin's new edits are at least better than what Miskin was doing before, but they still need to be to Wikipedia standard of NPOV and encyclopedic tone. There shouldn't be any attempt to hide data that rejects or supports the "Greek dialect" view. Wikipedia has to be Neutral. The same thing with the language article: if credible references are brought against the separate language classification, it will be mentioned alongside. Decius 19:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellenic controversy 

message: Actually in my last posts I was being sarcastic because I had assumed that you were coming from a biased point of view and wouldn't be willing to listen. Yes I also agree that the quoations should have their own article as well, but in the meantime we should have to write something correct, neutral and unbiased in the Macedon section as well (something that currently is not happening).
I didn't want to imply that Borza was making this up, I just wanted to point out how his theories are not accepted and how I consider it ridiculous to quote him. If you want to argue by presenting modern sources consider Macedonians because I think you will lose very quickly (pick up a book at random). To argue directly with linguistics is also pointless since all theories about the Macedonian language are based on assumptions, all archaelogical and linguistic evidence we have from them is Greek, and it would be like ignoring of the conclusions of all scholars who are not themselves linguists. By ignoring their research would be like re-inventing the wheel. I also agree that language is the most basic link to culture and therefore ethnicity. The whole debate starts I think the best way to solve this is by bringing up every direct evidence we can gather ourselves. By direct here I mean ancient literary and archaeological sources.
:Exactly---the information we put in the article has to come from credible sources. Yet, sometimes people read too much into ancient quotes: The quote about Amyntas only proves what we already knew: that the Macedonian Royal family claimed Greek descent (at least in part), and that this claim was often accepted by Greeks. Decius 19:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside Borza, who entered the dispute only lately and who is only one out of many, the classification of ancient Macedonian as a separate language is common and indeed, from what I've seen (off and on the net), outnumbers the linguists who want to view it as a dialect. If one of these is "unaccepted", it is the dialect-hypothesis. Decius 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The dialect-hypothesis these days is mostly held onto by some historians (not linguists) who are indulging their pan-Hellenic views (whether they are French, or British, or whatever the case). Decius 21:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't you think you should have done this research before posing as an expert? 

message: >>The quote about the Greek fleet does not prove that they were considered Hellenes, and the quote about the Macedonian royal family being often considered Greek (as they claimed) can only apply to the Royal familiy not the entire people.
Are you forgetting my very first quoation of Herodotus' accounts on the Dorian origin of the Macedonian people? All Greek historians who wrote about Macedonia had travelled there, they weren't guessing. Herodotus is by many considered fallible, and he might have been that, but what he could not have been is a liar. He couldn't have been stupid enough to go to Macedonia and report in detail how those Greek tribes settled there. He just had not reason to do that, no matter how much some people are bothered by that. The Greek city-states were not politically involved with Macedon in the 6th century BC (which was relatively a new kingdom to them) but that has nothing to do with whether Macedonians were Greeks are not (at least as we define as Greeks at the time, by means of language and religion).
>>Alexander I (claimed descent from Perdiccas) was almost barred (because he was Macedonian), but his Royal status and Royal claim of Greek descent made them allow him to enter. Decius 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wrong" according to You. The implication is there, as good as if it was explicitly stated. You bring up Herodotus' Dorian account (actually, it is a legend, as legend is defined: quite possibly not actual history), I bring up Herodotus' Olympic reference, as well as Isocrates, Demosthenes, et cetera. Decius 20:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also... 

message: >>: "Wrong" according to You. The implication is there, as good as if it was explicitly stated. You bring up Herodotus' Dorian account (actually, it is a legend, as legend is defined: quite possibly not actual history), I bring up Herodotus' Olympic reference, as well as Isocrates, Demosthenes, et cetera.
The only myth in that case is the Macedonian Royal family's descent from Hercules and nothing else. But even if we assume that Herodotus was wrong about the Dorian origin of Macedon and about the Argive origin of Alexander I. We already know for a fact that Herodotus travelled to Macedonia (and many other places) s do you actually think that he was stupid enough give an exact account of the Greek origin of Macedonians if they were not even Greek in the first place (unless you support that he intentionally wanted to lie)? Or do you think he was as retarded to travel and live in Macedon and not be able to realize whether they were Greeks or not. Demosthenes on the other hand he only badmouths Philip and hardly ever Macedonians in general, and that's purely for political reasons (Demosthenes himself was only half-greek). In his speech he always talks about the superiority of the Athenian nation over the rest of Greeks. He accuses Macedon for forcing itself to the Amphictyonic league, a league in which not all Greek city and Kingdom-states had the right to participate (they were voted). He insists on how the older Macedonian Kings always paid allegiance to Athens, and that Athens should pay allegiance to nobody. He also compares the conflict between Athens and Macedon with the Peloponnesian war. In short, if you read the entire of Demosthenes' speeches (and not just the isolated quations) you'll see that he DOES consider Macedonians to be Greeks. And as for Isocrates, I don't know what's the point mentioning him, he's actually disproving as well. His cause is a pan-Hellenic excursion against Persia under Macedonian Hegemony. You claim to be neutral and against nationalist but ironically your views have been affected by the propaganda that exists on the internet.
As for "only" the Macedonian royal family and Alexander participating in the Olympics and the rest of the Pan-Hellenics, what can I say, that only serves as a joke. Do you think that just any Greek could go sign up for the Olympics and the other pan-hellenic events as if they were the "pie-eating" competitions of my local village? News Flash but no. Every competitor in the Olympic Games and every participant in the Pan-Hellenic events would represent an entire Greek nation-state, pretty much like today. 
Finally as for the Persians being assumed as idiots who couldn't distinct the differences between people in their own country (because at some point both Macedon and Ionia were part of the Persian Empire), well what I can say, I hope you realize how riciculous and ignorant that assumption sounds. People tend to think that in antiquity societies were just abstract grouping of people and not much different from the Homo-Erectus or Gorilla hurds of today. They just can't realize that some people actually had real civilizations, in many ways probably more advanced than ours. PS, Titus Livius was not Macedonian himself but in that specific quote, he quotes a Macedonian.
Oh, and Dab,
It's not about me wanting the hear the word "Greek, Greek, Greek", it's more about you being afraid to say it, in case you get accused or attacked by ignorant Bulgarian nationalists. So that's what bothers me the most, the fact that you people choose to blind yourselves from the truth out of fear of trouble. My position is to reveal the TRUTH and nothing but that. This has NOTHING to do with Modern Greece and FYROM, it's about you people insulting those great historical personalities that you're supposedly trying to protect. Do you want to imagine what Macedonians considered yourselves? I'll give you some hints:
"And Alexander (III) said to them: Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers."
[Kallisthenes 1.37.9-13]
"Your ancestors invaded Macedon and the rest of Greece and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors."
[Arrian, Alexander’s Anabasis – 2.14]
"Not content with this, you have shown your contempt for right and your hostility to me by actually sending an embassy to urge the king of Persia to declare war on me. This is the most amazing exploit of all; for, before the king reduced Egypt and Phoenicia,1 you passed a decree calling on me to make common cause with the rest of the Greeks against him, in case he attempted to interfere with us;"
Philip's letter to the Athenians - [Demosthenes - Speeches 11 - 20]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0072;query=section%3D%2329;layout=;loc=12.5
As for what the linguists think as opposed to historians... You speak as if historians, linguists and archaelogists work completely separately. Please try to come up with some serious arguments. EVERY single Macedonian archaeological and literary evidence was written in Greek, (in a dialect not similar to Attic - which was the elitist). As far as history can go, every single Macedonian toponym and name is Greek. Even the Macedonian coinage that dates almost to 6th century BC is found to be Greek, if a coin is not readable by its own people then it's useless. I mean what more evidence do you need to realize that what looks like a frogs, walks like a frog, and sounds like a frog, IT IS a damn frog.
http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/macedonia.html
:I know this: there is as yet no discovered evidence that proves that the ancient Macedonians (speaking here of the general populace) spoke a Greek dialect in pre-expansion (pre-Philip II) times. Those coins, unfortunately, mostly bear only names (of personages, places, etc.). It walks like a frog, and it is a frog, but probably a different species of frog than the one you expect. The idea that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate language is so common (though not unanimous of course) that in my American Heritage Dictionary (first edition, 1969; see new editions below) under Macedonian we find these definitions, on page 780: "1. A native or inhabitant of ancient or modern Macedonia. 2. The language of ancient Macedonia, having characteristics regarded as Indo-European. " A dialect of Greek is not mentioned. Of course, this is just one book, but many books support the language not dialect theory. Decius 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what the new Online edition of American Heritage (4th edition, year 2000) says: 2. "The language of ancient Macedonia, of uncertain affiliation within Indo-European.". . Here is what the Merriam-Webster Online English Dictionary (2005) says:"3. The language of ancient Macedonia of uncertain afffinity but generally assumed to be Indo-European." . I wasn't exaggerrating when I said most linguists support a separate language (that's what I meant by consensus). I never said that every scholar agrees. Decius 21:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Consensus in English is defined as Collective opinion or concord; general agreement or accord. It does not mean "unanimous" agreement. So I was correct when I said that the scholarly consensus is that ancient Macedonian was a separate language. Decius 22:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem with names on ancient coins is illustrated by this example: Nicarchus is a Greek name, but it was also the name of a Paionian king, and his name was written on Paionian coins in Greek letters (Nicarchou is the transliteration): . The Nicarchus coin is at the bottom. Decius 23:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: You can also see that one of the coins of Audoleon (another Paionian king) says Basileos Audoleon in Greek letters. Basileus is a Greek word (of unknown origin) that meant 'king' (and that's common knowledge). Yet the Paionians were not Greeks, as all ancient authors made clear. Decius 00:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Another thing: while it is true that most linguists class ancient Macedonian as a separate language, it is not true that "most" historians consider it a Greek dialect. What I said is that among the scholars that consider it a dialect, most of those scholars are historians and classicists, not linguists. And notice that both Nicholas G. L. Hammond (born 1903, died 2001) and Olivier Masson (died 1998?) never bothered to address the linguistic issues, which is why linguists in general have not accepted their views of a Greek dialect. Decius 06:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  M 

message: Decius, calm down a bit.
In your analysis you try so hard to prove that Macedonians were not a Greek tride that you are making serious linguistic mistakes.
For example, are you serious when you present the word berenike as an example of your theory?
Using your kind of logic then the Doric dialect was not a Greek one but closely related to Greek since it doesn't follow the rest dialects and turns η into α Rest η μητηρ, doric α ματαρ (=mother) rest Λεωνιδης doric λεωνιδας (=Leonidas),uses different rotts of verbs for example μολων instead of ιων,etc,etc.
The sad truth is that we don't have enough data to classify what exactly macedon language was -about 700 words.Certainly it has Illyrian and Thracian influence but we don't know how big it was.In your examples of macedon words I noticed that mystiriously you present only those that have differences with the Greek,why?Whats your linguistic opinion about the rest?For example the cities Liti,Europos,Ichnae,Tyrissa,Edessa,Veroia,Lychnidos,Argos Oresticon,Aeani,Mieza,Dion,Azoros,Leivithra,Pella,Aegae,etc?
What about the personal names Ptolemaeos,Antipatros,Kleopatra,Polysperchon,Nikolaos,Amyntas,Perdikkas,etc?
What about the words sarissa,makedonissa,makedonia,etc?
What about the comedy of Strattis of around 400BC were an Athinaean talks with a Macedonian?(And the second is saying Ωττικοι instead of Αττικοι and υμες instead of υμεις?
Why there is NOT A SINGLE ONE inscription written in other language but greek in Macedonia?
EVERYBODY has the right to his opinion you can't forbit others to present their theories just because you don't like them.Present yours and let the reader to decide.
And something else since we don't know exactly what macedonians were it's against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia to write Hellenization I corrected it into Rise of Macedon and I urge not to change it
:Okay, let me clear up some issues here: I am not presenting my own theories here, I am presenting theories that scholars have already put forward: these theories of a separate language represent the majority view among language-scholars, so Wikipedia has to represent them more than the dialect-view; Berenike and the other examples are examples that have already been given as evidence for a separate language, they are not my examples, so even if they were wrong examples they would not be my errors: but they are not wrong examples. Also, I did not write that big Hellenization headline in the article, I think User:Dbachmann did: I suppose it would be okay if it is removed, though most scholars (the majority) would vote to include such a term, since it is probably an accurate description of what happened. Last point about dialects: I already know about such differences, and so do the scholars who study the ancient Macedonian language: nevertheless, they view Macedonian as having been even more different, that's why the majority of scholars (and also Dictionaries & Encyclopedias; at least in the West) do not consider Macedonian to have been a dialect.  Decius 18:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedon language

message: Thucydides also distinguished between Macedonians and Hellenes (and to me, Thucydides is one of the most objective and reliable of the ancient authors). Here is a quote from Thucydides: 
:"Brasidas and Perdiccas started on a second joint expedition into Lyncus against Arhhabaeus; the latter (Perdiccas) with the forces of his Macedonian subjects, and a corp of heavy infantry composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country (of Macedon)..."---Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 4.124. 
Here is another quote from Thucydides:
:"...For the Lynkestae and Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood, and allies and dependants of their kindred (the Macedonians), still have their own separate governments."
Macedonians by blood is an interesting phrase. I will post more classical references, but this isn't even about just ancient quotes, it's about the predominant modern view. Decius 04:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think from the material accumulated now it is clear to any independent observer that Macedon was not 'Hellenic' at all in the 6th century, and that it became Hellenized over the following two centuries, beginning with the upper class (Hellenic superstratum), members of which could be considered Hellenic for the purposes of the Panhellenic Games as opposed to the rural population, and that Macedon can be considered Hellenic from the 4th century BC onward. So that the answer to the question "was Macedon 'Hellenic'" will depend entirely on what year the question refers to. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thucydides adds his Testimony 

message: We will begin presenting some ancient sources which declare their connection with Greeks.First we have the persian 
inscription of 513 BC which talks about the nations which are under thei control, it speaks about Yauna Takabara
in Balkan area meaning Greeks with big hats.The only nation in the balkans that had a distinguish hat where the 
macedonians, whith the καυσία(kafsia) hut (Walser, Die Volkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis-1966 47 E)
Herodotus clearly declares that the dorians where created by the unification of the madeonians with other nations.
Hellanius presents the father of macedonians, Macedon, is son of Aiolos meaning that he considered them an aeolian
greek tride (Hellanius,FGrHist 4,74).Arrian (Arrian,Alexandrou Anavassis 2. 14. 4.) writes that Alexander on his letter 
to Dareius wrote Your ancestors came in Macedonia and rest of Greece and assaulted us.After i became leader of the Greeks 
i came to asia to willing to punish Persians.The phrase macedonia and rest of greece is also present in the 
treaty between Annibas and Philip V (Polybius, 7. 8. 9.).Also in Titus Livius (31. 29. 15.) where he places macedonians 
among aetolians as greek tribes.Also in Polybius (5. 103. 9.) where Agelaus from Nafpactos wishes to end wars among 
Aetolians and Macedonians  intergreek wars as he names them.The Efessians from an inscription in Efessos
(SIG 867, 38-40) ...in the macedonians and the rest Greek tribes...
Let's continue whith linguistics...
Evidences:
In a scene of the comedy Macedonians written by the poet Strattis of arount 400BC an athenaean asks a macedonian:
η σφυραινα δ'έστι τις;(=what is sfyraena?-kind of fish-) and the macedonian replay: κέστραν ύμμες ωττικοί κικλήσκετε
(=that thing that you Athenaeans call kestra-other kind of fish-).It needs to be pointed that Athenaean comedians presented
barbarians to speak bad Greek mived with foreign words but other greek tribes to speak in their own dialects.The macedonian in the passage
is speaking greek with dialecting elements ,ύμμες instead of υμείς ωττικοί instead αττικοί κικλήσκετε instead κεκλησκετε.
Alexander speaking to the 30000 persians he took to his army says to them: learn the greek language and macedonian
army doctrines (Plutarch Life of Alexander 47, 3).From this passage we understand that macedonian soldiers 'spoke
greek it's absurd for Alexander to force persians to learn greek if the macedonians weren't speaking greek since they would fight
together.
Words:
Macedonian words (apart from pesonal and city names)saved to us directly are 112.From them 63 come from ancient 
dictionaries and 47 from ancient sources.Those from ancient sources are all greek,those from dictionaries
50 are greek and 13 of unknown indoeuropean origin.
Personal names:
Apart from the names Μακεδονια,Μακεδονες of clear greek origin from μακος(=length), we have the names of
some macedonian tribes, hundreds of personal names(I've already given you),dozens of cities(also I've already given you),
rivers,names of gods(Ploutonas,Persephoni,Dionysos,Estia,Iraklis,asklipios,Okeanos,etc) 6 names of fests(Peritia,Telessias,
Xanthika,Arantides,etc)and 12 of months(Avdnaeos,Ippalkmos,Xandikos,Peritios,Yperaeretis,etc).
For the names of the macedonian tribes Elimiotae,Lyngestae and Orestae.The first is clearly of greek origin,the 
second has the prefix -st- which is present in Illyrian names and the third is also greek not only in the root
Ores-,but also in the ending -tae.As I proved to you before the nanes of cities and rivers (Aliakmon,etc) are 
greek, could you explain to me how it is possible for a non greek nation to give greek names to cities,rivers and 
mountains?Or how it is possible to have greek names for gods,fests and months?I'm really curious.From the personal
names the 95% has greek origin and the 5% of illyrian and thracian.All the names of months and fests are greek.There
is no reply for these facts from those who support that macedonians where 
not a greek tribe.
Connection of macedonian and other greek dialects
1)Macedonian and western Greek dialects
-dd- instead of -zz- 
example the common names between these dialects Drykalos and Pefkestas
2)macedonian and aeolic
-nn- instaed of -sn- or -n-
example the common word between these dialects Kranna(fountain) doric krana,attic krene
the common name Xennias
3)macedonian and thessalic
-ω- instaed of -ου-
4)macedonian and arcadic
-in- instead of -en-
example the common word between these dialects zerethron(=stair)
Examples of macedonian words from ancient sources and dictionaries
You can find the full catalog of macedonian words in this book:Hoffman, O. Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclopadie. d.kl.
Altertumswiss Makedonia col.681-97   
dramis(=type of bread) comes from the IE root *dera-/*deru-, dromis in achaic, dara-tos(<*dra-tos) in thessalian.
daryllos instead of doryllos in achaic and in attic drys comes from *dru- means oak
kammarae instead of kommorae meanig a kind of fish
kynopes common word with doric
akronoi common word with doric
doa common word with doric
akontion akontio in modern greek
aspilos same word in modern greek
Common creation of personal names and words with doric using endings -ator(Nikator),-asion(korasion)
Common convesion of -η- into -α- with doric doric Sparta attic Sparte, macedonian kefala attic kefale 
Common grammar phenomenon with doric maced./doric Pafsania attic Pafsaniou,macedonian Perdikka attic Perdikkou
Common creation of words ending in -an intead of -aon maced./doric peligan attic peligaon
Common conversion of -os into -as with doric doric emerodromas attic emerodramas,macedonian voukefalas attic voukefalos
(βους + κεφαλη =ox + head) it's Alexander's horse meaning the one with the head like an ox
Want more? 
Odysseas
You're really not used to thinking in diachronic terms, are you? Most of the placenames in the USA are English. Does that prove the Sioux were Anglo-Saxons? Everybody in Macedonia spoke Slavic in 900 AD. Does that prove the ancient Macedonians were Slavs? Nobody doubts that Alexander spoke Greek and had a horse with a Greek name, because the Macedonian aristocracy had been thoroughly hellenized. We can agree that Alexander was a Hellene, if you like, because of that. That doesn't make the Ancient Macedonian language, of which I agree precious little is known, a Hellenic language. Your only point is that the Persians thought the Macedonians were Greeks with funny hats, back in 513. I wouldn't care a fig if the Macedonians had been Greeks. It's just that evidence points towards Hellenization. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not passionate about this at all. I simply read books about it, out of interest. I don't know if there is such a thing as "Slavic genes", for my purposes,  somebody who speaks Greek natively is a Greek. So, yes, the Macedonians of Hellenism were Greeks, clearly. I'm sorry, but back in 863 AD you couldn't buy a radish on the Thessaloniki market if you didn't speak Slavic. But that's more than 1000 years ago now, and more than 1000 years after the time we are talking about here. My point is, make clear what time we are talking about. Macedonia was "Greek" by 300 BC, fine.  It may have been "Ancient Macedonian", but not Greek, 200 years before that. People have called this process 'Hellenization'. I do not know it it is important for the Greek nation. I do not think so. It's just an interesting bit of history. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: hello? I didn't subscribe to any theories above. It's the Balkans. There were incursion. There is no such thing as a "pure Hellenic race". Graeco-Macedonian is what you claim. The alternative would be Macedonian as independent IE dialect. I don't think this discussion leads any further. Let's just quote authorities. Give us your non-Greek scholars (like Masson), and we will include them (but with full references please). We will say the question is controversial, of course (we have done that all along!), but we won't imply that either side of the controversy is in any sense "obvioulsy right". I appreciate Macedonian may be considered Greek in "some sense", but unfortunately not necessarily in the sense that linguists use to define "Greek". It boils down to a question of terminology, that's the long and short of it. dab (ᛏ) 05:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian language and it's connection with Greek

message: Odysseas don't waste your breath. No matter the number or the importance of the points you're making,  it's no use. Those people obviously have made up their minds and don't care for evidence. They're not interested in writing the truth, they're only interested in writing something that will make them feel more "neutral". This is why I stopped debating, the arguments I received were ludicrous (e.g. Macedonians pronounced words differently, therefore they spoke a different language). They don't even care of what Philip and Alexander the Great or have on the topic. They only care about what some guy wrote in ONE dictionary in order to be politically correct. They probably even unaware of the fact that USA government had in one of its official maps the province of Macedonia in Northern Greece as a region under foreign occupation (until it got spotted and apologised for).
dab said:
"It's the Balkans. There were incursion. There is no such thing as a "pure Hellenic race".
What kind of a ignorant comment was that? There's no "pure Hellenic race", because it's in the Balkans?? According to simple propositional logic, the above statement implies that there are pure races, but NOT in the Balkans, right? So what kind of non-Balkan pure races are there? What part of the world has never been invaded?? Or what parts of Europe have been invaded less than the Balkans, so that their peoples can claim a purer descent? I'm so curious to know... What's next? A quote from Mein Kampf? Miskin
" I appreciate Macedonian may be considered Greek in "some sense", but unfortunately not necessarily in the sense that linguists use to define "Greek". It boils down to a question of terminology, that's the long and short of it."
Don't you think that contradicts your Hellenization theory? Miskin
:I shouldn't even reply to this. two brief points:
:*no, there are no "pure races" in an absolute sense. Historically, this is especially true for the Balkans, because a lot of people kept migrating/invading there.
:*it's not "my" hellenization theory, and yes, according to the usual definition of "Hellenic", a process of Hellenization took place. 
:We haven't censored opposing scholarly views. We only resisted suggestive rephrasings of the article. You are still free to insert more references supporting your view. Your "racist" point, ffs, don't Godwin us. The Basques, for example, can claim "purer descent" in the sense of "less diverse",. Of course "Slavic genes" are just as "pure" as "Turkic genes", so "purity" is very misleading in this context. If you like, you can replace "purer" with "more boring". dab (ᛏ) 06:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased

message: What exactly you don't agree with Decius? I've been patient in hopes that one of you would do something to improve the ludicrous statements such as "On the other hand, Herodotus records how the Macedonians were customarily excluded from panhellenic events such as the Olympic Games, entry to which was confined to Greeks. The Macedonian aristocracy, however, clearly saw itself as Greek and Macedonian kings were permitted to participate on that basis. This was evidently somewhat controversial: when Alexander I attempted to compete at Olympia, Herodotus relates:", but apparently none of you notices or cares about it. There's nothing 'controversian' about what Herodotus writes. It becomes controversian when you try to misinterpret his meaning. Herodotus gives an account on how Macedonians started participating in the games, he has already stated that he considers them Greek in every single respect. He's not saying first that they're Greek and then that they're barbarians as you're implying in this travesty of an article. Herodotus is NOT contradicting himself, if you want to refute him then cite Demosthenes or something, but do not try to misinterpret his meaning in a way that would suit your POV. I'm reverting to NPOV. Miskin
Miskin, I've read that quote in context, and it only refers to Alexander the I being allowed to participate---that's it. And Herodotus even describes why he was allowed. That's why I disagree with what you wrote, and why I reverted. Decius 14:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And we're supposed to take your word for it that that Herodotus sentence can only be read in one way (the way you prefer), when it has been translated at least once by a scholar in another way? Yeah right. This again will take more research and a survey of scholarly opinions, so: no, I'm not convinced of what Herodotus intended in that sentence, and I'm not the only one. Also, don't be such a hypocrite: who is the one here whose edits continuously display the methods of the vandal? Who is the one who is overloaded with propaganda? You excel in both these respects (vandal tactics & propaganda), while I have not engaged in vandalism or propaganda. In fact, you just erased half the article yesterday just because you didn't like it. "My" interpretation of Herodotus book 8, section 43, is more legit than the extra stuff you read into it. Decius 01:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, I don't claim that that other Herodotus sentence (Makedni, etc.) can only be read in one way. I do state that it can be read in two ways, a statement backed up by at least one scholar's translation, if not more (which I'll look for). And in my opinion, which I'm not pushing on the article's translation, as you see, is that the subject of the sentence was the region. That's not impossible, or even improbable. Decius 02:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I find the assertion that it is not parallel to kaleomenên de Histiaiôtin in the preceeding clause somewhat implausible, and would appreciate a parallel or a grammarian as source, for Herodotus doing something so clumsy. Septentrionalis 17:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Herodotus & [[Alexander I of Macedon|Alexander the I]]

message: Removing connections of ethnic VS linguistic character of Macedon (as we have agreed that they are two separate things). The ethnic identity of Macedonians will be determined according to what they considered themselves. Let's examine it closely:
`Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Hellenic king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers.' Pseudo-Kallisthenes 1.37.9-13 (quotes Alexander III).
Proof that Macedonians considered themselves Greeks:
From Alexander the Great’s letter to Darius:
'Your ancestors invaded Macedon [3] and the rest of Greece [4] and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors. 
[Arrian, Alexander’s Anabasis – 2.14]
"I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is worse than a barbarian." Kallisthenes
"He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia"
[Arrian - 1,16,7]
"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."
[The foundation of the city, par. 31]
Proof that Macedonians were part of the Pan-Hellenics and therefore the Olympics prior to Philip II:
"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".
Aeschines [On the Embassy 2.32]
"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "
Pausanias [Phokis – 8,2]
Mass reverts will be "re-reverted". Partial reverts will be accepted only after discussion. I've had enough of this travesty. Miskin
:Mass reverts, like the one you did yesterday and constantly do? Yes, they will be reverted. Your edits will be scrutinized as usual, and the policy has not changed. Decius 01:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: We now are in front of an other astonishing breakthrough by dab. According to his undisputed theories,(the rest of us are to little for him to question what he claims,since he called us trolls before) macedonians don't belong to greek culture!!!!!!!!!.So, his majesty Mr Dab scorns Droysen,Hammond,etc,etc.Tell me, should we rename Hellenistic period into something else then?Odysseas 18:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: man, you should really work on your sarcasm if you want to make me either smile or frown. dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can now reveal that one of dab's ancestors stole the patents underlying the Antikythera mechanism and used them surrepticiously to establish the Swiss watch industry!  What do you answer to this, Mr. Emmenthaler??? :PP  Seriously now, Odysseas, dab is a reasonable person, not to mention he is a knowledgeable linguist.  I have a cunning plan to "convert" him to Panhellenism, but it entails Miskin, you and me inviting him to Rhodes, or Paros, or Mykonos, or Ios, this summer, getting him drunk, or stoned, or both, hiring a few strippers and photographing him (or, even better, catching him on video) in compromising situations which will result in his family disowning him and his boss firing him.  Then he will be our instrument!  Are you game?  (Decius is out of the question because he is the grinch that stole Christmas!)  Chronographos 10:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you Greeks are drunk enough already, judging from this section's title. In fact, I have been drunk in Greece before. And indulging in panhellenism on Athos. (but not drunk on Athos, to the best of my recollection:), but I'm certainly willing to repeat the experience on various eternally hellenic islands. Just no Ouzo, please. If you want to bribe me with alcohol and loose women, know that your Bulgarian competition is severe, however. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehehehehe, it's a good thing you didn't get drunk on Athos or some of them smelly monks would have taken advantage of you!  Bulgarian women are no competition for the simple reason that the best-looking ones work in Greece ;) Chronographos 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the ouzo, you have to try it at Naousa, Paros, with roasted octopus.  Then you tell me! Chronographos 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The falshification of Hishtory

message: I officially will no longer watch this page, at least for a few months. If Greeks really feel so strong about this, and want to neglect the fact this is a Free Encyclopedia, then they can have this article: Macedon. This is not a political issue for me, and I no longer care. Real history books will tell you what the majority of scholars believe about ancient Macedon, not some internet kook site. Go to the library. I got better things to do. I do not in any way support the propaganda emanating from Macedonian Slav nationalists or Greek nationalists. There are thousands of people on Wikipedia who can revert the nationalist edits. This is not Decius & Dab vs Miskin, this is a Free Wikipedia versus a Fraudulent Wikipedia.Decius 02:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Get ready for Propaganda

message: Deals with survival of archaic political and financial institutions long after they had been abolished by the rest of the Greek world  Chronographos 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added 3rd paragraph, Expansion section

message: Perpetrator: 15:51, 25 Jun 2005 62.162.14.59  Chronographos 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, this could contain material for the Hellenes article.  especially the seal. it seems foreign tribes in Antiquity were widely recognized by their dress, so a section on dress should not be lacking in articles on any ancient ethnicity. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary editing by "62.162.14.59"

message: the information should maybe collected in a main article Dorian calendar? What are the primary sources? dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the calendar

message: "Decius (Talk) (Miskin, Odysseas, the ancient Macedon articles must not be contradictory, so I removed your POV. Manos is using your spurious text as "evidence".) "
I never said that.
I said that the 2 articles are saying 2 opposite things. 
Now about the evidence:
Hesiod said they were Greeks (Aeolian).<Br>
Hellanicus said they were Greeks (Aeolian).
Macedons said they were Greeks<Br>
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks<Br>
They were participating in Olympic Games
They were members of the Council of Delphi
Persians said they were Greeks
Not a single evidence proving the opposite
These are facts. Could u plz post here ur evidence proving that Macedons might not be Greeks?
Thanks.
<Br>
PS: If u can not prove it, it means that u post POV material.
PS2: If u rv the article too many times, I'll report u as vandal. ;)
MANOS
Do u want to change this article? Do u believe that this article is full of lies?? Then plz tell us why Macedons might not be Greek.<BR>
We already know that:
Hesiod said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke a Greek Dialect.<Br>
Hellanicus said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke an Greek Dialect.
Macedons said they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.<Br>
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek. <Br>
They were participating in Olympic Games. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek. 
They were members of the Council of Delphi. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Persians said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Not a single evidence proving the opposite. That means that all the above are correct.
So why Macedons might not be Greeks?
Plz tell us. 
MANOS
manos, you have just violated WP:3RR, and if somebody bothers to report you, you will be blocked. Also, you have posted your famous seven points about ten times today. Once is enough, we can read. You have taken your seven points from the article, none of them isn't duly mentioned, so I really don't see what you want. Not that I care. You will just stop your bratty behaviour, or you will be blocked again and again. dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of your "facts" in your exquisite list are over-generalized or erroneous. I'll point out the problems later. Decius 19:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I had finally "allowed" User:Miskin and User:Odysseas to have their Point Of View version in the text, after previously trying to explain to them that such POV will not be allowed with a subject where the specialists are still debating. I and Dbachmann were reverting their POV text for months, till I decided to "let it slide by". It didn't seriously bother till Manos came along and tried to use it as "evidence" against the Ancient Macedonian language article. Decius 19:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: u can change anything you want. only, unless u pick a topic u have some clue about, ur edits will be rolled back within the minute. u are just wasting pplz time. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Manos, I am not about to waste time on the same topics over & over. If you want criticisms, why don't you read the articles themselves for now. Or go to a library or a bookstore, if you can bring yourself to open a book. Decius 19:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do I need to? I am not inserting any "Original research" in the text, so I am not bound to cite any evidence in support of other people's theories (including Julius Pokorny, but you wouldn't know of him; Pokorny and his stupid theories!). What concerns us here today are references. If you want evidence and counter-arguments, either read the articles and talk pages, or wait. Decius 20:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Just because a ***** like User:Sango123 supported your behavior (and he did support your behavior, though he now repudiates this) don't get the impression that you are engaging in proper Wiki behavior here. 
Decius 20:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I wrote a compromise sentence into the article attempting to take both sides into account (some ancient sources say they're Greek, however, modern scholars ain't sure).  — Rickyrab | Talk 20:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: How would I know? This wasn't MY fight.  — Rickyrab | Talk 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Rickyrab, but the former compromise was unceremoniously removed by User:Odysseas at 18:28 11 June 2005. I've restored a similar compromise, and might restore Dbachmann's exact phrasing in a moment. Decius 20:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If you mean "evidence that proves without a doubt that the ancient Macedonians did not speak a Greek dialect"---I don't know of any such conclusive evidence. Can you prove that the theory of evolution is correct without a doubt? Should I vandalize that article and ask for "real evidence" on its Talk Page? Decius 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If you mean "evidence that proves without a doubt that the ancient Macedonians did not speak a Greek dialect"---I don't know of any such conclusive evidence. Can you prove that the theory of evolution is correct without a doubt? Decius 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Evidence that the ancient Macedonians might not have been Greeks is already discussed in Ancient Macedonian language and Macedon. Find it. Decius 20:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Then it will be real easy for you to just read the articles, don't you think? Decius 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Evidence presented in the articles as indicating the Macedonians might not have been Greeks, I consider reasonable, though not conclusive evidence. But it's not about "what I consider", it's about a Free Encyclopedia presenting valid scholarly research from actual scholars, not from pseudo-scholars who say "the Macedonians were Slavs or Albanians". Decius 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Because "1 evidence" on its own proves nothing. I would have to summarize the arguments presented in Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language, which I will not do. Read the articles. Decius 21:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Articles that present only one view current among the specialists (not pseudo-scholars) in question, while omitting others, are against Wiki policy (and also a waste of text, since the debate is reasonable, quite interesting, and the public should have a one-stop source to read about it on the net). Decius 21:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no "1 evidence" (that is known so far) that can prove the Macedonians were Greeks or not Greeks. If you don't realize that, then maybe you should think about finishing High School before going to Plato's Academy. Decius 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Kid, I've already discussed why I will not present "1 evidence" for or against. Now, excuse me but I must resume this another day. Decius 21:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever happened to MANOS and his 48 hour ultimatum that he posted on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language? He had us worried for a moment :-) Alexander 007 13:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROVE THAT U ARE NOT A VANDAL