> One reason is that if you want to go back 2500 years, that certainly covers e.g. the Zulu empire and its own conquering of of neighouring tribes, the Aztec or the Inca empires, various Indian empires and kingdoms and so on - in which case the whole conversation loses its meaning because everyone has been a colonialist at some point.

But if it is true that everyone has been a colonialist at some point, how thereby is it that the "whole conversation loses its meaning"? One might instead say that's an important fact that needs to be considered in the conversation, but often isn't.

> Of course, it's clear that the conversation is carried out in the context of European colonialism and in particular of the colonisation of Africa by European powers.

But is that too narrow a context? And part of the debate is about whether what those European powers did was somehow historically novel, or whether it was fundamentally a continuation of what everyone else had been doing for all of history? If one views what they did as historically novel, then what Greeks did 2500 years ago is irrelevant; if one views it as just a continuation and intensification of the historical norm, then it has more relevance.

> Another reason is that when we speak of the Greek colonies around the Mediterrannean we speak of new, often independent, cities founded by people originally from cities in the Greek mainland, rather than an invading, occupying force who came to subjugate an indigenous population, pillage the natural riches of its land and send it back home, as in European colonies.

Were these lands colonised by the ancient Greeks uninhabited terra nullius? Or did they already have an indigenous population, which the Greek settlers may have displaced? Also consider that there were two types of European colonialism – extractive colonialism in Africa, Asia (and certain parts/periods of the Americas), and settler colonialism in the Americas (other parts/periods), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. The former involves removal of resources, the later involves insertion of a new population. Ancient Greek colonies were settler colonialism not extractive colonialism.

> There is generally no historical record of big invasions or military campaigns etc. leading to colonisation

Back then, far fewer written records were produced than were in more recent centuries, and what written records were produced have been mostly lost. I wouldn't assume that just because we don't have records of something happening, that therefore it didn't happen.

Also, the British colonisation of Australia didn't involve any significant military campaigns, at best a few skirmishes, and some massacres too. (In military terms, the colonists and the indigenous were very unevenly matched, much more so than in North America for example.) If there was a pre-existing indigenous population displaced by ancient Greek colonies, it could easily have been hunter-gatherer tribes.

> given that in a different context I've been very often told that I'm not really Greek because real Greeks lived two thousand years ago

Anyone who tells you that is an idiot. Of course you are a real Greek.

> more because they want to score some points in some silly debate that I'm not interested in

What silly debate do I want to engage in? It sounds like maybe you've been burnt by debates with North Macedonian nationalists whereas my sympathies have always been with Greece in that dispute.

> considered themselves Roman not Greek. Even today we say we are "Ρωμιοί", Romans.

Yes. But even though Ρωμιοί derives etymologically from the city of Rome, the Latin influence on Constantinople's culture was relatively small (strongest in the legal system). I think the term really referred to Constantinople's claim to be the Second Rome, the political (and even theological) successor of the First Rome, not to a claim that its people were of the same culture and ethnicity as First Rome's. Greek Ρωμιοί are not a Latin or Italic people, Latin Romani are.