RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI

<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10.xsd" version="0.10" xml:lang="mk">
  <siteinfo>
    <sitename>Wikibooks</sitename>
    <dbname>mkwikibooks</dbname>
    <base>https://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0</base>
    <generator>MediaWiki 1.39.0-wmf.22</generator>
    <case>first-letter</case>
    <namespaces>
      <namespace key="-2" case="first-letter">Медиум</namespace>
      <namespace key="-1" case="first-letter">Специјална</namespace>
      <namespace key="0" case="first-letter" />
      <namespace key="1" case="first-letter">Разговор</namespace>
      <namespace key="2" case="first-letter">Корисник</namespace>
      <namespace key="3" case="first-letter">Разговор со корисник</namespace>
      <namespace key="4" case="first-letter">Wikibooks</namespace>
      <namespace key="5" case="first-letter">Разговор за Wikibooks</namespace>
      <namespace key="6" case="first-letter">Податотека</namespace>
      <namespace key="7" case="first-letter">Разговор за податотека</namespace>
      <namespace key="8" case="first-letter">МедијаВики</namespace>
      <namespace key="9" case="first-letter">Разговор за МедијаВики</namespace>
      <namespace key="10" case="first-letter">Предлошка</namespace>
      <namespace key="11" case="first-letter">Разговор за предлошка</namespace>
      <namespace key="12" case="first-letter">Помош</namespace>
      <namespace key="13" case="first-letter">Разговор за помош</namespace>
      <namespace key="14" case="first-letter">Категорија</namespace>
      <namespace key="15" case="first-letter">Разговор за категорија</namespace>
      <namespace key="710" case="first-letter">TimedText</namespace>
      <namespace key="711" case="first-letter">TimedText talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="828" case="first-letter">Модул</namespace>
      <namespace key="829" case="first-letter">Разговор за модул</namespace>
      <namespace key="2300" case="first-letter">Gadget</namespace>
      <namespace key="2301" case="first-letter">Gadget talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="2302" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition</namespace>
      <namespace key="2303" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition talk</namespace>
    </namespaces>
  </siteinfo>
  <page>
    <title>RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1538</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11047</id>
      <parentid>3892</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:12:10Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="159" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae}}
==Содржина:==

#[[Res Gestae I]]  
#[[Res Gestae II (in tabulis)]]</text>
      <sha1>2k485v38ju843i9s737qdu1ynxvjodu</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Res Gestae I</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1539</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11048</id>
      <parentid>3894</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:12:19Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="18600" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae}}
[[RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI|&lt;&lt; Насловна]]  

----

Rerum gestarum divi Augusti, quibus orbem terrarum imperio populi Romani subiecit, et impensarum quas in rem publicam populumque Romanum fecit, incisarum in duabus aheneis pilis, quae sunt Romae positae, exemplar subiectum. 

[1] Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi, per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi. [Ob quae] senatus decretis honorificis in ordinem suum me adlegit, C. Pansa et A. Hirtio consulibus, consularem locum sententiae dicendae tribuens, et imperium mihi dedit. Res publica ne quid detrimenti caperet, me propraetore simul cum consulibus providere iussit. Populus autem eodem anno me consulem, cum cos. uterque bello cecidisset, et triumvirum rei publicae constituendae creavit. 

[2] Qui parentem meum trucidaverunt, eos in exilium expuli iudiciis legitimis ultus eorum facinus, et postea bellum inferentis rei publicae vici bis acie. 

[3] Bella terra et mari civilia externaque toto in orbe terrarum saepe gessi, victorque omnibus veniam petentibus civibus peperci. Externas gentes, quibus tuto ignosci potuit, conservare quam excidere malui. Millia civium Romanorum sub sacramento meo fuerunt circiter quingenta. Ex quibus deduxi in colonias aut remisi in municipia sua stipendis emeritis millia aliquanto plura quam trecenta, et iis omnibus agros adsignavi aut pecuniam pro praemiis militiae dedi. Naves cepi sescentas praeter eas, si quae minores quam triremes fuerunt. 

[4] Bis ovans triumphavi, tris egi curulis triumphos et appellatus sum viciens et semel imperator. Cum autem pluris triumphos mihi senatus decrevisset, iis supersedi. Laurum de fascibus deposui in Capitolio, votis quae quoque bello nuncupaveram solutis. Ob res a me aut per legatos meos auspicis meis terra marique prospere gestas quinquagiens et quinquiens decrevit senatus supplicandum esse dis immortalibus. Dies autem, per quos ex senatus consulto supplicatum est, fuere DCCCLXXXX. In triumphis meis ducti sunt ante currum meum reges aut regum liberi novem. Consul fueram terdeciens, cum scribebam haec, et agebam septimum et tricensimum tribuniciae potestatis. 

[5] Dictaturam et apsenti et praesenti mihi delatam et a populo et a senatu, M. Marcello et L. Arruntio consulibus non acccepi. Non recusavi in summa frumenti penuria curationem annonae, quam ita administravi, ut intra paucos dies metu et periclo praesenti populum universam liberarem impensa et cura mea. Consulatum quoque tum annuum et perpetuum mihi delatum non recepi. 

[6] Consulibus M. Vinicio et Q. Lucretio et postea P. Lentulo et Cn. Lentulo et tertium Paullo Fabio Maximo et Q. Tuberone senatu populoque Romano consentientibus ut curator legum et morum summa potestate solus crearer, nullum magistratum contra morem maiorum delatum recepi Quae tum per me geri senatus voluit, per tribuniciam potestatem perfeci, cuius potestatis conlegam et ipse ultro quinquiens a senatu depoposci et accepi 

[7] Triumvirum rei publicae constituendae fui per continuos annos decem. Princeps senatus fui usque ad eum diem quo scripseram haec per annos quadraginta. Pontifex maximus, augur, XV virum sacris faciundis, VII virum epulonum, frater arvalis, sodalis Titius, fetialis fui. 

[8] Patriciorum numerum auxi consul quintum iussu populi et senatus. Senatum ter legi, et in consulatu sexto censum populi conlega M. Agrippa egi. Lustrum post annum alterum et quadragensimum feci, quo lustro civium Romanorum censa sunt capita quadragiens centum millia et sexaginta tria millia. Tum iterum consulari cum imperio lustrum solus feci C. Censonno et C. Asinio cos., quo lustro censa sunt civium Romanorum capita quadragiens centum millia et ducenta triginta tria millia. Et tertium consulari cum imperio lustrum conlega Tib. Caesare filio meo feci Sex. Pompeio et Sex. Appuleio cos., quo lustro censa sunt civium Romanorum capitum quadragiens centum millia et nongenta triginta et septem millia. Legibus novis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi 


[9] Vota pro valetudine mea suscipi per consules et sacerdotes quinto quoque anno senatus decrevit. Ex iis votis saepe fecerunt vivo me ludos aliquotiens sacerdotum quattuor amplissima collegia, aliquotiens consules. Privatim etiam et municipatim universi cives unanimiter continenter apud omnia pulvinaria pro valetudine mea supplicaverunt. 

[10] Nomen meum senatus consulto inclusum est in saliare carmen, et sacrosanctus in perpetum ut essem et, quoad viverem, tribumcia potestas mihi esset, per legem sanctum est. Pontifex maximus ne fierem in vivi conlegae mei locum, populo id sacerdotium deferente mihi quod pater meus habuerat, recusavi. Quod sacerdotium aliquod post annos, eo mortuo qui civilis motus occasione occupaverat, cuncta ex Italia ad comitia mea confluente multitudine, quanta Romae nunquam fertur ante id tempus fuisse, recepi, P. Sulpicio C. Valgio consulibus. 

[11] Aram Fortunae Reducis ante aedes Honoris et Virtutis ad portam Capenam pro reditu meo senatus consacravit, in qua pontifices et virgines Vestales anniversarium sacrificium facere iussit eo die quo, consulibus Q. Lucretio et M. Vinicio, in urbem ex Syria redieram, et diem Augustalia ex cognomine nostro appellavit. 

[12] Ex senatus auctoritate pars praetorum et tribunorum plebi cum consule Q. Lucretio et principibus viris obviam mihi missa est in Campaniam, qui honos ad hoc tempus nemim praeter me est decretus. Cum ex Hispania Galliaque, rebus in iis provincis prospere gestis, Romam redi, Ti. Nerone P. Qintilio consulibus, aram Pacis Augustae senatus pro reditu meo consacrandam censuit ad campum Martium, in qua magistratus et sacerdotes virginesque Vestales anniversarium sacrificium facere iussit. 

[13] Ianum Quinnum, quem claussum esse maiores nostri voluerunt cum per totum imperium populi Romani terra marique esset parta victoriis pax, cum priusquam nascerer, a condita urbe bis ommno clausum fuisse prodatur memoriae, ter me principe senatus claudendum esse censuit. 

[14] Filios meos, quos iuvenes mihi eripuit fortuna, Gaium et Lucium Caesares honoris mei caussa senatus populusque Romanus annum quintum et decimum agentis consules designavit, ut eum magistratum inirent post quinquennium, et ex eo die quo deducti sunt in forum ut interessent consiliis publicis decrevit senatus. Equites autem Romani universi principem iuventutis utrumque eorum parmis et hastis argenteis donatum appellaverunt. 

[15] Plebei Romanae viritim HS trecenos numeravi ex testamento patris mei et nomine meo HS quadringenos ex bellorum manibiis consul quintum dedi, iterum autem in consulatu decimo ex patrimonio meo HS quadringenos congiari viritim pernumeravi, et consul undecimum duodecim frumentationes frumento privatim coempto emensus sum, et tribunicia potestate duodecimum quadringenos nummos tertium viritim dedi. Quae mea congiaria pervenerunt ad hominum millia numquam minus quinquaginta et ducenta. Tribuniciae potestatis duodevlcensimum, consul Xil, trecentis et viginti millibus plebis urbanae sexagenos denarios viritim dedi. Et colonis militum meorum consul qintum ex manibiis viritim millia nummum singula dedi; acceperunt id triumphale congiarium in colonis hominum circiter centum et viginti millia. Consul tertium decimum sexagenos denarios plebei quae tum frumentum publicum accipiebat dedi; ea millia hominum paullo plura quam ducenta fuerunt. 

[16] Pecuniam pro agris quos in consulatu meo quarto et postea consulibus M. Crasso et Cn. Lentulo Augure adsignavi militibus solvi municipis; ea summa sestertium circiter sexsiens milliens fuit quam pro Italicis praedis numeravi, et circiter bis milliens et sescentiens quod pro agris provincialibus solvi. Id pimus et solus omnium qui deduxerunt colonias militum in Italia aut in provincis ad memoriam aetatis meae feci. Et postea, Ti. Nerone et Cn. Pisone consulibus itemque C. Antistio et D. Laelio cos. et C. Calvisio et L. Pasieno consulibus et L. Lentulo et M. Messalla consulibus et L. Camnio et Q. Fabricio cos., militibus quos emeriteis stipendis in sua municipia deduxi praemia numerato persolvi, quam in rem sestertium quater milliens circiter impendi. 

[17] Quater pecunia mea iuvi aerarium, ita ut sestertium milliens et quingentiens ad eos qui praerant aerario detulerim. Et M. Lepido et L. Arruntio cos. in aerarium militare, quod ex consilio meo constitutum est ex quo praemia darentur militibus qui vicena aut plura stipendia emeruissent, HS milliens et septingentiens ex patrimonio meo detuli. 

[18] Ab eo anno quo Cn. et P. Lentull consules fuerunt, cum deficerent vectigalia, tum centum milibus hominum tum pluribus multo frumentarios et nummarios tributus ex horreo et patrimonio meo edidi. 

[19] Curiam et continens el Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat, Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri Iovis Tonantis, aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae et Iunonis Reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci. 


[20] Capitolium et Pompeium theatrum utrumque opus impensa grandi reteci sine ulla inscriptione nominis mei. Rivos aquarum compluribus locis vetustate labentes refeci, et aquam quae Marcia appellatur duplicavi fonte novo in rivum eius inmisso. Forum Iulium et basilicam quae fuit inter aedem Castoris et aedem Saturm, coepta profligataque opera a patre meo, perfeci et eandem basilicam consumptam incendio, ampliato eius solo, sub titulo nominis filiorum meorum incohavi, et, si vivus non perfecissem, perfici ab heredibus meis iussi. Duo et octoginta templa deum in urbe consul sextum ex auctoritate senatus refeci nullo praetermisso quod eo tempore refici debebat. Consul septimum viam Flaminiam ab urbe Ariminum refeci pontesque omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium. 

[21] In privato solo Martis Ultoris templum forumque Augustum ex manibiis feci. Theatrum ad aedem Apollinis in solo magna ex parte a privatis empto feci, quod sub nomine M. Marcelli generi mei esset. Dona ex manibiis in Capitolio et in aede divi Iuli et in aede Apollinis et in aede Vestae et in templo Martis Ultoris consacravi, quae mihi constiterunt HS circiter milliens. Auri coronari pondo triginta et quinque millia municipiis et colonis Italiae conferentibus ad triumphos meos qintum consul remisi, et postea, quotienscumque imperator appellatus sum, aurum coronarium non accepi decernentibus municipiis et colonis aeque benigne adque antea decreverant. 

[22] Ter munus gladiatorium dedi meo nomine et quinquiens filiorum meorum aut nepotum nomine, quibus muneribus depugnaverunt hominum circiter decem millia. Bis athletarum undique accitorum spectaculum propulo praebui meo nomine et tertium nepotis mei nomine. Ludos feci meo nomine quater, aliorum autem magistratuum vicem ter et viciens. Pro conlegio XV virorum magister conlegii collega M. Agrippa ludos saeclares C. Furnio C. Silano cos. feci. Consul XIII ludos Martiales pimus feci quos post id tempus deinceps insequentibus annis s.c. et lege fecerunt consules. Venationes bestiarum Africanarum meo nomine aut filiorum meorum et nepotum in circo aut in foro aut in amphitheatris populo dedi sexiens et viciens, quibus confecta sunt bestiarum circiter tria millia et quingentae. 


[23] Navalis proeli spectaclum populo dedi trans Tiberim in quo loco nunc nemus est Caesarum, cavato solo in longitudinem mille et octingentos pedes, in latitudinem mille et ducenti, in quo triginta rostratae naves triremes aut biremes, plures autem minores inter se confilxerunt; quibus in classibus pugnaverunt praeter remiges millia hominum tria circiter. 

[24] In templis omnium civitatium provinciae Asiae victor ornamenta reposui quae spoliatis templis is cum quo bellum gesseram privatim possederat. Statuae meae pedestres et equestres et in quadrigeis argenteae steterunt in urbe XXC circiter, quas ipse sustuli, exque ea pecunia dona aurea in aede Apollinis meo nomine et illorum qui mihi statuarum honorem habuerunt posui. 


[25] Mare pacavi a praedonibus. Eo bello servorum qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant triginta fere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi. Iuravit in mea verba tota Italia sponte sua, et me belli quo vici ad Actium ducem depoposcit; iuraverunt in eadem verba provinciae Galliae, Hispaniae, Africa, Sicilia, Sardinia. Qui sub signis meis tum militaverint fuerunt senatores plures quam DCC, in iis qui vel antea vel postea consules facti sunt ad eum diem quo scripta sunt haec LXXXIII, sacerdotes circiter CLXX. 

[26] Omnium provinciarum populi Romani quibus finitimae fuerunt gentes quae non parerent imperio nostro fines auxi. Gallias et Hispanias provincias, item Germaniam, qua includit Oceanus a Gadibus ad ostium Albis fluminis pacavi. Alpes a regione ea quae proxima est Hadriano mari ad Tuscum pacificavi nulli genti bello per iniuriam inlato. Classis mea per Oceanum ab ostio Rheni ad solis orientis regionem usque ad fines Cimbrorum navigavit, quo neque terra neque mari quisquam Romanus ante id tempus adit. Cimbrique et Charydes et Semnones et eiusdem tractus alii Germanorum populi per legatos amicitiam meam et populi Romani petierunt. Meo iussu et auspicio ducti sunt duo exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam quae appellatur Eudaemon, magnaeque hostium gentis utriusque copiae caesae sunt in acie et complura oppida capta. In Aethiopiam usque ad oppidum Nabata perventum est, cui proxima est Meroe; in Arabiam usque in fines Sabaeorum processit exercitus ad oppidum Mariba. 

[27] Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci. Armeniam maiorem interfecto rege eius Artaxe cum possem facere provinciam malui maiorum nostrorum exemplo regnum id Tigrani regis Artavasdis filio, nepoti autem Tigranis regis, per Ti. Neronem tradere, qui tum mihi privignus erat. Et eandem gentem postea desciscentem et rebellantem domitam per Gaium filium meum regi Ariobarzani regis Medorum Artabazi filio regendam tradidi, et post eius mortem filio eius Artavasdi; quo interfecto Tigranem qui erat ex regio genere Armeniorum oriundus in id regnum misi. Provincias omnis quae trans Hadrianum mare vergunt ad orientem Cyrenasque, iam ex parte magna regibus ea possidentibus, et antea Siciliam et Sardiniam occupatas bello servili reciperavi. 

[28] Colonias in Africa, Sicilia, Macedonia, utraque Hispania, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Gallia Narbonensi, Pisidia militum deduxi Italia autem XXVIII colonias quae vivo me celeberrimae et frequentissimae fuerunt mea auctoritate deductas habet. 

[29] Signa militaria complura per alios duces amissa devictis hostibus recepi ex Hispania et Gallia et a Dalmateis. Parthos trium exercitum Romanorum spolia et signa reddere mihi supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere coegi. Ea autem signa in penetrali quod est in templo Martis Ultoris reposui. 

[30] Pannoniorum gentes, quas ante me principem populi Romani exercitus nunquam adit, devictas per Ti. Neronem, qui tum erat privignus et legatus meus, imperio populi Romani subieci, protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danui. Citra quod Dacorum transgressus exercitus meis auspicis victus profilgatusque est, et postea trans Danuvium ductus exercitus meus Dacorum gentes imperia populi Romani perferre coegit. 

[31] Ad me ex India regum legationes saepe missae sunt non visae ante id tempus apud quemquam Romanorum ducem. Nostram amicitiam appebverunt per legatos Bastarnae Scythaeque et Sarmatarum qui sunt citra flumen Tanaim et ultra reges, Albanorumque rex et Hiberorum et Medorum. 

[32] Ad me supplices confugerunt reges Parthorum Tiridates et postea Phrates regis Phratis filius, Medorum Artavasdes, Adiabenorum Artaxares, Britannorum Dumnobellaunus et Tincommius, Sugambrorum Maelo, Marcomanorum Sueborum . . . rus. Ad me rex Parthorum Phrates Orodis filius filios suos nepotesque omnes misit in Italiam non bello superatus, sed amicitiam nostram per liberorum suorum pignora petens. Plurimaeque aliae gentes expertae sunt p. R. fidem me principe quibus antea cum populo Romano nullum extiterat legationum et amicitiae commercium. 

[33] A me gentes Parthorum et Medorum per legatos principes earum gentium reges petitos acceperunt: Parthi Vononem, regis Phratis filium, regis Orodis nepotem, Medi Ariobarzanem, regis Artavazdis filium, regis Ariobarzanis nepotem. 

[34] In consulatu sexto et septimo, postquam bella civilia exstinxeram, per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum vestiti publice coronaque civica super ianuam meam fixa est et clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare virtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis caussa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem. Post id tempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt. 

[35] Tertium decimum consulatum cum gerebam, senatus et equester ordo populusque Romanus universus appellavit me patrem patriae, idque in vestibulo aedium mearum inscribendum et in curia Iulia et in foro Aug. sub quadrigis quae mihi ex s.c. positae sunt censuit. Cum scripsi haec annum agebam septuagensumum sextum. 

----

[1] Summa pecuniae quam dedit vel in aerarium vel Plebei Romanae vel dimissis militibus: denarium sexiens milliens. 

[2] Opera fecit nova aedem Martis, Iovis Tonantis et Feretri, Apollinis, divi Iuli, Quirini, Minervae, Iunonis Reginae, Iovis Libertatis, Larum, deum Penatium, Iuventatis, Matris Magnae, Lupercal, pulvinar ad circum, curiam cum Chalcidico, forum Augustum, basilicam Iuliam, theatrum Marcelli, porticum Octaviam, nemus trans Tiberim Caesarum. 

[3] Refecit Capitolium sacrasque aedes numero octoginta duas, theatrum Pompei, aquarum rivos, viam Flaminiam. 

[4] Impensa praestita in spectacula scaenica et munera gladiatorum atque athletas et venationes et naumachiam et donata pecunia colonis, municipiis, oppidis terrae motu incendioque consumptis aut viritim amicis senatoribusque quorum census explevit innumerabilis.

----
[[RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI|&lt;&lt; Насловна]] 


----</text>
      <sha1>gfkwulqshisfhmps8y7wf8r6zg4cgam</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Res Gestae II (in tabulis)</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1540</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11049</id>
      <parentid>3895</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:12:25Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="19803" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_gestae}}
[[RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI|&lt;&lt; Насловна]]

----

Rerum gestarum divi Augusti, quibus orbem terra[rum] imperio populi Rom. subiecit, et impensarum, quas in rem publicam populumque Romanum fecit, incisarum in duabus aheneis pilis, quae su[n]t Romae positae, exemplar sub[i]ectum. 


TABULA I

1. Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi.~ per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in liberatatem vindicavi. Eo [nomi]ne senatus decretis honorif[i]cis in ordinem suum m[e adlegit C. Pansa et A. Hirti]o consulibus, con[sula]rem locum s[imul dan sententiae ferendae, et i]imperium mihi dedit.~ Res publica, n[e quid detrimenti caperet, a] me pro praetore simul cum consulibus pro[viden]dum [iussit. P]opulus autem eodem anno me consulem, cum [cos. uterqu]e in bel[lo ceci]disset, et triumvirum rei publicae costituend[ae creavit]. 

2. Qui parentem meum [interfecer]un[t eo]s in exilium expuli iudiciis legitimis ultus eorum [fa]cin[us, e]t postea bellum inferentis rei publicae vici b[is a]cie. 

3. [B]ella terra et mari c[ivilia ex]ternaque toto in orbe terrarum s[aepe gessi] victorque omnibus v[eniam petentib]us civibus peperci. Exte[rnas] gentes, quibus tuto i[gnosci pot]ui[t, co]nservare quam excidere m[alui]. Millia civium Roma[no]rum [sub] sacramento meo fuerunt circiter [quingen]ta. Ex quibus dedu[xi in coloni]as aut remisi in municipia sua stipen[dis emeri]tis millia aliquant[o plura qu]am trecenta et iis omnibus agros a[dsignavi] aut pecuniam pro p[raemis mil]itiae dedi. Naves cepi sescen[tas praeter] eas, si quae minore[s quam trir]emes fuerunt. 

4. [Bis] ovans triumphavi et tri[s egi] curulis triumphos et appella[tus sum v]iciens et semel imperator. [decernente plu]ris triumphos mihi sena[t]u, qua[ter eis su]persedi. ~ L[aurum de f]asc[i]bus deposui in Capi[tolio votis, quae] quoque bello nuncupaveram, [sol]utis. Ob res a [me aut per legatos] meos auspicis meis terra ma[riqu]e pr[o]spere gestas qui[nquageniens et q]uinquiens decrevit senatus supp[lica]ndum esse dis immortalibus. Dies a[utem, pe]r quos ex senatus consulto [s]upplicatum est, fuere DC[CCLXXXX. In triumphis meis] ducti sunt ante currum meum reges aut r[eg]um lib[eri novem. Consul f]ueram terdeciens, cum [scribeb]a[m] haec, [et eram se]p[timum et] tricen[simu]m tribuniciae potestatis. 

5. [Dic]tat[ura]m et apsent[i e]t praesent[i mihi delatam et a popul]o et a se[na]tu [M. Marce]llo e[t] L. Arruntio [cos.] non rec[epi. Non sum] depreca[tus] in s[umma f]rum[enti p]enuria curatio[n]em an[non]ae. [qu] am ita ad[min]ist[ravi, ut] in[tra] die[s] paucos metu et periclo p[r] aesenti civitatem univ[ersam liberarem impensa et] cura mea. Consul[atum] quoqu]e tum annum e[t perpetuum mihi] dela[tum non recepi.] 

6. [Consulibus M. Vinicio et Q. Lucretio] et postea P. Lentulo et Cn. L[entulo et tertium Paullo Fabio Maximo] e[t Q&gt; Tuberone senatu populoq]u[e Romano consentientibus] ut cu[rator legum et morum maxima potestate solus crearer nullum magistratum contra morem maiorem delatum recepi. Quae tum per me fieri senatus] v[o]luit, per trib[un]ici[a]m p[otestatem perfeci, cuius potes]tatis conlegam et [ips]e ultro [quinquiens mihi a sena]tu[de]poposci et accepi. 

7. [Tri]umv[i]rum rei pu[blicae c]on[s]ti[tuendae fui per continuos an]nos [decem. P]rinceps s[enatus fui usque ad e]um d[iem, quo scrip]seram [haec, per annos] quadra[ginta. Pon]tifex [maximus, augur, Xvvir]um sacris fac[iundis, VIIvirum ep]ulon[um, frater arvalis, sodalis Titius], fetialis fui. 


TABULA II
8. Patriciorum numerum auxi consul quintum iussu populi et senatus. Senatum ter legi. Et in consulatu sexto censum populi conlega M. Agrippa egi. Lustrum post annum alterum et quadragensimum fec[i]. Quo lustro civium Romanorum censa sunt capita quadragiens centum millia et sexag[i]inta tria millia. ~ Tum [iteru]m consulari com imperio lustrum [s]olus feci C. Censorin[o et C.] Asinio cos. Quo lustro censa sunt civium Romanorum [capita] quadragiens centum millia et ducenta triginta tria mi[llia. Et tertiu]m consulari cum imperio lustrum conlega Tib. Cae[sare filio] m[eo feci,] Sex. Pompeio et Sex. Appuleio cos. Quo lustro ce[nsa sunt]civ[ium Ro]manorum capitum quadragiens centum mill[ia et n]onge[nta tr]iginta et septem millia. Legibus novi[s] m[e auctore l]atis m[ulta e]xempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro [saecul]o red[uxi et ipse] multarum rer[um exe]mpla imitanda pos[teris tradidi.] 

9. Vota p[ro valetudine meo susc]ipi p[er cons]ules et sacerdotes qu[in]to qu[oque anno senatus decrevit. Ex iis] votis s[ae]pe fecerunt vivo m[e ludos aliquotiens sace]rdo[tu]m quattuor amplissima colle[gia, aliquotiens consules. Pr]iva[t]im etiam et municipatim univer[si cives unanimite]r con[tinente]r apud omnia pulvinaria pro vale[tu]din[e mea s]upp[licaverunt.] 

10. Nom[en me]um [sena]tus c[onsulto inc]lusum est in saliare carmen et sacrosanctu[s in perp]etum [ut essem et, q]uoad ivierem, tribunicia potestas mihi [esse, per lege]m sanc[tum est. Pontif]ex maximus ne fierem in vivi [c]onlegae l]ocum, [populo id sace]rdotium deferente mihi, quod pater meu[s habuer]at, r[ecusavi. Qu]od sacerdotium aliquod post annos, eo mor[t]uo q[ui civilis] m[otus o]ccasione occupaverat, ~ cuncta ex Italia [ad comitia mea] confluen[te mu]ltitudine, quanta Romae nun[q]uam [fertur ante i]d temp[us fuisse], recep[i] P. Sulpicio C. Valgio consulibu[s]. 

11. Aram [Fortunae] R[educis a]nte aedes Honoris et Virtutis ad portam Cap[enam pro] red[itu me]o senatus consacravit, in qua ponti[fices et] vir[gines Ve]stal[es anni]versarium sacrificium facere [decrevit eo] di[e quo co]nsul[ibus Q. Luc]retio et [M. Vi]nic[i]o in urbem ex [Syria redieram, et diem Augustali]a ex [c]o[gnomine] nos[t]ro appellavit. 

12. [Senatus consulto ea occasion]e pars [praetorum e]t tribunorum [plebi cum consule Q.] Lu[cret]io et princi[pi] bus viris [ob]viam mihi mis[s]a e[st in Campan]iam, quo honos [ad ho]c tempus nemini praeter [m]e es[t decretus. Cu]m ex H[is[]ania Gal[liaque, rebu]s in iis provincis prosp[e]re [gest]i[s], R[omam redi] Ti. Nerone P. Qui[ntilio c]o[n]s[ulibu]s, ~ aram [Pacis A]u[g]ust[ae senatus pro]redi[t]u meo consa[c]randam [censuit] ad campam [Martium, in qua ma]gistratus et sac[er]dotes [et v]irgines V[est]a[les ann]iversarium sacrific]ium facer[e decrevit.] 

13. [Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, cum [p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta victoriis pax, cum pr[ius quam] nascerer, a co[ndita] u[rb]e bis omnino clausum [f]uisse prodatur m[emori]ae, ter me princi]pe senat]us claudendum esse censui[t]. 

14. [Fil]ios meos, quos iuv[enes] mihi eripuit for[tuna], Gaium et Lucium Caesares, 


TABULA III
honoris mei caussa senatus populusque Romanus annum quintum et decimum agentis consules designavit, ut [e]um magistratum inirent post quinquennium. Et ex eo die, quo deducti [s]unt in forum ut interessent consiliis publicis decrevit sena[t]us. Equites [a]utem Romani universi principem iuventutis utrumque eorum parm[is] et hastis argenteis donatum appellaverunt. 

15. Plebei Romanae viritum HS trecenos numeravi ex testamento patris mei. et nomine meo HS quadringenos ex bellorum manibiis consul quintum dedi, iterum autem in consulatu decimo ex [p]atrimonio meo HS quadringenos congiari viritim pernumer[a]vi, et consul undecimum duodecim frumentationes frumento pr[i]vatim coempto emensus sum. ~ et tribunicia potestate duodecimum quadringenos nummos tertium viritim dedi. Quae mea congiaria p[e]rvenerunt ad [homi]num millia nunquam minus quinquaginta et ducenta. Tribuniciae potestatis duodevicensimum consul XII trecentis et viginti millibus plebis urbanae sexagenos denarios viritim dedi. Et colon[i]s militum meorum consul quintum ex manibiis viritim millia nummum singula dedi. acceperunt id triumphale congiarium in colonis hominum circiter centum et viginti millia. Consul tertium dec[i]mum sexagenos denarios plebei, quae tum frumentum publicum acciebat, dedi; ea millia hominum paullo plura quam ducenta fuerunt. 

16. Pecuniam [pr]o agris, quos in consulatu meo quarto et postea consulibus M. Cr[a]ssao et Cn. Lentulo augure adsignavi militibus, soliv municipis. Ea [s]u[mma s]estertium circiter sexsiens milliens fuit, quam [p]ro Italicis praedis numeravi. et ci[r]citer bis mill[ie]ns et sescentiens, quod pro agris provincialibus soliv. Id primus et [s]olus omnium, qui [d]eduxerunt colonias militum in Italia aut in provincis, ad memoriam aetatis meae feci. Et postea Ti. Nerone et Cn. Pisone consulibus, ~ et D. Laelio cos., et C. Calvisio et L. Pasieno consulibus, et L. Le[nt]ulo et M. Messalla consulibus, et L. Caninio ~ et Q. Fabricio co[s.], milit[i]bus, quos emeriteis stipendis in sua municpi[a dedux]i, praem[i]a numerato persolvi. ~ quam in rem sestertium q[uater m]illiens cir[cite]r impendi. 

17. Quater [pe]cunia mea iuvi aerarium, ita ut sestertium milliens et quing[en]ties ad eos qui praerant aerario detulerim. Et M. Lepido et L. Ar[r]untio cos. in aerarium militare, quod ex consilio n[eo] co[ns]titutum est, ex [q]uo praemia darentur militibus, qui vicena [aut plu]ra sti[pendi]a emeruissent ~ HS milliens et septing[e]nti[ens ex pa]t[rim]onio [m]eo detuli. 

18. [Ab eo anno q]uo Cn. et P. Lentuli c[ons]ules fuerunt, cum deficerent [vecti]g[alia, tum] centum millibus h[omi]num, tum pluribus multo frume[ntarios et n]umma[rio]s t[ributus ex horr]eo et patr[i]monio m[e]o edidi. 


TABULA IV
19. Curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri et Iovis Tonantis, ~ aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae et Iunonis reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci. 

20. Capitolium et Pompeium theatrum utrumque opus impensa grandi refeci sine ulla inscriptione nominis mei. Rovos aquarum compluribus locis vetustate labentes refeci, ~ et aquam quae Marcia appellatur duplicavi fonte novo in rivum eius inmisso. Forum Iulium et basilicam quae fuit inter aedem Castoris et aedem Saturni, ~ coepta profligataque poera a patre meo, perfeci, et eandem basilicam consumptam incendio ampliato eius solo sub titulo nominis filiorum m[eorum i]ncohavi, ~ et, si vivus non perfecissem, perfici ab heredibus [meis ius]si. Duo et octoginta templa deum in urbe consul sex[tu]m ex [auctori]tate senatus refeci, nullo praetermisso quod e[o] tempore [refici debeba]t. Consul septimum viam Flaminiam a[b urbe] Ari[minum refeci pontes]que omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium. 

21. In privato solo Martis Ultoris templum [f]orumque Augustum [ex ma]n[i]biis feci. Theatrum ad aede Apollinis in solo magna ex parte a p[r]i[v]atis empto feci, quod sub nomine M. Marcell[i] generi mei esset. Don[a e]x manibiis in Capitolio et in aede divi Iu[l]i et in aede Apollinis de Vestae et in templo Martis Ultoris consecravi, quae mihi constituerunt HS circiter milliens. Auri coronari pondo triginta et quinque millia municipiis et colonis Italiae conferentibus ad triumpho[s] meos quintum consul remisi, et postea, quotienscumque imperator a[ppe]llatus sum, aurum coronarium non accepi, decernentibus municipii[s] et colonis aequ[e] beni[g]ne adque antea decreverant. 

22. Ter munus gladiatorium dedi meo nomine et quinquiens filiorum meorum aut n[e]potum nomine; quibus muneribus depugnaverunt hominum ci[rc]iter decem millia. ~ Bis athletarum undique accitorum spectaculu[m] p[o]pulo pra[ebui me]o nomine et tertium nepo[tis] mei nomine. Ludos feci m[eo no]m[ine] quater, ~ aliorum autem m[agistr]atuum vicem ter et viciens. ~ [Pr]o conlegio Xvvirorum magis[ter con]legii collega M. Agrippa ~ lud[os s]aeclares, C. Furnio C. Silano cos. [feci. C]onsul XIII ludos Mar[tia]les pr[imus fec]i, quos p[ost i]d tempus deincep[s] ins[equen]ti[bus] annis [ex senatus consulto et lege fe]cerunt [co]n[su]les. ~ [Ven]ation[es] best[ia]rum Africanarum meo nomine aut filio[ru]m meorum et nepotum in ci[r]co aut in foro aut in amphitheatris, popul[o d]edi sexiens et viciens, quibus confecta sunt bestiarum circiter tria m[ill]ia et quingentae. 

23. Navalis proeli spectaclum populo de[di tr]ans Tiberim, in quo loco nunc nemus est Caesarum, cavato [s]olo in longitudinem mille et octingentos pedes ~ in latudine[m mille] e[t] ducenti. In quo triginta rostratae naves triremes a[ut birem]es ~ plures autem minores inter se conflixerunt. Q[uibu]s in classibus pugnaverunt praeter remiges millia ho[minum tr]ia circiter. 

24. In templis omnium civitatium prov[inci]ae Asiae victor ornamenta reposui, quae spoliatis tem[plis i]s cum quo bellum gesseram privatim possederat. Satatuae [mea]e pedestres et equestres et in quadrigeis argenteae steterunt in urbe XXC circiter, quas ipse sustuli ~ exque ea pecunia dona aurea in aede Apollinis meo nomine et illorum, qui mihi statuarum honorem habuerunt, posui. 


TABULA V
25. Mare pacavi a praedonibus. Eo bello servorum, qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant, triginta fere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi. Iuravit in mea verba tota Italia sponte sual et me be[lli] quo vici ad Actium ducem depoposcit. Iuraverunt in eadem ver[ba provi]nciae Galliae, Hispaniae, Africa, Sicilia, Sardinia. Qui sub [signis meis tum] militaverint, fuerunt senatores plures quam DCC, in ii[s qui vel antea vel pos]tea consules facti sunt ad eum diem quo scripta su[nt haec LX]X[XIII, sacerdo]tes ci[rc]iter CLXX. 

26. Omnium prov[inciarum populi Romani], quibus finitimae fuerunt gentes quae non p[arerent imperio nos]tro, fines auxi. Gallias et Hispanias provincias, i[tem Germaniam qua inclu]dit Oceanus a Gadibus ad ostium Albis flumin[is pacavi. Alpes a re]gione ea, quae proxima est Hadriano mari, [ad Tuscum pacari fec]i. nulli genti bello per iniuriam inlato. Cla[ssis m]ea per Oceanum] ab ostio Rheni ad solis orientis regionem usque ad fi[nes Cimbroru]m navigavit, ~ quo neque terra neque mari quisquam Romanus ante id tempus adit, Cimbrique et Charydes et Semnones et eiusdem tractus alli Germanorum popu[l]i per legatos amicitiam mean et populi Romani petierunt. Meo iussu et auspicio ducti sunt [duo] exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Ar[a]biam, quae appel[latur Eudaemon, [maxim]aeque hos[t]ium gentis utr[iu]sque cop[iae] caesae sunt in acie et [c]om[plur]a oppida capta. In Aethiopiam usque ad oppidum Nabata pervent[um]est, cui proxima est Meroe. In Arabiam usque in fines Sabaeorum pro[cess]it exercitus ad oppidum Mariba. 

27. Aegyptum imperio populi [Ro]mani adieci. Armeniam maiorum, interfecto rege eius Artaxe, c[u]m possem facere provinciam, malui maiorum nostrorum exemplo regn[u]m id Tigrani, regis Artavasdis filio, nepoti autem Tigranis regis, per T[i. Ne]ronem trad[er], qui tum mihi priv[ig]nus erat. Et eandem gentem postea d[e]sciscentem et rebellantem domit[a]m per Gaium filium meum regi Ariobarzani, regis Medorum Artaba[zi] filio, regendam tradidi ~ et post eius mortem filio eius Artavasdi. ~ Quo interfecto, Tig[ra]ne&gt;m&lt; qui erat ex regio genere Armeniorum oriundus, in id regnum misi. Provincias omnis, quae trans Hadrianum mare vergunt ad orien[te]m, Cyrenasque, iam ex parte magna regibus eas possidentibus, et antea Siciliam et Sardiniam occupatas bello servili reciperavi. 

28. Colonias in Africa Sicilia [M]acedonia utraque Hispania Achai[a] Asia S[y]ria Gallia Narbonensi Pi[si]dia militum deduxi. Italia autem XXVIII [colo]nias, quae vivo me celeberrimae et frequentissimae fuerunt, me [auctore] deductas habet. 

29. Signa militaria complur[a per] alios d[u]ces ami[ssa] devicti[s hostibu]s re[cipe]ravi ex Hispania et [Gallia et a Dalm]ateis. Parthos trium exercitum Romanorum spolia et signa re[ddere] mihi supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere coegi. Ea autem si[gn]a in penetrali, quod e[s]t in templo Martis Ultoris, reposui. 

30. Pannoniorum gentes, qua[s a]nte me principem populi Rpmani exercitus numquam ad[it], devictas per Ti. [Ne]ronem, qui tum erat privignus et legatus meus, imperio populi Romani s[ubie]ci protulique fines Illyrici ad r[ip]am fluminis Dan[uv]i. Citr[a] quod [D]a[cor]u[m tra]n[s]gressus exercitus meis a[u]sp[icis vict]us profligatusque [es]t, et pos[tea tran]s Dan[u]vium ductus ex[ercitus me]u[s] Da[cor]um gentis im[peri]a p[opuli] R[omani perferre coegit]. 

31. Ad me ex In[dia regum legationes saepe missae sunt nunquam visae ante id t]em[pus] apud qu[em]q[uam] R[omanorum du]cem. Nostram amic[itiam petie]run[t] per legat[os] B[a]starn[ae Scythae]que et Sarmatarum qui su[nt citra fl]umen Tanaim [et] ultra reg[es. Alba]norumque rex et Hiberorum e[t Medorum] . 


TABULA VI
32. Ad me supplices confug[erunt] reges Parthorum Tirida[te]s et post[ea] Phrat[es] regis Phrati[s] filiu[s]. ~ Medorum Ar[tavasdes, Adiabenorum] Artaxares, Britannorum Dumnobellaunus et Tin[commius, Sugambr]orum Maelo, Marcomannorum Sueborum [Segime]rus. Ad [me re]x Parthorum Phrates, Orod[i]s filius, filios suos nepot[esque omnes] misit in Italiam, non bello superatu[s], sed amicitiam nostram per [libe]ror[um] suorum pignora petens. Plurimaeque aliae gentes exper[tae sunt p. R.] fidem me principe, quibus antea cum populo Roman[o nullum extitera]t legationum et amicitiae [c]ommercium. 

33. A me gentes Parthorum et Medoru[m per legatos] principes earum gentium reges pet[i]tos acceperunt: Par[thi Vononem, regis Phr]atis filium, regis Orodis nepotem. Medi Arioba[rzanem,] regis Artavazdis filium, regis Ariobarzanis nepotem. 

34. In consulatu sexto et septimo, po[stquam b]ella [civil]ia oxstinxeram, perconsensum universorum [potitus reru]m om[n]ium, rem publicam ex pea potestate ~ in senat[us populique Rom]ani [a]rbitrium transtuli. Quo pro merito meo senatu[s consulto Au]gust[us appe]llatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum v[estiti] publ[ice coronaq]ue civica super ianuam meam fixa est ~ [et clu]peus [aureu]s in [c]uria Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum pop[ulumq]ue Rom[anu]m dare virtutis clement[iaequ]e iustitiae et pieta[tis caus]sa testatu[m] est pe[r e]ius clupei [inscription]em. Post id tem[pus a]uctoritate [omnibus praestiti, potest]atis au[tem n]ihilo ampliu[s habu]i quam cet[eri qui m]ihi quoque in ma[gis]tra[t]u conlegae f[uerunt]. 

35. Tertium dec[i]mum consulatu[m cum gereba]m, sena[tus et e]quester order populusq[ue] Romanus universus [appell]av[it me pat]re[m p]atriae idque in vestibu[lo a]edium mearum inscribendum et in c[u]ria [Iulia e]t in foro Aug. sub quadrig[i]s, quae mihi ex s.c. pos[it]ae [sunt, decrevit. Cum scri]psi haec, annus agebam septuagensu[mum sextum]. 

----

App. I. Summa pecun[i]ae, quam ded[it vel in aera]rium [vel plebei Romanae vel di]missis militibus: denarium sexien[s milliens]. 

App. II. Opera fecit nova aedem Martis, [Iovis] Ton[antis et Feretri, Apollinis], divi Iuli, Quirini, Minervae, [Iunonis Reginae, Iovis Libertatis], Larum, deum Penatium, ~ Iuv[entatis, Matris Magnae, Lupercal, pulvina]r ad circum, ~ curiam cum Ch[alcidico, forum Augustum, basilica]m Iuliam, theatrum Marcelli, ~[p]or[ticum Octaviam, nemus trans T]iberim Caesarum. 

App. III. Refecit Capito[liam sacra]sque aedes [nu]m[ero octoginta] duas, thea[t]rum Pompei, aqu[aram r]iv[as, vi]am Flamin[iam]. 

App. IV. Impensa p[raestita in spec]tacul[a] sca[enica et munera] gladiatorum at[que athletas et venationes et] naumachi[am] et donata pe[c]unia [colonis municipiis oppidis] terrae motu incendioque consumpt[is] a[ut viritim] a[micis senat]oribusque, quorum census explevit, in[n]umera[bili]s. 

----
[[RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI|&lt;&lt; Насловна]]</text>
      <sha1>3aulylztn8teakrgf8zpom1gl3edd47</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>On Macedonian Matters</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1650</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11037</id>
      <parentid>5100</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:04:45Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="796" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
*[[Preface]] 
 
*[[What we have already done and what we ought to do in the future?]] 
 
*[[Is there a need for Macedonian national scientific, scholarly and literary societies?]] 
 
*[[National separatism - the soil on which it has grown and will continue to grow in the future]] 

*[[Can Macedonia turn itself into a separate ethnographical and political unit? Has it already done so? Is it doing so now?]] 

*[[A few words on the Macedonian literary language]]

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>pw58rpsmrwpnzqrw9ude7u09f2odvsa</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Preface</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1651</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11038</id>
      <parentid>5101</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:05:05Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="16155" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
Every man, as a member of some community or association, has certain obligations and certain rights. The people of a nation are nothing other than a great association founded on blood kinship, on a common origin and on common interests. In order that this kinship, this origin and these interests should be preserved it is necessary for the individual in any nation to renounce some of his personal rights and interests so that he may devote part of his energy to the common good. This is an obligation, which is designed in the interests of the people, because in any nation the personal interests of the individual are protected when he himself does not have the strength to do so. This obligation towards the people is closely bound up with obligation towards the country because the concept of the people is closely linked to that of the country. The individual's obligation towards the people and the country depends on the historical circumstances prevailing over the country and the people; and the obligation is fulfilled according to these circumstances. The obligation towards one's country and people on their way to independence is called a national ideal, and every man of conscience should work for the attainment of this independence. The national ideal is formed according to historical circumstances, so that what today was the national ideal may, once it has been attained, give way tomorrow to another ideal which had previously been given little consideration. It often happens, however, that the historical situation enforces a radical change on the national ideal, deflecting it in quite a different direction or else endangering it to such an extent that it may be completely destroyed. The national ideal, or the obligation towards one's country, is usually interpreted in various ways by the various individuals of a nation. One can best judge which concept of the national ideal is the most reliable, by the unanimity with which it is, accepted by all individuals in, the nation. In order to attain this unanimity and to assess the diverse concepts of the national ideal, the ideal just be expressed in words or in writing. And it is by no means a vain task to voice ones opinion of these ideals and one's criticism too - for they are an expression of the general spirit of the nation, and it is on the health of this spirit that the health and success of the entire nation's work depend. Popular ideals, improperly understood, simply add to the misfortunes of the people and bring no advantages.

Since it was in this light that I regarded my own obligation towards my country, I decided to present my concept of the ideal of the Macedonian people through a series of lectures delivered to the St. Petersburg Macedonian-Slav Literary Society Sv. Kliment, and later to have them printed in book form as they are here, to allow for the inclusion of those reflections which could not be incorporated into the lectures given to this Society. And in so doing, I felt that I had, to the best of my ability, fulfilled, at least part of my obligation towards my people and my country.

Most Macedonian readers will be delighted at the appearance of this book. There will be much in it to surprise them. Some will ask why I speak of breaking away from the Bulgarians when in the past we have even called ourselves Bulgarians and when it is generally accepted that unification creates strength, and not separation. Others will argue that, by breaking away completely on the one side, we run the risk of rousing our enemies who are striving with all their might to &quot;weaken&quot; the Balkan Slavs in order to prepare the ground for the partition of the Balkan lands, which would be divided among them; furthermore, we Macedonians would be forced to renounce our prime obligation - the political battle for freedom - to destroy all that has been achieved in the past and go back, so to speak, to square one. Others will feel that I am claiming that Turkey will become better disposed towards us and towards the European reforms in our country when it has been plainly shown that Turkey never wanted and never will want reforms in Macedonia, and that the other countries are not prepared to press Turkey to offer us any reforms, even the meanest. Many people consider that the foreign states are playing a diplomatic game with the reforms only to trick us into giving up the armed battle against the Turks, for this is disturbing their peace. But if we were to give up, this battle they would give up their demands to the Turks for reforms in Macedonia.

Such are the main reactions I expect from most of my fellow-countrymen. I feel, however, that these reactions are not correct. Let me explain why: my book, it is true, does speak of separation and unification, but this is separation from those from whom we have already broken away, from those with whom we will never be able to unite, and this is unification with those whom we are morally bound to join and with whom unification is possible. If we Slav peoples, by breaking away from the other Balkan nations, manage to unite our own Macedonian Slav population into a whole we will not become weaker, indeed, we will grow stronger, and thus the realization of the ideas expounded in this book will be justified by the saying &quot;Unity is Strength&quot;.

Now we must ask whether our enemies could make use of our separation from the other Balkan peoples, and determine who these enemies are. It is fashionable at present in Bulgaria to say that the greatest enemies of the Balkan Slavs are Russia and Austria-Hungary, both of whom wish to use the Macedonian question to stir up a battle between the Serbs and the Bulgarians and, by keeping this battle going, weaken the strength of these two nations to such an extent that they would be able to step into the Balkans, Russia taking over Bulgaria and Constantinople, and Austria-Hungary moving into Serbia and Salonica. I should like to take the freedom of disagreeing with this deep political &quot;farsightedness&quot;.

The Bulgarians may be right in thinking that without Bulgaria, Russia can exist neither politically nor economically, but this is Bulgarian politics and I have no intention of politicizing in the Bulgarian fashion. I am a Macedonian and this is how I see the position of my country: it is not Russia or Austria-Hungary that are the enemies of Macedonia, but Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Our country can be saved from ruin only by struggling fiercely against these states.

Fighting against these three Balkan states does not run counter to our interests, which may be realized either through revolution and evolution or through the gradual moral and religious development of our people. Revolution we have already seen, and, although it left dreadful consequences in its wake, it also had valuable results, with which those who fought for our national freedom may well be satisfied: I refer to the Mьrzsteg reforms which will be implemented when the time and need arises. Nor does the idea of the complete separation of our people from the other Balkan nations run counter to previous struggles for freedom in Macedonia, for it is simply a continuation of those efforts on the basis of gradual development and evolution. Hitherto our people have been most interested in simply gaining full political autonomy; however, while still pursuing our national interests, they allowed various uninvited guests to make their way in, such as the Greeks, the Bulgarians and the Serbs. The political battle, then, is followed by the national battle. But the battle against various forms of propaganda in Macedonia is a step ahead, and not behind, for this too is part of the battle for freedom, a battle against the dark forces which will not allow our country to look at its own interests with its own eyes and force it to see through glasses which darken the truth and color it in Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian shades. The time has come to cast off the blinkers of religious propaganda forced on Macedonia.

Concerning our relations with the Turks, I have only this to say: we are bound to do all that is asked of us to assure Turkey that her continued presence amongst the states of Europe will be locked upon with understanding by us. We are bound to remain loyal subjects of His Imperial Excellency the Sultan. But in so doing we shall demand from his administration, and continue to demand, a number of reforms to secure the main interests of our national and cultural development. I feel that we should be loyal to the Turks but with the understanding that the Turkish government and people should finally realize that their state interests in Europe coincide with ours, on which they are most dependent, that these interests are not contradictory and that therefore the Turks should first evince a true desire to maintain peaceful relations with us, so that they might earn our support for their interests.

If, however, they mean to deceive us by fobbing us off, and Europe as well, with promises they have no intention of keeping, then they can hardly complain if we turn towards Europe to bring about these reforms by force in our country, since the European powers hold them necessary for the successful religious, national and cultural development of the Macedonian Christians. Europe will pay heed to our demands, for she is bound to do so on the grounds of two international acts: the February Project for Reform in Macedonia and the Mьrzsteg Project. These two international acts guarantee that reforms will be gradually introduced in Macedonia and that we shall have the right to turn in other ways to the two states which were signatories to the reform act, in order to indicate our national-religious and economic needs and to show what has been done by Turkey to meet all our requirements.

I know full well that many will look ironically upon my faith in the European reforms. But I should answer their irony thus: there is no truth in the claim that the efforts of Russia and Austria-Hungary to settle the situation in Macedonia will come to nothing. The reform projects and the efforts to implement them are not, as many think, merely a ploy to let time pass and, leave everything as it was. For Russia and Austria-Hungary the reform projects are an international act which it would be ridiculous for Turkey not to honor and which gives full right to the states enforcing the reforms to take reprisals against any state that undermines international law. If it were so easy to break international law without fear of punishment many states would undertake obligations one day only to forswear them the next. But it is not so.

The Russian and Austrian reforms are an international act which will always give the Macedonians the right to call upon the Great Powers to ensure that the reforms are enforced. There is no need to think that this act will be buried like the Berlin Treaty with its 23 Articles relating to Macedonia. The Berlin agreement was indeed buried, though not by Europe; it was Bulgaria who brought about the unification of Eastern Rumelia by force, without the consent of the states, which were signatories to the Berlin agreement. And the violation of one article was sufficient to render the entire agreement null and void. The present Russian and Austrian reforms differ greatly from the Berlin agreement because they are simply an international act concluded between three states. We, the Macedonians, are the only other factor of importance besides them. Opposition to the wishes of the two states in league, Russia and Austria-Hungary, can come only from the Turks or from us, but it is most likely to come from us because the reforms lay down obligations not for us but for Turkey, and if we show ourselves to be dissatisfied with the obligations laid down for the Turks we will thereby make it possible for the Turks not to carry out any of the reforms required of them. Turkey will claim that she did everything required of her and that she was unable to do more because the Macedonian guerillas would not leave the people in peace, and in a country where a state of war prevails all good intentions are ruined by the resistance of the disquieted people. And if the state of war continues for more than a year the reforms will become outdated through our own fault, and end up by being shelved. We have already performed a similar service for the Turks - after the announcement of the February reforms. Besides, if we did not want any reforms whatsoever, we could have performed the service in advance. Afterwards, as in the past, we could have thrown the blame on the Great Powers, who are always made responsible for our mistakes. 

The development of events thus far has clearly shown how easy it is to foul one's own pitch, in the firm belief that one is doing the right thing. In order to avoid the casualties which inevitably follow a widespread uprising, the Russian and Austrian February Reform Project was worked out, not to absolute perfection it is true, but with indications that it might be expanded. One month passed, two, five, seven months - but nothing came of it. Why - we wonder. Our people will answer that it is because Turkey and Europe do not want serious reforms. But this is not so. Turkey may not want reforms, but those who worked out the project certainly do. The question, then, was simply: who would come out on top? In those circumstances we were the most important factor. If only we had yielded to the will of Europe, and if only the rebel detachments had surrendered or fled to Bulgaria, if there had only been some negotiations with the states behind the reforms, who could simply have been told that the detachments would go over to Bulgaria or give themselves up provided the Turks did not torture the ordinary civilians on the grounds that somewhere guns might be hidden, if only it had been made clear that peace would come to Macedonia only when Turkey introduced complete reforms and withdrew its army from Macedonia - but this did not happen. And what did the Revolutionary Committee do? It decided to carry on, as though waiting for the outcome of the reforms, and then launched the uprising with a &quot;clear conscience&quot;. When the Uprising was declared, the Committee was able to say that it had not been forcing the state to introduce the reforms. But this is not true. It is a fact that the rebel detachments avoided clashes, but this does not mean that they did not press for the reforms to be introduced. They avoided armed clashes but the Turks sought them, and were more successful than the Committee. The Committee claimed it had no detachments, that there was no resistance to the reforms on their part, but the Turks declared that there were rebel detachments, that the people were armed and preparing for an uprising, that their troops were often engaged in skirmishes with the rebels, that the rebel detachments were killing civilians who would not obey and who were not faithful servants of the Sultan. If we glance through the newspapers dating from the time when the February Reforms were published - up to and after the declaration of the Uprising in the Bitola District on 20th of July* - and if we read the telegrams from Constantinople, we will see that the Grande Porte (the Turkish High Command) was constantly drawing the attention of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian ambassadors to the lists enumerating the clashes between the Turkish troops and the rebel detachments, the number of arms found amongst the inhabitants, and the murders committed against civilians by the rebel detachments. And finally they pointed to the lists of the reforms introduced. It is quite clear what Turkey wanted to prove by these lists: &quot;I want to bring reform 

* In the new calendar, 2 nd of August, 1903. Editor's note.

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>0kt3diefh6i0um5f0wu0xc5mbz7dm9y</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>What we have already done and what we ought to do in the future?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1652</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11039</id>
      <parentid>5102</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:05:12Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="84907" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
The long-planned and long-awaited Uprising has finally been launched. Our people have shown all their heroism and all their readiness to sacrifice themselves in the interests of the country. The battle has been, and still is, desperate. All Europe is watching us. The newspapers are filled with reports of the Uprising. And, along with the news of the fighting between the rebel detachments and the Turks, reports are coming in of Turkish cruelty towards ordinary civilians. The people of Europe, shaken and horrified by these reports, are bringing all their influence to bear upon their governments, urging them to do something to put an end to this slaughter of civilians and to come to the aid of the unfortunate people of Macedonia. The Bishop of Worcester held a service in Birmingham at which he prayed for the Macedonian Christians to be spared. The Archbishop of Canterbury approached the Prime Minister, Mr. Balfour, in the name of the Anglican Church asking him to send aid to Macedonia. The people of Europe have begun to collect money to help the stricken Macedonians. The German Emperor's travels have taken on a political significance, partly because of affairs in Macedonia. Turkey seems to be finding itself in a tight spot and has proposed to Bulgaria that they should reach an agreement on the Macedonian question. Many governments have made of official declarations concerning the position in Macedonia. Telegraph messages have been sent from Istanbul to many European newspapers (Standard) saying that the French and British fleets have received orders to remain close to Macedonian waters. The same sources also announce that War between Turkey and Bulgaria is unavoidable. News comes from Sofia that the Bulgarian Minister of Defense has agreed to let officers from several European and American states join the Bulgarian army. What do these facts tell us? Do they show that the Movement has: achieved its: end? Can the leaders of the Movement congratulate themselves on their success? Have not all the sacrifices for the liberation been in vain? 

Some people, perhaps the majority, will say that it is still too early to evaluate the results of the Uprising. The Revolutionary Committee and the rebel detachments have still to face their main task. So far not even half, not even quarter of the plan drawn up by the Committee and the General Staff has been carried out. Yes. There are always different points of view to every question. This case is no exception. 

I shall have absolutely no compunction in saying that I regard this present movement as a complete fiasco. What little has been achieved over and above the more progressive Austro-Russian reform projects is surely no justification for the hundred thousand people left homeless, the three to five thousand human casualties and the utter demoralization of the inhabitants of Macedonia - it would not even be a justification for the loss of a hundred lives. What has been gained might have been gained without a drop of blood being spilt. Judging by the results that will follow this Uprising one may say that it is one of the greatest, if not the greatest of all misfortunes to befall our people. It is not too early to foresee the outcome and the end of our Uprising. The consequences might have been foreseen even before it began. Even at the time of the Russian February Report it was clear that Europe would not completely satisfy the Revolutionary Committee's demands. These demands could not be satisfied without going to war against Turkey; only through pressure could the Turks be forced to meet our requirements. But neither the Bulgarians nor we could bring pressure to bear on Turkey; it would have to be either the Great Powers or a united force of Macedonians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins, with the other states remaining neutral. 

Under the conditions prevailing at that time, however, neither solution was possible. The Committee, I feel, should have known this. And it did. But the leaders thought differently; they saw, in the future, and in the present reality, only what it pleased them to see. &quot;We want no other country to fight for us,&quot; they said, &quot;they can only send their fleets to Salonica and press Turkey to grant us the reforms. We would like them to do with Macedonia what they did with Crete.&quot; More than once we have discussed the fact that there are differences between Crete and Macedonia, for there are countries that are interested in maintaining the status quo and will do everything to avoid intervening to our advantage. And even if there were to be intervention, are there any grounds for believing that this intervention would really be to our advantage and not to our disadvantage? It has been shown that the present moment is most inauspicious for an uprising; but our leaders closed their eyes to the truth and the uprising was launched. It was launched in glory only to end in tears and sorrow. I was not the only one who felt that the uprising had been started prematurely. Many others shared this opinion, but nobody spoke out against the uprising. The Committee's behavior was criticized in Macedonian circles. But this criticism was ineffectual and even dangerous, not only for those who were criticized but also for those who did the criticizing: the Committee was all-powerful, the life and death of all citizens lay in its hands and it would stand for no criticism of its actions. Those who were not for the Committee were against it; they were its enemies and they had to be destroyed. The Committee could be criticized only by another committee, which wielded some power. But it was already late to form a counter-committee, and pointless too, because this would simply give rise to a battle in which the committees would attempt to destroy each other. So the Uprising began, counter to all the dictates of reason. It did have results, but not those, which were expected. Of all the reactions to the liberation movement, that which is most worthy of attention is the Russian Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie (The Government Announcement) of 11 th of September, then the petition of the Austro-Hungarian delegate to the Grande Porte and to Sofia, and the letter from the English Prime Minister, Balfour, to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie declares that the Russian government demands reforms for Macedonia, that is, the reforms which were worked out in February by Zinoviev and Kaliche, and that these reforms are only an initial move and are subject to expansion accor-ding to the needs of the people. This was also the position expressed in the February Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie, but does it not indicate that we could gain wider reforms than those we have already been given, and that we could gain them through short sharp popular movements, without any revolution? If this is the case, then the present uprising has not changed 

But there is another extremely important statement in the Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie: the revolutionary committees; according to a statement made by the Russian government, want to create a Bulgarian Macedonia, but Russia, who is closely concerned, with the interests of the other Christian nationalities in Macedonia, does not wish to sacrifice their interests to the Bulgarians. 

Has the meaning of these words been understood in Bulgaria? Or in Macedonia? Have we, too, finally understood? Russia openly tells us what she is doing, because she could not behave differently. Is Russia right in the claims she makes? Could she take a different approach? If we were to put ourselves in the position of the Russian government, we would not be able to take a different approach either. 

Up to 1878 everybody, including the Russian government, claimed that the Macedonians were Bulgarians. After the Berlin Treaty the Serbs began to lay claim to Macedonia. Over the last twenty-five years; and particularly during the last twenty, the Serbs have succeeded, if not in turning the Macedonians into Serbs, at least in convincing Europe that there are Serbs in Macedonia. Although the villagers may still speak as they did in the past - for all over Macedonia only one Slav language was used - in the towns Serbian schools can be found alongside the Bulgarian boys' and girls' elementary and grammar schools. Some villages have Serbian schools and some have Bulgarian schools. Some villagers, along with their teachers and priests, recognize the Patriarchate and come under the protection of the Serbian or Greek consul, while others recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate and place themselves under the authority of the Bulgarian trade representatives. 

These are all facts for diplomats who should be reckoning with reality and not with theories concerning the nationality of the Macedonians. Politics has nothing to do with science, and even if it had, could one claim that it had been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the Macedonians are Bulgarians? Up to the time of the Russo-Turkish War there existed only one theory concerning our nationality. Now there are two. And a third is making its way in: that the Macedonians are something in between Serbs and Bulgarians. The supporters of this theory, however, are divided into: 

1. those who claim that the Macedonians are far away from both the Serbs and the Bulgarians; 

2. those who claim that they are closer to the Serbs; 

3. those who claim they are closer to the Bulgarians (because one part is closer to the Serbs and the other to the Bulgarians). It is of no importance to the diplomats where the truth lies. 

What matters is that the Serbs have an ethnographic interest equal to that of the Bulgarians and the Greeks in the Macedonian question. Furthermore, Serbia is by no means less interested politically than they are in the fate of Macedonia. In fact, this is of even greater importance for Serbia than it is for Bulgaria, because Bulgaria also has an outlet to the Aegean Sea through Kavala and Dede-Agach. 

If this is so, can we really be surprised at the attitude of the Russian government concerning the Macedonian question or its declaration that Russia would not help the Committee if it meant the creation of a Bulgarian Macedonia? Some of us may naпvely remark that: &quot;the Committee does not want to make Macedonia Bulgarian; it seeks justice for all Macedonians, regardless of faith or nationality.&quot; 

How could the Committee prove that this is what it is working for? This cannot be proved by words alone. The very behavior of the Committee itself contradicts these assertions. If a revolution is to be started in the interests of all the nationalities living in Macedonia, then the Committee must be formed from the representatives of all the nationalities living in Macedonia. One cannot help asking who gave the Committee the right to act in the name of all Macedonians and on their behalf? 

The Committee could have worked both in the name of and on behalf of a large section of the Macedonians, i.e. the most powerful nationalities. But much proof would be needed to show that the Committee's work is not bound up with the interests of the neighboring states and nationalities, that it is, in fact, opposed to these interests, and that its work is of benefit not only to the ruling nationalities but also to all the others. No such proof exists. The Organization has close links with Bulgaria. It was in Bulgaria that the movement of the Organization first made itself heard. This showed who was most interested in the Macedonian movement and this was why they shifted its center to Macedonia, making a number of other moves to show that the misunderstandings were internal and that they were the outcome of a self-generative phenomenon. But who was deceived by this maneuver? Is it not perfectly clear that the misunderstanding was in fact closely bound up with Bulgaria, with Bulgaria's name and Bulgaria's money? 

Most of those, you may say, who sacrificed themselves for the liberation movement belonged to the people. This is true, but one should not forget that most of the organizers of the movement were officials of the Exarchate. It is self-evident, then, that by taking part in the work of the revolution they were acting at variance with the interests of the Exarchate; yet for all this they were still Bulgarian officials. Thus the Revolutionary Committee was, both by origin and by constitution, a purely Macedonian organization; in its work, however, it represented only a part of one of the nationalities in Macedonia, linked in name, and in church and school matters, to the people of Bulgaria, their country and their interests. Although this Committee was essentially Macedonian, for the outer world and for the Macedonian Christians who did not belong to the Exarchate, it was a Bulgarian Committee. The Committee could not prove to the outer world, or even to the Macedonians who did not belong to the Exarchate, that it was not Bulgarian. Through his Mouvement Macйdonien* Radev hoped to convince Europe that the movement was purely Macedonian and that it had nothing in common with Bulgaria. Pravo and other Macedonian and Bulgarian papers wished o prove the same point. But did they achieve their aim? No. The late Rostkovski** often said: &quot;The Bulgarians think they are the only people in the world with brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do they hope to deceive with their articles in Pravo and other papers saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians? 

We know very well what they want!&quot; And what sort of effect was made on the diplomatic world by the announcements made in the newspapers by the Committee and the Bulgarians concerning the Macedonian question! It should also not be forgotten that the European newspapers, when writing of the clashes between the rebel detachments and the Turks, referred to the detachments as &quot;bands&quot;, Bulgarian bands what's more, and not Macedonian. And when speaking of the rebel losses they did not say &quot;so many Macedonians were killed&quot; but &quot;so many Bulgarians.&quot; 

One asks, then, who was persuaded by papers such as the Mouvement Macйdonien, Pravo and Avtonomija that it was the Macedonians who were fighting for freedom and not those who were called Bulgarians and originated from Macedonia or Bulgaria? Nobody. The Committee did perhaps succeed within Macedonia in being accepted as Macedonian, but in Europe it did not gain this recognition, or only to a very small extent. The Revolution should be the concern of all. Macedonians, or at least most of them, if it is to be called a general revolution. All the nationalities - or several of them at least - should be represented in the Committee itself. The intelligentsia of these nationalities should offer one another a helping hand and do their best to popularize the idea of the revolution in their region. But what actually happened? Not only were the intelligentsia of all the nationalities, or the greater part of them, not represented on the Committee, not even the intelligentsia of the most powerful Macedonian nationality - the Slavs - were fully represented, for the Serbophile and Hellenophile Macedonian Slav intelligentsia were left out of the Committee, and their attitude was hostile. So, in the towns and villages attached to the Patriarchate, or in certain parts of the towns and villages, the Committee was an uninvited guest. The Patriarchate Slavs could have felt sympathetic towards it, but, since their intelligentsia were opposed to the Committee, the villagers themselves undoubtedly felt very little sympathy, and what sympathy they did feel was mixed up with a lack of conviction in the promises of the Committee. This ill-defined feeling was accompanied by a sense of fear. 

The villagers were caught between two fires: the army, and the rebel detachments. When a movement is spread by conviction in one place and by force in another, can it be called a general movement? We can call the Uprising whatever we like, but in fact it was only a partial movement. It was, and still is, an affair of the Exarchists: that is, a Bulgarian ploy to settle the Macedonian question to its own advantage by creating a Bulgarian Macedonia. Perhaps it is still not clear whether Macedonia will really become Bulgarian if the Committee has its way? I shall try to explain more clearly how the reforms might lead to the Bulgarization of Macedonia. 

If one asks which will be the official language, the answer is - the language of the majority. Which majority? That remains to be seen. 

The question goes no further. Nobody asks how this majority will be discovered. Let us assume for the moment that somewhere around the time of St. Demetrius' Day an international brigade comes and occupies the land. Amongst other things, this division must also settle the question of the official language; but let us leave aside the question of the official language and ask what will happen to language in the schools. 

For some people this is a very easy question: several official languages will be recognized, i.e. Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Romanian and Albanian, depending on the nationality of the population in the various regions. They will also mention what happened in Eastern Rumelia (South Bulgaria), where one can also find Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Turks, Vlachs and Albanians. Some will also mention that Eastern Rumelia was also described as a region where Greeks lived, but after the liberation it became clear how many Greeks there really were. In other words, place the government in the hands of the Macedonians - and this is understood to mean give it to those who are called Bulgarians - and after a few years you will see that there will be no more left of the other nationalities in Macedonia than remained of the Greeks in Eastern Rumelia after it was liberated. So, all of Macedonia will become Bulgarian. 

Is it not, then, clear that Bulgaria and the Revolutionary Committee want to create a Bulgarian Macedonia to the detriment of the other Christian nationalities of Macedonia? But why should Macedonia become Bulgarian and not Serbian? It will become Bulgarian because that is the way it is; if there were more Serbs in Macedonia it would become Serbian and the Bulgarian element would grow weaker. This is all very straightforward and correct from the Bulgarian point of view. But it should not be forgotten that there are many other attitudes to the Macedonian question, such as those of the Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs, Russians, Slovenes and Austrians, and many of the countries in Western Europe. If this is the case, which section of the population should be accepted by our theoretical occupying force? 

No doubt this international brigade will have no difficulty in settling the question of the language to be used in schools, in local administration and in those places where there are Greek-speaking Patriarchists, Albanian Muslims and Catholics, and Turkish Muslims. It will be more difficult, however, to settle the question in areas where there are 

1. Orthodox Albanians, 

2. Orthodox Vlachs, 

3. Orthodox Slavs, 

4. Slav Muslims and 

5. Exarchate Slavs. 

In their efforts to have greater importance given to the Slav language in Macedonia, the Slavs would request the international brigade to ensure that their language was also accepted as the official language in areas occupied by Slav Muslims; but the Slav Muslims themselves, on account of their religious loyalties, might well demand Turkish as their official language. Which of the two will be given preference? If the international brigade is to act correctly, without giving due consideration to religious needs, it will be resorting to repression. It will come across the same difficulty in an even more complex form when attempting to settle the question of which language should be officially recognized in the schools and in the social administration of the Orthodox regions. The Vlach authorities will demand Vlach, and the Patriarchate will demand Greek for its parishioners. If the requirements of the Vlachs are not met, the decision will be irregular and unjust; on the other hand, if the Vlach administration gets its way against the will of the parishioners, this would again be repression. 

The Patriarchate will also ask for Greek as the language for the Orthodox Albanians - the Tosks. National awareness has not yet developed amongst the Tosks, and this would enable the Patriarchate to succeed. But the other Macedonian nationalities, including the remainder of the Albanians, would not be satisfied with the introduction of Greek. There can be no doubt that the occupying forces would not have an easy time finding their way out of this situation. 

The most troublesome question, however, is that of the official language and the school language in the Slav parts of Macedonia. Some are Orthodox by faith, others come under the Exarchate, to say nothing of those who are Catholic or Muslim. The Turks consider the orthodox patriarchists to be Greek - urummillet - while the Serbs and Bulgarians consider them Serbian and Bulgarian. Those belonging to the Exarchate are considered both by themselves and by the Turks to be Bulgarians, while the Serbs look on them as Serbians. And so in most of Macedonia where Slavs are settled the Patriarchate will establish Greek as the language used in the schools and administration. In these endeavors the Patriarchate will come up against resistance from the Serbs and Bulgarians. But in opposing the use of Greek in Slav areas the Serbs and Bulgarians will find themselves disagreeing as to where Bulgarian should be used and where Serbian. 

Does the Committee consider - if it wishes to ignore, the question of language in the various fanatical forms it has assumed in the at least temporarily autonomous state of Macedonia - that the other Balkan nations with interests in Macedonia, especially the Serbs, are also ignoring this question? Does the Committee consider that the Serbs believe that if it is a question of Macedonia for the Macedonians, and if one is to ignore the question of the language of the Macedonian Slavs, this question can be simply and justly settled through the acquisition of autonomous rights? If the Committee thinks so, it is mistaken. 

If the autonomy of Macedonia should result from the present Uprising, the Macedonian question will be settled not to the advantage of the Macedonians but of the Bulgarians, for the Committee, as we have seen earlier, is working behind a Bulgarian front. Those Macedonians who were educated in Bulgaria have taken over the task of liberating the country and thus far they have played, one may say, not only the main part but also the only part. If their work should be crowned with success they - together with the interests of Bulgaria - will stand above all other interests in Macedonia. If the Uprising should fail it is not clear whether the Bulgarians should be thanked for this, or those people against whom the Serbs are now competing with their own money and propaganda, losing all influence with their clients, who are receiving Bulgarian money and Bulgarian propaganda. Have the Serbs ever really asked themselves if the uprising were to succeed, what language a judge in Tetovo, for instance, would be expected to speak? Does it not occur to them that this autonomous government which is &quot;in the majority&quot; will speak Bulgarian? And so too will the local inhabitants, for it is the Bulgarians and not the Serbs who are the heroes in their eyes. Thus the question of the language to be used in town and village schools will also be settled in favor of the Bulgarians. And since there will be no opportunity for propaganda in an autonomous Macedonia, the Serbs will have to give way in this matter to the Bulgarians. But will the Serbs agree to this? They might agree if the dialect spoken in Tetovo were closer to the Bulgarian literary language; but they know it is not. They know that the Tetovo dialect does have something in common with Bulgarian, but it also has something in common with Serbian; and there are also dialects which have nothing in common with either Serbian or Bulgarian and which are peculiar to Macedonia. One must then ask whether the Serbs would permit - and whether they could permit - an essentially Bulgarian form of language to develop in Tetovo instead of Macedonian or Serbian, and, together with the language, Bulgarian interests instead of Macedonian or Serbian. Have they then the right to protest against the Bulgarization of Tetovo and the surrounding district, to seek protection for their interests against the aspirations of the Bulgarians? Does Russia, in this case, have the moral right to protect Serbian and Bulgarian interests alike? 

From all this it can be seen that the problem of language, particularly in regions with Slav populations, is one of the most important matters to be solved in settling the Macedonian question. If there had been national and religious unity amongst the Slavs in Macedonia, and if the people themselves had been aware of this unity, the Macedonian question would already be half settled. But as long as the Macedonians continue to be divided, some declaring themselves orthodox and others looking to the Exarchate, some claiming to be Bulgarians and others Serbs or Greeks, and all seeking the protection of various Balkan states, thus giving foreign countries the right to interfere in Macedonian matters - as long as this goes on there can be no question of a general, uprising. The uprising will remain a partial movement, Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek in character, but never Macedonian. 

This is clear to everyone except to us, the Macedonians, and to the leaders of the present Uprising. These leaders are doing everything they can to put their own interpretation on the motives for the Uprising, and on the Uprising itself; but the point is that not only we, but many others as well, have sense enough to see and understand where the truth really lies. The Committee is angry because the consuls do not explain things in their true light. But if they were to do so, it would not please the Committee. In other words, the Committee wants the European authorities to see the Macedonian situation with Macedonian eyes, i.e. with the eyes of the Committee; but if this were all that was needed, the European powers would not have to send their own agents to Macedonia. 

Besides, if we had the moral right to require the representatives of the European states in Macedonia to provide their governments and the European public with an accurate and unbiased account of the situation in Macedonia, it would then be our moral duty to let ourselves be presented to our own country in the light of European interests, and particularly in the light of the interests of the Balkan states. 

We should have known that the Kara-Vlachs (Romanians), the Serbs, and Greeks would be against the uprising. The Kara-Vlachs cannot look indifferently at the efforts of Bulgaria to give Macedonia an autonomous government. 

Autonomy is regarded as a transition phase in the process of joining Macedonia to Bulgaria. Kara-Wallachia cannot afford to let a powerful Bulgaria establish itself along its borders and thus run the risk of later losing Dobrudzha! And even if there were a pure Bulgarian population in Macedonia, these political considerations would stand in the way of unification between the Turkish Bulgarians and the Bulgarian Bulgarians because Kara- Wallachia would not allow the territorial unity of Turkey to be destroyed to her detriment. And Kara-Wallachia is part of the triple league formed to protect the interests of Kara- allachia on the Balkan Peninsula. 

The interests of Greece in Macedonia are even greater. Despite the fact that there are not many Greeks in Macedonia, Greece is no less interested for her own sake in our affairs than the other Balkan states. Every state, even if it is unable to make new political, economic and cultural inroads into Macedonia, strives at least to preserve those, which have already been made. Using the influence of their Patriarchate in Constantinople, the Greeks have imposed their language on schools and churches in many parts of Macedonia where there are no Greeks to be found. It is natural for the Greeks to make use of all the resources of diplomacy to maintain the position they held in Macedonia during the Middle Ages, especially from the time of the Turkish conquest of Macedonia, and to defend Greek interests in Macedonia not only from Greece itself but also from the great powers, because they do not want the Slav element to gain power. But of all these states it is Serbia who is most interested in Macedonian matters, for she has come up with ethnographic and historical claims to Macedonia. Furthermore, Serbia also has political interests in Macedonia, for she will never allow the Macedonian question to be settled to the advantage of any of the other Balkan states, above all Bulgaria. Serbia would never countenance autonomy for Macedonia if this were to lead to an attachment between Bulgaria and Macedonia. Serbia would never countenance the expansion of Bulgaria through the appropriation of Macedonia, not only because this would upset the balance in the Balkans but also because this realignment would result in Serbia being squeezed in between two more powerful states - the Austro-Hungarian and the Bulgarian - by which she would be politically and economically stifled, so that she would have to give way to one side or the other. The state interests of Serbia, therefore, would never countenance the formation of a Bulgarian Macedonia. There can be no longer any doubt that Serbian interests, like those of Kara-Wallachia and Greece, are protected somewhere. 

Consequently, the small Balkan states, although they ostensibly play no part in settling the Macedonian question, and seem to be simply in the hands of the great powers, are actually of great importance. 

The great states would lead us to believe that they have no direct interest in Macedonia and that they are concerned only to see that justice is done. But, as we have said, this justice is differently regarded by the Greeks, Serbs, Vlachs and Bulgarians, and so the great states, as protectors of the smaller states, turn out to be representing their own kind of justice. This is why one cannot hope for a consolidated effort to: settle the Macedonian question; a united front is possible only in the smallest reforms. 

If this is the case, in whom did we place our hopes when we launched the Uprising? Russia? But Russia washed her hands of the whole affair several times before the bloodshed started. Instead of inveighing against the Russian representatives I. A. Zinoviev, A. A. Rostkovski and Mashkov, we would have done better to reflect a little on Russian policy on the Balkan Peninsula. Russia is a Slav state, an Orthodox state. She liberated Serbia and Bulgaria; she helped Kara-Wallachia, Greece and Montenegro to win their freedom. She has always been the protector of Orthodoxy and of the Slavs. What then could Russia do for us when so many Slav and Orthodox peoples are involved in Macedonian matters? Could she, for the sake of the Bulgarians, support the other independent Balkan Orthodox states whose independence has been won with Russian blood and Russian money, only to have these states turn from her to some other (West European) states whom they would serve as weapons against Russia? Can Russia pursue a policy, which would drive the Balkan Orthodox states away from her? And what would she stand to gain by this loss? The gratitude of Bulgaria perhaps! But Bulgarian gratitude would merely be a shooting star: later the Bulgarians would say that Russia had been planning to take over the Balkan Peninsula and that the salvation of the Balkans now lay in the hands of the English. And so the Bulgarians, instead of being in league with &quot;the great liberator&quot;, would hasten to join the English or some other enemy of Russia and the Slavs. Thus, in the modern formulation of the Macedonian question, we expected Russia rashly to sacrifice her interests in the Far East for our sake and at the same time suffer a defeat in the Near East. Yes, but it did not turn out as we thought. 

Thus the reason why the Uprising failed is perfectly clear: from the very outset it was established on the wrong basis instead of being a general Macedonian Uprising it was a partial insurrection with Bulgarian overtones. The only Macedonian Slavs who played a leading part in the Uprising were those who called themselves Bulgarians. The intelligentsia, not only of the other Macedonian nationalities but also of the Macedonian Slavs themselves, did not figure among the leaders of the Revolutionary Committee. The Committee, as a secret organization, feared to accept on an equal basis members belonging to the other nationalities, including Slav Serbophiles or Hellenophiles, or even those who merely had a Serbian or Greek education, for they were frightened that their secret might leak through to the other Balkan states. The organization was, and still is, veiled by secrecy, and consequently the lower-ranking members were mere pawns, serving only to attend to those matters dictated by the interests and opinions of the high-ranking members. These opinions were the prerogative of only a few - those who might be described as usurpers, who pushed their way in, and those who were Macedonians that had accidentally found their way to the top. These people took the fate of Macedonia into their own hands and their actions could not be subject to criticism. If anyone was foolhardy enough to criticize these leaders he would soon find himself expelled from the Organization. And this Organization was described as ideal! I am well aware that not all members can be let into all the affairs of the Organization, but if limits must exist they should be within the bounds of reason. All the intellectual power of Macedonia ought to be concentrated in the Organization; there should be people capable of taking a wider view of the Macedonian question and of directly and impartially assessing the results of each move made by the Committee. 

Is anything like this to be found in the Committee? Who are the Organization's main representatives in Bulgaria? Tatarchev and Matov. They may both be men who are great patriots and who thoroughly understand the situation in Macedonia, but they are supporters of extreme measures and have no regard for the political situation. Furthermore, as shall be seen, they consider that as far as the nationality of the Macedonian Slavs is concerned there can be only one correct attitude - that they are Bulgarian; and perhaps they consider the question of the nationality of the Macedonians to be a matter of secondary importance which will be cleared up after the liberation of Macedonia. But in future they should look to reality and not to their own concerns. 

And all the other leaders, such as Radev, Stanichev, Karayanov and others, belong to the same category. They thought it would be enough merely to intimate that Macedonia would belong to the Macedonians. 

The Committee can boast more moderate leaders, but they too see the salvation of Macedonia only in spiritual attachment and submission to the Bulgarians in Macedonia. 

The Committee can also boast people who wanted the Macedonians to be spiritually separated from the Bulgarians, but these people confined themselves merely to publishing a few books in Macedonian or to speaking Macedonian at home or with their fellow-countrymen. 

Thus, the main reason why the Uprising failed was that it took on a Bulgarian bias. If this is so, what can the Macedonian intelligentsia be asked to do in order to relieve the plight of their countrymen following this recent misadventure? 

The first requirement is that the intelligentsia should know their own needs and those of the people. At the meetings in Sofia and other cities it happened more than once that resolutions were accepted in which the needs of the Macedonians were put forward. But these resolutions were accepted in Bulgaria, through the influence of Bulgarian society and of the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria. At these meetings representation was not given to all the Slav peoples and to their Intelligentsia; as a result the resolutions were one-sided and incomplete. 

For the present, at least, what the Macedonian people most need is not so much the official voice of the majority, a governor-general belonging to the largest nationality, or freedom of the press, but a means of bringing to an end, of paralyzing the enmity between the adherents of the various religious and national propaganda factions. Efforts must be made to overcome the present distrust in Macedonian intellectuals educated in the various Balkan states to serve as mouthpieces for nationalist and religious propaganda in Macedonia; official recognition must be won for the Macedonian people; in all official documents and certificates the designation Macedonian must be introduced for all persons of Slav origin in Macedonia; it is also necessary for the land to be shared out as it was to the peasants during the abolition of serfdom in Russia, Galicia and other countries. Here numerous other reforms are required, including those drawn up by the Russian and Austro-Hungarian delegates in Istanbul and accepted by His Imperial Excellency the Sultan. 

From now on the task of the Macedonian intelligentsia should be to ensure that for everyone - the Macedonians themselves, the Turks, the Balkan states and the great powers - the interests of the Macedonians are kept apart from those of the other Balkan states and peoples, and that close attention is paid to all questions concerning the liberation of our people and our land from its present state of great poverty, and the regeneration of our people in a spiritual and material sense. 

This is an extremely difficult task and it demands greatly united efforts. Hence, the examination and fulfillment of this task calls for the participation of all Macedonian Slavs, regardless of religious or national differences. The Macedonian intelligentsia, therefore, should stop treating one another with distrust; they should try to free themselves from propaganda and be constantly on their guard against the intelligentsia and society behind this propaganda. From time to time in the free Balkan states, regardless of propaganda, the Macedonian intelligentsia should organize meetings at which the questions of the spiritual and national regeneration of the Macedonians would be discussed and settled. Even when not engaged on official work, the Macedonian intellectuals should always speak to one another in the central Macedonian dialect (that of Veles, Prilep, Bitola and Ohrid) and this language should be introduced as a compulsory subject in all religious and national teaching, even in the Turkish schools. The central Macedonian dialect should become the literary language of Macedonia. 

If the religious and national propagandists do not wish to introduce our language into their schools - naturally, in those places where there are Slavs - and if they forbid their teachers and priests to keep company with the Macedonian intelligentsia and that of other nationalities, then the Macedonian intelligentsia and the Macedonian people should find a way of condemning this propaganda. And if these propagandists are trying to undermine their enemies, the intelligentsia should show the people what unworthy means they resort to and call on the people to defend their own vital interests. If the popular protest concerning religious and scholastic matters, in which the districts ought to be recognized as being free from propaganda interests, turns out to be a revolt with a bias against the state and if state measures are sought against the rebels, then the people and the intelligentsia should turn to the consuls as responsible arbiters. 

If, however, some or all of these propagandists persist in opposing our requirements and endeavors by using only their own language in the schools and churches, then strong and sweeping measures should be taken against all forms of religious and nationalistic pro- agenda in Macedonia. 

Freedom of conscience is recognized everywhere; in Macedonia, too, it is and will be recognized. The exploitation of this freedom has been checked everywhere, and it should therefore be checked in our midst as well. The Jesuits have been driven out of practically all European countries for exploiting the national conscience. In France, because of malpractice, the religious orders have been restricted in their activities in the schools. What has been happening all over Europe could also happen here in Macedonia. 

Everyone has the right to profess the Muslim religion or Christianity in one of its three basic forms - Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. All people have an inalienable right to their religious needs and convictions, but religion should never be permitted to become a platform for political and national propaganda, as it is at present in Macedonia. 

If we consider the present state of religious propaganda in Macedonia we will be struck by the fact that in most cases it serves as a means towards national and political ends. Protestantism and Catholicism in Macedonia have religious aims only because those who propagate these faiths behave with great respect towards even the most insignificant aspects of the various ways of life of the Macedonian nationalities. And so nobody has the right to complain about their activities. 

Unfortunately, however, the Orthodox religion - the oldest, the most widespread, the basic faith of all the nationalities of Macedonia - has completely lost sight of its main aim, which is to encourage brotherhood amongst the different nationalities and to ennoble the hearts of the believers. And instead of pursuing these noble aims the Orthodox religion has simply spread discord and envy. It has now become the chief weapon of those who wish to spread purely nationalist and political propaganda. The Orthodox faith in Macedonia has now become so compromised that one can no longer speak of a true Orthodox church, for there are now three churches, and they are not Orthodox but Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian. Why must this be so? Should not the Church be One, Holy, Episcopal and Apostolic? Yes. The Church should indeed be One and Holy, and not Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian. In Macedonia the Church has been deflected from its main aim, and so the intelligentsia and the common folk of Macedonia have every right to use all powers available to them to purge the Church of her purely nationalist aims and replace them with those which were laid down by the Holy Founder so that the gospel might be preached in all tongues, i.e. all nationalities would come to the faith through their own language. 

If the propounds of religious propaganda try to disrupt the unity of the Macedonian people and the intelligentsia they will come to see that this is impossible and that the only choice left to them is to form One Holy Apostolic Church in Macedonia, i.e. to form an Archbishopric in Ohrid which would be the &quot;Archbishopric of all Macedonia&quot;. 

If those who spread religious propaganda have anything against the unity of the Macedonian people and the intelligentsia then it can only be for nationalist motives. In this case it would be natural for these church reforms to be extended to school reforms as well, i.e. the Archbishopric would also take over school affairs, giving due consideration to the nationality of the congregation in each region; thus in the Greek parishes the official language both at school and in church would be Greek, in the Vlach parishes - Romanian, and in the Slav parishes - Slavonic. 

This would lead, then, to the gradual disappearance of all the nationalist and religious propaganda, which has split the people into so many groups, all hostile to one another; and peace would follow, peace for the people, for Macedonia, for Turkey and for Europe. 

And, indeed, could there be anything better for bringing the Macedonian crisis to an end? It would certainly be the best thing for the people, for they would no longer be plagued by intriguers of various nationalities, they would be liberated from the various measures which interfere with their everyday work, and the unfounded enmity between the various nationalities would be ended by the Church. 

This outcome would also be best for Turkey. Turkish diplomats are gravely mistaken if they believe they can keep Turkey in Europe by continuing to stand by the policy of divide et impera. As long as there exists a basis for nationalist propaganda in Macedonia, and as long as no attempt is made to ensure that other states do not exert a greater influence in Macedonia than Turkey, it is inevitable that Turkey will lose Macedonia and gain nothing from the country. As long as this state of affairs continues to exist, Turkey must live in constant fear of losing Macedonia. If, however, it is officially acknowledged that there are not several Slav nationalities in Macedonia but only one, which is neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, and if Macedonia secedes as an independent Bishopric, Turkey will be immediately freed from interference in Macedonian affairs by the three neighboring states. 

Our national interests dictate that the Macedonian people and the Macedonian intelligentsia should assist Turkey to make her way out of the difficult situation into which she has been drawn by religious and nationalist propaganda in Macedonia and by the countries behind this propaganda. We do not need to be joined to Bulgaria, or to Serbia or to Greece. The integral unity of Turkey is far more important to us than it is to Russia and Europe. Turkey is a country occupying an excellent geographical position. Since we Macedonians are Turkish subjects and interested in maintaining the unity of Turkey, we too have the right to enjoy our citizenship throughout Turkey. And this right could be of great material advantage to us. It is clear, then, why the Macedonian intelligentsia, if they closely examine their own interests, should for their own sake and for the sake of their people devote all their moral strength to the prime task of maintaining the unity of Turkey. In exchange for this support we shall be granted by our bounteous ruler the right and honor of full autonomy in church and school affairs and full equality before the law in the local self-government of Macedonia. This self-government can in no way endanger the unity of Turkey; on the contrary, it will help to regularize the relations between the peoples of Macedonia once and for all. 

Thus the people of Macedonia and the intelligentsia must strive towards national unification of the Macedonian Slavs as a whole, and towards unification of the interests of all Macedonian peoples. Nationalist and religious enmity should remain as no more than a regrettable memory. There must be solidarity between the peoples of Macedonia in their endeavor to preserve the unity of Turkey. In exchange for this Turkey will treat all the Macedonian nationalities justly before the law and in local administration, and will protect and encourage their national development. 

If the Macedonians were to pursue such a peaceful policy they would gain the support and approval of the great powers, who have an interest in preserving the unity of Turkey. The great powers will assist Turkey to absolve itself from all the injustices inflicted on the nationalities of Macedonia through religious and nationalist propaganda, thus ensuring the independent life and development of the nationalities. The small Balkan states, ho have a personal interest in supporting this propaganda, will at first be angry with the Sultan's Imperial Government for bringing to an end their century old privileges, but in the course of time they too will come to accept the abolition of propaganda because it will in fact be to their own advantage: they will stop pouring millions of francs every year into Macedonia, an expense which never has been and never will be of benefit to them. These millions were not entirely without effect, for they helped to maintain the enmity among the Balkan states at a time when, on account of their closeness and the similarity of their interests, they should have been helping one another in their common economic development. 

A short while ago, when speaking of the failure of the uprising, I attributed this lack of success to the lack of coherence in the movement. What I said, in fact, was that if an uprising is launched in the name of and on behalf of the Macedonians, it should be authorized and supported by all the nationalities in the Organization. 

Now that I am speaking of the need to put an end to propaganda in Macedonia and to reconcile and unite the Macedonian intelligentsia and the Macedonian nationalities, it may be thought that this unification will enable us to launch a general uprising, which would be more successful. But anyone who came to this conclusion would be mistaken. 

Only a short while ago I said that we are interested in preserving the unity of Turkey. And, indeed, what advantage would we gain by being joined to Greece, Bulgaria or Serbia? These states are more cultured than we are, and therefore only they would benefit if Macedonia were joined to them. But in the final count it is impossible for all of Macedonia to be joined to one of the Balkan states because the other states would intervene. It would be possible for Macedonia to be partitioned among the smaller states or to be occupied by Austria. But could there be any greater misfortune for Macedonia than to be partitioned or occupied? 

The small Balkan states would without the least ceremony move into the conquered parts of Macedonia, exploit them for their own use and turn the Macedonians into beggars once they had begun to lose their national identity and this would be the first thing to happen. 

One may easily conjecture what the fate of Macedonia would be under Austro-Hungarian rule: the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina has clearly shown that, after ten years of Austrian occupation, the Macedonians, regardless of their faith or nationality, would be forced to quit their homes and emigrate. And even if Macedonia were to become attached to one of the Balkan states - which, like partition and occupation, would never happen - the process would not take place without an internal revolution. And is there any point in these revolutions when His Imperial Excellency the Sultan has guaranteed the continuance of our national and religious existence and assured us that we will be equal with the Turks before the law and in our local self-government? 

But there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the Imperial government is well intentioned towards the different nationalities of Macedonia. History enables all nations to see the mistakes they have made and to avoid repeating them. The present uprising has been most instructive both for us and for the Turks. The Turks, I feel, must learn from it: nobody can doubt, not even the Turks, that Turkey will no longer be able to keep Macedonia if it continues to pursue the same policy towards us as it has hitherto been pursuing. Turkey cannot retain her provinces without the aid of the local inhabitants. The army alone is not enough, nor even is the satisfaction of the majority of the inhabitants. The Turkish government will be able to maintain its position in Macedonia only if all elements of the population are included in it and consider their welfare and security to be possible only under the Turks. It is the local population, which should provide the main source of support for Turkish interests in Macedonia. And Turkey will win the support of the majority only if it is prepared to ensure the introduction of real reforms in Macedonia and to bring in people capable of looking after the national and religious interests of the subjects, and of protecting their civil rights and economic existence. If Turkey does not look after the needs of its subjects and continues to shirk her duties in implementing reform, she will be the one to suffer most: 1. she will be driven by force to carry out the reforms, 2. if the people are still deprived of their national, religious and economic rights, even after some of the reforms have been introduced, the enemies of Turkey will use this as an excuse to prove that she has devious interests in Macedonia. 

The first task of the Macedonian intelligentsia, then, will be to clear away the mistrust that exists between the intellectuals and the various national and religious groups and to unite the intelligentsia both within Macedonia and abroad, to assess the general interests of the Macedonians by getting down to grass roots, to dispel national and religious hatred, to educate the Macedonian Slavs in the pure Macedonian national spirit, to make determined efforts to see that the Macedonian language is widely taught and to maintain contact with schools in the towns with a Slav population as well as to teach the language in village schools attended by Slavs. In the Slav villages they should ensure that church services are held in Macedonian. If these efforts meet with resistance from any of the foreign propagandists they should call upon the Turkish government and the Great Powers to remove these demoralizing forces from Macedonia and to set up an Archbishopric in Ohrid which would be responsible for the church schooling of Christians of all nationalities in Macedonia. 

Our second task is to persuade our brothers who are fighting in Macedonia to lay down their arms so as to make it possible for Russia and the other powers to take all the measures they can to ensure that all our religious, national and economic interests are satisfied. 

I am well aware of the disapproval with which many will greet my proposal. They may even describe it as treachery; there may even be some who will say that people who think like this should be removed from the face of the earth. 

Let them think, speak and act as they wish against me. My duty towards my people and my country has impelled me to give utterance to my thoughts. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing traitorous in what I have proposed: 1. because the opinions, not only of individuals such as myself, but also of all Macedonians from the field of battle and from Bulgaria, and the opinions, demands and proposals of the entire Bulgarian nation and of the Bulgarian government are not able to alter the attitude of the Great Powers and Russia with respect to the needs of the Macedonian people, 2. all further efforts would bring about hardly any change in the position taken by the foreign states in relation to the Macedonian question. The most that could be achieved would be an European conference, but this conference could not be convened before the spring, and even then it would be called only if the uprising became even stronger than it is at present. But is it possible to foresee what course the uprising will take? And even if we were to allow that the uprising might be stronger then than it is now, and that Europe would be consequently forced to call a conference, could anyone hazard the prediction that the decisions passed at this conference would be to our advantage? I doubt it. 

People in Europe have been entertaining a mistaken idea of the nationality of the Macedonians and this is why those who bear the full brunt of the present uprising will benefit least from the decisions passed at the conference. We would have to be blind not to see the obvious: all the measures taken at the conference would be for the benefit of the nationalities of Macedonia - but which are these nationalities? The Turks, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Vlachs and the Albanians? 

How would it be decided at this conference who was Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek? Where does the dividing line lie? And, finally, which of these peoples would be present at the conference? Who would provide the facts about the Macedonian nationalities and their needs? Is it not absolutely clear that we would have no representatives, that they would decide our fate without asking us what we want, and that instead they would turn to our neighbors, who have their own states and their own diplomats and who will derive every possible benefit from the blood we have shed?! 

No, brothers! There is no conference which could save us. We would do far better to trust in the states which are most genuinely interested in our affairs, particularly Orthodox Russia, which is well acquainted with our needs, and not place our faith only in ourselves and in conferences of one kind or another. If it were so simple and so worthwhile to hold conferences we would already find ourselves being treated differently, and instead of Europe leaving Russia and Austria to settle the Macedonian question, all the Great Powers of Europe would want to have an equal say in this matter. For what did the British Prime Minister write to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the policy of the Great Powers with regard to Macedonian matters: &quot;if all the Powers were to engage in settling the Macedonian question it would slow down rather than speed up the actual settlement. The best solution at present is to entrust the initiative and the main role to the great countries which have the strongest interest in and the best understanding of the needs of the Macedonians&quot;. - Yes, we ought to know that if the whole &quot;orchestra&quot; were to strike up one could only expect great disharmony, a discord which would partially engulf the Grande Porte (the Turkish Central Authority) but would be far less injurious than the concerted activity of the two most interested countries. Each country has a different way of looking at this question and this disharmony saves the Grande Porte from being fully submerged. Can we expect greater unanimity at the conference than has already been shown in the actions of the two interested countries? 

A conference today would be held under quite different conditions from those which prevailed at the time of the conferences before the last Russo-Turkish War. A conference now would be of advantage only to the small states which are attempting to establish and spread the rights of their peoples to the detriment of the Macedonians. If this is the case, and it cannot be otherwise, the conference would be nothing but a sheer waste of time! One thing is certain; there is no point in continued opposition. Do you know what those people think who are in favor of continued opposition? First, they hope that the Great Powers will be squeezed out; second, they hope that a conference will take place; and third, they say that if neither the one nor the other should happen, Turkey will still end up by being economically ruined through having to maintain so large an army for such a long time. It can be seen straight away that the first two hopes would not be to our advantage. Even less so the third. You ask why? 

Is Europe interested in preserving the Turkish Empire; and will it provide Turkey with the means to survive? But who will pay for this, who will provide the interest? - Macedonia, as usual. We may suppose that Turkey's economic disintegration will not affect us. But surely it is clear that if Turkey is economically weakened, we shall be weakened even more drastically? Surely we realize that as long as the rebel detachments continue their fighting, the Turkish soldiers will loot and pillage and cause every imaginable harm to the civilian population? The people will not be able to carry on with their work, and, worse still, they will be forced to feed both hungry Turkish soldiers and rebel detachments. The battle has taken on not so much a national as a religious character. And it is several times more devastating than ordinary war! There would, however, be some sense in this devastation if there were any hope of success. All our hopes lie in the possibility of Europe's joining in on our side. But it is clear that she will not do so. We think that Europe will take pity on the innocent civilian population and therefore be prompted to intervene in our affairs. But our calculations in fact do not afford the people of Europe the chance to rush to the help of the civilian population. The people of Europe say that they can do nothing, and that the Committee will regard all European moves as an intensification of their own agitation. This means that as long as the liberation movement continues we cannot expect real intervention on our behalf and as long as it continues the people will be forced to put up with the greatest and most senseless misfortune. 

This being the case, is there any sense in continuing to fight? In my opinion there is not. We do not have such great reserves of national power that we can afford to sacrifice our people to Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek interests, for our present struggle is of advantage only to others. And the strength of our people is needed for the cultural battle as well. Let us also consider the opposite side of the question and assume that the present struggle will force Europe to interfere in Turkey's affairs and drive Turkey to grant equality to the peoples of Macedonia. If this were to happen could we Macedonians (Slavs) consider the outcome a success? I think not. Equality would be given to all the nationalities, including the Turks, Greeks, etc. So, we should have shed our blood for the rights of the people of these nationalities, who, during the fighting, either took no part or else fought against us. Surely it is no small matter that we should have shed our blood for the interests of others, even our enemies? But our enemies from the free states would take advantage of the blood we had shed and the losses we had suffered to step up their religious and nationalist propaganda, thus splitting us into hostile opposition camps: Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians. 

After the fight in the field of battle comes the fight in the field of culture, but when this time comes, instead of reaping the rewards for the blood we have shed and at last being able to develop culturally, we will find ourselves then, just as we are now, serving the interests of the Serbs or the Greeks or the Bulgarians. 

As long as there exists this kind of national dividedness, together with utter economic powerlessness, nothing can be achieved by any conferences, reforms or attempts at intervention because everything will lead to the inevitable partition of Macedonia. All this, reinforced by the certainty that further successful opposition would be not only useless but also impossible, leads me to believe that it is our duty to urge the Macedonian intelligentsia who have some influence on the present liberation movement to take note of the gravity of the situation and as quickly as possible find ways and means of indicating our full faith in the Great Powers engaged on Macedonia's behalf, and, once we have promised these powers that the fighting will not continue, to turn to them for moral and material aid to help the stricken population. Further, our intelligentsia must ask for all the proposed reforms to be introduced, including those which will be needed in order to expand the program that has already been drawn up; they must also ask for the removal of all propaganda and for the establishment of an Archbishopric in Ohrid with autonomy in the church and in schooling, for amnesty for all emigrants and all rebel fighters, for recognition of the Slavs in Macedonia as a separate nationality Macedonians and for the introduction of the term Macedonian in all official documents, etc. 

Once the uprising has been finally stopped, Turkey and Macedonia will reestablish relations agreeable to both sides. It will then be seen how closely our interests are bound up with theirs, so that if the one is injured the other will suffer, and enmity between us will serve only to benefit a third party, most probably one of the small Balkan states. This is particularly clear if one considers the possible consequences of the uprising, consequences which to our good fortune and that of Turkey as well have not arisen. I refer to the possible partition of Macedonia among the small Balkan states. 

The uprising has been launched and has destroyed both us and the Turkish state. The damage it has caused both to Macedonia and to Turkey is enormous, but it is still less than it might have been. It was fortunate both for us and for Turkey that Serbia and Bulgaria had reached no agreement concerning the Macedonian question. No agreement was reached because Bulgaria wanted to appropriate the whole of Macedonia to itself, without the help of its neighbors or the great states. Bulgaria was mistaken in her expectations, which was fortunate both for us and for Turkey. Up to the present uprising Bulgaria had made no political attempts to settle the Macedonian question and this is why all schemes to come up with a solution foundered. Bulgaria had not previously realized that the solution to the Macedonian question could not come exclusively from Sofia but that it would have to come from Belgrade as well, i.e. through an agreement between Sofia and Belgrade. This agreement was looked upon as a change in the standing of the states, but now that the Bulgarian diplomats have been brought up against their own ineffectuality, despite immense efforts to solve the Macedonian question on their own, there will be many Bulgarian diplomats who will find themselves looking on this agreement as an unavoidable evil. If the present Bulgarian attempt had been made earlier a partition would have been arranged between the two spheres of influence in Macedonia, between Serbia and Bulgaria, then later, during the uprising, the Serbian and Bulgarian armies would have marched Into Macedonia. 

This, would have been the outcome of the uprising if the Bulgarian diplomats had been more pressing in their efforts. This time we were lucky enough to have our country saved from partition, and Turkey was spared from losing one of its finest provinces. The uprising prevented Macedonia from being partitioned, and this is one of its more worthwhile results. But partition was luckily avoided thanks really to the fact that our enemies happened to be inept and inexperienced. If Bulgaria wanted to threaten us even more seriously in the future, when our enemies were more experienced, she might enter into an agreement with Serbia concerning the partition of Macedonia between the spheres of influence. This agreement between the spheres of influence would unfailingly lead to the partition of Macedonia. This is why one of the prime duties of the Macedonian intelligentsia is once and for all to drive Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda out of Macedonia so that Macedonia can establish its own spiritual centre, and free the Macedonians from this give and take relation with the neighboring Balkan states and peoples. Hence the need to forestall the partition of Macedonia and retain it as a province of Turkey. The well known interests of the Turks and the Macedonians clearly dictate that they should not waste their strength in fighting against one another to the advantage of their common enemy, but rather extend a helping hand to one another in order to free themselves of all those who try to undermine their friendly relations and meddle with their common interests. 

Once the uprising has stopped Macedonia will turn to peaceful cultural work, and for this good relations will be necessary with all the nationalities living in Macedonia. Our intelligentsia has not yet been able to work out the most satisfactory relation between ourselves and the other nationalities of Macedonia. To some extent this has not depended on them. For instance, the relations of our people to the Turks and Muslims in general depend more on the Turks than on us: if the Muslims had regarded the Christians as people equal to themselves, the relations between Christians and Muslims would undoubtedly have been good; indeed, there might well have been no uprising. Unfortunately, not even at the last moment were the Muslims able to overcome their old prejudices and cease regarding the Christians, would undoubtedly have been good; indeed, there government and the Turkish intelligentsia will come to see how much harm these prejudices have caused, and make every effort to uproot them. This would help to put relations between Muslims and Christians on a better footing. 

Similarly, good relations between the Greeks and ourselves (the Macedonian Slavs) depend more on them than on us. If these relations are to be improved the Greeks should abandon their megalomania and acknowledge the right of the Macedonians to exist together with the Greeks in Macedonia. In particular the Patriarchate, as an ecumenical institution, should cease acting as an institution with a Greek character. It should be devoted to looking after the rights of all Christians and not to sacrificing the rights of some to the advantage of others. It is particularly necessary that the Patriarchate should look after the holy right of all members of its flock to enjoy their own national existence. In this way the conflicts between Greeks and Macedonians would be avoided because the Macedonians do not demand that those who speak Greek should use the old Macedonian language in church and modern Macedonian in the schools, for this is only required of those whose language is Macedonian. 

If, however, the Patriarchate persists in barring Macedonians from using their own language and forcing them to use Greek, it will end up by making the Macedonians regard the Patriarchate as a tool for Greek nationalist propaganda. If this happens, both the Greeks and the Patriarchate will be looked upon as the enemies of our people and it will become our holy duty to repel all Greek attacks on Macedonian Slavs. In this battle between Christians our responsibility must devolve on the Greeks and the Patriarchate because we would not in this case be attacking, but defending ourselves from the attacks of others. 

Our best relations are, and should be, with the Vlachs. Nowhere has there been any conflict between our interests and theirs. The majority of the Vlachs live in the towns, as traders, while most of our people live in the villages, as farm laborers. Those Vlachs who live in the villages are mostly cattle breeders. The Vlachs and the Macedonian Slavs differ in language, national dress and character, consequently they can never lay any claims to our villages, and we have never tried to make out that the Vlach villages are ours. There have never been any misunderstandings in the past between ourselves and the Vlachs. They have never ruled over us nor have they ever done us any harm. On the contrary, ever since the Middle Ages there has been an understanding between us. And on the basis of this understanding the firmest friendship can be expected to develop between ourselves and the Vlachs; this friendship between our two brotherly nations should be deep rooted and should enable us to walk side by side along the difficult road towards cultural progress. 

It is one matter to ensure that correct relations are established between ourselves and others of Christian or Muslim nationality, and quite a different matter to ensure that our nationality is accepted by His Imperial Excellency the Sultan, so that the term Macedonian might be recognized by protocol, for this is necessary if we are to take the first steps towards national and religious liberation from propaganda and towards the political changes envisaged by the countries behind the reforms; and it is yet another matter to ensure that measures are taken to bring about the economic stabilization of our village farms. And until these improvements are all made in our national, religious, and economic life, we the Macedonian intelligentsia have something more to do, and this is the most important of all: we must devote all our physical, intellectual and moral strength to the national revival. 

This latest uprising has shown us that the path we have been following is wrong and dangerous. Many sacrifices were demanded and little advantage was gained. The revolution has compromised us in the eyes of our government and has not presented us in a favorable light to the rest of Europe. But we are not greatly to blame for all this. On the one hand we were being driven to revolt and on the other hand we are a young nation and it was not difficult for us to be drawn into an immature adventure. Just as at work young people consider it preferable to advance by leaps and bounds and not by working solidly and steadily in one direction, so too young nations prefer leaps and bounds to steady solid work in the same direction. In all our work hitherto it is the uprising which stands out as an ill considered and hasty act; but we must be forgiven for this, firstly because ours is a young nation scarcely conscious of its national identity, and secondly because we have hitherto not been living as a national and religious unit and have been exposed to the influence of various forms of religious and nationalist propaganda. But we cannot continue to be forgiven for what we have been forgiven up till now. 

We can no longer regard ourselves and our people as a youthful nation lacking political experience. In our historical development we have passed through stages of such importance that they might stand as epochs in the history of any nation. And this new epoch brings with it new obligations in the form of cultural work. 

Up till now the people have been working together with the intelligentsia, but the work was unequally divided because it was left to the people to carry out the plans of the intelligentsia, who did no more than draw up the plans or supervise the organization of the revolutionary movement. Organizational work is certainly a job, but we cannot say it is one of the hardest. Preparing for a revolution is certainly a job which calls for great expenditure of nerves, but it is not so arduous and difficult as the revolutionaries our young intellectuals seem to think. The preparations for an uprising last from five to ten years, after which all those who were involved either die or, if they remain alive, have to make do with nothing at all or else turn their hand to something for which they are possibly not even prepared, something which has to be learned from scratch. Organizational work is not so demanding as it is made out to be, and, because the organizers usually consider their own lives more important than those of the villagers, they usually foist the most difficult jobs onto the workers or the ordinary people. This is why organizational work is, on the one hand, the job of one man who places far greater emphasis on his own attenuated efforts than on the need for solid steady work. And, on the other hand, organizational work is impersonal because the man who performs it does not sacrifice himself for society, for his people or for mankind; instead he uses the people to help him execute the plans created by his fancy. Intellectuals of Macedonia! - It is time you came to realize that it is wrong to gamble with other people's lives for the sake of plans produced by your fancy. 

I am not trying to say that we should forsake our idealism and do without national ideals. No! We could not live without ideals; but from now on our ideals should be purer and more progressive. From now on in our patriotic work we should redeem ourselves in the eyes of the people for all our mistakes. From now on we should sacrifice ourselves for their sakes and so repay them for their trust in us and for their obedience in carrying out the plans of the Organization with such precision. How can our intelligentsia repay the people for the sacrifices they have made? I gave an answer to this question when I spoke of the battle against the disseminators of propaganda and of our people's struggle to live on good terms with the other nationalities of Macedonia. 

But, as I also pointed out, our main task is to aid the people through our work in culture and, above all in education. 

Science and literature are the most important factors in the development of any people. The level of culture is determined by the extent to which the people are advanced in science and literature. Hence a division is made between cultured and uncultured peoples. 

Cultured people rule, uncultured people live in subjugation. It is only through knowledge, education and cultural work that our intelligentsia can put itself right and atone to the people for all the wrongs that have been committed. 

It may be objected that cultural work is possible only if political freedom exists, and that without this freedom it is impossible. This is true, but it is not the whole truth. The basic precondition for cultural work is not full political freedom but the moral education of the people and of the intelligentsia and the awareness of each individual of his natural obligations to the people. Complete political freedom is worthless if a man does not come to realize that his human debt, his debt towards his country and his people, is work, work and more work. Freedom is useful only to enable us to enjoy the results of our work, but it is not so vital for work itself. And if one is to enjoy the results of one's work, one must first work. 

It is possible to work and to take pains with one's work even under conditions of political limitation. If we are to stand with a clear conscience before the people, who have made so many sacrifices, we should turn with all our energy to cultural work. And in doing so we should not judge the value of our work according - to outward appearances but according to inner worth, for the value of work is measured in terms of its power and effect. If we regard work in this light, and if we genuinely desire to repay our debt to the people, then we cannot excuse ourselves by claiming that there exists no basis for cultural work. The basis does exist, but the will is lacking. Provided the will can be found, it does not matter even if we are not able to print many things, because we may be secure in the knowledge that we have an intelligentsia who will then serve as a living encyclopedia capable of furnishing us with reliable and accurate information from all branches of science and literature. 

But accurate and reliable information can be acquired only after years of hard work in the knowledge that in this way one is repaying the debt to one's country and people. And these many years of work are more useful, more difficult, but also more constructive than revolutionary work - and more reasonable too. 

These long years of study by our intellectuals would be of visible use to the people for they would then be able to look with their own eyes both at themselves and at other nations, and be made aware of their own and other people's merits and shortcomings. An educated people may be compared to an intelligent man; this is why it is our duty to put all our efforts into educating our people. 

Cultural work is more difficult than revolutionary work because the former is mental and the latter physical. By way of illustration let us consider classical and modern languages and the correspondence of the Committee or the distribution of the armed bands. Revolu-tionary activity is temporary and destructive, not permanent and creative. And if a cultured man is to be worthy of this designation be should create and not destroy. A solid building must stand on firm foundations. Therefore one should not, in order to make one's work easier, avoid tackling the more demanding disciplines, such as the study of ancient languages, which are fundamental to many branches of learning. The aim of acquiring accurate information from all the different branches of learning, not only for our personal sake but also for the sake of ourselves as individuals belonging to the nation, should make us stop and think, should make us devote all our energy and free time to mastering those disciplines which are most needed by our people and which demand the hardest work, because the easier disciplines can always be managed in due course. If we wish to face our people and ourselves with a clear conscience we should be prepared to help even with the most difficult tasks and not seek the easy way out with the excuse that we do not have the ability or knowledge required for those disciplines which demand the greatest pains and devotion if we are to dedicate ourselves to them. 

Cultural work is more delicate than revolutionary work because through it the intelligentsia is placed at the service of the people while through revolution it is transformed into a heartless experimenter. 

And, finally, cultural work is more reasonable. Through cultural work the intelligentsia explains the most important questions concerning itself and the people, and the most important questions are those concerning the knowledge of the people. 

Recently we have been going into the demand for political freedom, but we have not stopped to consider whether we are as yet mature enough for it or whether it is what we most need at the moment. I do not undertake to meet our most recent demands, whether they are just or not. The question of our national, religious and economic revival is of far greater importance to me. But this revival can only be brought about through studying our own people as separate individuals, then in conjunction with the other peoples and nationalities of Macedonia, and finally as members of the Slav national family. If we were to undertake this study, it would lead to understanding in our relations with all the nations just mentioned. 

Here you have a fair outline of what the intelligentsia of Macedonia might do in order to correct all the mistakes made in the recent uprising. 

Our work, then, should be concentrated on peaceful, legal and evolutionary educational work among the people. It should be aimed at placing the intelligentsia truly at the service of the people, and nothing else. But if this service is to be worthwhile it is essen-tial that we should train persons to carry out the task, an intelligentsia who will be utterly dedicated to the welfare of the people. We need an intelligentsia imbued with the awareness of the moral debt that each man owes to his people and his country; we need an intelligentsia that will aspire towards moral and mental perfection. 

Our intelligentsia today should devote all their efforts and all their moral a nd mental training to the people and to the creation of an ideal Macedonian intelligentsia. 

If this debt to the country is recognized, if we manage to unite our intellectuals with Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek educational backgrounds, if we succeed in paralyzing the activity of the propagandists and in getting them driven out of Macedonia for good, if pro-per relations are established with all the nationalities of Macedonia, and if the political and material position of the Macedonians is improved, then, despite all the sacrifices we have made, we shall have one reason for satisfaction: the uprising has opened our eyes to the fact that the road we were taking, and would have continued to take, was the wrong one and that even without the uprising we ourselves would have prepared the way for the partition of Macedonia. The uprising has opened our eyes to many needs which we could not otherwise have anticipated. 

May God grant that this uprising will serve as a lesson to our people, a lesson to all Macedonians regardless of where they were educated or what nationality they considered themselves to be in the past. Let us pray that the blood which has been spilt will bind us as an oath to join together in spreading culture for the benefit and happiness of our common home, our much afflicted country - Macedonia. 

* Simeon Radev (1879-1967), the well-known Bulgarian diplomat and politician, Macedonian by origin (from Resen); as a student he edited the Mouvement Macйdonien in Paris, 1902-1903. Editor's note. 

** A. A. Rostkovski (1860-1903), Russian consul in Bitola.

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>eidc2eeykdhln97g7by0caizcwbe3x2</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Is there a need for Macedonian national scientific, scholarly and literary societies?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1653</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11040</id>
      <parentid>5103</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:05:16Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="41272" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
The idea of forming such societies was prompted by the desire to have our interests completely separated from those of the Bulgarians. In this way we hoped to show the Russians that here in Macedonia there was no national antagonism and that it was possible for all the Macedonian nationalities to collaborate in cultural work. Furthermore, we wanted to show the Russians that there were not several Slav nationalities living in Macedonia but only one, and that the Macedonian Slavs were able on their own to break down the barriers which had been set up between them as a result of various forms of propaganda or of the education given to Macedonians in Bulgaria, Serbia or Greece. We wished to show that, despite the upbringing and education we may have had in various foreign countries or at ho-me under the influence of the various propagandists, we would, for our part, aim at fostering the general interests of Macedonia and so avoid serving as a tool for the propagandists and their aims and also fight any attempts at incorporating Macedonia into Bulgaria, Serbia or Greece. 

Last year, however, there were certain people who considered that the existence of such a society was quite unnecessary because there was no exclusively Macedonian nationality in Macedonia - only Serbs and Bulgarians - and since there were already Serb and Bulgarian student societies in St. Petersburg there was no need for a Macedonian one as well. 

Bearing in mind the criticism that has been leveled against our Society here and the doubt expressed as to its importance and suitability, we are bound to give an accurate report on the reasons which led to its formation. This may be done after an answer has been given to the basic declarations of our opponents, in which they struggle to prove that there is no need for a separate Macedonian Society and that it has not been formed at the right time. 

Our opponents claim that this is not the time to bring up the national questions of Macedonia, when life is at least tolerable for all the nationalities. This is not the time for us to break away from Bulgaria, for she has already sacrificed so many men in the fight for our liberation and will give even more in the future. It would be pointless and ill advised to treat our own interests as separate from the general interests of Bulgaria, for our strength lies in unity and not in separation. If the national question of the Macedonians were now to be brought up we would be set back by more than thirty years. Is it even possible now to bring about the national unification of the Macedonians when in Macedonia we have several nationalities and not just one, and when there is no separate Macedonian Slav nation? To start with, it must be pointed out that they are not telling the truth when they say that this is not the time to bring up the question of the Macedonian nationalities. By ignoring this question we are not advancing even a step because although we may ignore it none of the other countries, great or small - except Bulgaria - will choose to do so. We, then, would simply be closing our eyes to an unpleasant reality. So, if we are to consider this question we will not be taking a step backwards but rather advancing through the discovery of its importance. Certainly, we will be caught up with the national question for another twenty to thirty years, but the blame for this must be laid on our predecessors who did not discover its importance and did not allow it to come to a head. I they had done so, we would not have to concern ourselves with it now if the question of the nationality of the Macedonians is of prime importance for the Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks, and if each of these nations treats it according to his own concept, why should we not take this question into our own hands and consider it from all sides - from the Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek points of view - taking a critical look at each so as to work out a Macedonian point of view instead of allowing ourselves to be oriented towards the place where we were educated and be persuaded to adopt a Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek attitude? If we do not work out a Macedonian point of view concerning our own nationality, a point of view which will be fair and just towards all Macedonians, it will mean that we are not capable of coming to grips with ourselves independently, without influence from outside. I could not allow this to happen; for me it would be a profanation. This, then, is why in the first place I do not renounce my right to an independent attitude concerning my fellow countrymen. In my opinion, therefore, our Society is not making any tactical errors concerning the question of our nationality but simply performing certain services in the spiritual interests of the Macedonians. 

Next, an answer should be given to the assertion that this is not the time to separate our interests from the general interests of Bulgaria and that such an action would be ill advised because; on the one hand, our strength lies in unification and, on the other hand, Bulgaria has made such great sacrifices for our liberation and will continue to do so. 

This statement is very complex and so each question should be answered individually. 

What should be pointed out first is that we are not now breaking away from Bulgaria and so destroying an already existing whole, for we have already been separated and living apart for more than twenty-five years. It was others who divided us, creating for us and for the Bulgarians two different lives with different needs, and setting us in unequal positions. 

And these others will not allow us to unite. From the Macedonian point of view, the unification of all Macedonia with Bulgaria, Serbia or Greece is not desirable, but neither is it particularly frightening. Hence we would have nothing to fight for on these grounds. Neither the small Balkan states nor the great European countries will, however, agree to such a unification. So, as we do not wish to mix our interests with those of Bulgaria, we have given our agreement and are prepared to respect the present rule of law. Only one question then arises: by respecting this law are we acting to our own advantage, for it is said that Bulgaria has done so much good for us and will do still more? Let us see, then, what sort of good has been done for us by the Bulgarians. 

On the appearance of Serbian propaganda the Bulgarians increased the budget of the Exarchate; in other words, they stepped up their propaganda and intensified their interests in Macedonia. They appointed several bishops and opened a number of commercial agencies; they also gave financial help to the uprising in Macedonia and supported many Macedonians who had fled to Bulgaria and were homeless. This was the good which was done for us by the Bulgarians. 

What do you feel: is it enough? Or is it a lot? Or is it somewhat more than the good: which was done for us by the Serbs? If we are not to be Bulgarian chauvinists and if we are not to take a biased view of things we cannot help concluding that in, Macedonia the Bulgarians did no more for us than the Serbs. One might even state with certainty that they did less than the Serbs. The good they did, which has already been mentioned, was not done on behalf of the Macedonians but for the sake of Bulgarian interests in Macedonia. Thus Bulgarian money spent on Macedonia is of no greater importance than Serbian money. The Bulgarians appointed bishops to Macedonia; do not forget that even in the more important places these bishops were generally Bulgarians and not Macedonians. The Bulgarians wished to use the bishops to get rid of everything that did not suit them, particularly self-govern-ment in the church and in the borough councils. The Serbs, too, wished to use their bishops to perform the same service for us. Why should they be to blame for our having preferred to be a tool of the Bulgarians than the Serbs? The Bulgarians opened commercial agencies in Macedonia! But in whose interest? Not the Macedonians', of course, but the Bulgarians'. The Serbs channeled their interest in Macedonia through their consulates and consulates general. 

If the Bulgarian commercial agencies were a blessing to us, the Serbian consulates general were an even greater one. The Bulgarians supported our uprising. So did the Serbs. The Bulgarians offered more help because it suited their interests and not because it suited our needs. The Serbs offered their aid in order not to be left behind the Bulgarians: but if Serbian interests had been really bound up with the uprising Serbia would by now have declared war a hundred times against Turkey without waiting for help from anywhere and without wondering whether the outcome would be in her favor or not. The Bulgarians have fed homeless Macedonians, but so have the Serbs. 

This is all the good we have received from the Bulgarians. Now let us see how we have paid for this good or how much it has cost us. 

If we review what has happened since the last Russo-Turkish war we will realize that all the good the Bulgarians performed for the Macedonians was no more than compensation for the stupidities which they, the Bulgarians, perpetrated over the Macedonian question. In the hands of Bulgarian diplomats and the Bulgarian people, the Macedonian question gave rise to numerous foolish mistakes which were incurred at the expense of the Macedonians through the so-called victories of the Bulgarian independent policy. These follies committed by the Bulgarians are for us Macedonians an ancient parental sin which will be passed on from generation to generation. 

And this is what lies behind the ancient parental sin: The Bulgarians were liberated by the Russians. At that time Russian society was caught by a wave of Slavophile enthusiasm; this enthusiasm cost them about two hundred and fifty thousand soldiers and billions of rubles. But what was the result of that war? The Russians continued fighting against Turkey and, with their own blood, succeeded in liberating almost all the small Balkan states. But never before have the Russians been so disappointed as they were during this last war. Their disappointment was so acute that they wanted to bury their former enthusiasm and their aspirations to liberate the Slavs on the Balkan peninsula. Their, last burst of enthusiasm - and with it the hopes that Macedonia had placed in Russia - was expended on the Bulgarians. The behavior of the Bulgarian people to-wards the Russian soldiers and the conduct of the Bulgarian intelligentsia in dealing with the Russian authorities and diplomats was such that the Russians regretted a thousand times over their involvement with these &quot;little brothers&quot;. This regret has penetrated so deep into the souls of all Russians that they now no longer wish even to hear of any &quot;brothers&quot; whatsoever, let alone the Bulgarians. Who is now paying for the behavior and the mistakes of the Bulgarians if not we, the Macedonians? The enthusiasm of Russia brought about the birth of Bulgaria, but, with the birth of Bulgaria, Russia died for us. All the Macedonians' hopes were stillborn because of Bulgaria. 

We had hoped that our faith in Bulgaria would be able to grow and strengthen, that she would offer us help and that with her we could begin to live a free life. Once a free Bulgaria existed, we thought, we would have no need of Russia. Our expectations were supported by the Bulgarians and it seemed as if they would be realized. But Bulgaria, like the late Serbian king, Alexander, proclaimed herself to be of age and indulged in a number of absolute follies which she described as her policy of independence. 

She ruined her good relations with Russia and called on Stambolov to place Bulgaria in the hands of the Triple Pact and of England so that she could be used as a weapon against Russia. This new era in the history of Bulgaria, this policy of independence, began with the unification of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia and the dissolution of the Berlin Treaty, in which lay the Macedonians' rights to autonomy with a Christian governor-general. The dissolution of the Berlin agreement and the emergence of Stambolov's regime, christened as the &quot;independent national&quot; policy of Bulgaria, the policy of a politically capricious, immature and abortive undertaking, marked the second blow against the political freedom of the Macedonians. Europe and Russia endeavored to work out a plan of reform for Macedonia, and in 1882 this plan was already completed; they would also have struggled to have it introduced but since the new &quot;political factors&quot; in the Balkans put their veto to the plan, the foreign powers asked not for reforms but for Bulgarian bishops in Macedonia. This, indeed, came to be; but we Macedonians entrusted ourselves to the Bulgarians, believing that Bulgaria through her &quot;policy of independence&quot; was doing no more than maintaining a political victory and that she would reward us with blessings. She pulled the wool smartly over our eyes. Hardly five or six years had passed before Bulgaria's initial enthusiasm with the policy of &quot;independence&quot; began to cool off. The advances which the Serbian propagandists were making in Macedonia convinced them that they were not the only factor in the Macedonian question and that, in addition to themselves, there were other interested parties and that in the competition success would fall on the side where Russia's support lay. 

The Bulgarians, therefore, now became Russophiles; yet they did not do so for pure motives but because they wanted to lure the Russians into helping them administer their own interests in Macedonia. But they were not able to reconcile themselves to the state of affairs in Russian foreign policy because the Russian consuls in Macedonia were supporting Serbian propaganda. As a result, certain political parties accused Russia of being the enemy of Bulgaria and of everything Bulgarian, their main reason for this accusation being Russia's support of Serbian propaganda. The political figures in Bulgaria were unable to see that Russia's attitude was largely determined by their own stupidity which had passed under the name of an &quot;independent&quot; or &quot;national&quot; policy. And since this &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; policy was being used as a weapon by the enemies of Russia against Russian interests on the Balkan peninsula, how could these Bulgarian politicians expect the Russian government to remain completely disinterested in events in the Balkans when for more than a century this Peninsula has been the care of Russia? She must look after her own interests there even if this does not suit Bulgaria's &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; policy. Through their foreign policy the Bulgarians have become Russophiles and the Russians have to some extent altered their policy towards them. But the Bulgarians' Russophilism was calculated, and did not last long. And Russian policy could not be permanently changed. Only one thing was unknown: to what extent was Bulgarian foreign policy honest and long lasting? Recently the Bulgarians have been dissatisfied with Russian policy, particularly on account of the appointment of Firmilyan and of the Macedonian uprising. They claim that when Danov's ministry put Bulgaria's foreign policy in the hands of the Russians they received no help in return; all that happened was that Firmilyan was appointed to Skopje and nothing was done for Macedonia. If Bulgaria had been able to pursue an &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; policy she would not have allowed this to happen and would have settled the Macedonian question by granting greater reforms. 

This is Bulgarian reasoning. But if we are to set out from the independent Macedonian point of view we must point out that Bulgaria with its Russophilism did no service whatsoever either to Russia or to Macedonia. Instead, it used this Russsophilism to acquire a loan which it received thanks to Russia's participation. What is most important, however, is that these millions which were loaned to Bulgaria were not used for the purpose of war but to fill the state coffers. And even if it had pursued an &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; policy, i.e. if it had been a part of the Triple Pact against Russia, Bulgaria would still have achieved nothing because now the relations between Russia and Bulgaria are not as strained as they were at the time of Stambolov. The members of the Triple Pact have now reached a special agreement concerning international questions; they are, working together on, these and quashing all the caprices of the small states which are trying to alter the balance of power in their own favor. There is now no place for Stambolov's policy. The revival of Stambolov's regime in Bulgaria can in no way be justified and would merely be a new political caprice doomed to miscarry. But it is not the Bulgarians who will suffer from these caprices; it is we, the Macedonians, who will suffer, as indeed we already do. Our new friends in Bulgaria say that Russia is to blame for this, that she feared the emergence of a Greater Bulgaria and that this was why Firmilyan was appointed. Russia does not now wish to grant autonomy to Macedonia and has left us to make our own preparations and to fight against Turkey. 

Such claims are no more than lies and false accusations made against Russia the liberator by a nation which has been freed from bondage but which is still bound by its own servile instincts which it uses to justify its own &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; policy. These people, who are the first and final cause of all our misfortunes, have by their folly drawn us into an unequal battle against the Turks and, at the most decisive moment; left us to our fate. 

Bulgaria has brought about slaughter in Macedonia similar to that caused by the English in Armenia, and so she has lost her influence in Macedonia. But Bulgaria badly needs this influence and so she is constantly trying to persuade us that as long as a free Bulgaria exists the Macedonian question will not be buried; this is in fact a ploy to justify her own egoistic behavior and to cast on the Russians the blame for all the misfortunes that have befallen us. 

Is it not naпve to believe that Russia fears the emergence of a Greater Bulgaria, that she did not wish to see Macedonia liberated and that for the same reasons she stood behind the appointment of Firmilyan? First, let us see who is to blame for the present uprising and who must accept the greatest responsibility for it. Russia told us more than once that she would not spill a single drop of blood and that she would not offer us even the minimal material aid if we started an uprising. In connection with the Macedonian question Russia frequently issued government procla-mations and on numerous occasions sent memoranda to the Bulgarian and Turkish authorities. In all these announcements Russia made it perfectly clear that we were to bide our time and that if we caused any disturbance she would not be able, and would not wish, to help us. In other words, Russia washed her hands in advance of all the misfortunes resul-ting from an uprising in Macedonia. After all this can we accuse Russia of dishonesty or subterfuge? Why then should we be angry with Russia? If we are not mistaken, the Revolutionary Committee and the Organization of the uprising expected help from Bulgaria and not from Russia because in their opinion and in that of the Bulgarian Exarchate the people living in Macedonia are Bulgarians. There are no Russians. Therefore Bulgaria should either have helped or declared categorically that nothing could be expected from her. But Bulgaria did neither the one thing nor the other. She did not offer help because the Bulgarians are a calculating people and would be ready to take Macedonia if someone were to offer it to her; otherwise, if it wanted, it could go to ruin. 

None of the Balkan peoples could look calmly on at the destruction of a region in which their fellow countrymen live. If the initiative for the uprising had been given by the Greeks or the Serbs, and if these people had known that the uprising would be so powerful, they would have declared war and paid no heed to the consequences even if this war were to end by causing them harm. But the Bulgarians are not of the same caliber: they will declare war only if there exists some other country which will ensure that Bulgaria gets the spoils of the war. And since such assurances are never certain without the engagement of one of the great powers, or several of them, fighting to ensure victory, it was not possible to expect the Bulgarians to intervene in Macedonian affairs. But, since this was how matters stood, the Bulgarians might clearly have told the Macedonians not to expect anything from them; like this the unpleasant outcome might well have been avoided. The &quot;far-reaching&quot; policy of the prince and his &quot;independent&quot; and &quot;national&quot; collaborators should have foreseen and prevented these misfortunes. But the policy makers did nothing. They allowed the uprising to be launched in the belief that if their policy of &quot;independence&quot; were to have no effect then the blood of the Macedonians would induce the &quot;great liberator&quot; to set aside her own affairs and join in our fight, so that later she would be called to Berlin and so lose Manchuria and her influence in Persia. This was an incorrect approach to Macedonian matters and the chief culprits were the Bulgarian officials and the Bulgarian people, who were unable to prevent their rulers from following their chosen course and could not persuade them to take up the cause of their Macedonian &quot;clients&quot; And now the blame for this incorrect approach is being laid upon Russia, upon official circles in Russia, who have nothing in common with the people. The &quot;brothers&quot; whom the Russians liberated will not now admit their mistakes and so they are all declaring themselves to be Russophiles, lovers of the Russian people, but not of the Russian government, which does not express the feelings of the people towards the Macedonians and which dismisses all feelings of sympathy the people may hold towards Macedonia. As proof of these allegations the Bulgarians quote the &quot;secret&quot; government circulars forbidding all further printing of articles On the Macedonian Matters. 

Here in Macedonia, and in Bulgaria as well, this decree of the Russian government might be misinterpreted, and so it would be advisable to say a few words about it here. First, it should be mentioned that as far as the Macedonian question is concerned there exists no difference in attitude between the Russian government and the Russian people, there is only a difference in the intensity of their interest: Russian society and the Russian people are far less interested than the government, as can be seen by the aid which is intended for the Macedonians. If we compare this aid with that given to the Boers' of the Transvaal, a great difference will be observed in that they took a greater interest in the Boers' battle than in ours. This relative lack of interest is the result of the Russians' disappointment in their &quot;brothers&quot; And for this we are supposed to be saying &quot;thank you&quot; to the Bulgarians! The Russian authorities have always given full freedom to the press in their country to print articles on all questions, and this freedom lasts for as long as a question is under considera-tion or until a final solution is found. Once a problem has been exhausted, however, and a final solution has been given, circulars are distributed stating that this question is now closed. 

This is not done because they want to deprive the papers of their freedom to print but because in the Balkan Peninsula great importance is given to all articles related to Balkan matters and so it is expected that the authorities, under the influence of the press, will alter their policy. The authorities in Russia wish to save us from entertaining futile hopes. 

This is all very well, some may argue, but how are we to explain away Russia's policy concerning Firmilyan? Clearly this is a Serbophile policy. Well, let us see if it really is so clear. 

The reasons for the appointment of Firmilyan will once again clearly show what a misfortune it is for us that we are known as Bulgarians. These reasons will prove that Bulgaria - that political disaster - is not capable of protecting our interests, or even her own. 

Bulgaria has few diplomats, and even fewer abroad. And even those it does have abroad are not capable of improving the reputation of Bulgaria; on the contrary, they destroy it and mock both themselves and their country. As proof of this it will be sufficient to recall only three of them: Bechkov, the secretary and gйrant of the Trade Agency in Bitola; Tsokov, the diplomat in London; and Stanchev, the diplomat in St. Petersburg. 

Ask whomever you like in Bitola about Beshkov, be it the staff of the local consulates, the Bulgarian teachers, the Vlachs, the citizens of Bitola or, finally, the gypsies with whom Beshkov is always chatting as he loafs around the town-they will all tell you who Beshkov is. Yet the Serbs have an excellent representative in Bitola. who enjoys the full respect of the consul; and that is M. Ristich. 

Mr. Tsokov displayed all his diplomacy in his conversation with the Reuter correspondent. 

But the most interesting case is that of Stanchev, first as a personality, then as a diplomat, and finally as a diplomat holding the most important diplomatic post in Bulgaria. 

What is immediately striking about Stanchev is that he has been holding the same position for as long as I have known of him (about nine years). This fact is, on the face of it, most comforting because it would seem to point to a certain stability in Bulgarian politics. It is true that the Serbian deputies spend several years in St. Petersburg, but after four or five years they are changed. This consoling fact, however, is only superficially reassuring. During the very first years of my studies I was asked what sort of man I considered Stanchev to be. 

As I knew nothing about him I explained that I was not in a position to assess him. They then showed me a German book with the title Die Wahreit ьber Bulgarien. I asked them to lend it to me so that I could read it through. It was after being given this book that I first became acquainted with Stanchev and with Bulgarian affairs, particularly with the status and authority of the Bulgarian deputy in St. Petersburg. Later I heard certain facts about Stanchev and his life in St. Petersburg, facts similar to those mentioned in certain passages of the book just referred to. Through my conversations with journalists I learnt that Stanchev had tried without success to exert his influence upon them. All in all, everybody whom I met or spoke to either did not know Stanchev or else spoke badly of him. They say, however, that during the past year Stanchev himself has sunk very low and, in so doing, lowered the prestige of Bulgaria in St. Petersburg further than even the greatest enemy of Bulgaria would have done. 

And are the Bulgarians aware that while they have their Stanchev in St. Petersburg, the Serbs have Dashich, Gruyich and Novakovich in the same capital? These diplomats are alternately in St. Petersburg or Istanbul and remain several years in one place or the other. 

They have a wide circle of acquaintances in St. Petersburg and enjoy a warm reception amongst the higher circles of Russian society, upon whom they also exert considerable influence. Their acquaintances include diplomats, professors, editors and newspaper publi-shers. 

They speak with conviction and with a profound knowledge of affairs. To this it should be added that Serbian foreign policy is well established and that the Serbs have numerous other assistants in addition to the diplomats mentioned. It will be readily understood that the appointment of Firmilyan is a victory for Serbian diplomacy and a defeat for the Bulgarians, a victory won by the Serbs through their own strength and not something taken over from the Russians; the Bulgarians' defeat was due to the absence of diplomats capable of understanding Bulgarian interests and of defending them through their knowledge and authority. 

But Zinoviev sympathized with the Serbs and helped them. This may be true, but he did so not because he hated the Bulgarians but because, as is only logical, the Serbian delegates to Istanbul know their own interests well and are able to protect them. So too, perhaps, the Russian consuls in Macedonia are defending Serbian interests not out of compassion but because the Serbs, like the Bulgarians, are Slavs, and because the Serbs better understand their own interests and are better able to defend them. 

So, Bulgarian foreign policy cannot be criticized. But it is the main source of all our misfortunes. This is why one cannot speak of the good which Bulgaria may have done for Macedonia. Is there any good in the material help given by Bulgaria to the uprising, support which has forced us to split up the strength of the people in whom we once found our strength, so that now we are nothing? Is it good that the Bulgarians took care of the Macedonian refugees when Bulgaria was, first and foremost, responsible for the destruction of their homes? Is it good that the Bulgarians offer official posts to Macedonian's, who then, on account of their new allegiance, forget their fatherland and sacrifice the interests of Macedonia to those of Bulgaria? Are not the Macedonians who serve Bulgaria, or are candidates for service with the Bulgarians, those who gave a false twist to the actions of the Russian administrators by laying upon them Stambolov's interpretation and invoking them as an excuse to flout the Russians' plea for cautiousness? Oh, Macedonians! It is time we realized that the greatest demon Macedonia must battle against is none other than Bulgaria; and this is why we must keep our interests apart from those of Bulgaria. Common sense demands it. 

It is clear from all that has been said above that the Bulgarians' goodness towards the Macedonians is in no way different from that of the Serbs though it costs us a hundred times as much: 1. For the Bulgarian name, which has been endowed upon us by the Exarchate, we have taken over not up to me to try and find out whether some evil Bulgarian demon is responsible for all the evil the Bulgarians have brought upon us, the Macedonians. All that is clear to me is that a great part of our misfortune is the work of the Bulgarian people. The Prince is not to blame, for instance, for the fact that the Bulgarians have no good diplomats. 

If, for example, Stanchev is the Prince's representative and not the representative of Bulgaria, this is not true of Tsokov, Beshkov and others. No excuses can be made for the Bulgarian people, because unworthy diplomats belong to one party or another and because the, Prince exercises his right to make his choice from one party or another according to personal orientation. The chief misfortune for Bulgaria and her interests is not only that there are many parties and that they do not all know the interests of their people well, it is also that the Bulgarians have not acquired a sufficient grasp of their national interests, especially those connected with the external world. The Bulgarians do not have a national ideal which would be worthy of all their people and sacred to all of them. These ideals are born by the history of the people but they are added to over a more lengthy period of history. The individual people in any nation should for a long time be inspired by the same national ideal, an ideal which is valid for all and sacred for all. These ideals should be formulated by the most eminent representatives of the nation and accepted by each individual. National ideals should constitute a program towards the realization of which all the combined strength of the nation should be directed. National ideals cannot be realized all of a sudden; their realization should come about as the result of the united and self-sacrificing work of the people. The difficulties encountered in achieving these national ideals serve simply to strengthen the spirit of the people and prepare them for an even greater struggle. On the other hand, if a nation acquires political freedom or gains something else which is important for the life of the people, and if the people play little or no active part in this, either because the national ideals are not yet clearly defined or, if they are defined, because they have not been accepted by all individuals, then the people will not value the national ideals, they will be like a man without any definite aim or course of action. Such a man will turn now to one side now to the other, not because he is convinced that this is how he should act but because he sees around him people whose actions are indiscriminate. 

If we look back on recent Bulgarian history what do we see: Bulgaria acquired political freedom, which is most important in the life of a nation, at a time when she still had no national ideals and when the Bulgarians themselves did not know what they wanted. The Bulgarians got their freedom with the minimum of sacrifice and effort; Russia gave it to them. The liberation created an enormous gulf between the old Bulgarian history and life, and the new. In the past the Bulgarians had lived in darkness and so they turned away from this period in their history to appear in their newly won era of freedom as a people without traditions, national ideals or a concept of national and state interests and heritage from the past. So, Bulgaria emerged as a historically unformed state. Thanks to the efforts of Russia this political weakling was somewhat strengthened, but no sooner had it begun to feel the stirrings of its own power than it began to lay claims to a policy of independence which was to be the source of Macedonia's misfortune. 

But this policy of independence was not only the cause of our misfortunes; it was also a natural reason for separating our interests from those of Bulgaria and an incentive to the Macedonians here to form a Macedonian Society. 

There are other reasons for the formation of this society: the need, for instance, to turn our intellectual powers to the examination of ourselves as members of a people and of a country. In order to achieve this aim it was necessary to form a society of those for whom the study of Macedonia in the ethnographic, geographic and historical sense would be of prime importance; we Macedonians are such people. 

If we are to achieve this aim we should break away from the other Balkan peoples and turn independently and critically to an examination of ourselves and our interests, and also of the Balkan peoples and their interests. By so doing we will avoid making the same mistakes as the other Balkan nations. 

In order to illustrate more clearly the advantage to be gained by keeping ourselves apart from the other nations it should be sufficient to take a critical look at the Bulgarian and Serbian student societies here in St. Petersburg. 

The Bulgarian students are ambitious to be considered as the forerunners of the latest trends of thought. Nationalism is of no importance to them; they consider it to be redundant and outmoded. They are internationalists. First of all they consider themselves people and only then, if they have time, Bulgarians as well. For them mankind is of greater importance than Bulgaria and so they are more interested in Switzerland or the United States and their history than in Bulgaria with its national interests. The Bulgarian youth here is doing everything in its power to give an appearance of being highly advanced, i.e. socialist: this means-interminable and senseless discussions, long hair, well-groomed beards, red or blue Russian shirts and so forth. They are not concerned with national questions and listen with great boredom to lectures on ethnography or any other field of study except political economy. Never the less, each one of them considers it his duty to criticize everything. They are not concerned with scientific questions but they are, by way of compensation, good organizers: they can organize lotteries, spread propaganda, hold a soirйe for charity, without giving much thought to the fact that they may disgrace themselves and future generations of Bulgarian students in St. Petersburg. In general, they are ready to take up anything that does not demand great pains, and so they are self-centered and eager for popularity. They consider Macedonia to be Bulgarian in the ethnographic sense but find it unnecessary to waste their energy on getting to know the country better; as a result they know nothing about it, about its history, geography and ethnography. All they know is that there are rebel detachments and rebel fighters who should be aided; and this aid comes from lotteries and not from them personally. This Platonic, only Platonic, and shallow sympathy for the Macedonians, this lack of understanding for their national interests, this absence of national ideals and this longing for popularity through adherence to socialism is a reflection of the spiritual condition of the Bulgarian people and of their society. Hence it is easy to see how ill equipped the Bulgarians are to defend not only our interests but their own as well. 

The Serbian students leave one with quite the opposite impression. The Serbs are not internationalists; regardless of whether they come from Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina or Montenegro, they are all nationalists. They know that they are first of all Serbs, and then people. They all know of and take an interest in Serbs and things Serbian to be found in other countries. They know their own history and the history of the neighboring peoples and lands. They are primarily interested in the study of culture and history, which they learn as a means for achieving Serbian national aims. In order to defend Serbian interests in the eyes of the Russians they translate or edit books in Russian relating to historical questions. This utilitarian, tendentious and speculative relation towards learning cannot be admired, for it is both the cause and the consequence of national chauvinism, but it is the consequence - at least as far as national chauvinism is concerned - of the historical circumstances affecting the Serbs, particularly after the Berlin agreement. We might accuse the Serbs of being chauvinists, but they are no greater chauvinists than the Bulgarians. The Serbs are nationalists with a good understanding of their national ideals and interests, who, through work, study, writing and diplomacy, are moving as one man along a common path and this is why they beat the Bulgarians at every step. The Serb's are chauvinists, they are fierce defenders of their national interests when these are threatened by the enemy; but if we are to compare Serbian chauvinism with Bulgarian national indifference, and to survey them from the Macedonian and universal point of view we shall have to admit that Serbian chauvinism, as the result of a fundamental knowledge of national interests, stands far higher than Bulgarian national indifference, which results from the lack of any understanding whatsoever of Bulgarian state interests. At a time when the Serbs, from the king and the ministers right down to the man-in-the-street, are all nationalists and consider it essential that they should all be united in a single body, the Bulgarians are splitting up into socialists and various other -ists, who are far from wishing to prove the truth of the saying &quot;unity makes might&quot;. What the Serbs have achieved is all the result of the political maturity of the people: for a whole century they have cherished their national ideals and studied their national interests, and the Bulgarians have tried to do this in a mere twenty-five years. 

Come what may, our separation from the Bulgarians will afford us the chance of taking up a critical attitude towards Bulgarian affairs and help us to avoid copying them blindly and transplanting socialism into Macedonia instead of nationalism, as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization has done. By divorcing our interests from those of Bulgaria we will be saved from aping the merciless acts of the Bulgarians and from having to accept their assurances that Bulgaria is our benefactor and Russia our greatest enemy; thus we will also develop a critical attitude towards our own actions and those of others. 

Can there be any greater justification for the existence and activity of our Society? There is, surely, no more we can do now than pray God to help us increase the number of Macedonian societies, similar to the Sv. Kliment society in St. Petersburg, wherever Macedonians are living.

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>52ixqxhg1c1qpids7cy8ztqfl81db86</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>National separatism - the soil on which it has grown and will continue to grow in the future</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1654</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11041</id>
      <parentid>5104</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:05:21Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="61757" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
At the first meeting of the Bulgarian Students Association in St. Petersburg this year I said a few words concerning the results of the recent uprising in Macedonia. I have summarized this under two points: 1. Since the uprising, Macedonia has become lost to the Bulgarian nation, and 2. The Macedonians will come to realize the mistakes which gave rise to this ill-fated uprising; they will renounce the orientation which their national awareness has taken in the past and will start a systematic battle against national and religious propaganda in Macedonia, against those who are inherently Bulgarian, so that, by divorcing their interests from those of the propagandists, they might bring about national unification amongst the Macedonians themselves. 

At that time I said that the real state of affairs is one which will not appeal to many, but I cannot speak of what may appeal to some and not to others; I must speak of a matter which is already settled and which sooner or later all South Slavs will have to reckon with - and this is why one must know about the new trends in Macedonia in order to determine clearly the relations between the South Slavs and the Macedonians and so avoid a futile and injurious battle between them. 

Many will say that my assertions concerning some of the latest trends in the development of national self-awareness among the Macedonians are simply an attempt at mystification by certain Macedonians, that this mystification is groundless and that it will vanish in the same way as it emerged. 

In order to determine whether my conclusions concerning the outcome of the uprising are correct or whether the assertions of my opponents are right we would have to review these events in the light of recent Macedonian history, when national self-awareness reached its peak; we would in fact have to review the birth of Macedonia, the events which helped to awaken the national spirit of the Macedonians, and the scope and form of this awakening. What sort of relation has grown up, through the Macedonian national revival, between the Macedonians and the other Balkan nations and peoples, and is the position which the Internal Revolutionary Organization is at present taking over the question of the Macedonian Slavs such that it will not be possible to advance further, or will it be necessary to take yet another step for the Macedonians to emerge as the supporters of national separatism by accepting the central Macedonian dialect as the literary language for all Macedonia? And, finally, if the Organization and the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria are not prepared to help us particularly those of them who hold well-paid government posts or work as journalists and so pick up fat salaries and manage to exert such influence on Bulgarian public affairs that they are able to run for ministerial posts in Bulgaria - if, I say, we are not able to count on these expatriots, it should still be possible for us to give expression to our revival precisely in the way I have mentioned above, i.e. by divorcing our interests from those of the Balkan peoples and by spreading national self awareness amongst the Macedonian intelligentsia and the Macedonian people. 

This review of the events, which preceded the uprising, shows us that the most powerful spur to national awakening amongst the Macedonians was in fact the Serbian propaganda movement in Macedonia. Up till that moment our national self-awareness had been only half aroused; nobody had bothered particularly with the question of our nationality. We did indeed call ourselves &quot;Bulgarians&quot; and &quot;Christians&quot; in the national sense; but why this was so, and whether it really had to be so, we did not very much care to ask. 

Our relations with the Bulgarians have been extremely close as a result of the general situation in Turkey: we were brothers through destiny and our relations were equal towards the government and the Phanariot Order. We were given, in our common fate, the common name of Bulgarians right up to the liberation of Bulgaria, and even after the liberation of Bulgaria this remained a tradition in Macedonia. This was the basis on which the Bulgarians established their pretensions to Macedonia; but the Macedonians had expected to be liberated by the Bulgarians. 

But the rivalry between the Serbs and the Bulgarians over the Macedonian question, both from the political and from the national point of view, brought the Macedonians themselves onto the political scene. The Macedonians began to step up their interest concerning the question of their nationality and destiny. 

The course of this national revival and the consequences to which it led may be roughly described as follows: The Serbs and the Bulgarians began to contest each other's right to Macedonia, each claiming that all Macedonia was hers, each calling upon one authority or another for confirmation of the justness of her pretensions. 

In the midst of this endless dispute between these two brotherly neighboring states the Macedonian Slav population, on account of whom they were quarrelling, gradually began to develop their sense of national self-awareness and endeavored to liberate themselves from the influence of the neighboring peoples in order to be able to take their fate independently into their own hands. 

The Macedonians were seeking for national unification among themselves while at the same time stipulating that this unification should not be on a new basis, that it should not encompass the new movement, because much time would be needed for this unification and because unification was important as a means of achieving political freedom. This is why the unification was centered upon what the Macedonians called the Macedonian Bulgarians. The idea of national unification for the Macedonians albeit under a Bulgarian mask began in 1890. At the end of 1889 thirty to forty Macedonian students from Belgrade moved to Sofia. These students were the heart and soul of all that has happened in Macedonia from that time till the present day. They were well acquainted with Serbia and Bulgaria, with their cultures and their aspirations in Macedonia. They were also aware of the danger that would arise if Macedonia were to be partitioned between these two state's, that is, of course, if the Macedonians did not take to arms themselves and by their own strength and with their own means win freedom and so prevent the partition. 

It was upon their initiative that in the eighteen nineties a nationalist-separatist movement was first formed with the aim of divorcing Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria by introducing a Macedonian tongue which would serve as the literary language of all Macedonians. The organ of this Macedonian separatist movement in Bulgaria was the magazine Loza (The Vine); the authorities in Bulgaria and Istanbul, however, did not look favorably upon this spiritual movement and banned further publication of the magazine. 

They also began to persecute the Macedonian separatists. One of those who made his escape at this time was Dame Gruev, who was one of the Macedonian students who had moved from Belgrade to Sofia, and was also one of the separatists. 

Since they could not find favorable ground for their national separatist activity in Bulgaria, the Macedonians who had moved from Belgrade to Sofia turned to organizing revolutionary bodies in Bulgaria and Macedonia. The celebrated Macedonian revolutionary separatists, such as Gotsк Delchev, were simply the pupils of the first generation of Macedonians who had studied in Serbia and Bulgaria. So, too, Sarafov arid the revolutionaries who followed were simply the successors and heirs of these first revolutionaries but not the founders of the revolutionary organization. 

Right from the very start of the revolutionary organization the Macedonians who were living in Bulgaria or who had been educated there began working under a Bulgarian mask. First, because the majority of the population was called Bulgarian and secondly because in this way they could gain the support of the Bulgarian authorities, the Bulgarian people, and the Bulgarian church. 

The game they were playing had both positive and negative results, amongst which we should mention: 1. That the Macedonians who protected the interests of their country through unification gradually became an extremely important factor, as is evidenced by the fact that while they were in apparent alliance with the Bulgarian people and their official representatives and working for Bulgarian interests in Macedonia they were in fact making use of the Bulgarian people, their official representatives and institutions to serve their own, Macedonian, aims and interests; 2. That the Macedonians who were in league with the Bulgarians in trying to settle the Macedonian question gradually became the masterminds behind this league in which the Bulgarians were most solicitous, even fiery, supporters convinced that they were fulfilling all the Macedonians' requirements. 

But the Macedonians then began to declare that what they wanted was a Macedonia for the Macedonians, an autonomous Macedonia, and not unification with Bulgaria. The Bulgarians received this undoubtedly distressing news with a &quot;heavy heart&quot;. The Macedonians comforted them, however, saying: wait a while let them give us autonomy, after a few years you will see that Macedonia will become another Bulgaria because most of the Macedonian intelligentsia have been educated in Bulgaria. They even assured the world at large that the fate of Eastern Rumelia would not be repeated in Macedonia because there were many nationalities in Macedonia, not just two or three, and that all these nationalities, including all the neighboring Balkan states great and small alike, might upset the attempt to unite Macedonia and Bulgaria. Finally they demanded to know what interest the Macedonians could gain from unification with Bulgaria when it would clearly be far more in the interest of the Bulgarians than of the Macedonians. 

The Macedonians did not limit this two-sided game to the various promises they held out to Bulgaria and to Europe; they shifted the center of the revolutionary organization, together with all the national and political questions it entailed, to Macedonia in order to he free from the interference of the Bulgarian administrators in all their actions. 

Amongst the revolutionary committees in Bulgaria they began to propagate the idea of complete separation of the interests of the Macedonians from those of the Bulgarians. 

Sarafov began working energetically in conjunction with the committees which he represented. As Chairman of the Supreme Committee in Sofia, Sarafov was working in direct opposition to the Bulgarian administration; neither the Bulgarian government officials nor the Bulgarian Prince shared Sarafov's opinion; in other words the committee which Sarafov led was submitting itself, over the Macedonian question, to a program which was up till then only political, which had been worked out beforehand, and on which those who had been invited to defend Bulgarian interests had not been actively involved while those who represented the masses, that is the Bulgarian people, had participated. Thus it is clear that the Bulgarians had swallowed the pill and that it was too late to rectify the mistake. The government did what it could to recover what had been lost - but in vain! It was too late. 

The Supreme Committee in Sofia was placed under the presidency of General Tsonchev, a Bulgarian and favorite of the Prince. But the Macedonians in Bulgaria convinced the Bulgarian people of the justness of their program as far as it concerned the complete separation of Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria; they unmasked he political leaders, the Prince and the &quot;General's Committee&quot;, or the committee of Tsonchev-Mihailov, as self-seeking and so won for themselves greater power in Bulgaria than that held by the &quot;General's Committee&quot; and the political leaders over the Macedonian question. This power was substantially aided by the solidarity of &quot;Stanishev's Supreme Committee&quot; together with the &quot;Internal Organization&quot;. 

Thus the committees, together with the Macedonians as a whole, shook themselves free from the influence of the Bulgarian leaders and set up their own independent plan of operation; this was publicized in Bulgaria and so the committee won influence amongst he Bulgarian people and, through them, over their leaders. 

Once the Macedonian &quot;job&quot; had been thus settled in Bulgaria the Macedonians began to move into Serbia where they once again set out their program, this time to the Serbian leaders and the Serbian people. Sarafov, Rбdev, and Yankov assured the Serbs that they were fighting under the banner of Macedonia for the Macedonians, for all Macedonians regardless of differences, and that they would never unite Macedonia with Bulgaria. It is surely clear from these actions that the Macedonians had, through their leaders, decided to settle the fate of Macedonia themselves and that through their efforts they were prepared to make their interests conform to and harmonize with those of the other Balkan states, including Bulgaria, provided these states would agree to aid Macedonia in her designs. 

Hence it is clear that the battle between Serbia and Bulgaria for influence over Macedonia led to the growing awareness that the fate of Macedonia should rest in the hands of the Macedonians. The Macedonians organized themselves around their motherland, their duty towards their country and their understanding of their rights. Through this organization it was the Macedonians themselves who became the chief factor in settling the Macedonian question, not only in their own eyes but also in the eyes of all Europe. Now that the uprising is over we are looked at with respect; before the uprising we were looked upon as a formless mass. 

These are the results of our recent upsurge of self-awareness. By gradually separating Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria, by taking the Macedonian question into their own hands, and, most of all, by launching the recent uprising the Organization has achieved the following result: contrary to its expectations many in Macedonia, instead of seeking freedom, are now convinced that we need to cut off our connections with all Balkan nations and that we should cultivate in Macedonia everything that is original and that belongs to us our language, our customs, our history, our literacy, our Slav nationality, etc. 

This was not expected because it was felt that the name &quot;Bulgarian&quot; would bring us everything we had expected from the national movement. But we were deceived in our expectations: the name &quot;Bulgarian&quot; was not only not beneficial to Macedonian interests, it also had a negative effect on the revolutionary &quot;work&quot;. The name Bulgarian and the various assurances made to Europe and Bulgaria concerning the fate of Macedonia after its liberation gave rise to great mistrust towards our revolution, on the part of the peoples of Europe, who considered it a piece of cunning, not Macedonian but Bulgarian, a maneuver by the Bulgarian leaders to get the Macedonian question settled more quickly. The unfortunate Bulgarian leaders found themselves in a fix over the Macedonian question: the Macedonians had outmaneuvered them and used them for their own ends, and the Europeans were accusing them of cunning a cunning they could have little claim to possess. So the name &quot;Bulgarian&quot;, which the Committee and the Organization took over for the Macedonian Slavs, and the unification of our interests with those of Bulgaria in the agitation caused by the Committee in Bulgaria were among the reasons for attributing to Bulgaria the whole Macedonian question and the relations between Europe and Bulgaria, and for considering it as Bulgarian foreign policy which should not be accepted. 

Furthermore, the name &quot;Bulgarian&quot; drove the Europeans to mistrust the work of the Organization and look upon it as an ambition on the part of the Bulgarians to upset the balance in the Balkans by revolution; moreover, the instability of Bulgarian foreign policy, which was constantly vacillating between pro- and anti-Russian, was one of the reasons why Russia agreed with Austria-Hungary to find a joint solution to the Balkan questions. This agreement was concluded in 1897 against Bulgaria as the agitating force behind the Macedonians, but the results of this agreement were harmful not to Bulgaria itself, for nobody had the right to interfere in Bulgaria's internal affairs, but to us Macedonians. This is the negative side of the first period of out national self-awareness, and here lies the reason for the failure of our uprising. The failure, then, is basically focused around the name &quot;Bulgarian&quot; which the revolutionaries took over and publicized. 

The revolution, however, does mark an epoch in the life and the growth of self-awareness of the Macedonian Slavs. It will make our people and our intellectuals look back upon those actions which brought about the unsuccessful uprising. It will force the Macedonian intelligentsia of all backgrounds to unite so that the people might be united, but not on the basis it formerly chose when it demonstrated its lack of tenacity; it will be on a new, purely Macedonian basis. The uprising has shown that we Macedonians cannot expect help from any of the Balkan states because the resolution of our question lies mainly in the hands of the Great Powers, and so we do not need to unite and join our interests with any of the Slav peoples in the Balkans. What is most essential for us is internal unity, mutual unity in Macedonia we do not need Serbs, Bulgarians or Greeks, for we are none of these; we do not need patriarchists, or exarchists because we are only Orthodox Christians. The partition has been artificially made by the Balkan states which intended to partition Macedonia according to the existing situation. But the Macedonians, at their present level of national development, are not merely material in the hands of the small Balkan states but a powerful ethnographic and political factor, and it is on them that the fate of Macedonia depends and not on the small Balkan states. These Macedonians who have shown such skill in their national-political organization, who have been so exemplary in sacrificing their interests to the interests of their motherland, will be no less successful in organizing all preventative measures against the nationalist and religious propaganda which today is splitting our people into hostile camps. 

The Revolutionary Organization and the Macedonians have so far set the interests of the Macedonians far apart from those of the Bulgarians. It is only one step from this situation to complete separation from Bulgaria and to the proclamation of Macedonia as a special ethnographic region, separate from Bulgaria and Serbia. This step is the essential second phase in the failure of our recent uprising: it has already been half taken. Macedonia's complete secession from the Balkan states in the ethnographic sense will come to the attention of the public once Macedonia settles down. 

The intervention of the Bulgarians and Serbs in Macedonia was the result of various circumstances: the Macedonians had gone hand in hand with the Bulgarians as far as the Church was concerned, which explains why the power of the Exarchate had spread in Macedonia. Serbia became involved in Macedonia when she lost hope of incorporating Bosnia and Herzegovina into her territory. 

But now new circumstances have arisen for us Macedonians as well, circumstances which will shake us and show us the new paths we should follow in the future. The pretensions of the Serbs and the Bulgarians, on the one hand, have shown us that the rivalry of these two states alone has been enough to condemn us to slavery for some time still to come; on the other hand, these pretensions of theirs have, in spite of this, assured us of a certain truth - that in all Macedonia there exists only one Slav nationality and not several. 

So, the partition is artificial and in the battle against it we should first begin with completely new work on the further development of our national self-awareness. 

Thus the terms Serb, Bulgarian, and Greek have served their time in Macedonia and there is no longer any place for them. It is time for them to be changed for a name common to all Macedonian Slavs, the name Macedonian. This exchange is simply the logical outcome of the work of the Macedonian Committees, the Organization, and the intelligentsia, and it is conditioned by new circumstances. This exchange has already been partially affected and the time is not far off when it will celebrate its full success. 

In all that has been said above of the new trends in the development of our national self-awareness I have the impression that many of you will again find in my thoughts and words nothing but mystification. Some of you may ask: 1. If the Committees have so far been playing a double role - telling the Bulgarians that the Macedonians are Bulgarians and that Macedonia will one day be attached to Bulgaria, and telling the Europeans that they are seeking an autonomous Macedonia for the Macedonians only because they have no intention of uniting with the Bulgarians - how is it that I know the Committees are lying to the Bulgarians and not to Europe? This may be quite the contrary of what I said above about the Committees, i.e. that they are ready to give Europe every guarantee that Macedonia will not unite with Bulgaria and will never allow the Bulgarian language and the Bulgarian name to be used in Macedonia to the detriment of the central Macedonian dialect and the name Macedonian, in other words what I said - that there is only one step from the position held by the Macedonians and the Macedonian Committees concerning the Macedonian question with relation to Bulgaria to the complete secession of Macedonia and the Macedonians from Bulgarian national interests is not true, because it is not one step but a whole gulf which divides the one from the other, and the Committees will show the most powerful opposition to the new trends; 2. If it is accepted that the committees will not agree to using the Bulgarian language and the name Bulgarian in Macedonia, and if all Macedonian intellectuals who have been brought up as Bulgarians are to join them in opposing all new trends, where would the new trends in this case draw their strength from? Who is to be the theoretician of the new trend, where will the theoreticians develop their activity, what sort of auditorium will they have and where will it be, where will the finances be found for publicizing the new ideas, how will they get through to the people and how will they survive? Where will the money be found for new textbooks, who will prepare them and whose money will be used for running schools in Macedonian? It is clear that if the Committees and the Macedonian intelligentsia in Bulgaria begin to resist the new tends, or, if they do not resist, simply refuse to support them, nothing will be left of all this is the fantasy of a handful of Macedonians will be laughed to scorn, and that is all. 

Is this, in effect, how matters stand? Let us now examine how well grounded these suppositions are. 

First we must consider what attitude the Committees and the Macedonian intelligentsia will take towards the new national trend in Macedonia, a trend which demands not only the political but also the national and religious liberation of Macedonia; i.e. what will be their attitude towards a trend which has as its slogan Macedonia for the Macedonians and is set against all other rival ideologies in Macedonia, and against Bulgaria and the Bulgarians at the same time. Let us assume that this new trend is of no significance: if so, we must settle the question of our attitude towards it. If, from the point of view of the Committee, the new trend is undesirable and dangerous it should be rooted out from the very start; if it does not rest on sufficiently firm ground one may expect that it will die out of its own accord; but if it is in fact useful for Macedonia then the Macedonians should support it. 

The question of whether this new trend has a future or not will be considered later when it will be seen that if left to itself and ignored it will develop on its own and not die out. So, if we accept that the new trend will develop on its own, we must now ask whether the Committees will fight against it or give it their support. 

First we must ask whether the Committees, if they are to assess the situation logically, can declare war against the new trend? One might admit that such a war could be expected, for there are people in the Committees who are not just Macedonians but also Bulgarians, and the latter will never agree with the new trend because it would mean burying the interests of the Bulgarians in Macedonia; there are also Macedonian committee members who will reason as follows: now that we are old we cannot learn a new language Bulgarian is the language we know and we shall speak Bulgarian; we are Bulgarians. 

This will be the feeling of the minority; the majority of the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria, however, will be opposed to the new trend for purely egoistic reasons. More than five thousand Macedonians hold government posts in Sofia alone, and the number of candidates for the civil service is no less. The majority of these Macedonian emigrant intellectuals have held, or will hold, high functions in the government or expect to be promoted to such positions - even to rise to the rank of cabinet ministers. It is well known that most of these gentlemen think above all of their own interests; the interests of Macedonia are simply a means of getting promotion in the civil service and of retaining office. And God alone knows what the interests of the Bulgarians mean. Furthermore, in order to carry out their egoistic designs and land themselves with a cushy job, they are prepared to show themselves greater Bulgarians than the Bulgarians themselves, they are ready to take on the role of Bulgarian chauvinists, to exploit the Bulgarian Prince, the interests of the Macedonians, the interests of the Bulgarian people and European public opinion; in short, to lie all round and to hide their lies behind the excuse that they are performing some patriotic duty while they are in fact bent on getting a good job and on winning power and popularity. The Macedonian intellectual emigrants are on the whole people of this sort who have set their own interests on the same plane as those of the Bulgarians and who flock round the Bulgarian Prince, who makes and breaks ministers as the mood takes him and who is capable of appointing ministers from among those people who not only have no popularity among the Bulgarians but also belong to no party, those who are &quot;independent&quot;, i.e. &quot;who ride with the wind&quot;. So, we have people who think that man's basic dignity lies not in serving his own people honorably but in outwitting everyone, i.e. in telling lies all round. It is natural, then, that the new trend in the national self-awareness of the Macedonians will meet with no support amongst the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria. 

There is no need to speak of Macedonians educated in Bulgaria: they will unanimously pronounce the new trend as absurd for, they will say, the Macedonian nation has never existed and does not exist now, and the Macedonians are Bulgarians, etc. This has always been the case everywhere, and so it will be in Macedonia. The educated, the aristocracy, the intelligentsia, and in general all classes of society with personal interests, traditions, and prejudices will fight against new trends which embody truth and justice. 

These trends first take root in the lower classes and among people who are free from prejudice and who are ready to fight against prejudice to protect the new ideas which must be realized in order to ensure their happiness and the happiness of the people. As an illustration of the course and final outcome of the battle between the old and the new we need only recall the battle of Christianity against Jesuitism, the reforms in Russia introduced by Peter the Great, the rebirth of the Czechs and the Lithuanians, the language reforms of Vuk Karadzhich, etc. 

Let us leave aside for the moment the battle between the old and the new trends in Macedonian national feeling; let us continue to consider the question of the Committee's attitude towards the trend. A short while ago I said that most members of the Committee would be in favor of fighting against the new trend. But do you think that they will be victorious in this battle? No. They will simply be digging their own graves and, moreover, compromising Bulgarian policy in Macedonia. And this is why: Up till now the Committees have been assuring the world at large that they are working only for a Macedonia for the Macedonians and that they are ready to offer any guarantee that there will be no unification between Bulgaria and Macedonia. Bulgaria has been promulgating the same policy with regard to the Macedonian question. The Committees say that the general Macedonian uprising was planned and launched by all the Macedonian nations together and not just by the &quot;Bulgarians&quot;. But when you ask them how it could have been a general uprising of all the Macedonian nations and why the Committee had its headquarters in Bulgaria and not in Serbia, Wallachia, and other places they will answer that although the Committee did have its headquarters in Bulgaria one should not allow oneself to draw the wrong conclusion that the Macedonian Committees were Bulgarian; as far as the Macedonian Committees were concerned, Bulgaria was no more than a country which had offered hospitality to the Macedonians and had permitted them to work freely as long as their work did not cause harm to the country; i.e. in the Macedonian uprising Bulgaria simply played the role of Kara-Wallachia in the Bulgarian uprising. And the Bulgarians say the same. 

The Europeans, of course, did not believe this. And now how false will these assurances of the Committee and of the Bulgarians seem if both of them - on account of their passive attitude towards a movement which demands Macedonia for the Macedonians and not for the Bulgarians, or because they have discounted the movement should join battle against it? This battle will remove the mask from both of them and will awaken the sympathy of European society and of the European leaders in favor of the new trend and against the deceivers. But without Europe and Russia neither the Committees nor the Bulgarians will be able to alter the fate of Macedonia by one jot. 

One thing is certain: that the Committees, thanks to their disdainful and passive attitude towards the new trend, will have to do an about-turn and begin supporting it. And that is the answer to the question of what attitude the Committee will have towards the new movement. 

Let us now pass on to the second question: where will this new movement draw its strength from if the Macedonian intelligentsia and the Committees in Bulgaria begin to oppose it? What forces and means can the new movement draw on? In order to answer this question we must give a brief outline of the role of Serbia in the Macedonian revival. It would be very shortsighted to neglect the attitude of Serbia towards the Macedonian question and to ignore the role it has played in the Macedonian national revival. One may even say that, in the recent history of Macedonia, Serbia has played a greater role than Bulgaria. When Bulgaria was making a great fuss about her intention to settle the Macedonian question, and while she was being led a merry dance by the Macedonian emigrants, Serbia kept quiet and went on working with great success in Macedonia, in true keeping with the saying: &quot;still waters runs deep&quot;. There were times when the roles of these two countries were reversed: Serbia fussed and Bulgaria worked, Let us be more precise: Up till the Serbian-Bulgarian war of 1885 the Bulgarians had been working quietly in Macedonia. Slivnitsa proved to Serbia that if Bulgaria, together with Eastern Rumelia, could defeat Serbia at Slivnitsa, the unification of Bulgaria with the subjugated Macedonia would in the future mean complete defeat and subjugation for Serbia. Slivnitsa forced Serbia to begin a new battle with Bulgaria for Macedonia. This battle was at first on paper: the Serbs began with thunderous empty phrases to claim that they had a greater right to Macedonia than the Bulgarians. From here they moved on to high-powered but unsuccessful propaganda in Macedonia, promising the Macedonians, the young students from the Bulgarian and Greek schools, golden hills in Serbia. After 1888 the patriotic St. Sava society opened a hail of residence for its scholarship holders. In 1889 the number of scholarship-holders increased, only to drop again a few months later; in November of this year about forty Macedonian students, some secretly, some publicly and openly, made a mass move from Belgrade to Sofia where they continued their schooling (with Bulgarian money, needless to say). This failure did not dishearten the courageous Serbs; the St. Sava society opened a patriotic subscription in Serbia for the construction of a new building for the society, which would serve as a hail of residence and school building. In 1890 a three-storied building was erected and in January 1891 the Theological Seminary College was opened, only to be shut half a year later. But during this half year the society of St. Sava kicked up quite a dust: in addition to the teaching of science, the curriculum included cadet parades and marches through the streets of Belgrade and the suburbs, as well as summer excursions through Serbia. All this involved much self-aggrandizement. This marked the end of the Serbs' dust-raising and thereafter the Serbs began to work quietly and thoroughly: the propaganda passed on from the patriotic society to the Ministry of Forei 

The work of the Serbs was not without result in settling the Macedonian question. 

Through their schools in Macedonia the Serbs managed to bring the other Europeans and the Russians round to thinking that there was a Serb population in Macedonia. This illusion was even passed off as a tact to the leaders of the Great Powers. Hence it is clear that in settling the Macedonian question one must also bear in mind the demands of the Serbian rulers. Serbia, then, achieved more than Bulgaria in this battle because Bulgaria kicked up a fuss and found herself on the losing side. If the course of national self-awareness among the Macedonians had not taken a new turn, leveling the loses of the Serbs with those of the Bulgarians, one might have said with certainty that after the uprising the Bulgarian interests had been simply destroyed while those of Serbia had been advanced. But Serbian propaganda, in addition to the illusion it spread concerning the Serbs in Macedonia and the endeavor to prevent the Macedonian question being settled in Bulgaria's favor, had further results. 

In their propaganda campaign the Serbs had no intention of trying to turn the Macedonians into Serbs; they wanted simply to get as much out of Macedonia as they could when the time came for the Macedonian question to be settled. They attempted to achieve this aim first of all by stressing historical and other rights and then by giving a different slant to the question of the nationality of the Macedonian Slavs. These Slavs had to be regarded either as a kind of mean between the Bulgarians and the Serbs, i.e. as neither Serb nor Bulgarian but simply Macedonian or Macedonian Slav, or else as Serbs. The first theory attracted fewer supporters and was set aside to be presented to European public opinion. 

But the way into Macedonia was closed to the protagonists of this theory and also to all those places from whence the propagandists came. This theory was dangerous for Serbian interests in Macedonia because it would have entailed Serbia's agreement to the formation of a separate Macedonian state, and so Serbia would not have been able to get even a part of it. 

The second theory, i.e. that all Macedonian Slavs are Serbs, just like the Bosnians, Montenegrins, and others, had its roots in Serbia. The Serbs used this theory to deceive not only European public opinion and the Macedonians, but also themselves: they began to spread the same idea among their own people through their schools and books. These schools and books were tendentious as far as the nationality of the Macedonians was concerned. The illusion which the Serbs spread in Europe concerning their interests was not unfruitful; nor was the illusion that had been spread amongst the Serbs themselves entirely without effect: if war was to break out over Macedonia, no matter with whom, the Serbs would present a united front to the enemy the Serbian army would fight with the strongest feelings of patriotism for Macedonia. 

The Serbian efforts to have the Macedonian question properly studied were crowned with success. The Bulgarians could console themselves that the question of the nationality of the Macedonians had been settled in their favor. They could consider it settled. But the scholars are not all in accord with this. There are several, such as Prof. J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, P. A. Lavrov and V. Jagich who consider the Macedonian dialects as special forms of the Slav family of languages. This study and this conclusion mark a victory for the Serbs. 

The Serbs brought about a reversal in both the aspirations and the ideas of the Macedonians, a reversal which was not even to their own advantage and far less to that of the Bulgarians. They wanted to turn the Macedonians into Serbs by insisting that in all forms of propaganda and publicity they should be referred to exclusively as &quot;real, true&quot; Serbs. This, however, did not happen. The Macedonians began to delve more deeply into the question of their nationality and their interests and reached the conclusion that they were neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, that the only interests that mattered to them were those of Macedonia, and that they had nothing to do with Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek interests. The Serbs did not manage to fulfill all their aspirations but they did reach a point from which it would have been very hard to go back; they also managed to pacify the less intractable elements among the Serbian people. 

The influence of Serbia on the development of Macedonian self-awareness and the results of this influence may be seen from the following: In 1899 there were between fifty and sixty young Macedonians staying at the hostel of the St. Sava Society in Kosmajska Street, Belgrade. And among them there were even &quot;old Serbs&quot;, although they were all exclusively from Macedonia and were divided on the grounds of their education, right up till their arrival in Serbia, into &quot;Bulgarophiles&quot; and &quot;Hellenophiles&quot;; there were no &quot;Serbophiles&quot; among them. 

The old &quot;Bulgarophiles&quot;, together with the new arrivals that year and a number of &quot;Hellenophiles&quot; (between thirty and forty altogether), set off for Bulgaria, some secretly, some openly and demonstratively. These young Macedonians, educated in Serbia in the national spirit, i.e. to love first their country and their people, and then mankind, set off for a country where was no national self-awareness, where there was simply there complete indifference towards national interests, bringing with them a new wave of national enthusiasm, a will to work for the liberation of Macedonia. It was they who were the initiators in Bulgaria of the work that was to be carried out on behalf of Macedonia. 

The &quot;Hellenophiles&quot; in Belgrade gradually increased their numbers over the years as they were joined by new &quot;Hellenophiles&quot; or &quot;Bulgarophiles&quot;, but both these groups, while living in the interior of Serbia, found it extremely hard to turn themselves into &quot;Serbophiles&quot;. It was only those who had been sent as off officials to Macedonia, as part of the Serbian propaganda program, that managed to become &quot;Serbophiles&quot;. But these Macedonians were &quot;Serbophiles&quot; only for the sake of outward appearances and for those who represented rival propaganda programs in Macedonia; these disseminators of Serbian propaganda never felt themselves to be spiritually &quot;Serbian&quot; or &quot;Serbophile&quot;, particularly during the first ten years, although they were living in Serbia. 

The life of the young Macedonians in Serbia had always been beneficial for the interests of Macedonia. While in Serbia the Young Macedonians began to take up the question of their nationality with Serbian philologists, to examine the historical arguments concerning their nationality, to discuss Serbian patriotism, and, in its extreme form, chauvinism or the blind preference of things Serbian to anything foreign, to question the reasons for Serbian chauvinism, to consider the role of Serbia, past and present, in relation to the Macedonian question, and to discuss many other important and interesting matters. 

From past experience they were able to judge clearly how Serbia had been promoting her own interests in Macedonia; but the Macedonians now also learnt that Serbia was a state with military and diplomatic power, and that the Serbs were a people who would defend their own interests in Macedonia by both exemplary devotion and extreme fanaticism. 

The battle being waged against Serbian interests in Macedonia was no less exacting for liberated Bulgaria than for the Macedonians, who had no state, no national budget, no army and no diplomatic corps, and so the Macedonians in Serbia gave up the idea of open conflict with the Serbs though this did not mean that they renounced the interests of their motherland. After the flight of the first group of Macedonian students in 1889 there were constant escapes right up to 1895/96; occasionally these were small groups of five or six but sometimes they fled alone or in twos. Nevertheless most of the Macedonians stayed in Serbia and strove to find a way of working for the interests of Macedonia without entering into open conflict with the Serbs. 

In order to work out this program the Macedonian students in Belgrade in 1893/94, while subject to the supervision of the Head of the Men's College, Djuro Milijashevich, decided to found a Macedonian Society in Belgrade. The aim of this society was to acquaint its members with a program, which was yet to be worked out, but which would be carried out in Macedonia without the knowledge of the Serbs. The explicit aims of this program were to study Macedonian ethnography, geography, philology and history. 

This Society, of course, came to nothing because the Serbs showed no trust in the Macedonians and began to fill up the society with &quot;old Serbs&quot;, i.e. Montenegrins, Bosnians, Herzegovinians, etc. This lack of confidence on the part of the Serbs, followed by the attempt to fill the Society with non-Macedonian &quot;Serbs&quot;, was particularly evident in the second year of the Society's life, when Professor Jarishich was in charge of the College. But although the Society was practically disbanded, the feelings and aspirations of the Macedonians in Serbia did not alter. The Macedonians began to be drawn towards the Revolutionary Organization, which had been set up by those with Bulgarian and Serbian educational backgrounds; thus they also accepted the attitude of the Serbs towards this Organization. They took up a stand over Serbia's role in connection with the Macedonian question, both in the past and the future, because they had the honor of being the instigators of national separatism amongst the Macedonians. They were, in fact, the main supporters of this separatism and amongst them were people with a strong sense of patriotism and a sound understanding of Macedonian national interests. 

These Macedonians gave open expression to their beliefs concerning the Macedonian question through a paper, the Balkanski Glasnik, which began to appear in Belgrade in 1902. The publication of this paper could not have pleased the Serbian chauvinists, and the Serbian newspapers began to react to it, criticizing the editor for collaborating with the Macedonian revolutionary Committees; as a result the editor was expelled from Serbia. 

Such were the effects of Serbian propaganda on the students and fledgling administrators who had been born in Macedonia. As far as the nationality of the Macedonians was concerned, the Serbs stuck to the second of the two theories mentioned, i.e. that the Macedonians were in fact Serbs, and it was precisely because of this that they achieved the opposite effect to the one they had intended: the Serbs had hoped to persuade the Macedonians to serve Serbian interests, i.e. to consider themselves Serbs and to present themselves as Serbs to their fellow countrymen. But instead of doing so, the Macedonians began to consider themselves Macedonian, with their own special aims; and they wanted to bend Serbian policy to enable them to achieve purely Macedonian aims instead of having to serve as instruments in the hands of the Serbs. 

There was not a single Macedonian with a Serbian education, especially if he had lived in Serbia, who believed the Serbs when they said that he was a Serb. Indeed, most of them began to hate the Serbs for their chauvinism, and did all they could to pull the wool over their eyes in order to achieve their aim - acquiring an education. After leaving school some of them may have gone on to become officials in the Serbian propaganda system but at the same time they hated the Serbs and cursed their fate for having to pay lip-service to a propaganda which was aimed directly against the interests of their fatherland - Macedonia. This kind of Macedonian had usually attended a Greek or Bulgarian school, or both, before entering the Serbian school, and he could well remember how they had constantly tried to convince him at his previous school that he was Greek or Bulgarian; now they tried convince him that he was a Serb. The question he now had to ask was where the truth lay, for all sides had been ready with their persuasive arguments. Counterargument did not help the Macedonian to work out which of the persuasions was correct and so he began realize that they were all false and that there was only one incontrovertible truth: that the Macedonian Slavs were Macedonians and Slavs, and so each Macedonian was bound to consider the interests of his country and his people, and not those of the nations who were trying to spread their propaganda. 

Let us consider another type of Macedonian educated under the Serbs: he may still consider himself a Bulgarian even after spending four or five years in Serbia. After completing his schooling in Serbia, where should he go - to Bulgaria or to Macedonia? What would he do in either Bulgaria or Macedonia? Bulgaria and the Bulgarian church in Macedonia have more officials than they need, but even if there were any openings they would not be given to anyone who had finished his schooling in Serbia; a vacant post would be given to some other candidate. Now, even if we concede that he might be given a post in the Bulgarian government service, can we be sure that he would feel at home there? No. 

During the time he spent in Serbia he was influenced by numerous circumstances which did not exist in Bulgaria and so his view of the world would differ greatly from that of someone educated in Bulgaria where he would not have been subjected to foreign thoughts and prejudices; in these new social surroundings he would be least likely to feel at home. 

Thus Serbia, by interfering in the Macedonian question, achieved great success and we should admit that we are fortunate that this success is more to our advantage than to Serbia's. Serbia opened schools, set up consulates, and appointed Firmilyan, so giving a new turn to the Macedonian question. Serbia deluded public opinion in Europe into thinking that there were Serbs in Macedonia and this delusion passed for fact in Europe. Serbia put a stop to any further consideration of the question of the Macedonians' nationality and any resolution of the problem in favor not of Bulgaria or Serbia but of Macedonia as a separate nation. Serbia educated a whole generation of Macedonians who had, still have, and will have a decisive effect on Macedonian history. Those people, educated by the Serbs, have played an important role in the Macedonian question, paying scant regard to whether they were labeled Bulgarian, Serb or Macedonian and making no distinction between those who had a high sense of morals and those who did not. Those educated by the Serbs belonged to all possible categories and in all of them the Serbian influence proved beneficial for Macedonia. 

Those who were treated as Bulgarians (or considered themselves Bulgarian), who founded and supported the Macedonian revolutionary movement, deserve credit for achieving separatism. It is the idealists working under Serbian guise, while remaining at heart Macedonian, who are to be credited for bringing about national separatism; those who were educated in Serbia were brought up in the active national spirit instead of in the mood of national indifference which prevailed in Bulgaria, although some of them did not fully agree to calling themselves Bulgarians; but a vast gap developed between them, between the Macedonians who had been educated in the pure Bulgarian tradition, and the Bulgarians themselves. On account of their education they held a middle position between the Bulgarians and the Serbs; this means that by tradition they considered themselves Bulgarian although in their hearts they had ceased to be Bulgarians and felt themselves to be Macedonian. And last of all, the lowest and most wretched cogs in the Serbian propaganda wheel, those who were born in Macedonia, were also of service to their country because they formed the class of those who were dissatisfied with Serbian propaganda, those for whom there was no path towards the Bulgarians; and they were to enlarge the class of national separatists. 

So, if we are deluded in assuming that national separatism can be supported by the Revolutionary Committee, by the Organization, and by the Macedonian expatriate colony in Bulgaria, it would still be sufficient to have a powerful Serbian propaganda drive in Macedonia for national separatism to reach the highest peak. 

Fortunately, however, the new trend has been warmly received and will continue to be warmly received by the most intelligent and uncorrupted amongst the Macedonian intellectuals thanks to their natural mental development. There are many Macedonian intellectuals, and there will be more, who are ready to give their lives for their country and their people and who will ask themselves: what is most important for Macedonia the interests of the Bulgarians, the Serbs, the Greeks, or the Macedonians? And their answer will be that the interests of their country always come before general national interests, that general national interests are simply a means towards the realization of the interests of the country and that the reverse is not true. One does not need to reflect deeply to realize the truth of this. First and foremost, everybody knows that we love our country, Macedonia, and our people; we are constantly thinking about Macedonia and we feel that this is the country to which we belong. Ever since our childhood we have felt that whatever is dear to others is dear to us as well; whatever gives pleasure to other people gives pleasure to us as well they weep, so do we, they laugh, so do we. It is this universal happiness and sorrow, together with the customs and habits we share, that makes us one nation, one whole. But if we cross the borders of Macedonia to the northeast, to the south or to the north, that is to Bulgaria, to Greece or to Serbia, we will immediately feel that a different wind is blowing; we will feel that we are uninvited guests and if they want to make it seem that we are brothers they will do so in order to mislead us and expose us to exploitation by the Greeks, Bulgarians or Serbs. All our neighbors are constantly assuring us that we are of their nationality and that our only hope of salvation lies in uniting the whole of Macedonia, or at least the greater part of it, with their countries. We will all realize that these people, of whom we have learnt only from books and whom we have grown to look upon as people willing to help us win our freedom, will approach us as friends and fellow-countrymen and will, to all appearances, be our protectors, not because we are Greeks or Bulgarians or Serbs, and not because they are concerned with any universal human interests which include us as well, and not because they wish to help us and rescue us from peril, but because they have purely egoistic aims which lead them to exploit the fact that we use their names to describe ourselves. They use this fact - that the people of Macedonia are described variously as Serbs, Greeks, and Bulgarians - as an excuse for expanding their states and securing their interests by taking over, if not all, at least the greater part of Macedonia. Does this not prove that the small states by pursuing universal aims also pursue inhuman aims which are not directed towards the liberation of the subjugated nations but are in fact a purely material egoistic expansion of their own interests in which no thought is given to whether the fa 

National separatism, then, will find the places and the people that will look on things from the practical point of view without bothering much about the theory of our nationality. 

They will reason as follows: if Canada can anger England because it has sacrificed the interests of Canada to the United States in order to maintain good relations with North America, and if Canada now wishes to break free from England and defend her own state interests because she understands them best, why should Macedonia not anger Bulgaria when the Bulgarians not only cannot protect Macedonian interests but even exploit them? And why should Macedonia not be able to say: we have spilt the blood of our sons and they should defend only our interests and not those of Nachovich, Tsakov and Stanchev. 

Many will, moreover, remark that the small states re distrustful towards the role of Bulgaria in Macedonia just as the Great Powers were distrustful of the role of Russia in the liberation of Bulgaria; they were afraid of a San Stefano Bulgaria because they thought Russia would take it over. So, too, the small states now think that Bulgaria wants to liberate Macedonia in order to occupy it and take it over. But when the Western countries realized that they had been deceived and that Bulgaria was producing people such as the late Stambolov, such as Svircho, they calmed down and began to blame Russia for what they themselves had ruined in Berlin. Will there not be people in Macedonia as well who will come to realize that the trust of the small states with regard to Macedonia will depend an our Stamblovs and Svirchevs or on those who will see the danger to our interests in Bulgaria and not in Russia? One should have more faith in the possibility of finding such people - and they will be the extreme separatists. 

Finally, many will point out that our greatest misfortune lies in the fact that we have no local Macedonian patriotism. If there were patriotism in Macedonia, no matter where, we would think and work only or Macedonia. But now some of us still consider ourselves Bulgarian and link our interests with those of Bulgaria instead of studying our own country, Macedonia, in all its aspects; for, instead of studying the history of Macedonia from all times, we study Bulgarian interests and Bulgarian history and often these periods have nothing to do with Macedonia. So, for example, Mr. Balasachev, who was born in Ohrid, instead of making a special study of the history arid interests of Macedonia, began to take up the study of Bulgarian interests and Bulgarian history, which has the same meaning for Macedonia as the history of Abyssinia up to the time when the Abyssinians were Christianized. Other Macedonians in Greece have studied Greek interests and Greek history. Yet another Macedonian from Ohrid, Dimitsa, ranges over Greece and for him the history of Macedonia is of importance only up to the time when it was conquered by the Romans. The other Macedonians in Serbia put on a show of Serbian patriotism and work not for Macedonian but for Serbian interests, A rich fur-trader called Kosta Shumenkowich, for example, left 500,000 francs after his death to Serbian school. These wretched instances of what happens when we ally our interests with those of others should suffice to convince most people that our salvation lays only in national and religious separatism. 

The driving force 61 the new movement will lie in people who hold such convictions and, indeed, in all Macedonians who are dissatisfied with the foreign propaganda work in their country. But this is how it will be only in the beginning; later the number of supporters, open and secret, will increase not just from day to day but even from hour to hour. It is clear that as there is a Bulgarian propaganda movement in Macedonia we shall also have to put up with Serbian propaganda. Both propaganda movements are being supported by Bulgarian and Serbian money. Up till the time of the uprising the number of those who disapproved of Serbian propaganda was far greater; after the uprising people in Macedonia turned against Serbian arid Bulgarian propaganda alike. But even if this were not the case, Serbian propaganda alone would be sufficient to set up the necessary counter-reaction which would precede the new movement. All Macedonians who were involved in Serbian propaganda would be in favor of the new movement: the organs of propaganda would work in secret and the unpaid Serbs would publicly acknowledge their Macedonian nationality. 

Finally, many Macedonian Slavs educated in the Greek tradition will count themselves as Slavs. At present they will not do so because they are supposed to call themselves Bulgarians, and the name Bulgarian has considerably dropped in status in Greece. 

Thus all Macedonians are ready on their part to do what they can to unite and form a national whole, but not one of the supporters of the three forms of national propaganda will give up the side he supports and capitulate before the others. The national unification of the Macedonians can be brought about only by mutual compromise and not by capitulation; and this compromise is the new Macedonian national movement. 

Hence it is clear that even if the new movement does not receive any support from the numerous Macedonian intellectuals living in the Bulgarian colony it will still progress, but it will then develop along lines directed specifically against Bulgarian interests in Macedonia. 

If this new movement were to take on massive proportions and if strong opposition were shown by Bulgaria one might expect support from the Serbs. Even if it should turn out to be dangerous and unreal for Serbia it would still not run counter to Serbian interests. What matters for Serbia is that if Macedonia cannot be Serbian it should not be Bulgarian either. It has been seen for once and for all that Macedonia can never be Serbian the Serbs have had to desist from claiming that Macedonians are really Serbs and must now recognize them as a Slav race in their own right, equally close to both Bulgarians and Serbs. 

Thus the Macedonian National Revival Movement is developing as a historical process with a firm foundation and a great future; it is basically the result of the competition between Bulgaria and Serbia over the Macedonian question. The revolutionary political organizations and the policy of political separatism which they are pursuing represent a transition stage in the movement towards completely divorcing Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria and Serbia, i.e. towards national separatism. The increasing rivalry between Bulgarian and Serbian propagandists and the number of people dissatisfied with this propaganda will prove to be the main factor behind the growing support for national separatism. National separatism will also attract those who are now coming to appreciate the true implications of the various forms of national and religious propaganda in Macedonia, those who claim to be defending our interests while they are in fact blatantly exploiting them and who will, in the end, come round to fighting for the national unification of the Macedonians against all these forms of propaganda. The battle will be dangerous, not for those who support national unification but for their opponents. It is the supporters of national unification who will triumph and their triumph will be all the greater because the reforms in Macedonia will give Macedonia the opportunity to free itself from foreign influence and to transfer the core of the revival movement inside the borders of Macedonia.

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>bt07bv7gxex3emngkitfzw9t8aceslr</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Can Macedonia turn itself into a separate ethnographical and political unit? Has it already done so? Is it doing so now?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1655</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11042</id>
      <parentid>5105</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:05:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="23332" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters}}
In the three previous papers I turned my attention to what are the most important questions for me, and, I believe, for all sincere patriots. I think the reader needs no commentary to be able to understand what I meant by them.

But everything I have said would be groundless if we were not to consider certain theoretical questions which must be correctly formulated if we are to succeed in the work we are doing for our country and our people.

Many people will want to know what sort of national separatism we are concerned with; they will ask if we are not thinking of creating a new Macedonian nation. Such a thing would be artificial and short-lived. And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians? Have the Macedonians in their history ever found any outward form of spiritual and political expression? What have been their relations to the other Balkan nations and vice versa?

In this section I shall attempt to give an answer to this and to many other similar questions and also attempt, as best I can, to explain the true foundations of national separatism and to point out the unjustness of those who criticise it, thereby compromising it as something artificial.
One of the first questions which will be posed by the opponents of national unification and of the revival movement in Macedonia will be: what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history.

Macedonia, they will argue further, is not a geographical, an ethnic or an historical whole. It has never had any influence on the fate of the neighbouring peoples; on the contrary it has been the arena for political and cultural strife between the various Balkan nations. We may hear similar arguments from some of our fellow-countrymen, Macedonian Slavs who call themselves Bulgarians, once they have exhausted all other means of fighting against Macedonian national unification. There is no single language in Macedonia; instead there are several different dialects which have a close affinity to the Bulgarian dialects and they all together make up one language — Bulgarian. And the remaining Macedonian dialects are closer to Serbian, our opponents will conclude.

Even if these assertions were well-founded, even if there were an argument against the claim that the Macedonian Slavs exist and that they belong to an independent Slav unit, it still seems to me that one could argue the opposite and show that the national revival and the growth of self-awareness among the Macedonian Slavs is something very ordinary and understandable.

The first objection — that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed — may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise.

There was a time when all Indo-Europeans made up one people and spoke one common language, as has now been established by linguists through a comparison of the old and new Indo-European languages. But the old situation, in which all Indo-Europeans understood one another, gradually broke down and disappeared and a new set of circumstances arose in which there came about a splitting of the language, of the common national awareness, the common language, into various languages, beliefs, attitudes, traditions, etc. But this division took place on a large scale, involving national groups such as the Indo-Iranians, the Aryans, the Germano-Slavonic-Lithuanians, etc. According to the dictates of historical circumstances, these groups became divided into language families such as Tndian, Tranian or Persian, Armenian, Greek, Thraco-Illyrian, Italian, Celtic. Germanic. Slavonic and Baltic or Lithuanian. The Slavonic group, somewhere around the birth of Christ, was first divided into: the Eastern Slavonic or Russian. West Slavonic and South Slavonic groups; it was only from the last group that the Bulgarian Slav nation broke away, becoming known as Bulgarians, the name attached to them by the non-Slav Bulgarians.

If our opponents now admit that smaller ethnographic units have been formed from larger groups as a result of historical necessity, and if they have hitherto regarded Macedonians as Bulgarians why is it that they cannot and will not agree that from this larger ethnographic unit, which everybody including themselves describes as the Bulgarian nation, two smaller units might be formed: a Bulgarian and a Macedonian one? Historical circumstances at present demand that this division should be made, just as they once demanded that Bulgarians. Serbs. Croats and Slovenes should emerge from the South Slav group, or that Poles. Czechs, Slovaks and Lusatian Serbs should emerge from the West Slav group.

The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group.
Let us compare the two processes.

Certain historians and philologists claim that from the very time when the South Slavs first came to the Balkans differences existed among them, i.e. they were two separate peoples: the Slavs (Bulgarians and Slovenes) and the Serbo-Croats. This is the opinion of Kopitar73, Miklosic74 and Safarik75. Other historians, and particularly linguists, claim that all the South Slavs when they came to the Balkan Peninsula spoke different dialects (speech-forms) of a single language and that they were known by a common name: Slavs. The Serbo-Croats were also known as Slavs; the names Serb and Croat originated from the smaller South Slav groups and were tribal names which became national names only when the people who shared these names, i.e. the Serbs and the Croats, began to form larger states. All the Slavs who were subjects of the state of Serbia called themselves Serbs instead of Slavs, and all those who were subjects of the state of Croatia called themselves Croats. This is the opinion of Prof. Jagic76 and of many of his students. He regards the present South Slav languages not as three units strictly separated from one another but as a stream of individual speech-forms all running into one another, and forming, as it were, links in a chain.
If we are inclined to accept the first theory, i.e. that the Bulgarians and the Serbo-Croats settled in the Balkans as ready-formed, individual units, then we must ask how far these individual nations spread at the time when they were beginning to settle the land; we must also ask whether all the Bulgarians who came to the peninsula remained as they were or whether some of them became Serbianised. And did all the Serbo-Croats who came to the Balkans remain as they were. or did of them become Bulgarian ised? If we accept the claim that the South Slav nations came ready-formed to the Balkans we are left completely in the dark concerning the question of the boundary between Bulgarians and Serbs, and particularly the question of which peoples settled the Morava, Kucevo and Branicevo regions in the Middle Ages, in other words the present kingdom of Serbia. Safarik, basing his opinion on the works of Byzantine historians, particularly those of Constantine Porphyrogenitus77, claims that these areas were settled by Bulgarian Slavs who became Serbianised in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. If we accept this as a correct explanation it will be clear that a nation cannot always resist pressure from neighbouring foreign nations and that it will lose part of its territory to the stronger neighbour; furthermore, it can be seen from this theory that nations can be made up of two closely connected peoples and that historical necessity may weld them into one whole.
Why should the events of the Middle Ages not be repeated now? The Bulgarians have lost almost all of present-day Serbia to the Serbs and have come to accept their loss, indeed they no longer look on it as a loss. Why should they not then be able to reconcile themselves to the loss of Macedonia when it is as much an inescapable necessity as was the loss of Serbia? History remorselessly led Bulgaria into losing Serbia to the Nemanja dynasty and to the Serbian spirit, first in the political and then in the national sense; and the historical circumstances which arose from the Berlin Treaty required that Macedonia should be lost to Bulgaria first in the political and then in the national sense.
Yet another comparison with the history of Serbia: if Serbia had been dissatisfied with her fate in the state of the Nemanja dynasty she would have tried to gain her liberty by offering opposition and by attempting to unite with Bulgaria; but this attempt would have been made and would have had the desired result only if the historical circumstances had been favourable and allowed it to happen, which they did not and so Serbia became reconciled to the facts and was lost to the Bulgarians. The situation is the same and will be the same for Macedonia. Macedonia first attempted to gain liberation from Turkey but unfortunately the attempt was ineffectual. It might have been possible after such a liberation to think of unification with Bulgaria but this year has shown us that historical circumstances will never allow all of Macedonia to unite with Bulgaria. The Macedonians and Bulgarians are now left with a choice between two possibilities: either Macedonia will be divided among the neighbouring Balkan states, which would mean a loss of two thirds of Macedonia both for the Bulgarians and for the Macedonians, or else all relations with Bulgaria will be severed and the Macedonian question will be regarded on a purely neutral, Macedonian basis. When necessity phrases the issue thus it is clear that the second choice is the one which will always be preferred by everybody, for what honest Macedonian patriot would be prepared to sacrifice Kostur, Lerin*, Bitola, Ohrid, Resen, Prilep, Veles, Tetovo, Skopje, etc. for the unification of Macedonia up to the left bank of the River Vardar with Bulgaria? Is there a greater affinity between a Macedonian from Eastern Macedonia with a citizen of Ruse, on the Romanian border, or with a Macedonian from eastern, western, northern or southern Macedonia? When historical necessity categorically tells us: Macedonians, you must either unite and cut yourselves off from the other Balkan peoples or be prepared to see your country divided, all true Macedonian patriots will choose the former course. This will require humanity from the Macedonians; but can one describe as humane the situation which the propagandists have set up in Macedonia? In one and the same home the father belongs to one nationality, one of the sons to another, the second son to yet another, and God alone knows how long this will continue? Humanity requires that we should root out this abnormal situation from our land and reconcile brother with brother and father with child. This unification is a necessity and there is no need for us to tolerate enmity in our families for the sake of some unification with Bulgaria, which will never be countenanced either by the other small Balkan states or by the great powers.

Thus, under the present political conditions, the loss of Macedonia for Bulgaria is no less justifiable than was the loss of Serbia for Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. And just as the loss of Serbia in the political sense inevitably resulted in a loss in the national sense, so too the fragmentation of San Stefano Bulgaria will bring an ethnographic division in the train of the political division. Circumstances create cultural and national ties between people, but circumstances can also split close connections.

Such a comparison may well exist between the first theory, i.e. that of the settlement of the Balkan Peninsula by the South Slavs, their division into two nationalities, their strict separation in the ethnographic and geographic sense and the gradual alteration of the ethnographic map of the Balkan Peninsula, and the process of national differentiation taking place in Macedonia today.

Let us now see whether from the point of view of the other theory, i.e. that of Jagic, concerning the formation of the South Slav nations, the formation of a new Macedonian Slav nation can be explained in the present political circumstances?

Jagic tells us that the South Slav languages are. and have been, a chain of dialects; he also says that all the South Slavs, up till the formation of the Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian states, had been designated by the same name — Slavs. It seems that over the length of this chain of South Slav tribes and dialects, four strong units were formed, one might say four states with separate names, i.e. the Slovene. Croat, Serb and Bulgarian states. These units, or states, according to the strength they had when they were formed, divided up all the tribal and dialectical features of the South Slav ethnographic complex and called them by their own names. These units were centred round the people who bore the national name, and as their political power increased or decreased so the centre widened or narrowed. Thus the names Serb and Croat became national names after having been tribal names; thus the neighbouring tribes with their dialects mechanically attached themselves to these centres so that together they made up one people and gradually became assimilated by those who had subdued or incorporated them.

If the formation of the South Slav peoples was a mechanical and political process it would not be impossible that it might recur in present times. Within the South Slav language complex there arc several branches outside the Serbian and Bulgarian political units; these are the Macedonian dialects. These branches, since they are closely allied, naturally have some connection linking them more closely with Bulgarian in the east and Serbian in the north. These branches have been given various names at various times but it was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth century that these names overlapped so much as to displace one another. These various names did not properly catch on, and gradually they began to give way until finally they were replaced by the natural description ''Slav&quot; with a &quot;Macedonian&quot; reflection from the geographical area in which they were distributed. The people who spoke these dialects had once been called &quot;Slavs&quot; and later either &quot;Serbs&quot; or &quot;Bulgarians&quot; until the rivalry between these two names made them both alien to the Macedonian Slavs, who started calling themselves after the old geographical name of their country. The name Macedonian was first used by the Macedonian Slavs as a geographical term to indicate their origin. This name is well known to the Macedonian Slavs and all of them use it to describe themselves. Since the formation of nationalities is a political and mechanical process, all the necessary conditions exist for Macedonia to break off as an independent ethnographic region. The Macedonians have a common country which is gradually, with the reforms, breaking off into an independent political whole in which there are &quot;several branches of the South Slav chain of languages&quot;: these branches can easily be united through a general recognition of the central one as the means of expression of the literary language of all intelligent people in Macedonia and as the language of books and schools. Thus all the conditions for the national revival of the Macedonians are clearly visible, and, even from the point of view of the other historical theory (concerning the formation of small ethnographic units from a larger unit on the Balkan Peninsula), this is completely logical.

Here is what one might say to those who claim that Macedonian as a nationality has never existed: it may not have existed in the past, but it exists today and will exist in the future.

Let us now ask another question: would it be correct to say that there are two nationalities in Macedonia or, if there is only one, can it be called Serbian or Bulgarian?
In Macedonia, as in all other countries, there are many dialects which are very close to one another. This similarity among the dialects of Macedonia can be seen on the one hand in their general phonetic, phonemic, morphological, formal and lexical features; and on the other hand each dialect is very close to its neighbouring dialects and shares with them common characteristics which do not occur in the dialects of more distant parts. The western dialects are closest to each other and, so to speak, flow together, as do the east-em dialects; these dialects are linked in the same chain.

Now the question arises: which of the branches of our language chain should be called Serbian and which Bulgarian, and on what basis?

In settling this question one should not forget the following consideration: which of the dialects of the Serbian and Bulgarian languages should be accepted as most typical of those languages and what are the qualities which are considered most characteristic of the one language or the other? Do these most characteristic features also exist in the Macedonian dialects? Do the Macedonian dialects have their own common features which do not exist in Serbian or Bulgarian? In the Macedonian dialects do the Macedonian expressions outweigh the Serbian and Bulgarian expressions, or is the reverse true? Finally, do the qualities of extreme or peripheral Macedonian dialects and speech-forms permit us to consider them closer to the central and most typical Macedonian dialect of Veles, Priiep and Bitola or are they closer to the central dialects of Serbian and Bulgarian? 

The most typical and most extensive of the Serbian dialects is either that of Bosnia-Hercegovina or of southern Serbia, and it has been the literary language of the Serbs and Croats since the time of Vuk Karadic. The central Macedonian dialect, i.e. that of Veles and Prilep, can never in its essence be oriented towards Serbian because the difference between this language and the central dialect of Serbo-Croatian, i.e. the current Serbo-Croatian language, is as great as that between Czech and Polish. This is as much as to say that there are no Serbs in the central part of Macedonia. From the current acknowledgement that from the very beginning there were only three Slav nations in the Balkans — Slovenes, Serbo-Croats and Bulgarians — and from a denial of the presence of Serbs in central Macedonia, there is an indirect acknowledgement that there are Bulgarians there. But is this current attitude, that if there are no Serbs it means that there are Bulgarians, correct? Does the fact that there are no Serbs really mean that there are Bulgarians?

In the central Macedonian dialects the following phonetic features can be found: the old Macedonian sounds ъ and ь, have been turned into o and e in those places where the sound has been preserved, e.g. денот from the old Macedonian дьньтъ, through from дьнът; instead of the old тj and дj we have ќ and ѓ or јќ and јѓ, for example врејќа, туѓа, instead of нј we have јњ, e.g. којњ, instead of конј, instead of x - a, for example рака, etc. Not all these features are Serbian, nor are they Bulgarian. They do not exist in the main Bulgarian dialect, eastern Bulgarian, which serves as the literary language of the Bulgarians.
If the east Bulgarian dialect is taken as being the most typical Bulgarian speech-form, it is very clear that the distance alone which separates it from the centre of Macedonia is sufficient proof that the Macedonian tongue cannot be Bulgarian.

The east Bulgarian dialect is now considered the most typical Bulgarian tongue, free from all foreign influence. Its extent is greater than that of west Bulgaria. The west Bulgarian dialect is very different from that of the east and one can feel the influence of Serbian, despite the fact that it is an original dialect. The Macedonian dialects, however, also have their own characteristic forms, while the fact that they are close to Serbia means that they are not free from Serbianisms. These dialects, what is more, are found in the extreme west. For all these reasons, and above all because the Macedonians, up till the last Russo-Turkish war, had fought together with the Bulgarians, under the Bulgarian name, for their freedom from the Greek Patriarch and from Turkey, and because the sites of the battles were around Bulgaria, i.e. Istanbul, Wallachia, southwest Russia and Serbia, these places were mostly represented in the war of liberation by the Bulgarians and this helped to make eastern Bulgarian become the literary language of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians.

Let us accept for the moment that the Macedonians are Bulgarians and that the characteristics of the Macedonian central dialect are just as much Bulgarian as are the east Bulgarian ones; even then we cannot speak of an ethnographic unit existing between Bulgaria and Macedonia. Even if such a unit had once existed it would have had to be destroyed by the pressure...


(the missing part will be added shortly)


-

74 Jernej Kopitar (1780-1844) was a figure in the Slovene revival and a distinguished Austrian Slavicist. the author of the first scholarly and scientific Slovene grammar, publisher of old Slavonic memoirs and a significant helper in the philological work of Vuk. St. Karadic.
75 The Slovene Frank Miklosic (1813-91) was one of the most eminent 19&quot;&quot; century Slavic scholars, author of a Comparative Grammar of the Slavonic Languages, an Old-Slavonic-Greek-Latin Dictionary and an Etymological Dictionary of the Slavonic Languages.
76 The Slovak Pavel Safarik (1795-1861) was a distinguished Slovakian and Czech philologist and ethnologist, whose most important works are: History of the Slavonic Language and All Its Dialects. Slavonic Antiquities and Slavonic Ethnography.
76 The Croat Vatroslav Jagic was one of the greatest Slavonic scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For many years Professor of Slavonic Philology at Odessa, Berlin, St. Petersburg and Vienna, he is the author of numerous studies in Slavistics, editor of Old Slavonic texts and publisher of the periodical Archive of Slavonic Philology in Vienna, as well as of the unfinished Encyclopaedia of Slavonic Philology.
77 Constantine Porphyrogenitus (905-959). Byzantine Emperor and author of various historical documents including On [lie Rule of the Empire, where he provides much information about the settlemeni and life of the Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula.
* Today’s Castoria, Florina

[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:Историја на македонскиот јазик]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>onpztk3bpn9hiki9q0qalk2p74z40yd</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>The Macedonian questin - Petar Rachev Slavejkov</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1788</id>
    <redirect title="The Macedonian question - Petar Rachev Slavejkov" />
    <revision>
      <id>11035</id>
      <parentid>5007</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:39:18Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Пренасочување кон [[The Macedonian question - Petar Rachev Slavejkov]]</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="62" xml:space="preserve">#REDIRECT [[The Macedonian question - Petar Rachev Slavejkov]]</text>
      <sha1>66g64klge26tmqiaum9opwnpcxhg3be</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2036</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11018</id>
      <parentid>7036</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:36:29Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1368" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
*[[Recovering Macedonia 1 - Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 2 - Who were the Ancient People?]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 3 - Who are the Modern People?]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 4 - The Political Agenda ]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 5 - Great Power Influence in the Balkans]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 6 - The Macedonian Agenda]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 7 - Treaties and Agreements]] 
*[[Recovering Macedonia 8 - Minority Agreements]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 9 - From a Majority to a Minority]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 10 - Denationalizing the Macedonians in Greece]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 11 - The Macedonian Revival I]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 12 - The Macedonian Revival II]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 13 - The Macedonian Revival III]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 14 - The Macedonian Revival IV]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 15 - The Macedonian Revival V]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 16 - The Macedonian Revival VI]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 17 - The Macedonian Decline]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 18 - The Macedonian Decline II]]
*[[Recovering Macedonia 19 - The Macedonian Decline III]]

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>1k98k9n1jegl14dj5r27ts6putvkbr8</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 1 - Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2037</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11019</id>
      <parentid>5042</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:36:58Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="14201" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 1 - Introduction

By Risto Stefov

October, 2005

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

It has been almost a century since Macedonia was invaded, occupied and partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria and to this day Greece and Bulgaria have done nothing to address the needs and rights of the Macedonian people. In fact Greece and Bulgaria have not only ignored the Macedonian people living in their States, but they have done everything they can to denationalize and extinguish them and all that is Macedonian. 

Ever since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Macedonians have been struggling to assert their identity and to this day Greece and Bulgaria are doing everything they can to stop them. Why?

Why haven't Macedonians succeeded in gaining recognition and taking their rightful place in this world? Why do Greece, Bulgaria and to some extent Albania and Serbia oppose Macedonia's recognition? 

The Macedonians only want back what is already theirs. Macedonians have never made unreasonable or outrageous demands yet they still have not succeeded in making any gains. Why not? 
Why haven't Greece and Bulgaria addressed the Macedonian question?
Why haven't outside criticisms prompted Greece and Bulgaria to recognize the Macedonian minorities?

To adequately tackle these issues we need to go as far back as the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and explore the political climate and circumstances under which the successor States, specifically Greece and Bulgaria were created. Who were the architects of these States and what purpose did they have in mind for them when they were created?
Why were Macedonians denied the right to exist in spite of their long history, heroic struggles and desire to create a Macedonian State?

Greece was a multicultural, multiethnic state at its inception in 1829 but instead of embracing its true and rich heritage, it opted for something unreal, mythical and bizarre. Why did modern Greece, a multiethnic Christian State abandon its true roots and instead opt to adopt a 2,500 year old dead culture? 

If Macedonia simultaneously belonged to Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, as each claimed, why did they then agree to partition it? Why did they sign the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest agreeing to Macedonia's partition without any signs of protest?

To this day Greece and Bulgaria have done nothing to inform their citizens of the truth about Macedonia. Instead they continue to lie and deceive them maintaining that Macedonians don't exist. Worse, they label Macedonians as criminals and call them thieves for wanting back what is theirs.

The term &quot;Macedonia&quot; when used in this series will mean &quot;Ethno-Graphic&quot; or &quot;Geographic&quot; Macedonia. The part of Macedonia occupied by Greece in 1913 will be referred to as &quot;Greek Occupied Macedonia&quot;. The part of Macedonia occupied in 1913 by Bulgaria will be referred to as &quot;Bulgarian Occupied Macedonia&quot;. The part of Macedonia occupied in 1913 by Serbia and declared its independence in 1991, will be referred to as &quot;Republic of Macedonia&quot;. The part of Macedonia given to Albania in 1919 will be referred to as &quot;Albanian Occupied Macedonia&quot;. 

The Macedonian (Macedonian peoples') position regarding the Macedonian question

There is no Macedonian in this world today who does not want to see Macedonia reunited. Most Macedonians however are realists and are willing to accept less if given a chance. For starters they would like to see the Macedonian minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania gain recognition with full rights and privileges. Macedonians want the Macedonian minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania to enjoy the same rights and privileges that the Albanian and other minorities enjoys in the Republic of Macedonia.
The majority of Macedonians want the Republic of Macedonia to join NATO for security purposes to protect its integrity in order to create political stability and attract investment and economic growth.
All Macedonians, including those in the Diaspora, want the Republic of Macedonia to join the EU under its constitutional name. Most Macedonians living in the Republic of Macedonia want to join the EU for economic opportunities.
Macedonians originally from Greek and Bulgarian occupied Macedonia, who now live in the Diaspora, want Greece to recognize all Macedonians as Macedonian. Those Macedonians who were stripped of their Greek citizenship because they declared themselves Macedonian want to have their citizenship reinstated. 
Macedonians exiled from Greece would like to be recognized as Macedonians and their Greek citizenship along with their homes and properties returned.
Macedonians living inside Greece and Bulgaria want to be recognized as Macedonians with full rights and privileges.

Macedonians expect Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia to admit to and take responsibility for atrocities their Governments committed against civilians in Macedonia during the two Balkan wars. 

Macedonians expect Greece to admit to and take responsibility for evicting large numbers of civilians, including the refugee children, from Greek Occupied Macedonia during the Greek Civil War. 

The Macedonian position is very clear and very simple;

1. We simply want to be acknowledged for who we are, Macedonians.
2. We want to be given back what was taken from us; our homes, lands, citizenship and our dignity.
3. We want those who did harm to us in the past to acknowledge their wrongdoing and take responsibility for it.

The Greek (Greek State) position regarding the Macedonian question

Even since 1878 when it became evident that the Great Powers would not allow Macedonia to gain its independence from the Ottoman Empire, plans were made to partition Macedonia. Since then Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia refused to recognize the Macedonian identity.

Since then the Greek position has been that Macedonians do not exist. Census statistics produced in the past have never shown Macedonians to have ever lived in Greek occupied Macedonia.

Ever since Macedonia's invasion, occupation and partition, Greece, without acknowledging the Macedonian identity, has persecuted Macedonians. Those that Greece could not Hellenize, it forcible evicted or outright murdered under the guise that they were Bulgars or Slavs not worthy of living on Greek soil.

With regards to history, the Greek position is that the ancient Macedonians were Greek and the modern Macedonians are not really Macedonians but Slavs. 
Greece, in spite of being a signatory to the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, does not acknowledge the invasion, occupation and partition of Macedonia. The violent and forcible acquisition of Macedonian territory is justified on the basis that the ancient Macedonians 2,300 years ago were Greek and therefore Macedonian lands belong to Greece.

The Greek position is very clear and simple;

1. Macedonians do not exist.
2. Greece is a racially homogenous State and has no minorities.
3. The name Macedonia is Greek and the Slavs can't have it.

The Bulgarian (Bulgarian State) position regarding the Macedonian question

The Bulgarian position is also very clear and simple;

1. Macedonians do not exist.
2. Macedonia is a province of Greater Bulgaria.
3. The people living in Macedonia (the Macedonians) are Bulgarians.

Neither the Greek nor the Bulgarian State has changed its position since these positions were established in the last quarter of the 19th century. (Bulgaria changed its position and did recognize the Macedonian nation for a brief period after World War II, but quickly reverted back to its old position).

So why are Greece and Bulgaria refusing to budge on their positions?

So far Macedonians have pleaded their case, mainly through criticisms, to successive Greek and Bulgarian Governments and most recently to European and World institutions. This unfortunately has not worked for various reasons. 

1. Neither Greece nor Bulgaria would admit to having minorities living in their respective states so world institutions, in the way international laws have been established, have no case against them. Corrective change must come from within.
2. Macedonian communities, particularly those living inside Greece and Bulgaria, because of repressive measures imposed on them by their governments have not yet mustered the necessary will to force change from within.
3. Greek and Bulgarian Governments do not have the will on their own to affect change. Governments are elected on the basis of status quo and are not known for implementing revolutionary changes. Besides, these same Governments are responsible for creating the mess to begin with. To change would mean to admit to having made errors. How are the Greek and Bulgarian Governments going to fare if they, after lying to their voters for years, now admit that Macedonians do exist? 

What can be done to break the impasse?

Obviously what has been done to date has not worked. Therefore a new approach is needed.

I don't have all the answers and I do welcome your ideas. I want to hear from the Greek and Bulgarian communities who believe Macedonians have a future in the Balkans. I know you exist and I know you have been silent on the issue. It is now time to start building bridges. Your comments and questions are welcome. 

I believe there is a future for Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria. I also believe Macedonia will be re-united.
Macedonian people have proven themselves to be tolerant and able to peacefully co-exist with other people. Greece and Bulgaria on the other hand have chosen intolerance, oppression and violence as a way of life.

If Macedonians have shown anything is how to live in harmony with other people. Even at the worst of times, Macedonians never gave up believing that all people can live as equals. Was it not Gotse Delchev, a Macedonian revolutionary hero from the 1903 Macedonian Ilinden uprising against the Turks, who said, &quot;I conceive the world only as a field of cultural competition among nations?&quot; And what about the Republic of Macedonia, is there another country in the Balkans where minorities enjoy such rights?

Greek and Bulgarian denial of the existence of Macedonians, in view of the existence of a Macedonian State and a large and active Macedonian Diaspora, not only defies logic but goes against the European grain. Is it not Europe who wants to give minorities their rights? 
Do Greece and Bulgaria, in view of the European agenda, really believe they will have lasting peace by oppressing and denying Macedonians and other minorities their rights? 

Greeks and Bulgarians must understand that their survival does not depend on oppressing minorities and using violence to keep the peace. They must also understand that it is this inequality and oppression of minorities that causes tension, hatred and conflict. We don't all have to be Greeks or Bulgarians to live peacefully together. We can just as easily live together in harmony as Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, etc. if we so chose. 
European businessmen want to do business in Europe without problems. They have recognized the value of &quot;free societies&quot; and that is precisely why they want minorities to be given their rights. By denying their minorities their rights Greek and Bulgarian Governments are in fact working against the European agenda which in the long term will harm their states and their people.

It is well documented that Greece and Bulgaria have committed atrocities in Macedonia and those states sooner or later will face the consequences and will pay for their crimes. Denying the existence of Macedonians does not excuse them for what they did. As far as I can tell, committing atrocities against people is still a punishable crime under international law. Isn't that what the Haig is all about?

No one has the right to decide the Macedonian peoples' destiny but the Macedonians themselves. Granted nothing can be done these days without Great Power intervention, but if the Great Powers are serious and support the laws they have enacted, especially those that govern human rights, then Macedonians should have no problem shaping their own destiny, writing their own history and calling themselves what they truly are, Macedonians. 

Macedonians have a big job ahead of them. In addition to learning about themselves, their history, their heritage and their right to exist in this world, they must also learn to tell every Greek, every Bulgarian and every other person in this world the truth about themselves and about Macedonia.
There is a treaty out there, the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest which Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia signed to divide and occupy Macedonia without our consent. Macedonia is our country and we want it back. 

Many Macedonians believe the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest will expire in 2012 at which time it will reopen. This time the Macedonians will be there to make sure it is done right.

The job of getting things to move forward largely rests with the Macedonian Diaspora. The vast majority of Macedonian people in the Diaspora are descendants of those Macedonians who were forcibly evicted from Greece. They have cause and legitimacy to challenge the Greek State not only to recover their own properties, culture and identity, but also to help those who are still oppressed and are unable to help themselves. Macedonians in the Diaspora have the freedom and the resources necessary to do the job which their compatriots in Greece and Bulgaria can't. 

Besides interpreting the details of the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, this series of articles will be dedicated to finding a solution to the Macedonian question. In doing so it will use historical evidence to expose the lies, deception and myths perpetrated by the Great Powers, Greece and Bulgaria to keep the Macedonian people down and rob them of their heritage and their future.

To be continued...

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>7ggpoyjxcdfa1aojtupbv9o6wsvu4yt</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 2 - Who were the Ancient People?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2038</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11020</id>
      <parentid>5043</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:04Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="23626" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 2 - Who were the Ancient People?

By Risto Stefov

November, 2005

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

It is difficult for people to accept the idea that history, the way we know it today, is biased to serve the interests of those who are in control. It is also difficult for people to believe that what they have been taught in school may not be the truth.

Do you not agree that there are Macedonians living throughout this world today and do you not agree that people are still taught in school that Macedonians do not exist?

If you are a Macedonian why should you believe a history that denies your existence? If you are a Greek or Bulgarian why do you believe your State sponsored education that is teaching you to hate your neighbours and deny their existence?

You can believe what you like but if you truly seek the truth then you must make every effort to find it for yourself.

In this and the next chapter I will attempt to objectively analyze the makeup of the people who lived in the southern Balkans from prehistory to today. It is my intention to provide you with a general overview and give you an alternative look at the age old problem of who these people were. In my analysis, I will provide you with summaries only, obtained from the most current sources and from old models that no longer fit the modern political agenda. For details, you are encouraged to read the original material (most of which is available on the internet) for yourselves.

If you consult any standard history schoolbook on the southern Balkans it will tell you first that there were Greeks then Romans and then the Ottomans. Later came the modern Greeks, Bulgarians, Yugoslavians and Albanians, but no Modern Macedonians. There will be a bit of information about the Ancient Macedonians, mainly about Philip and Alexander, but only secondary to the Ancient Greeks. There will be a bit of information on the Byzantines but mainly on how Roman and Greek they were. There will be plenty of information on the Greeks, their god-like activities, their brilliance and the various inventions they discovered, and how they are a real gift to our modern world.

After reading your standard history schoolbook you get the impression that no one outside of the Greeks and Romans ever existed in ancient times. You get the impression that no activities ever took place outside of Greece: not to the north, not across the Aegean, or south of the Mediterranean. It is as if an ice sheet and thick fog covered those lands inhabited only by Barbarians, a kind of people who could neither think nor speak but barked words of unknown tongues.

Why did these authors come to this conclusion? Why are the Greeks and Romans so important to history and the Barbarians so unimportant? Were the Barbarians truly that uncivilized and contributed nothing worth mentioning?

How did the Greeks become so civilized and the Barbarians, living so close or even among them, so uncivilized? How can people living so close together be so far apart culturally?

Thanks to unbiased scientists and scholars and people with no political agendas, questions such as these are now being slowly answered and the answers might surprise you.

One such scientist and scholar is Professor Mario Alinei who has put forward a new theory called the &quot;The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins&quot;[1].

Basically what Professor Alinei says, and backs with archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence, is that people have always been where they are today. In other words, the indigenous people of any given region in eastern Europe and the Balkans have always been where they are today. By always he means they have been there for more than ten thousand years and as long as thirty-thousand years, as far back at the great ice age.

If we accept Professor Alinei's assertions then we must also accept the idea that Macedonians, Serbians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, etc have always been where they are today. Naturally some things may have changed over time due to evolution and external influences, but the basic makeup or the under layer of people has remained the same.

Among other great scholars who have contributed immensely to the identification of the various ancient people living in the Balkans are Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic [11], Florin Curta [9] and Anthony Ambrozic [2], [3], [4].

Jozko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic, independent of Professor Alinei's model, have discovered that most of the ancient toponyms in and around the Balkans bear the original names given to them by the Barbarian tribes which lived there many millennia ago. The real surprise about these discoveries is that the toponyms have Slavic names.

Also independent of Professor Alinei's model, Anthony Ambrozic has discovered that a vast part of Europe, particularly the Balkans and eastern Europe is covered with Barbarian artefacts that also bear inscriptions of Slavic origins. Ancient inscriptions found in south-eastern Europe, which scientists for years have been unable to translate, are in fact of Slavic origin. Ambozic has translated thousands of them including those found at Dura-Europos, which could only have been of ancient Macedonian origin. Dura-Europos was a frontier Macedonian city in Syria founded by one of Alexander the Greats' successors.

Attempts were made by French paleo-linguists, who even went to Asia and Africa looking for ancient languages, to translate the Dura-Europos inscriptions but without success. Too bad they didn't go to Macedonia or any part of the Balkans and consult with local Slav speakers. According to Ambrozic, &quot;Anyone in Slovenia, even people on the streets could have translated the Dura-Europos inscriptions.&quot;

Looking at the ancient puzzle from a different perspective, Odisej Belchevski, a student of Homer and of the Heroic Age, has also independently discovered words of Slavic origin in Homers poems and other works. [5]

Before I continue allow me to clarify what I mean by Slavic origin. The inscriptions, Homeric words, toponyms, names, etc., of which I mentioned above, are classified to be of Slavic origin because they are familiar only to Slav speakers. Modern Slav speakers by using the Slav language are able to read and decipher their meaning.

Naturally the question here is &quot;How can that be?&quot; Aren't we taught in school that the Slavs are newcomers to the Balkans? Aren't we taught that they started arriving in the Balkans around 600 AD? What were Slavs doing in the Balkans long, long before that?

Judging from the large numbers of Slav speakers in Europe today and the vast regions they occupy, it only makes perfect sense that they have been there for a long time. Conversely, it makes very little sense to think that a group of people so backwards, so disorganized and so late coming to the Balkans could be so successful and gain so much in such a short time.

It is no surprise that when we put Savli, Bor, Tomazic, Curta, Ambrozic and Belchevski's assertions together with Alinei's model that it makes perfect sense.

The Slavs have always been where they are today! By Slavs I mean the Slav speakers.

The many nationalities and ethnicities whom we today erroneously call &quot;Slavs&quot; are in fact &quot;Slav speakers&quot;. And today we can say with some certainty that they were the first Europeans.

As far as history can tell us the word &quot;Slav&quot; became widely known for the first time during Emperor Justinian's reign around 500 AD. I believe Justinian was the first Emperor to try and classify the various tribes inside and outside of his empire [9]. He called them Slavs because they shared a similar/common language. In other words, they were called Slavs because they spoke a similar language not because they were ethnically related as mainstream historians would have us believe.

There are some today who believe that the Slavic language was an international language, just as English is today. The fact that various nationalities and ethnicities spoke the Slav language in such a vast region definitely qualifies it to be called international. Additionally, the Slavic language, because it was spoken by everyone, is truly a language of the people. That is precisely why it has survived for so many millennia and has maintained its integrity with little change over the ages.

It is not my intention here to debate the origin of all the Slav speakers but to give you a general overview only of those who lived in and around the southern Balkans.

Who were these ancient Slav speakers who qualify to be called the first Europeans?

If we carefully examine our history books we will find, as mentioned earlier, &quot;Barbarians&quot; occupying the vast plains of the Balkans before there were any &quot;Greeks&quot; or Romans. These Barbarians lived tribal lives not worthy of any mention by our modern historians. If, however, we do some more research we find that these Barbarians were separate and distinct people who lived in and occupied their own territories and, most importantly, had names.

The least known of these ancient peoples were the Lyncestian and Paeonian tribes who, relative to geographical Macedonia, lived in the northern part of central Macedonia in the region where the Republic of Macedonia is today. South of the Lyncestians and Paeonians and along the entire central Greek Peninsula lived the Aegean Pelasgian tribes. West of the Pelasgians, Lyncestians and Paeonians lived the massive Illyrian tribes. East of the Lyncestian, Paeonians and Pelasgians lived the massive Thracian tribes.

Phrygians once also lived in Macedonia in the lush Vardar Valley but most of them left Macedonia long ago for their ancestral homeland in Asia Minor.

What is interesting about these groups of people is that they shared a common language. According to Anthony Ambrozic, who translated inscriptions from artefacts from all of these groups, their language was Slavic. By Slavic I mean it could be understood by modern Slav speakers.

Who where the &quot;ancient Greeks&quot;?

Mainstream history tells us that the Pelasgians lived among the ancient Greeks and as I mentioned earlier, were indigenous to the region.

According to Bernal, the ancient Greek culture, as we know it today, did not develop on its own but rather was influenced from the outside [6].

Bernal also claims, with overwhelming evidence, that the indigenous people living in present day Peloponnesus were culturally and linguistically influenced, mostly by the more civilized Egyptians and Phoenicians. It was this cultural influence that transformed the indigenous people into what we today call the &quot;ancient Greeks&quot;. In other words the so-called ancient Greeks have culturally evolved, among others, from the Pelasgians.

About three and a half millennia or so ago during and perhaps after the Mycenaean civilization collapsed, Egyptians and Phoenicians crossed over the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas and colonized parts of the Peloponnesus. The more civilized Egyptians overwhelmed the indigenous population so dramatically that it was completely transformed. As the Egyptian civilization in Egypt declined and the Egyptian colonists became assimilated into the new cultural melting pot, the region took on an entirely new character

The Phoenicians, who were also assumed to have colonies in the Peloponnesus, gave Ancient Greeks the gift of writing. It is unclear whether the Phoenicians were colonists in the Peloponnesus or not but it is clear that the ancient Peloponnesians received their alphabet from the Phoenicians.

I want to mention at this point that it is not my intention to debate the origins, ethnicities and nationalities of the so-called &quot;ancient Greeks&quot; but to point out that the under layer of ancient Greek society was Pelasgian.

The effects of this cultural transformation were so profound that only in a few centuries the Peloponnesians became an entirely new and unique society with a unique language and alphabet and a new way of life. Its citizens mastered the arts and sciences, navigation and began to traverse the vast waterways and built self-governing cities.

Who were the ancient Macedonians?

Geographical Macedonia as we know it today was the center or the hub, where the great tribes came together. Macedonia was where the lines between Illyrian, Lyncestian, Paeonian, Thracian, Pelasgian, Phrygian and other tribes overlapped.

The ancient Macedonians were a mix of all the people who lived in geographical Macedonia as we know it today.

It is unclear exactly to which tribe the first Macedonians belonged but history tells us they originated in the Kostur region and by Herodotus's time (450 BC) they expanded eastward and occupied the lush western Vardar Valley. Macedonians were a mixture of all the nations and tribes that lived in Macedonia. By Philip II's time, when geographical Macedonia was consolidated under one king and under Macedonian control, all these people came to be known as Macedonians.

Was there any relationship between the ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians?

As mentioned earlier, the indigenous people of the Peloponnesus became Greeks under the cultural influence of the Egyptians and Phoenicians. The people of Macedonia became Macedonians under the influence of various Macedonian Royal dynasties.

As most of the Phrygians left Macedonia, the Macedonians continued their easterly expansion taking over Phrygian lands and filling the power vacuum the Phrygians left behind. By Philip II's time all tribes within Macedonia were conquered and came under Macedonian control.

Before Philip II conquered the ancient Peloponnesians (ancient Greeks) they where very protective of their culture. They treated outsiders with suspicion and disgust and those who did not share their values were labelled Barbarian and kept out of their affairs (Olympic games etc).

As the two communities grew and expanded they started to come in contact and began to trade. Being economically and militarily weaker the Macedonians for many years had to bend to the will of the more powerful Peloponnesians, but that eventually changed.

The only relationship Macedonians had with the Peloponnesians, at the time, was trade.

Culturally the two communities were worlds apart and to suggest that they were similar would be irrational.

Problems between the two communities began to develop when the Athenians started colonizing Macedonian lands at Chalcidice. Macedonians being militarily weaker used diplomacy to defend themselves. As foreign intrusions continued, however, the Macedonians had no choice but to build up their military strength and fight back, eventually defeating the Peloponnesians (except for Sparta) and placing them under Macedonian political and military control.

For those who believe the Macedonians were Greek, here are some facts to remember;

1. The so-called &quot;ancient Greeks&quot; or Peloponnesians as I referred to them above, outside of their colonies at Chalcidice and a few other places at the tip of southern Macedonia, had never set foot on Macedonian soil.

2. The Peloponnesians (ancient Greeks) were never united as a single state with a single government as the Macedonians were. Each of their cities operated as a stand alone state with its own independent government.

3. The allied Peloponnesian forces were defeated in battle at Chaeronea in 338 BC and subjugated by the Macedonians from which they never recovered. Their largest City States, including Athens, were occupied by Macedonian garrisons until 197 BC when they were freed and re-occupied by the Romans.

4. Since their defeat in 338 BC the ancient Peloponnesians, including Sparta, were politically subordinate to the Macedonians and for over 140 years were under Macedonian control.

Why did the ancient Macedonians speak &quot;Greek&quot; and not their Slavic language?

It is interesting to note that the so-called &quot;Greek language&quot; spoken in Macedonia before Philip II's time was not indigenous to Macedonia and, according to inscriptions found, was identical to the Attic language spoken in Athens. So whatever Greek the Macedonians spoke was acquired from education in schools, not from their mothers.

For the Greek language spoken in Macedonia to have been a &quot;Greek dialect&quot; as modern Greeks would have us believe, it would have had to have some divergence from the original Attic just like other dialects found in the Peloponnesus. The fact that the Greek language spoken in Macedonia was exactly the same as the attic, evidenced by the inscriptions found, can only mean that Macedonians acquired it through education in Athens or Athenian teachers taught it to Macedonians in Macedonia.

Another fact to remember, again as evidenced by inscriptions found, the Macedonians did not speak &quot;Greek&quot; until a later period. In other words the Greek language came to Macedonia from Athens, a fair distance outside of Macedonia, long after it was spoken for centuries in the Peloponnesus.

The common Macedonians, which included the lower ranks of the Macedonian military, did not speak &quot;Greek&quot; because they were not educated in &quot;Greek&quot;. The common Macedonians spoke another language, a language indigenous to the region. We can now say with some certainty that that language was Macedonian, a Slavic dialect that belonged to one or more of the indigenous groups living in ancient Macedonia. We can also say with some certainty that the Slav language spoken by the ancient Macedonians is the root language of modern Macedonian spoken by the Macedonians today.

Closer to Philip II's time when Macedonia became involved in trade and commerce with its neighbours, it began to more frequently use the Attic language, commonly known as the Koine or common language. By the time Koine began to make its way into Macedonia it was already in use throughout the eastern Mediterranean.

Koine was made famous by Alexander the Great after taking it around the world and making it his international language. Koine unfortunately did not take root with the people and as such always remained a language of trade and commerce.

Before disappearing altogether the Koine language resurfaced again the late 19th century when it was adopted by the modern Greek State as the language of its people.

By then Koine had evolved so much and had acquired so many foreign elements that it had completely drifted apart from its Attic roots.

If the ancient Macedonians spoke a Slavic language then why did they not leave any evidence of it?

This is a question frequently asked by modern Greeks who refuse to accept the idea that Alexander the Great spoke anything but Greek.

This is a valid question, however I believe it should be reworded as follows;

We know from history that the ancient Macedonians spoke another language besides Koine. What we don't know is what that language was. So the question should be;

Why haven't the Greeks made any effort to identify this other language Macedonians spoke?

Contrary to popular belief there is overwhelming evidence left behind by the ancients. The problem is finding accredited scholars to verify it and admit to its existence. Most historians, paleo-linguists, philologists and archaeologists prescribe to the &quot;Slav Migration Theory&quot; and believe the Slavs arrived in the Balkans no earlier than the 6th century AD. They refuse to recognize a Slav existence in the Balkans before that. To them, these writings are of unknown origin.

Some of these inscriptions were found centuries ago and were believed (labelled) to be of unknown origin.

Many of these inscriptions are now being slowly translated by a new group of scholars who are dedicated to pursuing the truth, not just accepting the status quo. Among these dedicated individuals is our own Macedonian paleo-linguist and pioneer Vasil Ilyov (also spelled Iliov) [10].

Ilyov has translated a number of these inscriptions (some are displayed on his website) [10] and has independently concluded that they are indeed of Slavic origin.

The myth that no Slavs existed in the Balkans prior to the 6th century AD was invented by the 19th century Great Powers and propagated by the modern Greeks. More on this in future articles.

Modern Greeks maintain that &quot;if such inscriptions existed&quot; Greek archaeologists would have found some by now.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I can say that I am certain Greek archaeologists have found such artefacts and have translated them. The problem of making such evidence known would have contradicted their political agenda so it was hidden from public view.

It is well known that Macedonia was the cradle of Slavonic Civilization yet the Greeks have not disclosed a single artefact that bears Macedonian Cyrillic writing?

It is also well known that every Church in Greek occupied Macedonia had at least one Slavonic Bible and dozens of icons with Slavonic writing. Every cemetery had headstones with Macedonian Cyrillic inscriptions. Where are they now? Why is there not a single shred of evidence, not even in a museum, that proves Slav speaking Macedonians ever existed in Greek occupied Macedonia? Is it because these artefacts don't exist or is it because Greek authorities have systematically removed them and hidden them from public view?

If Greek authorities have lied to us about the existence of Slavonic (modern Macedonian) artefacts that we know existed, what makes you think they will admit to the existence of even more damaging evidence like very ancient Slav artefacts?

How can these artefacts (with very ancient Slav inscriptions) exist in abundance in the Republic of Macedonia just north of the Macedonian-Greek border and as far north as the Danube River and not exist in Greece?

But then again, since when is the Greek State known for telling the truth about Macedonia's past anyway?

To be Continued...

References:

1. Alinei, Mario.The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins. http://www.continuitas.com/.

2. Ambrozic, Anthony. Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press, 1999.

3. Ambrozic, Anthony. Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002.

4. Ambrozic, Anthony. Journey Back to the Garumna. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2000.

5. Belchevski, Odisej. Classical Mythology Explained with use of Macedonian Vocabulary and Musings on the Macedonian Language. http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#belchevsky

6. Bernal, Martin. BLACK ATHENA The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization Volume 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985. New Branswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

7. Bogov, Vasil. Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Western Australia, 1998.

8. Borza, Eugene N. In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

9. Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

10. Ilyov, Vasil. Macedonian Artifacts, Ancient Inscriptions and their Translations. http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html

11. Šavli, Jozko; Bor, Matej; and Tomazic, Ivan. VENETI First Builders of European Community. Boswell B.C., 1996.

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>3umkxjfphjho9mpn1lorpe4x1ppzwwx</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 3 - Who are the Modern People?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2039</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11021</id>
      <parentid>5044</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:10Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="14772" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 3 - Who are the Modern People?

By Risto Stefov

December, 2005

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

In the previous chapter we established that the ancient indigenous people living in the lower Balkans were Paeonians, Lyncestians, Pelasgians, Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians and others. From these tribes, over time and through external cultural influence and through mutual contact, two distinct independent and powerful communities emerged.

1. The Macedonians, who were a monarchical society, organized as a single large state and were ruled politically by a royal dynasty and a single king. 

2. The Peloponnesians or &quot;Ancient Greeks&quot;, who were a mixed democratic-monarchical society, organized in many (dozens) City States. Some were democratic and some were ruled by dynastic monarchies, which were very protective of their culture, xenophobic and closed to outsiders. The City States were never united and were never organized under a single political system or under a single universal leader.

Even though the two communities emerged and developed independently, they eventually came into contact and, to some extent, influenced each other politically, economically and culturally. For the most part, however, the two communities remained aloof until Macedonia conquered the Greek City States in 338 BC. After that the City States lost their political independence and began to decline under Macedonian domination. Then in 197BC they were briefly liberated and re-conquered by Rome, from which they never recovered. 

There is no question that Macedonia was culturally influenced by the more advanced City States but no one can say with any certainty how deep this influence penetrated Macedonian society. If language can be a factor of &quot;cultural influence&quot;, then we know that some Macedonians were bi-lingual and only a small segment, mainly the educated elite, spoke Attic, later Koine. The vast majority, or common Macedonians, neither had the inclination nor the need to learn foreign languages. It is doubtful that the farmers and soldiers who came from rural Macedonia had any desire or need to learn more than their own indigenous mother tongue. 

With regards to ethnic mixing, there is no historical evidence of any extraordinary ethnic mixing between Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks. There is, however, historical evidence that during classical times the number of slaves living in Attica roughly equaled the number of free inhabitants. What this means is that even at the outset, the ancient Greeks were multi-ethnic. There were no slaves in Macedonia.

I just want to mention here that many ethnicities, including blacks from Africa were among the Attic slaves who during the Roman occupation were freed and became Greek citizens and assimilated into ancient Greek society. [2]

To learn more about the differences between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks, I would recommend reading J.S.G Gandeto's book &quot;Ancient Macedonians: Differences Between The Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks&quot; [1]. Gandeto has dedicated his entire book, using mostly ancient sources, to prove without any doubt that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks. Neither of the ancient people believed they were related to the other.

For the 140 years or so between the time Macedonia conquered the Greek City States and Rome annexed Macedonia, there were open borders and people could have moved back and forth but no one knows to what extent and how many, if any, moved.

What we do know is that a number of cities (18) were founded by Alexander III during his Eastern campaigns which in part were populated with Macedonian settlers. These cities continued to exist for centuries after the Macedonian dynasties collapsed. We also know that sick and wounded Macedonian soldiers were left behind by Alexander as far back as Pakistan and never returned. You can draw your own conclusions from this.

Rome was a City State and did not have a large population to run its vast empire, so it tended to hire from the outside. Given that Rome just conquered the Macedonian kingdoms (three of them) with well established administrations and trained armies then it must have been natural for Romans to hire Macedonians.

Much of Rome's army, administration and leadership, including its Emperors, especially towards the end, came from the non Roman but Romanized populations outside of Rome. Even the Romans themselves admitted that the Emperors from Macedonia were the most capable and progressive of all leaders. The Empire always expanded, prospered and gained magnificence under the leadership of Macedonian Emperors such as Justinian I and Basil II.

There is historic evidence of Roman colonization in Macedonia but to what extent and what ethnicities, is unknown. The only visible evidence of Roman presence in Macedonia today are Roman ruins and Latin speaking Vlachs, who I will address in the next chapter.

After the Roman Empire split into West and East, the Western part disintegrated while the Eastern part continued to exist for another millennium or so. During this vast time span, much happened in the Balkans and the region experienced population shuffles and foreign invasions which greatly influenced its demographics.

The Eastern Romans or Byzantines (better known as the Pravoslavs to the Macedonians) were notorious for population shuffles. It is well known that invaders such as the Slav speakers, who entered Byzantine territories from north of the Danube River, were moved to Morea (modern day Peloponnesus) and to Asia Minor. These invading Slav speakers, I believe, were refugees fleeing from other invading tribes who came to the Balkans from beyond the Danube River.

When Bulgars from the north started crossing the Danube River, the Pravoslavs moved populations from Syria and Armenia to fill sparsely populated areas in Northern Macedonia so that they would act as barriers against the invasion.

The Pravoslavs were also notorious for displacing people from trouble spots. History has recorded a number of such displacements including the one of Tsar Samoil's ancestors who were moved from Armenia to Macedonia. 

Besides internal population displacements, outsiders also invaded the lower Balkans over the years. 

According to H. G. Wells [3] who studied world history, it was the Wall of China that propagated displacements and caused demographic changes in Western Asia and Europe. The Wall of China, which was meant to end Mongolian invasions into Eastern China, was in fact the cause for the westward migrations. 

The wall forced Mongolian migrants, who spent their summers in Mongolia and winters in China, to abandon their traditional annual migrating patterns and turn westward. Pressure from the westward Mongol invasions pushed some of the indigenous tribes further to the south thus causing a cascading effect, which was eventually felt in the Balkans.

Some of the tribes that invaded the south Balkans included the Visigoths who crossed the Danube around 376 AD, the Huns around 447 AD, the Avars around 560 AD, the Bulgars around 680 AD and so on. Slav speakers or Slav movements have also been recorded by history but they were simply refugees fleeing from the invaders. Many Slav families, due to economic hardships brought on by the invaders, left their ancestral homes and traveled south into Byzantine territories. 

As mentioned in chapter two of this series, the Slav speakers were indigenous to the region. The Slav speakers are the original Europeans, the first people to settle the Balkans. 

After the Bulgars, next to invade the Balkans were the Vikings. The Vikings made their trek from the north by water but were repealed by the Byzantines. At the turn of the first millennium following the Vikings came the Muslims. The Muslim invaders were successfully repealed and held at bay for at least another two centuries before they made their presence felt in the Balkans. By the 12th century AD the Muslims had mustered enough strength to cross over from Asia Minor, invade the Eastern part of Europe and keep parts of it occupied until the 20th century.

The Muslim invaders, better known as the Ottoman Empire, were numerically far inferior to the vast populations they invaded. To overcome their population shortages, they tended to assimilate people from the occupied lands by converting them to Islam. Some converted voluntarily and yet others were forcibly converted regardless of their ethnicity. The only distinction that mattered to the Ottomans was whether their citizens were Muslim or not, everything else was unimportant. By the 16th century, before nationalism had reached the Balkans, people could only be distinguished by their religion. There were Muslims, the dominant class, and others, the administrative and working classes. The reason I emphasize that there was a non-Muslim administrative class is because it played an important role in the emergence of the modern Balkan States, which I will discuss in the next chapter.

By the 19th century, outside of religion and language (and to a small extent, traditions), it was impossible to distinguish between the various ethnicities living in the lower Balkans. People simply identified with their religion and to some extent with their language. There were Muslim Turks who spoke Turkish, Slavic, Albanian, Roma, etc. and then there were Christians who spoke Turkish, Slavic, Koine, Vlach, Albanian, etc. So it was impossible to determine ethnicities.

In the categories of &quot;people classification&quot; religion was number one, followed by social class, language and then by tradition. Nationality was not even a criterion until nationalism was introduced in the Balkans in the 19th century.

Nationalism in the Balkans

As mentioned earlier, before the introduction of nationalism in the Ottoman Balkans, the Ottoman State classified its citizens by religion, Muslims and &quot;others&quot;. The &quot;others&quot; belonged to the Christian and Jewish faiths. Official Islam prohibited any other classification of its citizens outside of religion.

Within the Christian classification, unofficially there were two classes of people, the administrative or middle class and the working class. 
In terms of language most of the working class was uneducated and spoke one or more of the indigenous languages of the region, which were orally passed on from generation to generation. The vast majority of the administrative class was educated and spoke two or three languages. They spoke their mother tongue, Turkish and Koine. The Ottoman administrative class was multicultural and multiethnic, similar to modern middle classes in multi-ethnic states.

The administrative class had to be educated in order to serve the Ottoman Empire in various capacities, from running the Empire's banks to running Ottoman business outside of the Empire to performing domestic duties like purchasing goods, administering the Christian Churches and performing translating services for the Ottoman Empire. Muslims by law were not allowed to handle money, speak foreign languages, or venture outside Islamic borders.

The administrative class was educated in the ancient traditional language of administration and commerce, the Koine language. Koine was spoken in Tsari Grad (Constantinople or Istanbul) by the middle class since the city was created. Tsari Grad served as the capital of both the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.

When nationalism was introduced on masse for the first time in the Balkans, the very concept was foreign and difficult for people to comprehend. People clearly understood religious affiliations, languages spoken and social class structures but they could not tell one nationality from another because the concept was foreign to them. 

The Nationalities of the Lower Balkans

Up to this point we have given you a general overview of historical events that affected the demographics of the lower Balkans from the dawn of the Roman Empire up to the early 19th century.
I also want to mention that, from the 4th century AD up to the 19th century AD the lower Balkans have been without borders and internal travel and population movements have been without restrictions. 

So at the dawn of the 19th century we have two major religions dominating the lower Balkans, Islam and Orthodox Christianity. Among the two religions we have a very large population of Slav speakers and smaller populations of Turkish, Albanian and Vlach speakers. Among the Orthodox Christians we also have the middle class of Koine speakers.

It is very important to understand that before the introduction of nationalism in the lower Balkans, the Koine speakers, also known as the Phanariots, had no allegiance to any nation nor clung to any ideals of nationalism or nation building. They were simply the servants of the Ottoman Empire. However as the Ottoman Empire began to crumble, the Phanariots, being educated and thus more enlightened on world affairs, were the first to &quot;consciously awaken&quot;. Their first thoughts were to replace the ruling Turkish class with themselves. They wanted to replace the Muslim Ottoman Empire with a Christian one and restore the Byzantine Empire to its former glory. The idea of another &quot;Large State&quot; in Europe, especially in the Balkans, unfortunately created fear in the leadership of the Great Powers whose only comfort was to see the Ottoman Empire dismantled and replaced with small, manageable &quot;western style&quot; States. 

After failing to create &quot;one Balkan State&quot; out of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, the Phanariots refocused their efforts in creating several new states, the kind that fit in the agenda of the Great Powers: the kind that could be manipulated by Western leaders and served their interests. Following the Western example, the Phanariots began to employ nationalism as the line of division for making these new States. Nationalism unfortunately was a new concept for the Balkan people and the proposed dividing lines were but a blur at best.

To be continued...

References:

1. Gandeto, Josef S. G. Ancient Macedonians, Differences Between The Ancient Macedonians and The Ancient Greeks. New York: Writer's Showcase, 2002.

2. Shea, John. Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. London: McFarland &amp; Company Inc., 1997.

3. Wells, H.G. The Outline of History. New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>aeuieuietfq8hjnd0om9r2wsoruww49</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 4 - The Political Agenda</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2040</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11022</id>
      <parentid>5045</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:15Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="17028" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 4 - The Political Agenda 

January, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

In the previous chapter we established that just before the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the southern Balkans were politically dominated by two religions, Islam and Orthodox Christianity. Even though Islam was the dominant religion, the majority of people belonged to the Christian religion which had the support and backing of the Great Powers. Within the two religions we established a linguistic division consisting of a majority of Slav speakers and minority Vlach, Albanian and Turkish speakers. Within the Christian religion we also established the existence of two classes of people, the middle educated class which in addition to its multi-lingual mother tongue spoke Koine and Turkish and the multi-lingual working class which spoke Slavic, Vlach, Albanian and Turkish.

In the previous chapter we also established that the Great Powers had no desire to see a large Christian State succeed the Ottoman Empire. They preferred to see several smaller, equal sized, ethnically divided, Western style states emerge in its place.

The formation of the new Balkan States therefore was not a natural process but rather a politically motivated one designed to serve the interests of the Great Powers, mainly Britain, France and Russia.

I just want to mention here that the Christians belonging to the Ottoman middle class (also known as the Phanariots) were, in a modern sense, a multi-ethnic group of people. The fact that they spoke the Koine language and were associated with the formation of the Greek State does not make them ethnically Greek. In fact the word &quot;Greek&quot; at the time was a reference to a &quot;class&quot; of people and not to an ethnicity. Nationalism and ethnic affiliations are post 19th century concepts which were later introduced to the Balkans by the Great Powers and were absent in the religiously oriented Ottoman society. 

The middle or Greek class, before the Greek State's formation, was prevalent not only in Greece but throughout the entire Ottoman Empire. Some families also existed outside of the Ottoman domain and operated businesses through southern coastal Europe and the coastal Black Sea.

As a side note I also want to mention here that the word &quot;Bulgar&quot;, a derivation from the word &quot;Vulgar&quot;, also defined a class of people and not an ethnicity. In pre-19th century Ottoman society a Christian working class existed which was referred to as the &quot;Vulgar&quot; class by the Latin and Koine speakers. The Vulgars or Bulgars were the uneducated commoners, people employed in agriculture and in menial jobs. They also belonged to a multi-ethnic community, in the modern sense of the word, and were prevalent not just in Bulgaria but throughout the entire southern Balkans. 

The breakup of the Ottoman State into smaller and diverse States initially had its problems. Many of the leading revolutionaries opposed the idea and for that they were labeled traitors and sent to prison. Most revolutionaries fought to liberate their lands and free themselves from Turkish oppression. They did not sacrifice themselves to serve the Great Power in their bid to breakup their lands. Unfortunately, in the end the strong got their way. The Great Powers were determined to break up the Ottoman State by any means possible. But by successfully creating &quot;ethnic diversities&quot; from the same stock of people and poisoning them with their nationalistic propaganda, they not only shattered the Ottoman State but they made sure these people would never again reunite.


Since there were no clear national or ethnic distinctions between the various people at the time, the Great Powers simply used whatever was convenient. Since there was already a clear class distinction between the Christians, they took advantage of it. The Christian middle class was defined as being &quot;ethnically Greek&quot; and later the Christian working class became the &quot;ethnic Bulgarians&quot;.

The Great Powers sought their opportunity and when it presented itself they took it without giving much consideration to problems it might create for the new States. In other words no consideration was given to the fact that this might divide people who were otherwise genetically and linguistically related. 

The problems created were unfortunately solved by even more drastic measures. In Greece's case, the entire population had to be assimilated to fit this new, artificially created &quot;ethnic profile&quot;.

Once the Great Powers forged the new Balkan States and defined the desired identities they then unleashed their plans on the entire Balkan population. It was only a matter of time before each new State assimilated everyone within its control.

When they were done with their own territories, the new Balkan States turned their efforts on Macedonia

By then almost all Great Powers were stakeholders in the European remnant part of the Ottoman Empire. While France saw the Balkans as an opportunity to invest and expand its failing political influence (since the Napoleonic wars), Russia saw the Balkans as a way to extend its shipping and naval might beyond the Black Sea and into the Mediterranean. Britain, the major power of the time, felt threatened by Russian westward encroachment and did everything it could to stop Russia from &quot;contaminating its back yard&quot;; the Mediterranean Sea.

Serbia was first to emerge as an autonomous state as a result of a number of political power plays between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Next to emerge was Greece. Greece emerged as a result of a failed rebellion prompted by the Phanariots in an attempt to take political control away from the Ottoman authorities. 

Even though Greece was simultaneously wooed by Britain, France and Russia, Germany had the pleasure of administering it first. Britain, France and Russia mistrusted each other and opted for Germany to take control of Greece because Germany at the time was most neutral with least personal vested interests in Greece. 

While Germany strived to establish Otto, the young Bavarian prince, as King of Greece, the French and especially the British were hard at work creating a history for this new &quot;Greek identity&quot;. It was to be modeled after the so-called &quot;Ancient Greeks&quot; about whom the West had learned centuries ago from the Muslim Arabs in Spain.

The Modern Greek State was created by the Great Powers and exploited by Britain for the sole purpose of protecting its interests in the region. Since then and to this day Greece has been a British and Great Power protectorate and pawn. Evidence of this can be found in contemporary British Parliamentary debates. 

When Greece was created for the first time in 1829 it encompassed a small region known as the Morea (modern day Peloponnesus). The tiny fledgling State was located on the lands where the &quot;Ancient Greeks&quot; once lived more than two thousand years ago. 

The neo-Greek leaders, just molded from the upper stratum of a very diverse society, unfortunately had no notion of ethnicity let alone of belonging to an extinct race that had once lived and vanished two millennia ago.

The cultures, traditions and languages of the Moreans were so diverse that the newly formed Greek State had great difficulty not only containing itself as a nation but also choosing a course for its future. But after some years of struggle and a civil war, the tiny State finally overcame its problems. Unfortunately what emerged was neither real nor a reflection of its original self. Everything real was forsaken in favour of a fabricated mythical culture and an ancient dead language. The Greek State adopted a long gone dead language to falsely connect itself to a past it never had. Today, Greece marvels at ancient artifacts as if they belong to it, ignoring that it usurped that language and culture and falsely made it its own. 

It is important at this point to understand that the South Balkan demography at the turn of the 19th century was composed of pockets of Vlachs, Albanians and Turks among a sea of Slavs. 

It is also important to understand that south of Mount Olympus, between Macedonia and the Peloponnesus in the western region known as Epirus, lived a large population of Albanians. The region east of Epirus known as Thessaly was populated mostly by Vlachs.

It was very rare at the time that any single identity occupied an area or a region larger than a village. Similarly there was no consistency of overlap but definite overlaps of various identities throughout the entire region. In other words there was no place larger that a village that was pure, diverse identities occupied all regions with varying densities. The Albanians, for example, were a majority at the very western fringe of the Balkan Peninsula near the Adriatic Sea and their numbers tended to fall exponentially towards the east. The Vlachs on the other hand were a majority in Thessaly but their numbers diminished into small pockets in the easterly and northerly directions. The Slav speakers, modern day Macedonians, Serbians and Bulgarians, were about the only identities that were consistently dense throughout the southern Balkans north of Mount Olympus. 

Little is known of the methods Greece used to assimilate Albanians, Slavs, Vlachs and Turks in the Morea, Epirus and Thessaly but their methods became well known in Macedonia.

By the turn of the 20th century the Great Powers were so successful in breaking up the Ottoman State, through the creation of politically and diametrically opposed States that they decided to allow the process to extend into Macedonia. The Macedonian national consciousness and Macedonian desires for independence was completely ignored in favour of partitioning Macedonian between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria and respectively assimilating the Macedonian identity to fit the new profiles of those states.

Origins of the modern people in the southern Balkans

The Macedonians

According to the old model, ethnically and linguistically speaking the modern Macedonians can trace their roots as far back as 1500 years before the time of Kiril and Metodi and the Slavonic renaissance. 

According to new evidence, as described in the last three chapters of this series, Modern Macedonian roots extend as far back as 3000 years.

The Greeks

As previously mentioned, ethnically and linguistically speaking, the modern Greek nation is a 19th century artificial creation. The modern Greek ethnicity was created by the assimilation of Albanians, Slavs, Vlachs and Turks. Ethnically and linguistically speaking, there were no Greeks before the 19th century. The people referred to as Greeks by the outside world, by the West in particular, were the multi-ethnic Ottoman Christian merchant class and the Church Clergy who spoke the Koine language.

The Vlachs

There are three probable scenarios for the existence of the Vlach identity in the southern Balkans;

1. They were an indigenous Balkan people recruited and educated in the Latin language by the Romans to serve in their administration, and/or

2. They are remnants of the many garrisons Rome employed to maintain a hold on the region, and/or

3. Remnants of Roman and other Latin speaking settlers.

There are also some who believe the Vlachs in the lower Balkans are Romanian migrants and settlers who over the years ventured south in search of pastures for their herds of livestock. Some abandoned their traditional lifestyles and became the town and village merchants yet many still roam the mountainous countryside raising sheep and goats.

The Albanians

As for the Albanian presence in the Balkans, there are also three probable scenarios;

1. They are a Byzantine transplant from Ancient Albania (modern day Azerbaijan) to the Adriatic coast of modern Albania. 

2. They came with the Ottoman Empire as elite fighters and guards and were settled on the western part of modern day Albania.

3. Being influenced by Italy they are a combination of Latinized Slavs and western migrants. 

Or, all of the above. 

It is unlikely however that modern Albanians are related to the ancient Illyrians. 

On the question of the Albanian Tosk identity, there are some who believe that the Tosks may have come from Tuscany, Italy.

I want to mention at this point that Albanians are not indigenous to Macedonia. The Albanians living in Macedonia today are recent settlers and newcomers to the region. Some made their entry into Macedonia from Albania during the Ottoman era and others came from Kosovo during the open border Yugoslav era.

The Turks

Ethnically, it is unknown who the Turks of the 19th century were. They were identified as Turks because they were Muslim. The Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic and Turk was synonymous with Muslim. It is also well known that the Ottoman Empire assimilated many different peoples from many different places, including Macedonia. 

The Modern Dilemma

It seems that the world has changed in the last century or so and old values are being replaced with new ones. When the religiously oriented Ottoman Empire was crumbling and nationalism was fashionable, it was fashionable to create monotone and homogeneous nations. Today nationalism is no longer fashionable and the world is busy creating new colourful fashions that are more politically correct and a better fit in today's reality.

While the world is trying to right the wrongs of the 19th century, Greece it seems is stuck in a time loop experiencing over and over the myths of its own creation. No one would have noticed or cared if it weren't for the fact that, while living its fantasy, Greece has created a living nightmare for the Macedonian people.

No self respecting, rational Macedonian would have ever wanted to tangle with Greece on such intangible and outlandish matters as ancient history, ancient flags and ownerships of names, but when Greece made these a life and death situation for the Macedonians, what choice did they have? 

This bizarre Greek behaviour and distaste for Macedonians I will leave to the experts to analyze. But if I may be allowed to state my opinion, I would speculate that Greece fears the Macedonians not for historical reasons but for what it has done to them in the last two hundred years. Macedonians who see themselves as a real nation and the rightful inheritors of the Macedonian lands and heritage, Greece feels, are not only a threat to its integrity as a country but are also a threat to its artificial identity.

Greece as a State must realize that its actions have consequences and it can no longer hold on to a value system that's not only unfashionable but undesirable. Modern Greece must accept the reality that it is not &quot;Ancient Greece&quot; and its people are not &quot;direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks&quot;. It must also allow its citizens to choose for themselves who they are and what they want. Maintaining a 19th century status quo is not only anti-progressive; it is downright dangerous. 

It is a fact that the Macedonian identity has survived in spite of all Greek efforts to extinguish it. 

Macedonia was not invaded, occupied and partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912, 1913 because of legitimate claims, it was invaded, occupied and partitioned illegally and brutally because of imperial ambitions and land grabs. 

The Macedonian people lost their opportunity to create a Macedonian State in the 19th century not because they did not have the will, or a legal and moral right to do so, they lost their opportunity because the Great Powers desired it. .

It has almost been one hundred years since Macedonia was snatched from the Macedonian people but the Macedonian desire to have its own state has not ceased. One hundred years later a strong Macedonian identity is emerging with a message to the world; &quot;we wants to live free and in peace with our neighbours&quot;. It is our wish as Macedonians to invite the Great Powers to re-consider their past actions and decisions and to help the Macedonian people re-integrate in the society of nations and take their rightful place in this world. We are here to stay.

Macedonians want nothing from Greece except what is already theirs. We are not your enemies. We simply want to co-exist peacefully with you as Macedonians with rights and privileges. We simply want back what is ours; our name, our lands, our heritage, our history and our dignity. 

To be Continued...


References:

1. Shea, John. Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. London: McFarland &amp; Company Inc., 1997.

2. Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>ll0sayeg556o4s7b3t4i60b36mznun5</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 5 - Great Power Influence in the Balkans</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2041</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11023</id>
      <parentid>5046</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:21Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="20549" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 5 - Great Power Influence in the Balkans

February, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

The Balkans seemed like an unimportant place to the Western Powers until the Russian-Turkish war of 1769 to 1774 took place and Russian forces badly defeated the Ottomans. Russia's victory and the signing of 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty gave Russian ships access to the Black Sea, the Bosphorus and Endrene (the Dardanelles). Russia became the &quot;protector of Orthodox Christians&quot; inside the Ottoman domain and for the first time, the Ottomans allowed Russian (non-Muslim) consular agents inside their empire.

The Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty bolstered Russian expansionism in the Balkans, which alarmed the Western Powers and initiated the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; of &quot;what will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire disappears&quot;?

The Eastern Question of the 1800's later became the Macedonian Question of the 1900's.

Two overwhelming &quot;forces&quot; came into being in the 19th century, which transformed the Balkans. The first was the 1848 &quot;western economic revolution&quot; which thrust the Balkans into social and economic upheaval. The second was &quot;increased intervention&quot; from non-Balkan political forces. As the century advanced these developments merged, working not for the interests of the Balkan people but for the benefit of Europe's Great Powers. 

At about the same time Russia was making its way into the Balkans, the West was experiencing changes of its own. The industrial revolution was in full swing coming out of England and progressing towards the rest of the world. France was the economic super power but was quickly losing ground to England. The French Revolution (1789) gave birth not only to new ideas and nationalism but also to Napoleon Bonaparte. As Napoleon waged war in Europe and the Middle East, French shipping in the Mediterranean subsided only to be replaced by the Phanariot and British traders. French trade inside the Ottoman territory also declined and never fully recovered. By land, due to the long border, Austria dominated trade with the Ottoman Empire exercising its own brand of influence on the Balkans especially on the Serbian people.

As the turn of the 19th century brought economic change to Europe, the Balkans became the last frontier for capitalist expansion. By the 1800's Europe's political, economic and military institutions were rapidly changing. Western governments and Western exporters were aggressively pursuing Balkan markets on behalf of their Western manufacturers. This aggressive pursuit smothered Balkan industries before they had a chance to develop and compete. As a result, Balkan economies began to decline causing civil unrest and nationalist uprisings. While Western countries were left undisturbed to develop economically and socially, external forces prevented Balkan societies from achieving the same. Mostly regulated by guilds, Balkan trades could not compete with Western mechanization and went out of business. Without jobs, most city folk became an economic burden on the already strained rural peasant population. The economic situation in the Balkans deteriorated to a point where people could no longer tolerate it and they started to rebel. 

Besides the strife it brought to the Balkan people, this Great power Balkan invasion also created competition between the Great Powers. Imperial expansion was running rampant and it was heading for a collision course.

Of all the Great Powers, Russia tended to be the most aggressive and was usually the cause of each new Turkish defeat. Russia's goals in the Balkans were (1) to gain exclusive navigation rights from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea for both merchant and military ships and (2) to annex Tsari Grad (Constantinople) and Endrene (the Dardanelles) for itself, both of which were unacceptable to the Western Powers.

Great Power aggression and posturing finally peaked when Russia came face to face with Turkey, England and France in the outbreak of the Crimean War (1853 to 1856).

After the end of the Crimean war in 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, the Western Powers made sure Russia's desires for expansion were curbed. First, all Russian warships were barred from the Black Sea and second, the Black Sea was opened to merchant ships from all the states. After that, all the Great Powers, not just Russia, became the guarantors of the Balkan states.

From 1815 to 1878 Great Britain was Russia's strongest rival for Balkan influence. British interests led Britain to intervene against the Turks in the Morean revolution of the 1820s but went to war against Russia in 1853 (Crimean war) on Turkey's behalf.

Obviously, Russia was not happy about the situation it found itself after the Crimean War which set the stage for the next conflict.

In 1875 the Ottomans entered a crisis situation owing 200 million pounds sterling to foreign investors with an annual interest payment of 12 million pounds a year. The interest payments alone amounted to approximately half the state's annual revenues. On the brink of bankruptcy, to preserve Ottoman stability and to make sure Turkey paid up western European debts, the Great Powers in 1875 took over the management of Turkish revenues. This was done through an international agency, called the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA). To continue to receive credit, the Sultan had to grant the OPDA control over state income. Therefore, control of the state budget and internal policies fell into foreign hands. The burden was too great for the local peasants and it manifested itself in a number of independent uprisings. Discontentment with Turkish rule, economic plight and pure neglect of human life precipitated the &quot;Eastern Crisis&quot;.

The growing discontentment of the peasantry in the Balkans disturbed the Great Powers who now had a vested interest in protecting the Ottoman Empire from falling apart. A conference was convened in Tsari Grad in 1876 to discuss strategies on how to deal with the insurrections and the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; in general. Representatives of Russia, Austria-Hungary, Britain, Germany, France and Italy attended and decided to place Macedonia and Bulgaria under the control of the Great Powers. Turkey rejected their demands and soon found herself at odds with Russia. By early 1877, war broke out in Serbia and Montenegro followed by a massive Russian invasion of Bulgaria. The Turkish armies were decimated and Turkey was forced to talk peace. Peace was negotiated between Russia and Turkey on March 3rd, 1878 and the San Stefano Treaty was signed without Western Power consent. Russia, as usual, was concerned more with self interests and less with the interest of the people it was trying to protect, so it sought the opportunity to realize a long held ambition in the Balkans, access to the Mediterranean Sea. 

The conclusion of the San Stefano Treaty sent shock waves not only through the Western Powers, who had a lot to lose (financial investments in the Ottoman Empire), but also to states like Greece and Serbia who had territorial ambitions towards Ottoman territories.

Disturbed by the Russian tactics, the Western Powers re-convened the Eastern Question at Berlin in July 1878. At this point the San Stefano agreement was revised and Macedonia was given back to the Ottomans.

On the verge of bankruptcy, Russia could not resist the Western Powers and gave in to their demands.

In the spring of 1878 Macedonia reached the crossroads of its destiny. Macedonia was one step away from overthrowing six hundred years of Ottoman tyranny when Western Powers stepped in and prevented it. Why? Was Macedonia less deserving than Greece, Serbia, or Bulgaria? Were the Macedonians less Christian than the Greeks, Serbians, or Bulgarians? Was the Macedonian struggle to free itself from Turkish tyranny not convincing enough? 

The real reason for giving Macedonia back to Turkey had little to do with religion, nationalism, or human rights and a lot to do with greed, profit and imperial expansion. 

Russia desperately wanted to access the Mediterranean Sea but the Western Powers desperately wanted to prevent it.

&quot;Canning (a British politician, 1812-1862) had planned to head off Russia's advance, not by direct opposition, but by associating her with England and France in a policy of emancipation, aimed at erecting national States out of the component parts of the Turkish Empire. Such States could be relied upon to withstand Russian encroachment on their independence, if once they were set free from the Turk. The creation of the Kingdom of Greece was the immediate outcome of Canning's policy&quot; (Page 372, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

The success of the Crimean war (Turkey's victory), convinced the British to slow down their policy of creating new Balkan States and exploiting the lucrative Ottoman markets and collecting returns on their loans made to Turkey.

At the stroke of a pen Bulgaria was freed (autonomous) while Macedonia was sentenced to suffer further indignity and humiliation. Back in the hands of the Ottomans and the Greek clergy, Macedonia entered a new era of suffering and cruelty, destined to pay for the sins of all the other nations that rose up against the Ottomans. 

Between the spring and summer of 1878, Macedonia's fate was decided not by Russia or the Western Powers, but by Britain alone. Britain who created Greece and introduced the curse of Hellenism, was now prepared to fight Russia, by military means if necessary, to keep her out of the Mediterranean Sea. 

To avoid war a compromise was reached. &quot;The essentials of this compromise were agreed upon between England and Russia before the meeting of the European Congress, which took place at Berlin under the chairmanship of Bismarck, and formally substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the terms of San Stefano&quot; (Page 377, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

&quot;To our (British) eyes the real objection to the San Stefano lies not in its alleged increase in Russian power, but in the sacrifice of the fair claims of Greeks and Serbians, who would not have remained long quiet under the arrangements which ignored their racial rights and gave all the points to Bulgaria. Lord Salisbury felt this strongly, especially on behalf of Greece.&quot;

&quot;Beaconsfield's success, as he himself saw it, consisted in restoring the European power of Turkey. It was done by handing back Macedonia to the Port (Turks), without guarantees for better government. This was the essence of the Treaty of Berlin as distinct from the Treaty of San Stefano. 'There is again a Turkey in Europe' Bismarck said. He congratulated the British Prime Minister - 'You have made a present to the Sultan of the richest province in the world; 4,000 square miles of the richest soil.' Unfortunately for themselves, the inhabitants went with the soil. Since Beaconsfield decided, perhaps rightly, that Macedonia should not be Bulgarian, some arrangements ought to have been made for its proper administration under a Christian governor. Apart of all questions of massacres, the deadening character of the Turkish rule is well known. Lord Salisbury seems to have wished for a Christian governor, but nothing was done in that direction. A golden opportunity was thus let slip.&quot; (Page 378, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

The Macedonian people were not at all happy about what went on in the Berlin Congress and showed their discontentment by demonstrating first in Kresna then in Razlog, but as usual their pleas were ignored. The Turkish army was dispatched and the demonstrations were violently put down.

Facing the possibility of becoming extinct in Europe, the Ottoman Empire began to re-organize and take demonstrations and rebellions seriously. After the Greek uprising the Sultan became distrustful of the Phanariots and expelled most of them from his services. He came close to ousting the Patriarch and his tyrannical Bishops but Russia stepped in and prevented it. Many of the Slav people were not happy with being ruled by a Greek Patriarch and after Russia's show of solidarity to the Greeks and the Patriarch, they threatened to convert to Catholicism. This created a real concern for Russia. &quot;In the days when Panslavism was a force in Russia and General Ignatieff ruled Constatinople. Russia naturally feared that if the Southern Slavs became Catholics she would lose her ascendancy over them.&quot; (Page 73, Brailsford, Macedonia)

In 1870 Russia convinced the Sultan to allow a new millet to be formed, thus creating the Exarchate Church which was immediately excommunicated by the Patriarch. Fracturing the Rum (Romeos) Millet into two opposing factions suited the Ottoman authorities perfectly because now Christians, instead of rebelling against the Turks, would fight one another. Now, in addition to the Ottoman and Greek, a third government was created that would rule the same people in three conflicting ways. 

From the day they were liberated, both Serbia and Greece began strengthening their economies and poisoning their people with nationalist propaganda. Serbia introduced education for the masses and was teaching her youth about her ancient exploits and past empires that ruled Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. Children were taught that all Slavs (except for the Bulgarians who were Serbia's enemies) were truly Serbs. 

Modern Greeks on the other hand, infatuated with the discovery of the Ancient City States, were going overboard promoting &quot;Hellenism&quot; and making territorial claims on Macedonia based on ancient rites. At the same time, the Greeks were making wild claims, claiming that all Orthodox Christians were Greeks. Here is what Brailsford has to say about that. &quot;Hellenism claims these peoples because they were civilized by the Greek Orthodox Church. That is a conception which the Western mind grasps with difficulty. It is much as though the Roman Catholic Church should claim the greater part of Europe as the inheritance of Italy. To make the parallel complete we should have to imagine not only an Italian Pope and a College of Cardinals which Italians predominate, but a complete Italian hierarchy. If every Bishop in France and Germany were an Italian, if the official language of the church were not Latin but Italian and if every priest were a political agent working for the annexation of France and Germany to Italy, we should have some analogy to the state of things which actually exist in Turkey.&quot; (Page 195, Brailsford, Macedonia) 

Here is what Brailsford has to say about how the Greeks received title to the Orthodox Church. &quot;The Slavonic (Macedonian) Churches had disappeared from Macedonia, and everywhere the Greek Bishops, as intolerant as they were corrupt-'Blind mouths that scarce themselves know how to hold a sheephook'-crushed out the national consciousness, the language, and the intellectual life of their Slav (Macedonian) flocks. It is as a result of this process that the Eastern Church is a Greek Church. The sanctions of 'Hellenism' so far as they rest on the Church, are the wealth of the Phanariots and the venality of the Turks....the Slav libraries in the old monasteries were burned by the Greek Bishops.&quot; (Page 196, Brailsford, Macedonia)

After 1878, for a Macedonian to be Hellenized meant that he or she had to give up his or her own name, language, culture, history, folklore and heritage for something issued by the Greek State. 

Here is what Karakasidou has to say. &quot;...The ideological content of notions of the Hellenic nation, which far from being ecumenical has shown itself to be intolerant of cultural or ethnic pluralism, has lead many inhabitants of Greek Macedonia to deny or hide those aspects of their own personal or family pasts...&quot; (Page 125, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

Hellenization was never made by choice, only by brute force. One was made to &quot;feel Greek&quot; when it suited the Greek State. The moment one wanted something from the Greek State or one strayed from Greek policy, they were quickly reminded of their &quot;true identity&quot; in a derogatory fashion and quickly &quot;put in their place&quot;. To be Hellenized meant to lose dignity and to suffer constant and unwarranted humiliation because no matter how hard one tried to be a Hellene, one could never measure up. A Hellenized person was/is neither Greek nor Macedonian but a soul in limbo. 

To quote David Holden &quot;To me, philhellenism is a love affair with a dream which envisions 'Greece' and the 'Greeks' not as an actual place or as real people but as symbols of some imagined perfection.&quot; (Page 12, Greece without Columns) 

&quot;Further back still beyond the War of Independence, when the modern nation-state of Greece came into being for the first time, the whole concept of Greece as a geographical entity that begins to blur before our eyes, so many and various were its shapes and meanings. But if geography can offer us no stable idea of Greece, what can? Not race, certainly; for whatever the Greeks may once have been,..., they can hardly have had much blood-relationship with the Greeks of the peninsula of today, Serbs and Bulgars, Romans, Franks and Venetians, Turks, Albanians,...,in one invasion after another have made the modern Greeks a decidedly mongrel race. Not politics either; for in spite of that tenacious western legend about Greece as the birthplace and natural home of democracy, the political record of the Greeks is one of a singular instability and confusion in which, throughout history, the poles of anarchy modulated freedom has very rarely appeared. Not religion; for while Byzantium was Christian, ancient Hellas was pagan.&quot; (Page 23, Greece without Columns) 

Unlike Macedonia and other Balkan nations who have natural and vibrant languages, Greece artificially created and used (up until the 1970's) an imposed adaptation of the classical language called the Katharevoussa. &quot;Hellenizing&quot; under these conditions not only rendered the Hellenized races mute but also imposed a meaningless and emotionless language on those doing the Hellenization. (If you want to learn more about the Greek language controversy read Peter Mackridge's book &quot;The Modern Greek Language&quot;.) 

When Greece was born for the first time in 1832 it was unclear what her national character was. To quote David Holden, &quot;the Greek nation-state was a product of western political intervention-'the fatal idea' as Arnold Toynbee once called it, of exclusive western nationalism impinging upon the multi-national traditions of the eastern world. By extension, therefore, at any rate in theory, it was a child of the Renaissance and of western rationalism. (Page 28, Greece without Columns)

Officially, Greeks call their modern state Hellas, and are officially known as Hellenes, but at the same time they call themselves Romios (from the Turkish Rum millet) implying that they are descendents of the Romans. Greece, however, is a derivation of the Latin &quot;Graecea&quot; (Page 29, Holden, Greece without Columns) the province of the Western Roman Empire which extended from Mount Olympus to the Peloponnesus. Again, to quote David Holden, &quot;its international use to describe the sovereign state that currently occupies that territory is merely a reflection of the fact that 'Greece' in this modern sense is literally a western invention. (Page 29, Greece without Columns)

If philhellenism is a love affair with a dream, then Hellenism is a dream of a few &quot;evil geniuses&quot; who sought to destroy what was real in favour of creating something artificial, like a Frankenstein's Monster. Hellenism may be a dream for a few (mad men) but it has been a nightmare for the Macedonian people. Here is what Karakasidou has to say. &quot;Greek natural identity was not a 'natural development' or the extension of a 'high culture' over the region of Macedonia, although now it is frequently portrayed as so. The ideology of Hellenism imposed a homogeneity on the Macedonian region and its inhabitants.&quot; (Page 94, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

To be continued...

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>r5mt6qp5b6k7c1xrtd2ovt2qjg3v4xc</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 6 - The Macedonian Agenda</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2042</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11024</id>
      <parentid>5047</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="22604" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 6 - The Macedonian Agenda

March, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

The year 1878 was a pivotal point in history for most of the Balkan people. A number of important historical events took place that would have lasting significance. This was the year when powerful decisions were made, some to liberate people yet others to subjugate them, decisions that would have lasting effects and grave consequences. 

Before 1878 there was great hope in Macedonia that the Christian Powers in Europe would soon rise up and drive the Muslim Turk out of Europe. Most educated and enlightened Macedonians were well aware of the situation in the Balkans especially of the Ottoman State's slow but steady decline. They were witnessing the long held and powerful Empire crumble at its fringes and new Christian States forming from its debris. Macedonians knew it was a matter of time before they too would be liberated and for good. 

Before 1878 Macedonians rose and fought against the Turks not only to liberate themselves but also to liberate their Christian Brothers in Greece, Serbia and other places. By doing this they knew that when their turn came they could count on their friends, with whom they fought side by side, to come and give them aid.


1878 was the year the maps of the Balkans were re-drawn. It was the year grand plans for solving the Eastern Question were put in action. It was the year Macedonia's fate was sealed. 

1878 was also the year the enlightened Macedonians came to the realization that they could no longer hope or depend on the outside world to come to rescue them or liberate their Macedonia.

Unbeknownst to the ordinary Macedonians, who suffered endlessly under the Ottoman yoke, was that their calls would not be answered, their kind favours would never be returned, the freedom they so longed for would never materialize and their suffering would never cease. 

Macedonians made their bid for liberation once in 1689 (the Karposh uprising) when Austria invaded Macedonia, once in 1876 at Razlog and twice in 1878. The Macedonian people rose and fought against the Turks side by side with the Russian army in early 1878. They again rose and fought the Turks in the Kreshna uprising in late 1878.

After the Russian army overran and liberated most of the Balkans in March 1878, the Macedonian people experienced a brief spell of freedom. Unfortunately their freedom was cut short in July 1878 by order of the Western Powers.

Russia's impudence for self importance and its impatience with the Western Powers, in a bid to gain access to Mediterranean waters, attacked Turkey in early 1878 delivering a devastating blow and liberating most of the Balkans including all of Macedonia. 

Shocked by this unexpected act, Russia's opponents, the Western Powers, intervened by convening a conference in Berlin and decided, among other things, to return Macedonia to the Ottomans. 

In the brief period from March 3rd to July 13th, 1878 Macedonians experienced a taste of freedom for the first time in centuries and also a taste of betrayal the kind they would never forget. 

This betrayal was a clear signal for the Macedonian people of what the Christian Powers had in mind. Worse than being handed back to their tormentors was the inaction of the Western Powers who made absolutely no effort or demands to safeguard the rights or safety of those Macedonians whom they handed back to the Turks as a gift.

Macedonia, being the center of the Ottoman domain in Europe, had very little contact with the outside world and new ideas, especially nationalism, were slow to penetrate. Unlike the Serbians who bordered the Austro-Hungarian Empire and were continuously bombarded with outside propaganda and the Greeks who were merchants and sailors and had opportunities to interact with the outside world, Macedonians were mostly peasants and farmers tied to the land with virtually no outside contact. Macedonians however were well aware of who they were ethnically speaking, but little emphasis was placed on their ethnic identity mainly because they saw themselves as Christians first and Macedonians second. Their fight at the time was with the Muslim authorities and not with the individual ethnicities in the Balkans.

As Slav speaking Orthodox (not Catholic) Christians the Western Powers saw the Macedonians as natural Russian allies and enemies of the West. As a result of this Macedonians were disadvantaged and received little or no attention from the West. In fact Britain and Germany, ignoring evidence to the contrary like Macedonian folklore and traditions, did their best to rob the Macedonian people of their ancient heritage by declaring that they were &quot;Slav&quot; and had no connection to the ancient Macedonians who, in their opinion, were &quot;Greek&quot;.

Knowing all this, the Macedonian intelligentsia still bore no ill will towards their Christian brothers and was confident that the world would see the truth one day once it became known. In fact, the 19th century Macedonian intellectuals were so preoccupied with the plight of their people that all priority was given to survival; everything else was of secondary importance.

The 1878 wakeup call for the Macedonian intelligentsia brought home the idea that Macedonia must liberate itself and for that to happen the Macedonian people must be informed, organized, armed and trained for a massive rebellion. Unfortunately by the time the Macedonian people were ready to do this, the Ottoman authorities were well aware of what was happening and rebellions were made very difficult to come by. After the Ottomans lost lands to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria they were determined not to lose any more and became vigilant regarding such matters.

For some, especially for Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, 1878 was the year of realization that if Macedonia was not going to be liberated as a free nation-state then perhaps maybe it could be annexed by outside forces. So while the Macedonian people were organizing for a massive rebellion, new and more sinister forces were making plans for their future. 

Unbeknownst to the Macedonian people, high level discussions and negotiations were taking place between the Great Powers and the new Balkan States on how to solve the Macedonian question.

Two important decisions were reached as a result of these negotiations; 

1. Macedonia would be partitioned and annexed by Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, and

2. Macedonia would be divided along national lines.

Both of these decisions were made without the knowledge, consultation or approval of the Macedonian people.

After gaining approval from the Great Powers, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria began to infiltrate Macedonia by way of the churches, the only legal authorities recognized by the Ottoman powers. In the legal absence of a Macedonian Church, foreign churches were allowed to be established inside Macedonia.

Unfortunately, even though Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia through their churches busied themselves making Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians out of the Macedonian population in Macedonia, the Macedonian leadership did not perceive this as a threat to the Macedonian national consciousness and continued to organize the struggle against its main foe, the Ottoman authorities.

With the formation of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in Solun in 1893, the movement was nationally consolidated and the armed struggle began to take shape.

At the turn of the 20th century the Macedonian Revolutionary Movement began to feel the effects of the foreign churches on Macedonian soil. First it was the virulent foreign propaganda. When that alone did not produce desired result, the foreign churches began to illegally employ bands of armed brigands to terrorize the population and accelerate the process of making Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians out of the Macedonian population.

Unfortunately, most of the Macedonian leadership still could not see this as a serious threat. &quot;One can change a Macedonian into a Greek as much as one can change a sheep into a goat.&quot; was not an unusual response one would get when posing the question.

With the exception of some intellectuals, like Krste Misirkov, the top leadership could not rationalize the &quot;real reasons&quot; why Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria would want to make Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians out of Macedonians. For the moment the leadership had a more pressing job which was to liberate Macedonia from the Turks. 

In retrospect, the Macedonian leadership was correct in its assessment of the effects of foreign propaganda before the Ilinden 1903 rebellion. Direct threats from Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian involvement, be it propaganda or armed incursion, were minor in comparison to having to deal with the massive Turkish army. Indirectly however, especially during and after the 1903 attempt, foreign involvement proved to be lethal. The Churches and armed bands cooperated with Turkish authorities, which in the long term brought greater harm to the Macedonian Revolutionary Movement than its leadership could have estimated. Turkish authorities and the Turkish military needed assistance with its intelligence and had the eyes and ears of the Churches. History has recorded many instances where the Greek Church and its clergy and even the Greek sponsored brigands cooperated with the Turkish army to monitor Macedonian activities and to capture and assassinate Macedonian Revolutionary leaders. 

The Macedonian Revolutionary Movement itself was well organized. It was a grass roots movement organized by the people for the people and it was not affiliated with any foreign powers or foreign states. It was a true peoples' movement dedicated to liberating all the people in Macedonia and creating a Macedonian nation-state. This was an accomplishment that all Macedonians can take pride in.

According to peace keepers who served in Macedonia and witnessed this, they declared it was one of the most organized but unfortunately most poorly executed revolutions that Europe had ever witnessed. 

It was well organized mainly due to the efforts of the national and regional leadership and poorly executed mainly due to foreign, mostly Bulgarian, intervention.

Unlike the Greeks who had almost no local support and little hold on Macedonia before the Ilinden rebellion, the Bulgarians were in the thick of things. The Bulgarians were so certain that they would annex Macedonia they made every effort to stifle the rebellion and turn the tide to their advantage. They did this through sabotage and outright assassinations. In fact every time the Revolutionary Movement made some real progress, its leadership paid for it with lives. Bulgarian agents, spies and assassins were responsible for more Macedonian leaders being killed than the entire Turkish army. Even the 1903 Ilinden rebellion itself was instigated by Bulgarian agents to start early so that it would fail. Gotse Delchev, the supreme commander of the Macedonian Revolutionary Movement, was against an early rebellion because he believed his fighters were not properly armed and trained for the massive task at hand.

As for the Bulgarian involvement, based on historical accounts, Bulgarians have done more harm to the liberation movement and its pursuit for an independent Macedonia than all other forces combined. The Bulgarians were responsible for most of the revolutionary leadership's apprehensions and killings. It was by no accident that the Ottoman authorities declared the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization illegal on January 31st, 1903 and had all its leaders arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in the harshest prisons in Asia Minor. A list with the names of all revolutionary leaders was compiled high up in the Bulgarian State leadership, if not by Bulgarian Prince Ferdinand himself, and handed to the Turkish authorities. 

The annexation of Macedonia with all its glory and making it a part of Bulgaria was Prince Ferdinand's personal project.

The failed 1903 Ilinden Macedonian rebellion was a signal not only for Turkey but also for Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria to escalate their intervention. To make sure no future rebellions would occur, agents from all three states were dispatched to hunt down and eliminate all revolutionary leaders that survived the rebellion.

In the hunt for rebels and in the pursuit to quell the rebellion many fighters and civilians were killed and villages burned. These were acts of terror which not only instilled great fear in the hearts of the Macedonian population but also crushed their will as Macedonians. This was a great opportunity for the foreign propaganda machine to turn the situation around.

Leaderless and morally crushed, Macedonians began to doubt themselves and their abilities to liberate themselves by themselves. Those who could see no end to their misery found solace in the propaganda. 

It was during this time and under these conditions that Greece exploited the situation and by wielding the might of the Turkish army turned Macedonians into Greeks. Yes, it was Greeks closely cooperating with Turks that turned the tide in Greece's favour. It is hard to believe Greece has forgotten all that! Yes, this is an historical fact that today's modern Greeks refuse to acknowledge. Without the help of the Turkish army very few Macedonians would have surrendered to the Greek will.

The failed rebellion and loss of leadership literally opened Macedonia's doors to foreign intervention. Left unprotected, the Macedonian people turned to the Greek Patriarchate and Bulgarian Exarchate Churches for solace only to be filled with false hope and to again be betrayed.

With the Macedonian revolution out of the way and having the Macedonian people fooled into believing that they would soon be liberated, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria anxiously made plans to invade Macedonia. Unfortunately, in their haste their plans were stifled because the three could not agree on how to divide Macedonia. Having no previous borders to agree on or the right kind of populations to liberate, they consulted the Russian King who also had no answers. He did, however, advise them that whatever territory their armies liberated, it would be theirs to keep.

I want to clarify at this point what I meant by my comment &quot;the right kind of population to liberate&quot;. 

Earlier I mentioned that one of the conditions imposed by the Great Powers in sanctioning the division of Macedonia was that Macedonia had to be divided &quot;along national lines&quot;. This meant that Greece could only annex the territory where the majority of the population was ethnically Greek. Bulgaria could only annex the territory where the majority of the population was ethnically Bulgarian and so on. Since none of the population in Macedonia was ethnically Greek, Bulgarian or Serbian, the three states took measures to make it so. Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian ethnicities had to be literally manufactured.

After some trials, the final solution came down to church affiliation. By this I mean those Macedonians who were affiliated with the Greek Patriarchic Church were declared to be ethnic Greeks. Those affiliated with the Bulgarian Exarchate Church were declared to be ethnic Bulgarians and those affiliated with the Serbian Church were declared to be ethnic Serbians.

What is totally bizarre about this solution is that it assumed that since there was no Macedonian Church in Macedonia, there were no ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia.

Unfortunately since all three State Churches were allowed to operate in overlapping territories, all three Churches made claims to the same people. There were many instances where one village had a majority of Macedonians affiliated with the Greek Church, while another village in close proximity, just a few kilometers away, had a majority of Macedonians affiliated with the Bulgarian church and so on. In other words right from the onset it was not clear where the dividing lines should be placed. If I may add, all of this was done without the knowledge or consent of the Macedonian people.

Welcomed as their liberators the Macedonian people allowed the foreign armies to march into Macedonia unabated only to be betrayed again. 

After the Turks were driven off, with Macedonian help I might add, the Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian armies not only captured and jailed much of the Macedonian leadership but they also turned on the Macedonian civilian populations. The Greek army burned down villages where the majority of the population was affiliated with the Bulgarian Church. The Bulgarian army in retaliation burned down villages where the majority of the population was affiliated with the Greek Church and so on. There were so many atrocities committed and so much carnage left that the situation prompted an investigation from the Carnegie International Commission. 

The Commission arrived in Macedonia just before the second Balkan War ended and even though it didn't witness all the atrocities first hand, it did interview many eye witnesses and a year later filed a report with its findings. Unfortunately the report was filed just before the eruption of World War I and was shelved before anything could be investigated. As a result no war crimes were investigated and no charges were laid. And so another saga ended un-investigated and the perpetrators literally got away with murder.

After Macedonia's partition in 1913 each State again took measures against the Macedonian people, some in retribution for assisting the enemy and others just simply to &quot;ethnically&quot; cleanse the population. 

With all that had happened, the Macedonian leadership was very much weakened but not completely destroyed and continued to function, mostly externally. The new borders imposed on the Macedonian people, as a result of Macedonia's partition, proved to be more impenetrable than expected so interaction between the leadership and the people ground to a standstill.

Over the years after the occupation, the Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia and the Macedonians in Bulgarian occupied Macedonia faired the worst of all Macedonians and by the Second World War suffered expulsions, denationalization, jail sentences and disappearances. Many were murdered. The Macedonian language was outlawed and the Macedonian identity was completely erased. 

Macedonians were forced to pledge loyalty to their new states and as a result were assimilated into their respective societies.

After the Second World War the Serbian occupied part of Macedonia was granted Republic Status within the Yugoslav Federation. The Macedonian people earned this right with the spilling of their own blood during the liberation of Yugoslavia from the Fascist forces. The Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia also spilled blood to free Greece but the Greek authorities refused to acknowledge it. The Macedonians in Bulgarian occupied Macedonia were briefly recognized as Macedonians but unfortunately the Bulgarian authorities had a change of heart and soon revoked the recognition.

Regarding the Greek Civil War, I would like to state my own opinion at this point because I believe there are things that need to be said.

In retrospect, based on what we learned after the archives of World War II were opened, there are indications that the Greek Civil War was not just a simple and straight forward war. I believe it had more sinister motives.

Knowing that the Great Powers had already agreed that Greece would remain under the British sphere of influence, why was the Civil War allowed to start in the first place? 

Surely both sides of the Greek leadership must have known about this agreement? 

It was made certain that Britain would not allow a Communist regime to govern Greece even if the Communist forces won by combat or by free election. 

So the real crux of the problem is what do you do with a Communist majority in Greece?

How would Britain have handled a Democratically elected Communist Government in Greece?

Would a Communist regime cooperate with Britain and remain loyal and honour its policies? I don't think so!

I believe the Greek Civil War was started in order to crush the Communists in Greece, nip them in the bud before they had a chance to become a serious problem for Britain. After all Greece was the gateway to the Mediterranean waters. Am I the only one that sees the historic pattern here? If Greece became Communist, it would have aligned itself with Russia thus giving the Russians access to the Mediterranean Sea.

But why involve the Macedonian people? That's simple. During the German occupation, free from Greek oppression, the Macedonian people in Greece not only experienced a mini renaissance but also showed the will to organize and fight for their freedom. This was well demonstrated by the formation and actions of the Aegean Brigade which not only proved to be formidable but also put fear in the hearts of the Greeks. 

The Macedonian people were involved in the Greek Civil War so that once again their spirits would be broken. 

The Macedonians have always been a thorn in the side of Greece, so why not break their will while beating up on the communists. By its own admission after the fact, the Greek Communist leadership would have never given autonomy to the Macedonian people had it won. So why did it lie to them? Macedonians were promised autonomy, even outright independence, just to get them involved and in doing so destroyed them. One only has to look at the results to be convinced of the validity of this argument. 

The expulsions and murders committed between 1912, when Macedonia was partitioned, and 1949 when the Greek Civil War ended reduced the Macedonian population from a great Majority to a minority on its native soil. 

The above mentioned issues are well known to the Macedonians. It is high time now that they are made known to the international community so the world will stop treating Macedonians as some kind of Communist creation or as terrorists scheming and plotting to usurp Greek lands and Greek history.

To be continued...

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>slxxgyqiiommn9q8pgpapet2zuif9c5</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 7 - Treaties and Agreements</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2043</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11025</id>
      <parentid>5048</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:32Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="14287" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 7 - Treaties and Agreements

April, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

As mentioned in an earlier chapter (part 6) the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 succeeded in undermining Ottoman control and encouraging attempts at self-determination. Yet, even though the Macedonian people had irrefutably demonstrated their own national consciousness and desire for autonomy, the Great Powers twice refused their pleas and eventually restored the Ottoman Turk to power, thus guaranteeing their own economic interests.

During the 1878-79 war, the Russian army penetrated deeply into the European part of the Ottoman Empire and succeeded in seizing Anrianople (Endrene) resulting in an armistice on January 31st, 1878. After the armistice, Russia dictated a peace treaty, termed the San Stefano Peace Treaty, signed on March 3rd, 1878 which freed Bulgaria, most of Macedonia and Thrace and created a &quot;Greater Bulgaria&quot;.

Not satisfied with the results of this Russo-Turkish agreement the Western Powers re-convened the Eastern Question at a Berlin congress and a month later on July 13, 1878 the San Stefano agreement was revised as follows:

Independence was granted to Serbia and Montenegro as well as Romania. Bosnia was given to Austria-Hungary and the territory of present day Bulgaria was divided into two administrative districts Bulgaria proper and eastern Rumelia. Eastern Rumelia was given back to the Ottomans. Macedonia, Thrace, Kosovo and Albania were also given back to the Ottomans.

With the exception of clause 23 which required the Turks to provide a small degree of economic autonomy to Macedonia, Macedonians were again committed to Ottoman oppression without guarantees of safety. The conditions of clause 23, unfortunately, were never enforced by the Great Powers or complied with by Turkey.

Even though on the surface it appeared that the Berlin Congress had solved the Balkan problem, underneath it continued to fester and grow.

On January 19th, 1897 William Gladstone, a British Statesman sent a letter addressed to the President of the Byron Society Hawarden Castle, Chester;

Dear Sir,

The hopelessness of the Turkish Government would make me witness with delight its being swept out the countries which it tortures: but without knowledge of resources available to support the revolt. I dare not take the responsibility of encouraging it in any fort or degree.

Next to the Ottoman Government nothing can be more deplorable and blameworthy than jealousies between Greek and Slav, and plans by the States already existing for appropriating other territory.

Why not Macedonia for Macedonians, as well as Bulgaria for Bulgarians and Servia for Servians? And if they are small and weak, let them bind themselves together for defense, so that they may not be devoured by others, either great or small, which would probably be the effect of their quarrelling among themselves.

Your very faithful

W. E. Gladstone

The Times (London), 6th January 1897, p. 12.

Why not a Macedonia for the Macedonians indeed? The Macedonian problem would have been solved and the Balkan Wars and all the suffering and misery would not have taken place had the Great Powers allowed and assisted in the formation of a Macedonian State. Unfortunately that did not happen and the 1903 Macedonian Ilinden uprising was allowed to fail which was a disappointment to the Macedonian people and created new problems that have yet to be solved.

Decisions made during the Berlin Congress encouraged Balkan expansionism and signaled for a more aggressive policy towards Macedonia.

As early as 1867, by their agreement to ally themselves in partitioning Macedonian territories, Greece and Serbia had demonstrated designs upon Macedonia. But Greece and Serbia were not alone. A declaration of Bulgarian policy in 1885 stated: &quot;Our whole future depends on Macedonia; without her the Bulgarian State in the Balkans will be without importance of authority: Salonika must be the main port of this State, the grand window to illuminate the entire building. If Macedonia does not belong to Bulgaria, Bulgaria will never be firmly based.&quot;

Greece too had its own designs made evident by the comments of a Greek aristocrat: &quot;Macedonia is the lung of Greece: without it the rest of Greece will be condemned to death. For Greece to become a great power she must expand into Macedonia.&quot;

The Serbians too had their ideas about Macedonia which were expressed by this directive: &quot;We Serbia, are ready to enter into any combination if necessary in order to prevent the Macedonian Question being settled in any way that harms our vital interests, without which Serbia cannot survive.&quot;

One hundred or so years later, we are still discussing the Macedonian question which should be obvious by now that it cannot be solved without the participation of the Macedonian people.

The legacy of Berlin subjected Macedonia to three new tyrants who began a violent assimilation program and a long period of brutal oppression to a point of genocide, which has lasted to this day.

The period immediately following the Berlin Congress demonstrated that Balkan chauvinist intent was not merely to occupy and exploit Macedonia as the Ottomans had, but to eradicate the Macedonian culture and replace it with an alien one. By any means possible; be it by the gun, religion or semi-legal means, the Balkan States attempted to strip the native Macedonians of their language, religion, folklore, literature, traditions and consciousness. In other words, rob the Macedonian people of their spirit and then turn them into Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians.

Feeding their own impatience and greed and fearing backlash from the others, the Balkan States began to develop long and elaborate plans on how to gain as much Macedonian territory as possible without getting embroiled in a conflict. If I may add, none of these States, including Greece, had any historical claims on Macedonian territory at the time. Their aims were purely colonial and imperialistic.

To avoid conflict with each other Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria began to negotiate (with each other) the division of Macedonia by means of non-aggression agreements.

A secret five year treaty was signed between Serbia and Bulgaria on March 30th, 1904 which basically defined each State's spheres of influence in Macedonia with regards to the implementation of the Murzsteg reforms. Then on September 19th, 1911, Serbia and Bulgaria began negotiations on a common attack against the Ottomans with the purpose of partitioning Macedonia. On February 29th, 1912, in their preparation for war to evict the Ottomans out of Macedonia they concluded several agreements including a treaty of friendship and alliance.

A Greek-Bulgarian treaty was signed on May 30th, 1912. Both parties promised not to attack one another and to come to each other's defense should Turkey attack them.

In June 1912 the &quot;Balkan League of Nations&quot; consisting of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria was formed and shortly afterwards delivered an ultimatum to the Ottoman to &quot;deliver the promised reforms in Macedonia or prepare to be invaded&quot;.

There was much intrigue, agreements, counter-agreements and secret deals between the League of Nations but from the outset each was determined to exploit any situation that developed, purely for its own gain. The League of Nations was simply a device for synchronizing a military effort and the simplest way to settle the Turkish question. Attack the Ottomans simultaneously and on multiple fronts while circumstances were favourable and present the European powers with a fait accompli.

On October 18th, 1912 Montenegro declared war on Turkey with the League following suit. Russia, the architect of the Balkan League, was against a war in 1912 and so were France and Britain. A war at this point might throw off the delicate diplomatic balance and escalate into a &quot;world war&quot;. Russia feared that the half-millennium old Ottoman Empire might not be as easy a target as the League had estimated. Britain and France feared a backlash from Germany and Austria now that Turkey was warming up to them as a prospective ally. To stop the League's aggressive actions, both Britain and France threatened them with economic sanctions but that was not enough to stop them from continuing with their mission.

By November it was becoming apparent that Turkey was running out of options and on November 12th, 1912 called on the Great Powers to bring about an armistice. To deal with the situation a peace conference was scheduled for December 16th, 1912, to take place in London.

Having some time to adjust to the new situation, the Great Powers for the first time opted from the usual &quot;status quo&quot; recommendations and considered making concessions to the victors.

Austria was not happy with the prospect of a &quot;large Serbia&quot; and Serbian access to the Adriatic Sea so eyeing the Adriatic region as a prospective sphere of influence for itself, Austria recommended and Britain agreed to &quot;creating&quot; Albania, a new State. Another reason why Austria did not want Serbia to have access to the Adriatic Sea was because a Serbian port might become a Russian port.

I just want to mention here that Macedonians were not allowed to attend the London Peace Conference

The London Conference adjourned by officially declaring an end to the First Balkan War. Unfortunately its resolutions left all parties dissatisfied. Serbia was dissatisfied with losing the Albanian territory and appealed to Bulgaria to grant her access to the Aegean Sea via Solun and the Vardar valley, but her appeals fell on deaf ears. Greece also was not happy with Bulgaria's invasion and annexation of Endrene and to balance its share, Greece wanted Serres, Drama and Kavala as compensation. That too fell on deaf ears. Bulgaria, frustrated became bitter with Russia for deserting it during the London Conference negotiations.

Seeing that Bulgaria was not going to budge and the fact that neither Greece nor Serbia on their own could take on Bulgaria, should a conflict arise, Greece and Serbia on April 22nd, 1913 began negotiating an alliance and on May 19th, 1913 concluded a secret pact to attack Bulgaria.

In other words the Greek-Serbian objective was to take territory from Bulgaria west of the Vardar River, divide it and have a common frontier.

After stumbling onto this Greek-Serbian pact, despite Russian attempts to appease it by offering it Solun, Bulgaria remained bitter and in a moment of weakness was lured away by Austria. By going over to Austria, Bulgaria in effect broke off all relations with the Balkan League. Russia, disappointed with the Bulgarian shift in loyalty, made it clear that Bulgaria could no longer expect any help from Russia.

In what was later termed the &quot;Second Balkan War&quot;, the Bulgarian army, unprovoked, preferring the element of surprise, attacked its former allies on June 30th, 1913. The bloody fight was short lived as Romania, Montenegro and Turkey joined Greece and Serbia in dealing Bulgaria a catastrophic blow. The promised Austrian support didn't materialize as the risks for Austrian involvement outweighed any benefits. Turkey was able to re-gain some of what was lost to Bulgaria but the greatest beneficiary of all was Greece which received the biggest piece of the Macedonian pie.

The Second Balkan War ended on August 10th, 1913, the darkest day in the history of the Macedonian people, with the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Bucharest.

With Macedonia dismantled Serbia gained territories from the summit of Patarika, on the old frontier, and followed the watershed between the Vardar and the Struma Rivers to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary, except that the upper valley of the Strumnitza remained in the possession of Bulgaria. The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ohrid, Bitola, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased its territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and its population by more than 1,500,000.

Greece's gains started from the boundary line separating Greece from Bulgaria from the crest of Mount Belashitcha to the mouth of the Mesta River, on the Aegean Sea. This important territorial concession, which Bulgaria resolutely contested, in compliance with the instructions embraced in the notes which Russia and Austria-Hungary presented to the conference, increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000. The territory thus annexed included Epirus, southern Macedonia, Solun, Kavala, and the Aegean littoral as far east as the Mesta River, and restricted the Aegean seaboard of Bulgaria to an inconsiderable extent of 70 miles, extending from the Mesta to the Maritza, and giving access to the Aegean at the inferior port of Dedeagatch. Greece also extended its northwestern frontier to include the great fortress of Janina. In addition, Crete was definitely assigned to Greece and was formally taken over on December 14, 1913.

Bulgaria's share of the spoils, although greatly reduced, was not entirely negligible. Bulgaria's net gains in territory, which embraced a portion of Macedonia, including the town of Strumnitza, western Thrace, and 70 miles of the Aegean littoral, were about 9,663 square miles and her population was increased by 129,490.

To be continued...

References:

Radin, A. Michael. IMRO and the Macedonian Question. Skopje: Kultura, 1993.

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

Source for the Bucharest Treaty: Anderson, Frank Maloy and Amos Shartle Hershey, Handbook for the Diplomatic History of Europe, Asia, and Africa 1870-1914. Prepared for the National Board for Historical Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1918.

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>rstz3ngsvwuwemtcfemb2ne5bi3l5gy</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 8 - Minority Agreements</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2044</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11026</id>
      <parentid>5049</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:37Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="21239" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 8 - Minority Agreements

May, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

Under the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria not only partitioned Macedonian territories but they also divided the Macedonian people. Never since Roman times have Macedonians been divided by artificially imposed borders and never in the history of Macedonia has the Macedonian identity been so forcefully and brutally attacked.

At the turn of the 20th century Macedonia was still under Ottoman control and the Macedonian people had little to no contact with the outside world. At the time there were no NGO's or governing bodies that represented the Macedonian voice. Outside contact with the Macedonian people was thus relegated to outside agencies like the foreign Embassies and the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches. Anyone wanting to visit Macedonia, be it a journalist or diplomat, first had to obtain permission from the Ottoman authorities. Then government or Church appointed guides, who only supported Ottoman, Greek, Bulgarian, or Serbian interests, would guide them. The only legitimate Macedonian authority, which represented the interests of the Macedonian people, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), was viewed as illegitimate, radical and in some cases as a terrorist organization.

When the outside world looked for demographical statistics to find out what ethnicities lived in Macedonia they went to the Greek, Serbian, or Bulgarian Churches. The Ottoman authorities kept statistics by religion &quot;Muslim&quot; and &quot;Others&quot;. The foreign Churches on the other hand, who refused to acknowledge the Macedonian identity on account that there was no Macedonian Church to legitimize and represent it, took their own statistics based on their own criteria. Anyone who attended or was affiliated with the Greek Church was thus counted as being Greek. Similarly, anyone attending or being affiliated with the Bulgarian Church was counted as Bulgarian and so on. By the turn of the 20th century foreigners, including the foreign media, came to depend on the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian agencies for information on Macedonia. Thus the ethnic Macedonians having no representation of their own were now represented by Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, the very same people who had designs on annexing their Macedonia.

Worse, which would become a problem for Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia later, was that the various Macedonian people identified as Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians by these foreign agencies were prevalent and overlapping throughout the whole of Macedonia. In other words there was no region in Macedonia that was exclusively affiliated with one Church or another. Even most of the small villages were of mixed affiliations so there were no clear cut dividing lines to distinguish one identity from the others.

It is also well known that when Macedonia was invaded by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912, there were no plans on how it was going to be divided. In fact this indecision was the cause that sparked the second Balkan War in 1913 which again ended without a mutually accepted plan on the division of Macedonia. Thus Macedonia's division and annexation by Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia was arbitrary and without design and was going to be settled by military means, in other words by war. So when the dust settled there were winners and losers and none of the contestants were satisfied with what they received. Worst off were the Macedonian people whose home was now not only occupied by foreigners but also partitioned by three different, warring states which were determined to turn the Macedonian people into Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians by any means possible even by extreme violence if necessary. 

The bitterness of the Second Balkan War and the dissatisfaction of not meeting expectations with regards to Macedonian territories turned Bulgaria against Greece and Serbia making the Macedonian population its political pawns. Hoping to gain more territory from Greece and Serbia and in retribution for Greece's and Serbia's part in the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers during World War I and fought against the Allies ending in its defeat with the signing of the Neully Treaty on November 27, 1919. It was again a bitter defeat for Bulgaria with more suffering in Macedonia. 

After the Treaty of Neully, some 46,000 Macedonians were kicked out of Bulgarian occupied Macedonia for their past affiliations with the Greek Church and 92,000 Macedonians were deported from Greek occupied Macedonia for their past affiliation with the Bulgarian Church. 

The deportations continued through the early 1920s until the spring of 1924 when Greece and Bulgaria signed the Politis-Kalfov Protocol on March 24, 1924 which was to provide minority rights for the so called &quot;Greek minority&quot; in Bulgaria and the so called &quot;Bulgarian minority&quot; in Greece. 

The protocol obliged Greece to secure fair treatment for all members of this minority according to the terms of the August 10th 1920 Treaty of Sèvres between Greece and its major allies in World War one. Unfortunately Greece never implemented the Protocol.

Here are some details from a Greek source that somewhat explains what transpired:

Colonel A. C. Corfe and Major Marcel de Roover, members of the Mixed Commission for Greek-Bulgarian Emigration established in 1919, were assigned to observe the protocol's implementation paying particular attention to minority's specific needs especially in matters of education and religion. Subsequently they would submit reports to the Greek government making their recommendations.

After the protocol was signed, Greece and the League of Nations engaged in negotiations regarding the details of its implementation. The Greeks offered a proposal which focused on three points: 

(1) Bulgarian minority schools with more than forty students would be sponsored by the Greek state. If there were fewer than forty students, then it would be the community's task to support its school financially. It would be compulsory for teaching personnel to obtain Greek citizenship. 

(2) Exarchate priests would be obliged to obtain Greek citizenship and no bishops would be appointed to the Bulgarian minority, because, according to the rules of the Orthodox Church, the coexistence of two religious authorities of the same dogma within the same bishopric is forbidden.

(3) A Minority Bureau reporting to the Greek Foreign Ministry would be established in Solun which would collect and evaluate all petitions concerning minority rights. It would also investigate cases and submit its report to the minister in charge, who was expected to settle each issue.

In the Greek government's view the establishment of such a service was the best way not only to handle all minority matters but also to assist the League of Nations, which at that time was overwhelmed by numerous petitions and letters of grievance concerning the so called &quot;Bulgarian minority of Greece&quot;. According to the Greek Government the so called &quot;Slavophones&quot; of Greek Macedonia lacked a sound national orientation and there were several with pro-Bulgarian leanings, but the presence of the Commission members and the collection of petitions might encourage the so called &quot;non-Bulgarian Slavophones&quot; to join the minority group owing to its apparently preferential treatment. Such a development would then accelerate the flow of Bulgarian money into Macedonia for the establishment of additional Bulgarian schools. In any case, Greece was not prepared to give the impression that the so called &quot;Greek Slavophones&quot; were neglected by the state while the so called &quot;Bulgarian minority&quot; enjoyed favorable treatment. Greece obviously expected that these measures, especially the establishment of the Minority Bureau, would suffice to treat the minority question in the best possible way and in conformity with the minority treaties. On the other hand, it is clear that Greek officials were confused about the national preferences of Greece's Slavic-speaking inhabitants. Politis, for example, considered all Slavophones to be Bulgarians while his superior, the foreign minister, stated that only a few Slavophones aligned themselves with Bulgaria.

On November 28, 1924, the secretary general of the League of Nations sent a letter to the minority section director, to inform him of this and rejecting the Greek proposal to channel all minority complaints to the League of Nations exclusively through the Solun Minority Bureau, arguing that this was against Article 2 and Article 3 of the protocol, signed only two months earlier, which in fact had provided for a League of Nations' service and not for a service by a branch office of the Greek Foreign Ministry. The secretary general closed his letter with a number of his own suggestions: 

(1) The Greek government would have to establish a Minority Bureau in Solun. 

(2) Attached to this office would be a separate service which would have to be provided for Corfe and de Roover, to which all minority petitions, complaints, etc. would be addressed. 

(3) All these documents would then be forwarded, together with Greek remarks, to the Mixed Commission.

(4) After that Greek officials could send these documents to the Minority Section of the League of Nations, which was expected to investigate the cases and take appropriate measures. 

(5) The Minority Section would have to report to Corfe and de Roover who, in turn, were expected to inform the League of Nations.

On December 4 Marcel de Roover dispatched a confidential report to Eric Colban to inform him of a conversation he had had with the Greek foreign minister with whom, among other things, he discussed the language to be used in the minority schools. He maintained that the medium of instruction should be neither literary Bulgarian nor Serbian but a Macedonian dialect.

A few days later, during the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations in Rome, negotiations took place between Greece and the League on the implementation of articles in the

Politis-Kalfov Protocol concerning the so called &quot;Bulgarian minority&quot;. Eric Colban recorded the negotiation procedure in detail in his lengthy, confidential report under the title &quot;Record of Various Conversations in Rome concerning the Execution of the Minorities Protocol of September 29, 1924 between the Greek Government and the League of Nations.&quot;

On December 14, Corfe and de Roover started talks with Colban concerning the problems the

Greek government was experiencing with the Geneva protocol. It was already clear that the Greek parliament was not going to ratify the protocol.

On the question of the minority schools Colban noted that, according to the Minority Treaty of Sèvres, the language of the minority was meant to be its mother tongue which the so called &quot;Bulgarians of Greece&quot; spoke being slightly different from all the other Slavic languages. Since no newspaper or book had ever been written in these dialects therefore, a new literary language had to be standardized, based on these local dialects. Colban observed, however, that since such linguistic construction was against the terms of the minority treaty, Bulgaria would protest and would press for the use of literary Bulgarian instead. Although Bulgaria was not directly involved in the minority treaties that Greece had signed, Colban felt that its views should not be neglected even though its claims were not legitimate. De Roover also supported the view that the local dialect should be used since this option was expected to help the Greek government deal with any counterarguments during the forthcoming parliamentary debates. But Corfe reacted, feeling that such an option was too risky because &quot;the creation of a Macedonian language might encourage the Macedonian movement not only in Greece but also in Bulgaria and Serbia.&quot; Nevertheless, he concluded that strict implementation of the minority treaties was absolutely necessary, which meant that use of the local dialects was inevitable. 

On December 15, 1924, Greek representatives informed the League of Nations representatives that the Greek government would be glad to sanction local dialects as the minority school language. However, since those dialects lacked literary form, Greece would prepare a primer and other textbooks. With regards to risks associated with: 

(1) The provocation of a Macedonian movement following the creation of a distinct Macedonian language and 

(2) Bulgaria's consequent reaction; the Greek representative replied that Greece fully appreciated those risks. 

On February 2, 1925 the Greek parliament voted against the protocol which prompted the Council of the League of Nations to insist that Greece was not going to ignore its obligations toward the minorities as defined by the Treaty of Sèvres and submitted three questions to the Greek government regarding the Slavic speakers in Greece: 

(1) What measures had Greece taken since September 29, 1924 to implement the minority treaty it had signed on that day? 

(2) What measures would Greece be taking if it could not comply with the terms of the treaty? 

(3) What were the Greek views regarding the educational and religious needs of the Slavophones and what measures did the Greek government intend to take to meet those needs? 

On May 29, 1925 Greek representatives informed the League of Nations secretary general that no measures could be taken before the completion of the Greek-Bulgarian voluntary emigration that had been decided in Neuilly in 1919, which was still in progress. They also affirmed that Greece intended to respect the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres. Regarding the third question, they stressed that Greece was open to any suggestions concerning the education of the &quot;Slavic-speaking&quot; linguistic minority.

In late 1925, following a legislative decree, a department was established in Greek occupied Macedonia for the administration and supervision of elementary non-Greek education. The new department was manned by three members of the educational council appointed by the minister of education, in addition to the director of the Second Political Department of the Foreign Ministry and three unpaid citizens, all living in Macedonia, suggested by the foreign minister and appointed by the minister of education. A counselor of education proficient in one of the local dialects was appointed head of the new department for a three-year period. It was also decided that only teachers who knew the local dialects would be appointed to teach the non-Greek classes.

The establishment of the Department of Non-Greek Education was just a beginning. Following the decision to employ the local Slavic dialect in the minority schools, the Greek government entrusted to a three-member committee of specialists the preparation of a primer that became known as the &quot;Abecedar.&quot; The three members were Georgios Sagiaxis-who had been involved since the early years of the century in folklore and linguistic studies concerning Vlach-speakers and Slavic-speakers and had studied ethnography and linguistics abroad on a Foreign Ministry scholarship-and two philologists, Iosif Lazarou and a certain Papazachariou, both native Vlach-speakers who also knew the local Slavic dialect.

The product of their combined efforts was a primer in the local Slavic dialect but written in Latin characters. This choice caused an immediate, furious reaction by Bulgaria, since the use of the dialect instead of standard Bulgarian undermined Sofia's traditional argument that Slavic speaking clearly indicated Bulgarian ethnicity. Mikov, the Bulgarian representative in the

League of Nations, expressed his government's discontent regarding the Greek initiative. At the

same time, Ivan Sismanov, a university professor in Sofia, published an article in a local newspaper stressing that these measures would reduce the population of Macedonia to a &quot;semibarbarous&quot; Moreover, the use of the Latin alphabet was condemned as constituting a &quot;rude insult&quot; for Macedonia's &quot;suffering Bulgarian population&quot; Macedonian pro-Bulgarian refugee organizations also protested, demanding the immediate introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet. 

At this point a reassessment of the Greek views was necessary. The League of Nations had made it clear that complying with the treaties was not optional. 

Both Serbians and Bulgarians vehemently protest to the League of Nations, claiming the primer in its current form undermined their claim that Macedonians are Serbs and Bulgarians respectively to which Greece countered with a last minute cable to the League stating that &quot;the population...knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom.&quot; This was indeed a rare Greek admission to the existence of Macedonians not only on Greek soil but also on Bulgarian and Serbian soil, encompassing the entire geographical Macedonia.

Soon afterwards Greece &quot;retreated&quot; the Abecedar so as to preserve its Balkan alliances and the Primer was destroyed soon after the League of Nations delegates left Solun.

Since then Greece has denied of the existence of Macedonians and refers to Macedonians as &quot;Slavophone Greeks&quot;, &quot;Old Bulgarians&quot; and many other appellations but not as Macedonians.

The very fact that official Greece did not, either de jure or do facto, see the Macedonians as a Bulgarian minority, but rather as a separate Slav group ('Slav speaking minority'), is of particular significance. The primer, published in the Latin alphabet, was based on the Lerin - Bilola dialect. 

After Gianelli's Dictionary, dating from the 16th Century, and the Daniloviot Cetirijazicnik written in the 19th century, yet another book was written in the Macedonian vernacular. 

The primer with instructions in the Macedonian mother tongue, was mailed to some regions in Western Greek occupied Macedonia (Kostur, Lerin and Voden) and the school authorities were prepared to give it to Macedonian children from the first to the fourth grades in elementary school. Unfortunately this did not materialize.

Subsequent Greek governments, even though their state was a signatory to the Minority Treaty of Sèvres, have never made a sincere attempt to solve the question of the Macedonians and their ethnic rights in Greece. Thus while measures were being undertaken for the opening of Macedonian schools, a clash between the Greek and Bulgarian armies at Petrich was concocted, which was then followed by a massacre of the innocent Macedonian population in the village of Trlis near Serres. All this was aimed at creating an attitude of insecurity within the Macedonians so that they themselves would give up the recognition of their minority rights and eventually seek safety by moving to Bulgaria. The Greek governments also skillfully used the Yugoslav-Bulgarian disagreements with organized pressure on the Macedonian population, as was the case in the village of Trlis, tried to dismiss the Macedonian ethnic question from the agenda through forced resettlement of the Macedonian population outside of Greece.

The ABECEDAR, which actually never reached the Macedonian children, is in itself a powerful testimony not only of the existence of the large Macedonian ethnic minority in Greece, but also of the fact that Greece was under an obligation before the League of Nations to undertake certain measures in order to grant the Macedonian minority their rights

Even though much time has elapsed since then, Greece still owes the Macedonian people living on Macedonian soil the rights it promised then in 1920.

I believe that time has come for Greece to recognize the Macedonian minority and fulfill its obligation to the Macedonian people as promised by the various Treaties and Conventions it has signed.

To be continued...

References:

Karakasidou, Anastasia N. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Radin, A. Michael. IMRO and the Macedonian Question. Skopje: Kultura, 1993.

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

Journal of Modern Greek Studies 14.2 (1996) 329-343

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_modern_greek_studies/v014TL/14.2michailidis.html

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>ea6bvdyu6bj7lksvyobqz8r83vuq85l</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2045</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11008</id>
      <parentid>4994</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:32:58Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1084" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part I - 1800 - 1878]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part II - 1878 - 1903]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part III - Before 1903]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part IV - The 1903 Ilinden Aftermath]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part V - The Young Turk Uprising and the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VI - 1912 - 1939]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VII - 1939 - 1949 WWII &amp; The Greek Civil War]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VIII - The Plight of the Macedonian Refugee Children]]
*[[Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part IX - Conclusion]]

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>gaetikfu9hmy8g9p5veaymaxirriber</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part I - 1800 - 1878</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2046</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11009</id>
      <parentid>4995</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:33:15Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="46674" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part I - 1800 - 1878

by Risto Stefov 
rstefov@hotmail.com 

June, 2002 

click here for a printable version

Even before Alexander's time Macedonia was a single nation. With time she grew and shrunk but always remained a single nation until her partition in 1912-13. Today however, while new nations spring up and flourish, Macedonia is still partitioned and fighting for her identity. Why? What went wrong and who is responsible?

If the Balkan roots lie in antiquity then the first stem that created the modern Balkan countries sprang up in the 19th century. The 19th century is the most important period in modern Balkan history and will be the subject of this and subsequent articles.

I want to apologize in advance for the length and tediousness of this article but please bear with me because I find it necessary to establish a foundation of knowledge on which to base claims and reach conclusions.

Before I start with the main theme of this article I would like to digress for a moment and remark on a couple of personal encounters with some Greek pundits. 

One day I received an e-mail full of rude and denigrating remarks from some Greeks who claim to be experts on South Balkan history. Their remarks were condescending and full of spite. They claimed to be intelligent and very knowledgeable about Greek history but their own remarks betrayed their true nature. They told me my efforts to extort Greek history were a waste of time and that Macedonia always belonged to Greece. They also said that they had widely accepted historical proof but quoted me politically motivated Greek propaganda. Most of the verbiage in their essay dealt with issues of Ancient Macedonia and why it belongs to the Greeks and not the Slavs. In spite of their insulting approach, I felt obliged to respond with my own arguments. After producing hundreds of pages of counter arguments the only reward I received for my effort was ridicule and more derogatory comments.

My theory is that Greeks can't be convinced regardless of how much evidence we throw at them. My guess is that it is not in their best interest to argue too far from their &quot;scripted plans&quot; so it is futile to try.

If you run into this situation, my advice is to ignore these deliberate attempts of diversion and carry on with your own agenda.

As for being a &quot;Macedonian Salad&quot;, yes the French were right when they said Macedonia was a &quot;salad of nationalities&quot;. Not only do we admit to that, but we are also proud of it. Macedonia is the only South Balkan country with &quot;clean hands&quot; and a &quot;clear conscience&quot;. Macedonia never waged war, committed genocide, used ethnic cleansing, forced population exchanges, expelled people from their homes, relocated massive populations, changed peoples names, changed toponym names, assimilated people by force, faked history, gave up a &quot;living and vibrant&quot; language for a dead one or stole someone else's culture.

If that's what it takes to become homogeneous we don't want it.

Here is what one author thinks of the Greeks...

... philhellenism is a love affair with a dream, which envisions &quot;Greece and the Greeks&quot; not as an actual place or as real people but as symbols of some imagined perfection.......

This is a direct quote from page 12 in the preface of the book GREECE WITHOUT COLUMNS The Making of the Modern Greeks by David Holden, J.B. Lippincott Company Philadelphia and New York, London, 1971.

One more thing to be mindful of when confronting the Greeks. They may be denigrating and mocking you on the surface but you can bet they will take everything you say seriously. If they run into something new they will take it to their academic colleagues and get answers. They have answers for everything.

The intent of this article (Part I) is to present the reader with a wider perspective of Balkan history from about 1800 to 1878. If you think there is too much outside interference in Macedonia today, or if you think Super Powers are &quot;here to help us&quot;, this article is for you.

There is no event in recorded history that unfolded without Super Power intervention and there is no time in recorded history where one nation put another nation's interests ahead of its own. 

Before I get into details of the last two hundred years, I want to summarize some events that led up to the 19th century.

Macedonia's problems can be traced back to the 1200s after Tsary Grad (Constantinople) was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. While the Pravoslaven (Byzantine) Empire was recovering from the crusader attack, a Nomad Muslim tribe was entering Anatolia from Central Asia. The tribe was called &quot;Ottoman&quot; named after their first leader Osman. The Ottomans first made their presence and crossed into Europe in 1345 as mercenaries hired by the Byzantines to defend their Empire. As the Ottomans grew in numbers, they settled at Galipoly west of the Macedonian Dardanelles (Endrene) and used the area as a staging ground for conquest.

In 1389 the Ottomans attacked Kosovo and destroyed the Serbian army also killing the Serbian nobility in the process.

In 1392 they attacked and conquered geographical Macedonia including Solun but not Sveta Gora (Holy Mountain).

In 1444 while attempting to drive north through Bulgaria they were met and crushed by Hungarian, Polish, French and German Crusaders at Varna.

Soon after their recovery, they besieged Tsary Grad and took it in 1453, looting all the wealth that was accumulated for over two millennia.

Feeling the sting of 1444, the Ottomans turned northwest and in 1526 they attacked and destroyed the Hungarian army killing 25,000 knights. 

After that they unsuccessfully tried twice to take Vienna, once in 1529 and then again in 1683 but failed. Failure to take Vienna halted the Ottoman expansion in Europe.

After sacking Tsary Grad the Ottoman nomads adapted much of the Pravoslaven administration and feudal practices and began to settle the Balkans. The conquered people of the new Ottoman territories became subjects of the Empire to be ruled according to Muslim law.

At the head of the Ottoman Empire sat the Sultan who was God's representative on earth. The Sultan owned everything and everyone in the empire. Below the Sultan sat the ruling class and the Pashas (generals) and below them sat the Raya (protected flock). Everyone worked for the Sultan and the Sultan in turn provided his subjects with all of life's necessities. 

In the beginning Ottoman lands were divided into four categories. The &quot;meri&quot; lands such as valleys, forests, mountains, rivers, roads, etc., belonged exclusively to the Sultan.

The &quot;temar&quot; lands were meri lands loaned or granted to Ottoman civil and military officials. Years later as the Empire introduced land reforms temar estates converted to private property and became known as &quot;chifliks&quot;.

The &quot;vakof&quot; lands were tax-exempt lands dedicated for pious purposes and to support public services such as fire fighting, etc.

Finally, the &quot;molk&quot; lands were private lands occupied by peoples' houses, gardens, vineyards, orchards, etc.

The Islamic Ottomans belonged to the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion. The Empire's subjects belonged to one of two religiously (not nationally) divided Millets. The Islam Millet was exclusively for Muslims and the non-Islam or Roum Millet grouped all other religions together.

The reasons for separating Muslims from others had to do with how Islamic law was applied. Unlike our laws today, Ottoman Muslim law had nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with religious rights. Muslim courts were appointed for the sole purpose of interpreting the Koran and very little else. The Koran dictated Muslim conduct and behaviour including punishment for crimes. 

In the Ottoman mind only religion and the word of God had sole authority over peoples' lives. Religion was the official government of the Ottoman state. Islam was the only recognized form of rule that suited Muslims but could not be directly applied to non-Muslims. So the next best thing was to allow another religion to rule the non-Muslims. The obvious choice of course was the Pravoslaven Christian religion, which was the foundation of the Pravoslaven (Byzantine) Empire. 

There was a catch however. The official Muslim documents that would allow the &quot;transfer of rule&quot; were based on an ancient Islamic model which denounced all Christianity as a corrupt invention of the &quot;Evil one&quot;. The conservative Turks regarded the Christians as no more than unclean and perverted animals. Also, the ancient documents called for sacrifices to be made. A Christian religious leader for being granted leadership by the Muslims, was expected to sacrifice his own flock on demand, to prove his loyalty to the Sultan. It was under these conditions that the Greek Patriarch accepted his installment as sole ruler of the Christian Orthodox faith and of the non-Muslim Millet.

While the first Sultans destroyed Tsary Grad, they tolerated Christianity as the Government of the non-Muslim Millet and sold the Patriarchate to Greek adventurers who could buy (bribe) his nomination. Once nominated, the Patriarch in turn sold consecration rights to Bishops, who in turn regarded their gain as a &quot;legitimate investment&quot; of capital and proceeded to &quot;farm their diocese&quot;. This was the first time Orthodoxy overstepped Pravoslavism and began to overtake the Macedonian dominated Eastern Christian Churches. This was also the beginning of the end for the Slavonic(Macedonian) Churches in the Ottoman Empire.

In addition to being a religious ruler, the Patriarch and his appointed Bishops became civil administrators of the Christian and non-Muslim people. Their authority included mediating with the Turks, administering Christian law (marriages, inheritance, divorce, etc.), running schools and hospitals, and dealing with the large and small issues of life. There were no prescribed provisions however, on how to deal with criminal matters or the limit of authority on the part of the Bishops. In other words there was no uniform way in which Christian criminals could be punished or how far a Bishop could exercise his authority. This opened the way for interpretation, neglect, abuse and activities of corruption such as favouritism and bribery. 

For the purposes of administration, the Ottoman territory was divided into provinces called &quot;Vilayets&quot;. Each province was governed by a &quot;Vali&quot; who was equal in rank to a &quot;Pasha&quot; (military general). There were six Vilayets in European Turkey, Albania, Jannina, Scutari, Solun, Monastir and Ushkab. To the east were Andreonople and Istambul (Tsary Grad). The larger Vilayets were sub-divided into two or more &quot;Sandjaks&quot; each governed by a &quot;Mutesharif&quot; who also ranked as a Pasha. Kazas (departments) were in turn governed by Kamakams (prefects) whose rank was that of &quot;Begs&quot; (military colonel). After that came the &quot;Nahieis&quot; (districts) governed by Mudirs (sub-prefects). 

Muslim Turks always administered the Ottoman government and the Military. However, due to lack of manpower to rule an expanding empire, the Ottomans in the 1300's adopted the &quot;devshirme&quot; or child contribution program. Young Christian boys were abducted by force and converted to Islam. After being educated, the bright ones were given administrative roles and the rest, the &quot;Janissary&quot;, were given military responsibilities. The devshirme was abolished in 1637when the Janissary became a problem for the Sultan.

Failure to seize Vienna in 1683 weakened the Ottoman Empire and brought it into constant conflict with Austria and Russia. One such conflict ended in 1699 with the Treaty of Karlwitz. By this Treaty, the Ottoman Empire lost Hungary to the Habsburgs (Austria) and part of the Ukraine to Russia.

After annexing Hungary the Habsburg Empire (1200-1900) became ruler of the Catholic part of Eastern Europe while the Ottoman ruled the Orthodox Balkans. The Habsburg Empire, in 1867 (after losing the war with Germany in 1860), became known as the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

Another minor but crucial event for the south Balkans took place in 1711 when one of the Moldovian gospodars (prince) was accused of collaborating with the Russian army and was held responsible for the Russian invasion of Romania. As punishment the Ottomans replaced all Romanian and Moldovian gospodars with Phanariots from Istanbul.

The Phanariots were a group of wealthy, &quot;Greek educated&quot; (not all Greek), Christian class of people that lived in the &quot;Phanar&quot; or lighthouse district of Istanbul (Tsary Grad). After the Sultan installed the Greek Patriarch in Istanbul, the Phanar became a thriving Christian &quot;Greek inclined&quot; culture. As I mentioned earlier, the Sultan placed the Patriarch in charge of the Christian (Roum) millet because he found him more agreeable than his Christian counterparts. The Patriarchy functioned like a state within a state with its own administration and services. Having the Sultan's favour, the Greek Patriarch sought the chance to expand his dominion over the entire Eastern Christian Church by replacing whatever non-Greek bishoprics he could with Greek bishoprics.

For example, the Serbian bishoprics were abolished as punishment for helping the Habsburgs. At about the same time, the Macedonian including the powerful Ohrid bishopric were also abolished followed by the Romanian bishoprics. 

After becoming gospodars in Romania, the Phanariots abolished Church Slavonic (Macedonian) liturgy and replaced it with a form of Greek liturgy. Unfortunately, the Phanariots didn't have enough Greek-speaking clergy so Romanian-speakers were chosen to replace the Macedonian clergy. The Romanians however, didn't care much for the Greek language or the Greek culture and switched to Romanian (a form of Latin).

Eventually, as more and more bishoprics were shut down the Phanariots became the sole representatives of the Orthodox culture, Christian faith and Christian education.

The Ottomans trusted the Phanariots well enough to give them a role in the central Ottoman administration. This included the office of the &quot;Dragoman&quot;, the head of the Sultan's interpreters' service (Muslims were discouraged from learning foreign languages). Phanariots participated in diplomatic negotiations and some even became ambassadors for the Ottoman Empire. Phanariots were put in charge of collecting taxes from the Christian Millet for the Ottomans and whatever they could pilfer from the peasants they kept for themselves. Many scholars believe that Romania's peasants never suffered more than they did during the Phanariot period.

Phanariots also secured food and other services for the Ottoman court.

The Phanariots through the Dragoman were largely responsible for providing &quot;all kinds&quot; of information to the outside world about the Ottoman Empire including their own desires to rule it. Despite what modern Greeks claim, the Phanariot dream was to replace the Ottoman Empire with a Christian Empire like the Russian model. In theory, they wanted to re-create a multi-cultural Byzantine type Empire but with a Greek Orthodox Patriarch in charge. In other words, the &quot;Megaly Idea&quot; which to this day dominates Greek expansionist desires.

The Phanariots believed that with Russian or German help it was possible to achieve the Magaly Idea. Unfortunately for the Greeks, the Great Powers had different plans for the Balkans.

The next turning point for the Ottoman Empire came during the Russian-Turkish war of 1769 to 1774. After Russian forces occupied Romanian principalities, Turkey was defeated and the 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty gave Russian ships access to the Black Sea, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Russia became the &quot;protector of Orthodox Christians&quot; inside the Ottoman domain including Wallachia (Romania) and Moldavia. Also, for the first time, the Ottomans allowed Russian consular agents inside their empire.

Russia at the time did not have enough ships to fill the shipping demands so many of the shipping contracts went to Phanariot and Greek captains who were on friendly terms with both the Russians and the Ottomans. 

The Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty bolstered Russian expansionism in the Balkans, which alarmed the Western Powers and initiated the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; of &quot;what will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire disappears&quot;?

The Eastern Question of the 1800's later became the Macedonian Question of the 1900's.

At about the same time as Russia was making her way into the Balkans, the West was experiencing changes of its own. The industrial revolution was in full swing coming out of England and progressing towards the rest of the world. France was the economic super power but was quickly losing ground to England. The French Revolution (1789) gave birth not only to new ideas and nationalism but also to Napoleon Bonaparte. As Napoleon waged war in Europe and the Middle East, French shipping in the Mediterranean subsided only to be replaced by the Greek, Phanariot and British traders. French trade inside the Ottoman territory also declined and never fully recovered. By land, due to the long border, Austria dominated trade with the Ottoman Empire exercising its own brand of influence on the Balkans especially on the Serbian people.

As the turn of the 19th century brought economic change to Europe, the Balkans became the last frontier for capitalist expansion. By the 1800's Europe's political, economic and military institutions were rapidly changing. Western governments and Western exporters were aggressively pursuing Balkan markets on behalf of their Western manufacturers. This aggressive pursuit smothered Balkan industries before they had a chance to develop and compete. As a result, Balkan economies began to decline causing civil unrest and nationalist uprisings. While Western countries were left undisturbed to develop economically and socially, external forces prevented Balkan societies from achieving similar progress. Mostly regulated by guilds, Balkan trades could not compete with Western mechanization and went out of business. Without jobs, most city folk became a burden on the already economically strained rural peasants for support. The economic situation in the Balkans deteriorated to a point where people could no longer tolerate it and they started to rebel against their oppressors. 

From the modern Balkan states, Serbia was the first to rebel. The first revolt took place in Belgrade in 1804, the same year that Napoleon became Emperor. The immediate causes of the armed uprising were oppression and a further deterioration of the Ottoman system. When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 the Sultan took troops from the Balkans and sent them to fight the French in Egypt. Leaving the region unguarded in 1801Belgrade became a sanctuary for bandits and unruly Janissaries. Robbery and murder became commonplace. Then in February of 1804 some bands of killers murdered seventy prominent village leaders and priests. They did this to frighten the population and to stop their Serb leaders from complaining to the Sultan. To save themselves, some of the Serb leaders fled to the forests and organized the villagers into armed units. They attacked the Janissary in the countryside and fought them until they were pushed back into Belgrade. The war ended in a stalemate.

The stalemate was broken in 1806 when the Serbs decided to no longer expect help from the Sultan and took matters into their own hands. At about the same time the French and the Turks became allies. Since France was already an enemy of Russia this alliance made Turkey also an enemy. Now being enemies of the Turks, the Russians intervened on behalf of the Serbs and in 1807 helped them take back Belgrade. The Sultan offered the Serbs full autonomy, but the Russians advised against it. They insisted on negotiating for full independence instead. Unfortunately, when the war between Russia and France ended, Russia in 1807 made peace with Napoleon and became allied with both France and Turkey. For selfish interests on Russia's part the Serbs were left on their own. The Serbs lost Belgrade to a Turkish army attack in 1808 and many Serbs fled into exile while the rest continued the guerilla warfare from the forests. 

The revolt began again in 1809 when Russia renewed its campaign with Turkey, and ended in 1813 with a Serb defeat. The Serbs failed to win because Russia was unsure about its commitment to Serbia. Russia had a lot more to gain by appeasing Turkey especially when war with France became imminent. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, the Russians abandoned the Serbs and in 1813 an Ottoman army invaded Serbia forcing many of her people to flee as refugees into the Austrian Empire.

Relations between Serbs and Turks turned from bad to worse when the Turks extorted provisions from the Serbs by force, tortured villagers in search of hidden weapons, and started raising taxes. A riot broke out at a Turkish estate in 1814 and the Turks massacred the local population and publicly impaled two hundred prisoners inside Belgrade. The Serbian leaders decided to revolt again and fighting resumed on Easter in 1815. This time Serb leaders made sure captured Turk soldiers were not killed and civilians were released unharmed. To ease Turkish fears, the Serbs also announced that this was a revolt to end abuses and not to gain independence.

After the Russians defeated Napoleon in 1815, Turkish fears were raised that Russia would again intervene on Serbia's behalf. To avoid this the Sultan gave Serbia autonomy. 

After the Russian-Turkish War of 1829-30, a new treaty was signed which put an end to most abuses in Serbia. All Muslims except for a small garrison left Serbian territory. Serbs took control of the internal administration, the postal system, and the courts. Individual taxes and dues paid directly to the Sultan were replaced by a single annual tribute payment from the Serbian State to the Sultan. Serbia remained autonomous until 1878 when she was granted independence.

Second to rebel against Ottoman rule was Greece. The Greek uprising was not a true rebellion like the one in Serbia. Unlike the Serbs, most Greeks were wealthy and as I mentioned earlier, already enjoyed substantial privileges in Ottoman society. To revolt was a poor choice for them because they had a lot to lose and little to gain.

When the Ottomans imposed the millet system the Greeks began to gain advantages over the other Balkan Christians. In time, Greek Orthodox clergy took control of administering the entire Orthodox millet. Greek clergy had religious, educational, administrative, and legal power in the Ottoman Balkans. In other words, Greeks were more or less running all political, civil and religious affairs in the Christian Millet. 

Religion, not ethnicity or language, was the first criterion for identifying individuals within the millet system. Religion, not language or place of residence, distinguished wealthy Orthodox Christians from wealthy Ottoman Muslims. There was no definable place called &quot;Greece&quot; other than the one-time Roman province of antiquity called &quot;Gracea&quot;. Peloponesus was about the only inland region that resembled anything that could be considered Greek.

Because the Morea (Peloponesus) was poor, most of the countryside had no Turkish presence and Christian primates or &quot;kodjabashii&quot; virtually ruled themselves. Christian militia or &quot;armatoli&quot; kept the peace, while &quot;klefts&quot; or bandits roamed the hillsides robbing and pillaging their neighbours. 

By the 1700s, Greek ship owners in the islands dominated Balkan commerce. As Christians, Greek traders were exempt from Muslim ethical and legal restraints (especially when dealing with money) and were permitted to make commercial contacts with non-Muslims. Westerners who did business in the region used local Jews, Armenians and Greeks as agents. Different branches of the same Greek family often operated in different cities, ties of kinship reducing the risks of trade. 

Between 1529 and 1774 only Ottoman ships were allowed to navigate the isolated waters of the Black Sea. Greek trade grew without competition from the Venetians or other Western traders. As I mentioned earlier, the 1774 Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji opened the Turkish straits to Russian commerce. There were not enough Russian ships to meet all shipping demands so Ottoman Greeks filled the void. Also, the Napoleonic conflicts between England and France created new opportunities for the neutral Greek ships and by 1810 there were 600 Greek trading vessels conducting commerce.

For the Greeks, especially the well to do, Ottoman rule provided many advantages in comparison to other Balkan groups. Rich ship owners, agents, prosperous merchants, high officials in the Orthodox Church, tax collectors, Phanariot gospodars in Romania, primates in the Morea, and members of the interpreters' service all had much to lose and little to gain by rebelling.

How then can one explain the movement that led to the revolution in 1821? 

Poor peasants, poor village priests, poor sailors, etc. who lived in the Morea had no investment in the Ottoman status quo. Without ideas or leadership, these people lived miserable lives and preyed on each other to survive. Outside interference started the rebellion. 

The original instigators were members of the &quot;Filiki Eteria&quot; a secret society founded in 1814 in the Russian port of Odessa. The Filiki Eteria sent representatives into the Morea to recruit fighters. A number of important klefts and district notables answered their call by organizing peasants and forming armed bands.

The 1821revolution began as a planned conspiracy involving only selected elements of the population. At that time the idea of &quot;nationality&quot; remained very elusive, even for the most enlightened revolutionaries. The intent of the uprising was to liberate all of the Balkan people from Turkish tyranny and unite them in one Christian State. 

The Filiki Eteria planned to start the uprising in three places. The first was the Morea where a core group of klefts and primates supported the idea. Second was Istanbul, where the Greek Phanariot community was expected to riot. Third, Greek forces were expected to cross the Russian border from Odessa to invade Moldavia and Romania. Plans however, did not go as expected. When 4500 men of the &quot;Sacred Battalion&quot; entered Moldavia in March, 1821the Romanian peasants ignored the Turks and instead attacked the Greeks. The Greek invasion of Romania was a complete failure. At the same time, &quot;class divisions&quot; in Phanariot society hampered the uprising in Istanbul. The Turks reacted by hanging the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and appointing a new Patriarch who condemned the uprising. 

The only success was in the Morea and only because the primates feared the Turkish Pasha's retribution. Fearing arrest or even execution the primates joined the klefts and massacred the Turkish population of Morea. Turkey was unable to squelch the uprising and the conflict remained in stalemate until 1825. The stalemate in part was due to internal problems among the Greeks reflecting pre-existing class differences i.e. the armed peasants and Klefts in the Morea were loyal to Theodoros Kolokotronis, a kleft. Opposing them were the civilian leaders in the National Assembly which were made up mostly of primates and well-connected Phanariots. By 1823 the two sides were locked in a civil war. The stalemate was also due in part to interventions from Britain, France and Russia. Each of these states had strategic political and economic interests in Turkey, and each wanted to make sure that the results of the war in Greece would be in their best interest. The British were sympathetic to the Greek cause (in part due to Phil-Hellenism) but at the same time they wanted a strong Turkey to counter Russia. Initially, the British were prepared to support Turkey to prevent Russia from gaining control of the Turkish Straits and threatening the Mediterranean trade routes. Later as Britain gained control of Cyprus her plans changed (more on this later). The Russian Czars in turn had sympathy for the Orthodox Christians but feared the possibility of a Greek state becoming a British ally. French investors held large numbers of Turkish State bonds, which would be worthless if Turkey fell apart. France was also anxious to re-enter world politics after her defeat by Russia in 1815. 

The Great Powers, from the stalemate could see that the Greek revolution would not go away and were prepared to intervene and make sure the final result was acceptable to their own interests. Foreign interference ran from 1825 until 1827. It began with the intervention to block the Egyptian navy from invading Greece in 1825 (Mehmet Ali's capture of the port of Navarino) and ended in 1827 when the British, French and Russians sank the Egyptian navy. The European Powers sent a combined fleet of 27 ships to Navarino Bay to observe the Egyptian navy but things got out of hand when musket shots were fired and the observation escalated into a battle. When it was over the European fleet had sunk 60 of the 89 Egyptian ships. The loss of the Egyptian navy left the Sultan without armed forces and the inability to reclaim the Morea or resist the Great Powers. Turkey was squeezed into providing concessions for Greece but the Ottomans kept stalling. 

To end the stalling the Russians invaded Turkey in 1828 (Russian-Turkish War of 1828-1830) and almost reached Istanbul by 1829. The Sultan gave in to Russian demands. Russia too gave in to Western Power demands and agreed to British and French participation in the peace settlement of the London Protocol of 1830 which gave birth to a small, independent Greek kingdom. Prince Otto of Bavaria a German prince and a German administration were chosen by the Super Powers to rule the new Greek Kingdom. The choice was a compromise but acceptable to all three powers. 

Two overwhelming &quot;forces&quot; came into being in the 19th century which transformed the Balkans. The first was the 1848 &quot;Western economic revolution&quot; which thrust the Balkans into social and economic upheaval. The second was &quot;increased intervention&quot; from non-Balkan political forces. As the century advanced, these developments merged, and worked not for the interests of the Balkan people but for the benefit of Europe's Great Powers. 

Before I continue with internal Balkan developments I want to digress a little and explore the &quot;external forces&quot; and their &quot;political desires&quot; in Balkan affairs.

Besides Turkey, there were six Great Powers during the nineteenth century. They were Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany. From time to time the Great Powers expressed interest in the Balkan population, but in crisis situations, each followed its own interests. When the Great Powers made compromises, they did so to avoid war with each other and often failed to address the real issues that caused the crisis in the first place. This is similar to what the Great Powers are doing in the Balkans today. 

Russia tended to be the most aggressive and was usually the cause of each new Turkish defeat. The 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty, in addition to allowing Russia access to the north shore of the Black Sea, gave her &quot;power to act&quot; on behalf of the Orthodox millet and to conduct commerce within the Ottoman Empire. 

Russia's goals in the Balkans were (1) to gain exclusive navigation rights from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea for both merchant and military ships and (2) to annex Istanbul and the Macedonian Dardanelles for herself, both of which were unacceptable to the Western Powers.

After the end of the Crimean war in 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, the Western Powers made sure Russia's desires for expansion were curbed. First, all Russian warships were barred from the Black Sea and second, the Black Sea was opened to merchant ships from all the states. After that all the Great Powers, not just Russia, became the guarantors of the Balkan states.

From 1815 to 1878 Great Britain was Russia's strongest rival for Balkan influence. British interests led her to intervene against the Turks in the Greek revolution of the 1820s, but went to war against Russia in 1853 (Crimean war) on Turkey's behalf.

The British goals in the Balkans were to maintain access to the Eastern Mediterranean and to secure shipping lanes to India. Most of the trade routes passed through Turkish controlled waters and Turkey was too weak to be a threat, so Britain was inclined to oppose France, Russia and Germany, when they became a threat to Turkey. 

To bolster its claim to the Eastern waterways in 1878 Britain took control of the island of Cyprus, and in 1883 occupied Egypt and the Suez Canal. After that Britain kept a close watch on Greek and Russian access to the Straits interfering less in Ottoman affairs. 

Britain also had important commercial interests inside the Ottoman Empire, and later in the successor states. Investors in railroads and state bonds took as much profit as they could, as soon as they could, which in the long term contributed to the Ottoman Empire's instability. 

France, like Britain, had both political and economic interests in the Balkans. During the Napoleonic wars, France was a direct threat to Ottoman rule (Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798) but after her 1815 defeat she lost military and political clout.

France had commercial rights in Turkey dating back to the Capitulation Treaties of the 1600s and relied heavily on trade with the Ottoman Empire.

In the 1820s, France joined British and Russian intervention on behalf of the Greeks. France did this mostly to protect her commercial interests but also to counter-balance Russian-British domination in the region. Also, let's not forget the &quot;Philhellenic sympathy&quot; the French had for the Greeks.

More so than the British, French investors played a key role in Balkan policy. During the Eastern Crisis and the war of 1875-78, the Turkish State went bankrupt and French bondholders were the biggest potential losers in case of default. So when the Ottoman Public Debt Administration was created to monitor Turkish State finances, French directors were right in the middle of managing Ottoman State finances. Like the British investors, French investors forced Turkey to maximize their returns and ignored the needs of the Ottoman people. (More about this later). 

Austria had been the main threat to Ottoman rule at one time, but after 1699 Russia replaced her in that department. Austria retained a major interest in the Ottoman Empire mainly because it was neighbouring Hungary. In other words, Vienna had no desire to replace a weak Ottoman neighbour with a strong Russia or Russian allies like Serbia or Bulgaria. 

Austria's goals were aimed at creating a Western Balkan economic resource and a potential market. Control of the Adriatic coast was key to Austria's foreign trade through the Adriatic Sea. Austria made sure she exerted enough influence to keep the hostile Great Powers away and to prevent the growing new Balkan nations from annexing it. Austria had no desire to annex the Western Balkans for herself. The ruling German Austrians, or the Hungarians had no ethnic or religious ties to the Slavs in the region.

After 1866 Germany (not Austria) became the leader in Central Europe. Austria now had only southeastern Europe where she could exert influence. Austria was too weak to absorb the Balkans by herself so she preferred to sustain a weak Ottoman Empire instead of &quot;Russian controlled&quot; states. This explains why Vienna took an anti-Russian position during the Crimean War, and why she became allied with Germany later. Germany was an ally of both Russia and Austria, but Austria turned on Russia so Germany had to abandon the Russian-German alliance to please Austria (more about this and the Crimean war later).

Serbia and Romania created problems for Vienna which she unsuccessfully tried to manage through political alliances and economic treaties. Romania feared Russian occupation and Bucharest generally accepted alliances with Austria. Serbia however, had fewer enemies and less incentive to bend to Austrian wishes. The two states (Austria and Serbia) found themselves on a collision course that resulted in the war of 1914 (World War I). 

Italy became a state in 1859 after fighting a successful war against Austria. In 1866, the Kingdom of Piedmont united the Italian peninsula and took its position as a new Great Power. Italy lacked economic and military might in comparison to the other Powers but made up for it in influence at the expense of the weaker Ottoman Empire. 

Italy viewed the Western Balkans, especially Albania, as her &quot;natural zone of influence&quot; and her leaders watched for opportunities to take the area away from the Turks. 

Italy's Balkan goals were not only a threat to Turkey but also to Serbia and Greece who both had aims at seizing the Adriatic. 

Italy was too weak to seize Balkan territory so she followed a policy of &quot;lay and wait&quot; until 1911 and 1912 when she took the Dodecanese Islands and Tripoli (Libya) from the Ottomans. 

Germany, like Italy, became a Great Power at a later time after the German State unification of 1862 to 1870. 

Due to her strong military and economic might, Germany had more influence in Europe than Italy, but no direct interest in Balkan affairs. For the new German Empire the Balkans were only economic outlets.

After defeating Austria in 1866, Germany made Austria-Hungary an ally and to retain loyalty, Germany had to support Austria in Balkan matters. After 1878 Germany could no longer reconcile Russian and Austrian differences over the Balkans and by 1890 Germany and Austria strengthened their alliance and pushed Tsarist Russia into a conflicting partnership with republican France. After that, German policies in the Balkans supported economic and military investments in Turkey. This made Germany a rival not only of Russia but also of Britain. The Great Power alignments of 1890-1914 established a pattern that dominated the two world wars. 

Germany had no stake in the development of any of the successor states which left her free to support the Sultan (and later the Young Turk regime). German officers trained Turkish troops and German Marks built Turkish railways. 

The Ottoman Empire of the 19th century was the weakest of the Great Powers, especially after the Crimean war. At the 1856 Treaty of Paris, Britain and France granted Turkey &quot;legal status&quot; in the Balkans that was far beyond her control. The Western Powers desperately wanted the Ottoman Empire stable and intact. 

The Ottomans on the other hand, mistrusted the other Powers, partly because they were infidels and partly because of bad past experiences. Russia was clearly Turkey's greatest enemy, bent on dismantling her empire. To keep Russia at bay, Turkey cooperated with the other Powers but was always wary of falling under the influence of any single Power. From the 1820's to the 1870s, Britain was Turkey's guardian. After 1878 Germany replaced Britain as economic and military sponsor. Turkish relations with the new Balkan states were poor at best. Any gains for them usually meant losses for Turkey. 

The Western Great Powers believed that if corruption, crime and poverty could be eliminated, Balkan unrest would end and the Ottoman Empire could remain intact. After all, they didn't want anything to happen to their goose that laid golden eggs. So instead of kicking the &quot;sick man&quot; out of Europe, they pushed for reforms.

However, it was one thing to draw up reforms and another to make them work. By examining Ottoman efforts in Macedonia it was obvious that the Turks lacked the resources and the will to carry out reforms. Also, Europeans failed to grasp that suggestions and wishes alone could not replace six hundred years of Ottoman rule. The Ottomans believed their way of life was justified (More on this in Part II).

In 1865, a group of educated Turks formed the secret Young Ottoman Society. Their aim was to revitalize old Islamic concepts and unite all the ethnic groups under Islamic law. Threatened with arrest, the Young Ottoman leaders went into exile in Paris. 

In 1889, a group of four medical students formed another secret Young Turk Society. They rejected the &quot;old Islamic aims&quot; and embraced a new idea, &quot;Turkish nationalism&quot;. Turkish nationalism became the foundation for a secular Turkey in 1908 after the Young Turks came to power and again in 1920 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey proper. 

The next important event in Balkan history was the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856, which pitted Russia against Turkey, England and France. 

The crisis ignited over the issue of who was in control of Christian Holy Places in Turkish-ruled Jerusalem. Orthodox and Catholic monks quarreled over insignificant issues like who should possess the keys to locked shrines. By old treaties Russia and France were the international guarantors of Orthodox and Catholic rights respectively, but in 1852 Napoleon III tried to undo that. He needed to distract French Catholic public opinion away from his authoritarian government so he instigated the problem.

Because the issues of dispute involved the highest levels of the Turkish government, to the nations involved it became a symbolic struggle for influence. The Russians badly misjudged the other Powers and failed to see that Britain could not accept a Russian victory. Tensions rose as all sides prepared for conflict. A Russian army occupied two Romanian Principalities failing to see that this threatened Austria's Balkan interests. Russia expected gratitude from Vienna for her help against Hungary in 1849 but Austria refused her. With support from the Western powers, the Turks refused to negotiate and in 1853declared war on Russia.

The Crimean War pulled in the Great Powers even though none of them wanted to go to war. In 1854 Austria forced the Russians to evacuate the Principalities and Austria took Russia's place as a neutral power. In 1856 the Allied Western Powers took Sevastopol, the chief Russian port on the Black Sea, by force. After that Russia agreed to their terms at the Treaty of Paris. 

As a result of the Treaty of Paris, the Danube River was opened to shipping for all nations. Russia lost southern Bessarabia to Moldavia. She also lost her unilateral status as protector of Romanian rights. The two Romanian principalities remained under nominal Ottoman rule. However, a European commission was appointed and, together with elected assembly representatives from each province, was responsible for determining &quot;the basis for administration&quot; of the two Principalities. Also, all the European powers now shared responsibility as guarantors of the treaty. 

On the surface it appears that Turkey won and Russia lost the Crimean war. In reality however, both Russia and Turkey lost immensely. The Crimean War financially bankrupted Turkey. As for Russia, she lost her shipping monopoly on the Black Sea and allowed capitalism to enter into Eastern Europe. Russia did not only lose influence in Romania and Moldavia but she was also humiliated in front of the entire world. This set the stage for future conflicts including the most recent &quot;cold war&quot;.

As I mentioned earlier Turkey's financial collapse opened the door for Western Governments to manipulate internal Ottoman policies as well as divert needed revenues to pay foreign debts. On top of that the Ottoman Empire was forced into becoming a consumer of Western European commodities. While Western Europe prospered from these ventures, Ottoman trades and guilds paid the ultimate price of bankruptcy. Lack of work in the cities bore more pressure on the village peasants who were now being taxed to starvation to feed unemployed city dwellers, as well as maintaining the status quo for the rich. The Ottoman Empire became totally dependent on European capital for survival, which put the state past the financial halfway point of no return and marked the beginning of the end of Ottoman rule in Europe.

By 1875 the Ottomans entered a crisis situation owing 200 million pounds sterling to foreign investors with an annual interest payment of 12 million pounds a year. The interest payments alone amounted to approximately half the state's annual revenues. In 1874, due to some agricultural failures, military expenses, and worldwide economic depression, the Turkish government could not even pay the interest due on the loans. At the brink of bankruptcy, to preserve Ottoman stability and to make sure Turkey paid up Western European debts, the Great Powers in 1875 took over the management of Turkish revenues. This was done through an international agency, called the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA). To continue to receive credit, the Sultan had to grant the OPDA control over state income. Therefore, control of the state budget and internal policies fell into foreign hands. The agents in control were representatives of the rich capitalists and were only interested in profit, and very little else. This was definitely not to the advantage of the local people.

To be continued...

You can contact the author via his e-mail: rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. A. Michael Radin

2. IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura

3. The University of Cyril and Methodius

4. DOCUMENTS of the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State Volumes I &amp; II

5. The Wold Book Encyclopedia

6. Vasil Bogov

7. Macedonian Revelation

8. Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology

9. H. N. Brailsford

10. Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971

11. David Holden

12. Greece Without Columns, The Making of Modern Greeks

13. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia &amp; New York

14. Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D.

15. The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 - 1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966

16. Arnold J. Toynbee

17. A Study of History, Oxford 1975

18. David Thomson

19. Europe Since Napoleon, Pelican

20. George Macaulay Trevelyan

21. British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782 - 1901), Longmans 1927

22. Richard Clogg

23. The Struggle for Greek Independence

24. Essays to mark 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence, Archon 1973

25. www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>thsz4zr1rbq3otxuqtnau0rr8ufj0pc</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part II - 1878 - 1903</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2047</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11010</id>
      <parentid>9153</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:33:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="44524" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part II - 1878 - 1903

by Risto Stefov 
rstefov@hotmail.com 

July, 2002 

In the previous article (part I) I covered events leading up to but not including the 1877 Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire which ended with the dreaded 1878 Treaty of Berlin. Events covered included the Serbian and Greek uprisings, Super Power interventions in the Ottoman realm, results of the Crimean war, and the 1875 economic crisis in the Balkans.

In this article (part II) I will start where I left off in part I and cover events from 1878 up to the developments leading up to the Macedonian Ilinden uprising of 1903.

I want to apologize for the large number of quotes I have included in this document. This is the only way I can &quot;stave off&quot; those who accuse me of &quot;inventing&quot; or &quot;making up things&quot;. I will also do my best to reference Western and neutral sources in order to keep my arguments as unbiased as possible. 

On top of paying heavy taxes to the Ottomans, the village peasants of the Balkans were now burdened with additional taxes to pay off Western European loans. For some the burden was too great and it manifested itself in a number of independent uprisings. Discontentment with Turkish rule, economic plight and pure neglect of human life precipitated the &quot;Eastern Crisis&quot;.

The first of these uprisings began in 1875 in Bosnia but soon spread to Montenegro and Serbia. About a year later the village peasants in Bulgaria showed their discontentment and staged a massive liberation struggle. To a lesser extent, the liberation struggle extended to Macedonia where an armed insurrection took place in Razlog in 1876.

The growing discontentment of the peasantry in the Balkans disturbed the Great Powers who now had a vested interest in protecting the Ottoman Empire from falling apart. A conference was convened in Tsary Grad (Istanbul) in 1876 to discuss strategies on how to deal with the insurrections and the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; in general. Representatives of Russia, Austria-Hungary, Britain, Germany, France and Italy attended the conference and decided to place Macedonia and Bulgaria under the control of the Great Powers. Turkey rejected their demands and soon after found herself at odds with Russia. By early 1877, war broke out in Serbia and Montenegro followed by a massive Russian invasion of Bulgaria. The Turkish armies were decimated and Turkey was forced to talk peace. Peace was negotiated between Russia and Turkey on March 3rd, 1878, (the San Stefano Treaty) without Western Power consent. Russia, as usual, was concerned more with self interests and less with the interest of the people she was trying to protect, so she sought the opportunity to realize a long held ambition in the Balkans, access to the Mediterranean Sea. The following agreements were reached:

1. Turkey was forced to recognize Greek sovereignty over Thessaly.

2. Montenegro was declared independent.

3. Turkey was forced to provide autonomy to an extended Bulgaria that included Macedonia, Western Thrace, a part of Albania, and a district of Serbia.

The conclusion of this treaty sent shock waves not only through the Western Powers who had a lot to lose (financial investments in the Ottoman Empire) but also to states like Greece and Serbia who had territorial ambitions of their own towards Ottoman territories.

Disturbed by the Russian tactics, the Western Powers re-convened the Eastern Question at Berlin in July 1878. At this point the San Stefano agreement was revised as follows:

1. Independence was granted to Serbia, and Montenegro as well as Romania.

2. Bosnia was given to Austria-Hungary (&quot;Britain did not want more Slavic states to form&quot;. Page 379, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

3. The territory of present day Bulgaria was divided into two administrative districts. Bulgaria proper and Eastern Rumelia. Eastern Rumelia was given back to the Turks.

4. Macedonia, Thrace, Kosovo and Albania were given back to the Ottomans.

At the verge of bankruptcy Russia could not resist the Western Powers and gave in to their demands.

With the exception of clause 23 that required the Turks to provide a small degree of economic autonomy to Macedonia, Macedonia was once again committed to Ottoman oppression. The conditions of clause 23 unfortunately, were never enforced by the Super Powers or complied with by Turkey.

In the spring of 1878 Macedonia reached the crossroads of her destiny. She was one step away from overthrowing six hundred years of Ottoman tyranny when Western Powers stepped in to prevent it. Why? Was Macedonia less deserving than Greece, Serbia or Bulgaria? Were the Macedonians less Christian than the Greeks, Serbians or Bulgarians? Was the Macedonian struggle to free itself from Turkish tyranny not convincing enough? The real reason for throwing Macedonia back to the wolves had little to do with religion, nationalism or human rights and a lot to do with economics, profit and access to the Mediterranean Sea. Russia desperately wanted to access the Mediterranean but the Western Powers desperately wanted to prevent it. Here is what Trevelyan has to say about that. &quot;Throughout the 19th century Russia was striving to advance towards Constantinople over the ruins of the Turkish Empire. She was drawn forward by imperialist ambition, in the oppressed Christians of her own communion, many of whom were Slav by language and race, and by the instinct to seek a warm water port-a window whence the imprisoned giantess could look out upon the world. The world however, had no great wish to see her there&quot;.

&quot;Canning (a British politician, 1812-1862) had planned to head off Russia's advance, not by direct opposition, but by associating her with England and France in a policy of emancipation, aimed at erecting national States out of the component parts of the Turkish Empire. Such States could be relied upon to withstand Russian encroachment on their independence, if once they were set free from the Turk. The creation of the Kingdom of Greece was the immediate outcome of Canning's policy&quot; (page 372, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century).

Russia had no economic stake in the Ottoman Empire so she wanted the Turks out of the Balkans. The Western Powers invested heavily in the Turkish economy and infrastructure and were anxious to keep the Ottoman Empire alive and well in the Balkans. The success of the Crimean war (Turkey won), convinced the British to slow down their policy of creating new Balkan States in favour of exploiting the lucrative Ottoman markets and collecting returns on loans made to Turkey.

At the stroke of a pen Bulgaria was freed (autonomous) while Macedonia was sentenced to suffer further indignity and humiliation. Back in the hands of the Greek clergy and the Ottoman Authorities Macedonia now entered a new era of suffering and cruelties, destined to pay for the sins of all the other nations that rose up against the Ottomans. 

Between the spring and summer of 1878 Macedonia's fate was decided not by Russia, or the Western Powers but by Britain alone. Britain who created Greece and introduced the curse of Hellenism in the Balkans, was now prepared to fight Russia, by military means if necessary, to keep her out of the Mediterranean. To avoid war a compromise was reached. &quot;The essentials of this compromise were agreed upon between England and Russia before the meeting of the European Congress, which took place at Berlin under the chairmanship of Bismarck, and formally substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the terms of San Stefano&quot; (page 377, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century).

&quot;To our (British) eyes the real objection to the San Stefano lies not in its alleged increase in Russian power, but in the sacrifice of the fair claims of Greeks and Serbians, who would not have remained long quiet under the arrangements which ignored their racial rights and gave all the points to Bulgaria. Lord Salisbury felt this strongly, especially on behalf of Greece.&quot;

&quot;Beaconsfield's success, as he himself saw it, consisted in restoring the European power of Turkey. It was done by handing back Macedonia to the Port (Turks), without guarantees for better government. This was the essence of the Treaty of Berlin as distinct from the Treaty of San Stefano. 'There is again a Turkey in Europe' Bismarck said. He congratulated the British Prime Minister - 'You have made a present to the Sultan of the richest province in the world; 4,000 square miles of the richest soil.' Unfortunately for themselves, the inhabitants went with the soil. Since Beaconsfield decided, perhaps rightly, that Macedonia should not be Bulgarian, some arrangements ought to have been made for its proper administration under a Christian governor. Apart of all questions of massacres, the deadening character of the Turkish rule is well known. Lord Salisbury seems to have wished for a Christian governor, but nothing was done in that direction. A golden opportunity was thus let slip &quot;(page 378, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century). 

After gaining status as protector of the Suez Canal and the waterways to India, Britain was awarded Cyprus. Content with her gains, Britain became lax and agreed that Russia and Austria-Hungary should oversee Ottoman affairs in Macedonia. &quot;The British people, when left to themselves, neither knew or cared who massacred whom between the Danube and the Aegean. Byron's Greece had appealed to their imagination and historical sense, but the Balkans were a battlefield of kites and crows&quot; (page 373, Treveleyan, British History in the 19th Century).

The Macedonian people were not at all happy about what went on in the Berlin Congress and showed their discontentment by demonstrating first in Kresna then in Razlog but as usual, their pleas were ignored. The Turkish army was dispatched and the demonstrations were violently put down.

Facing the possibility of becoming extinct in Europe, the Ottoman Empire began to re-organize and take demonstrations and rebellions seriously. After the Greek uprising the Sultan became distrustful of the Phanariots and expelled most of them from his services. He came close to ousting the Patriarch and his tyrannical Bishops but Russia stepped in and prevented it. Many of the Slav people were not happy with being ruled by a Greek Patriarch and after Russia's show of solidarity to the Greeks and the Patriarch, they threatened to convert to Catholicism. This created a real concern for Russia. &quot;In the days when Panslavism was a force in Russia and General Ignatieff ruled Constatinople. Russia naturally feared that if the Southern Slavs became Catholics she would lose her ascendancy over them&quot; (page 73 Brailsford's Macedonia). In 1870 Russia convinced the Sultan to allow a new millet to form thus creating the schismatic Bulgarian Exarchateate Church which was immediately excommunicated by the Patriarch. Fracturing the Rum (Romeos) Millet into two opposing factions suited the Turks perfectly because now Christians, instead of rebelling against the Turks, would fight one another. Now, in addition to the Ottoman and Greek, a third government was created that would rule the same people in three conflicting ways. From a religious standpoint, minor differences distinguished the Greek from the Bulgarian Church. Both were Christian Orthodox except the Greeks acknowledged the authority of the Greek Patriarch while the Bulgarians obeyed the Bulgarian Exarchate. The language of liturgy was about the only distinct difference between the churches. The Bulgarians used the Old Church Slavonic (Macedonian), familiar to Macedonians, while the Greeks used an ancient language no Macedonian could understand.

The creation of the Exarchate Church stepped up nationalistic activities inside Macedonia and increased the stakes for territorial claims.

From the day they were liberated, both Serbia and Greece were strengthening their economies and poisoning their people with nationalist propaganda. Serbia introduced education for the masses and was teaching her youth about her ancient exploits and past empires that ruled Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia and that the Slavs (except for the Bulgarians who were Serbia's enemies) were truly Serbs. 

The modern Greeks on the other hand, infatuated with the discovery of the Ancient Greeks were going overboard promoting &quot;Hellenism&quot; and making territorial claims on Macedonia based on ancient rites. At the same time the same Greeks were making wild claims that all Orthodox Christians were Greeks. Their argument was that if a person belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church they were Greek. Here is what Brailsford has to say about that. &quot;Hellenism claims these peoples because they were civilized by the Greek Orthodox Church. That is a conception which the Western mind grasps with difficulty. It is much as though the Roman Catholic Church should claim the greater part of Europe as the inheritance of Italy. To make the parallel complete we should have to imagine not only an Italian Pope and a College of Cardinals which Italians predominate, but a complete Italian hierarchy. If every Bishop in France and Germany were an Italian, if the official language of the church were not Latin but Italian and if every priest were a political agent working for the annexation of France and Germany to Italy, we should have some analogy to the state of things which actually exist in Turkey&quot; (page 195 Brailsford's Macedonia). Here is what Brailsford has to say about how the Greeks received title to the Orthodox Church. &quot;The Slavonic (Macedonian) Churches had disappeared from Macedonia, and everywhere the Greek Bishops, as intolerant as they were corrupt-'Blind mouths that scarce themselves know how to hold a sheephook'-crushed out the national consciousness, the language, and the intellectual life of their Slav (Macedonian) flocks. It is as a result of this process that the Eastern Church is a Greek Church. The sanctions of 'Hellenism' so far as they rest on the Church, are the wealth of the Phanariots and the venality of the Turks....the Slav libraries in the old monasteries were burned by the Greek Bishops (page 196 Braisford's Macedonia).

After 1878, for a Macedonian to be Hellenized meant that he had to give up his name, his own language, his own culture, his history, his folklore and his heritage. Here is what Karakasidou has to say. &quot;...the ideological content of notions of the Hellenic nation, which far from being ecumenical has shown itself to be intolerant of cultural or ethnic pluralism, has lead many inhabitants of Greek Macedonia to deny or hide those aspects of their own personal or family pasts...&quot; (page 125, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood).

Hellenization was never made by choice, only by brute force. One was made to &quot;feel Greek&quot; when it suited the Greeks but the moment one wanted something from the Greeks or one crossed one of the Greeks, they were reminded of their &quot;true identity&quot; and quickly &quot;put in their place&quot;. To be Hellenized meant to lose dignity and to suffer constant and unwarranted humiliation because no matter how hard one tried to be a Hellene, they could never measure up. A Hellenized person was neither Greek nor Macedonian but a soul in limbo.

To quote David Holden &quot;To me, philhellenism is a love affair with a dream which envisions 'Greece' and the 'Greeks' not as an actual place or as real people but as symbols of some imagined perfection&quot; (page 12 Greece without Columns). What is Hellenism then?

Before I answer that question, I will once again quote David Holden. &quot;Further back still beyond the War of Independence, when the modern nation-state of Greece came into being for the first time, the whole concept of Greece as a geographical entity that begins to blur before our eyes, so many and various were its shapes and meanings. But if geography can offer us no stable idea of Greece, what can? Not race, certainly; for whatever the Greeks may once have been, ...., they can hardly have had much blood-relationship with the Greeks of the peninsula of today, Serbs and Bulgars, Romans, Franks and Venetians, Turks, Albanians,...,in one invasion after another have made the modern Greeks a decidedly mongrel race. Not politics either; for in spite of that tenacious western legend about Greece as the birthplace and natural home of democracy, the political record of the Greeks is one of a singular instability and confusion in which, throughout history, the poles of anarchy modulated freedom has very rarely appeared. Not religion; for while Byzantium was Christian, ancient Hellas was pagan.&quot; (page 23 Greece without Columns). Unlike Macedonia and other Balkan nations who have natural and vibrant languages, Greece artificially created and used (up until the 1970's) an imposed adaptation of the classical language called the Katharevoussa. &quot;Hellenizing&quot; under these conditions not only rendered the Hellenized races mute but also imposed a meaningless and emotionless language on those doing the Hellenization (if you want to learn more about the Greek language controversy read Peter Mackridge's book &quot;The Modern Greek Language&quot;). 

When Greece was born for the first time in 1832, it was unclear what her national character was. To quote David Holden, &quot; the Greek nation-state was a product of western political intervention-'the fatal idea' as Arnold Toynbee once called it, of exclusive western nationalism impinging upon the multi-national traditions of the eastern world. By extension, therefore, at any rate in theory, it was a child of the Renaissance and of western rationalism...&quot; (page 28 Greece without Columns).

Officially, Greeks call their modern state Hellas, and are officially known as Hellenes, but at the same time they call themselves Romios (from the Turkish Rum millet) implying that they are descendents of the Romans. Greece however, is a derivation of the Latin &quot;Graecea&quot; (page 29, Holden, Greece without Columns) the province of the Western Roman Empire which extended from Mount Olympus to the Peloponnese. Again, to quote David Holden &quot; its international use to describe the sovereign state that currently occupies that territory is merely a reflection of the fact that 'Greece' in this modern sense is literally a western invention&quot; (page 29 Greece without Columns). 

If philhellenism is a love affair with a dream, then Hellenism is a dream of a few &quot;evil geniuses&quot; (Phanariots) who sought to destroy what was real in favour of creating something artificial, like a Frankenstein's Monster. Hellenism may be a dream for a few (mad men) but it has been a nightmare for Macedonia. Here is what Karakasidou has to say. &quot;Greek natural identity was not a 'natural development' or the extension of a 'high culture' over the region of Macedonia, although now it is frequently portrayed as so. The ideology of Hellenism imposed a homogeneity on the Macedonian region and its inhabitants&quot; (page 94, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood).

If modern Hellenism is a western invention propagated by the Phnariots, then who are the Modern Greeks?

According to historical records, a large majority of the Greeks of Morea that fought during the Greek War of independence were Tosk Albanians that became Hellenized after the 1930's. The Slavs of Peloponisos (what happened to them?), the Vlachs of Larissa, the Albanian Tosks of Epirus (what happened to them?), were also Hellenized. In other words, the Greeks of today are a &quot;forcibly Hellenized diverse collection of people&quot;. Even the Greek national dress, the fustanella is fake. The fustanella is the national costume of the Albanian Tosks (page 230 Brailsford's Macedonia).

In addition to desperately trying to define an identity and a language for herself, after 1878 Greece stepped up Hellenization activities inside Macedonia through the Orthodox Church and by employing (bribing) the services of the Turkish authorities. Willing young Macedonian men were enrolled in Greek schools in Athens with promises of education only to be poisoned with Hellenization and Greek nationalist propaganda. Many of these young came back (home) to Macedonia only to be used as agents of Hellenism. 

After the creation of the Bulgarian Church, Bulgaria was not far behind in her attempts to instill Bulgarian nationalism in the Macedonian youth. This was most evident when Macedonian young men like Gotse Delchev were expelled from the Bulgarian schools for wanting to use the Macedonian language and to learn Macedonian history. Here is what Radin has to say about that. &quot;In the 1870's, six Macedonian districts seceded from the Exarchateate. Bulgarian schools were destroyed, with the Macedonian teaching intelligentsia organizing students against the Exarchateate. Macedonian literary associations were discovered, to study Macedonian history and culture. The periodical 'Vine' was published to mobilize Macedonians against the vehement propaganda. In 1891, an attempt was made to re-establish the Macedonian Church. This national renaissance significantly produced a Macedonian intelligentsia that was to later prove instrumental in founding IMRO&quot; (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) (page 45 of A. Michael Radin's book &quot;IMRO and the Macedonian Question&quot;).

Russia's rash attempt to gain access to the Mediterranean by creating a &quot;Greater Bulgaria&quot; (San Stefano Treaty), gave the Bulgarians rationale to make territorial claims on Macedonian territory. On top of the Greeks forcibly trying to Hellenize Macedonia, the Macedonian people now faced a new enemy, Bulgarian chauvinism. In the hands of the Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbians, Macedonian misery seemed to flourish as if all the evil in the world was unleashed at once and struck Macedonia with all its fury. What makes Macedonia's misery even more tragic is that the entire world stood by and watched the horrors unfold and did nothing.

While the Greeks employed brutality, the Bulgarians adopted intrigue to sway Macedonians to their side. They were publicly calling for Macedonian autonomy all the while they were promoting a Bulgarian nationalist agenda. In the next decade after 1878, nationalist fever gripped the Balkans. The new nations (Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria) were making exclusive claims not only on Macedonian territory, but also on the Macedonian people, each claiming that Macedonians were Serbs, Greeks or Bulgarians. Each new nation desperately tried to prove its claim by propaganda campaigns, coercion and forcible assimilation. Here is what Brailsford has to say on the subject. &quot;Are the Macedonians Serbs or Bulgars? The question is constantly asked and dogmatically answered in Belgrade and Sofia. But the lesson of history is obviously that there is no answer at all. They are not Serbs, ... On the other hand they could hardly be Bulgarians... They are probably what they were before a Bulgarian or Serbian Empire existed...&quot; (page 101, Macedonia Its Races and their Future). As for the Macedonian's being Greek, this is what Brailsford has to say. &quot;The Greek colonies were never much more than trading centers along the coast, and what was Greek in ancient times is Greek today. There is no evidence that the interior was ever settled by a rural Greek population&quot; (page 91, Brailsford's Macedonia).

&quot;The period immediately following the Berlin Congress demonstrated therefore, that Balkan chauvinist intent was not merely to occupy, govern and exploit Macedonia, but to eradicate the Macedonian culture, and superimpose its own culture upon a people alien to it. By guile, gun, religion and quasi-legal manipulation, the Balkan States attempted to divest the native Macedonians of their language, religion, folklore, literature, traditions and consciousness. The ultimate goal therefore, was to anaesthetize the Macedonian people, and then remold them into Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians&quot; (page 45 of A. Michael Radin's book &quot;IMRO and the Macedonian Question&quot;).

Did it not once occur to Westerners that in the heart of Macedonia, perhaps there was a unique Macedonian culture living there? Did it not once occur to them that perhaps the Macedonians with their multicultural and multiethnic character did not want to be molded to fit the Western profile of what a nation should be? By throwing her back to the Greeks and the Turks, was Macedonia punished for her stubborn ways, for refusing to be molded into a monolithic uni-cultural, pseudo-homogeneous nation? Only those who participated in the 1878 Berlin Congress and who forever committed Macedonia to suffer more cruelty and injustice can truly answer these questions. One thing is for certain however, as the West is now growing old and gaining wisdom and experience it is realizing that the way to peace and prosperity in a small planet is tolerance of minorities, democratic freedom and cultural and national pluralism. Macedonia as it turns out, always had those qualities. As for the rest of the new Balkan States, one day when they realize the error of their ways they will forever bear the shame of what they did to their neighbours, the Macedonians.

I know that words can do no justice to the suffering the Macedonian people endured since 1878, but I will do my best to describe what life was like to be ruled by the Turks, governed by the Greeks, pillaged by the Albanians and robbed and beaten by the villains of society. It has been said that education was a curse in Macedonia. No educated Macedonian lived to a ripe old age. If a man was educated, he died at the hands of his enemies, not because he was educated but because he was feared. The Turks feared him because he may rise up against them. The Greeks feared him because he may oppose them. The Bulgarians feared him because he may expose them. (If you wish to learn more about the horrors committed by the Turks in Macedonia, read Brailsford's book, Macedonia, Its races and their Future). 

The 1878 Treaty of Berlin awakened the Moslem Rulers (Turks and Albanians) in the Balkans to the reality that their Empire came close to disintegrating. But instead of searching for a rational solution, the Turks did what they always did best, turn to violence. They took counter measures to suppress the &quot;troublemakers&quot; by extinguishing their rebellious spirit. In practice this manifested itself into a variety of punishments that included the following:

A) Taxes were raised to pay off Western loans. The Turks and Muslim Albanians were a predatory (parasitic) race and produced nothing themselves. Instead they lived off the earning power of the Macedonians and other Christians.

B) To prevent further uprisings and rebellions, the Turks stepped up espionage activities and searches for weapons. In reality however, the weapons searches were nothing more than an excuse to take revenge and further pillage the Macedonian peasants. Those who could afford to pay bribes paid off the Turks and avoided misfortunes. Those who couldn't were tortured and usually beaten to death. If by any chance weapons were found, the entire village was burned to the ground. Even if the weapons belonged to a thug. The Turks were not above shaming or kidnapping Macedonian women either. In fact it was common practice for Muslim soldiers to grab Christian women while conducting raids on villages. (For a Macedonian woman death was preferable over a lifetime of shame). The Macedonians of the Ottoman era were extremely moral people and conducts of this nature were not taken lightly. Unfortunately, there was nothing that could be done to avenge the women, so women carried the burden of shame alone for the rest of their lives. No Christian was allowed to bear arms and defend his family and there was no one to complain to because in most cases the perpetrators and the villains were the law. No Muslim could be punished for doing harm to a Christian, no matter what the crime. 

C) In addition to contending with the Turkish authorities, Macedonians faced kidnappings and assaults from the Albanians. Any man, woman or child that ventured too far from the village exposed themselves to the risks of being kidnapped (an old Albanian pastime) by Albanian marauders or by Turkish outlaws who demanded a hefty ransom for a safe return or face death if no ransom was paid.

D) There were also the roving Turkish patrols that traveled the highways and if someone happened to cross paths with them, they would be robbed, beaten and humiliated in a number of different ways depending on the mood of the soldiers. 

E) The greatest threat to Macedonian life came from the Bashi-buzouks or armed civilian Muslims. Most of the Bashi-buzouks were Albanian who made a career out of pillaging, burning Macedonian villages and torturing the inhabitants. After 1878, Bashi-buzouk raids escalated to a point where they became intolerable. The Christians had no legal recourse to fight back. Being Muslims, the Bashi-buzouks were immune from legal prosecution. The only way Macedonians could fight back was to flee to the mountains and join the outlaws.

F) Let's not forget the annual routine homage and tributes paid to the Albanian clans for not burning the villages and crops, the local policemen for not humiliating and beating family members and the local hoods for not assaulting and bullying the women and children.

G) It would be an injustice if I didn't mention the way Turks treated women. No Macedonian woman was safe from the Turks. If a woman caught a Turk's eye there was no escape, she would be plucked kicking and screaming from her home and family, converted to Islam by force and thrown into a harem to become an object of lust. No woman was safe, not even a bride on her wedding day.

I want to mention here that after the Western Powers decided to do something about the Ottoman cruelty against the Macedonians, they began to record complaints from the people. Macedonians were encouraged to report acts of injustice and cruelty to the European consuls. All the complaints were recorded in what was referred to as &quot;the blue books&quot;. What happened to the &quot;blue books&quot;? If anyone has any knowledge of their whereabouts please let me know. It is very important for the Macedonian people that these &quot;blue books&quot; be found.

By the time taxes and bribes were paid to the authorities, the warlords and the town hoods, a Macedonian family was left with 25 to 40 percent of their meager annual earnings to live on. To make ends meet Macedonian men were accustomed to taking on additional jobs within the Ottoman Empire or abroad to make enough to survive the winter.

It has been said that after twenty-five years of achieving autonomy, Bulgaria was thriving economically thanks to the cheap labour of the Macedonian migrant workers.

I want to mention here that Macedonians have always earned their living by sweat and blood and deserve more that they have been dealt with in the past. The maesto's (maistori) of ancient Rome were skilled Macedonians not Greeks as modern history claims them to be. Even the word &quot;history&quot; comes from the Macedonian saying &quot;tie i storia&quot; which translates to &quot;they did that&quot; or &quot;they made that&quot;.

The West, including the USA and Canada were to some extent, also beneficiaries of cheap Macedonian labour. Western traders flooded Macedonia with cheaply manufactured goods and bankrupted the local (antiquated) industry (run by the guilds). Raw materials purchased from Macedonia were manufactured using cheap Macedonian labour and the finished products were sold back to the Macedonians at a profit.

A Macedonian could not rise above his tyrannical existence on his own because every time he did he was killed for his education, robbed of his wealth, kicked out of his home for his lands, murdered for defending his family and humiliated for his existence. This is not what Macedonians wanted for themselves, but those powerful enough, refused to help them. The Greek clergy who were responsible for the well being of the Macedonian people were the first to condemn them. Their first priorities were to Hellenize them so that they could steal their lands. The Greeks with their &quot;superior attitude&quot; despised the Macedonians because of their race (the Slavs were the enemy) and because of their agrarian abilities (which the Greeks loathed).

The Super Powers in their zeal to dominate the Balkans found themselves at odds with each other and by 1878 were either content with &quot;doing nothing&quot; or stifled by frustration and &quot;turned their backs&quot; on the mess they created.

Turkey, for the West was the goose that kept on laying golden eggs.

No excuses or apologies from the English and the French can make up for unleashing Turkey and Hellenism on Macedonia after 1878. No Macedonian, and for that matter, no human being should ever forgive the Western Powers for putting profit ahead of human life and intentionally turning their backs on the Macedonian people. No argument can convince me that &quot;that was the right thing to&quot;.

Labeling people &quot;Slav&quot; and &quot;Barbarian&quot; because they were not educated does not make them inhuman and certainly does not excuse the &quot;civilized&quot; western societies for tormenting them. Here is what Petrovska has to say. &quot;It is erroneous to dismiss peasant culture as backwards, simply because they are not literate cultures. Indeed the opposite is the case. Children were educated by way of story telling and folklore, which contained morals and lessons about life, relationships and their places in the world&quot; (page 167, Children of the Bird Goddess). (If you want to learn more about life in Macedonia there is a gem of a little book written by Kita Sapurma and Pandora Petrovska entitled &quot;Children of the Bird Goddess&quot;, an oral history that spans over 100 years and explores the lives of four generations of Macedonian women. You MUST read this book, you will not be disappointed). 

One has only to examine Macedonian traditions, customs, dress, folklore and attitude towards life to find an &quot;old race&quot; full of vigour, enduring hardships, living as it always lived close to nature, always craving everlasting peace. Macedonian songs are timeless records of sorrow and of hope that &quot;someday this too will pass&quot;.

Macedonians have survived to this day because they have a caring quality and a capacity to give and forgive, never wanting anything in return. Anyone who has visited a Macedonian home or has lived among Macedonians can attest to that. 

Macedonia had done no ill against any nation to deserve her punishment from the Turks and the Greeks. Macedonians did not desire to be labeled &quot;barbarian Slavs&quot; or choose to be illiterate. It was &quot;pure prejudice&quot; on the part of Western Societies that degraded the Macedonian people to barbarian status and created the conditions for the Turks and the Greeks to abuse them. The West's artificial creation of Greece and Hellenism and the Greek quest for purity and national homogeneity is what upset the &quot;natural balance&quot; in the Balkans. Macedonia, since Alexander's time has been a &quot;worldly&quot; nation and has maintained her multi-ethnic, multi-cultural pluralistic character. If you take the Turks out of Macedonia in the 19th century you will find a society of many nations working and living together in peace, each doing what comes naturally. Anyone who has lived in Macedonia can attest to that. It has always been &quot;outsiders&quot; that shifted the balance and disturbed the peace in the Balkans. While Western Europe slept through her &quot;dark ages&quot; the people of the Balkans lived in relative harmony for over 1,100 years. Each race played an important role in maintaining the social and political balance and the economic self-sufficiency of the region.

During the 19th century almost all Macedonians lived in village communities. There were no Greeks living in the Macedonian mainland and only a small minority lived in the coastal towns, islands and the larger cities. The majority of the villages were Macedonian with the odd Vlach village nestled here and there in the mountains. Macedonians spoke the Macedonian language and lived an agrarian life working the lands. Among the Macedonians lived some Vlachs who spoke both Vlach and Macedonian. Their main occupation was retail trade, running the local grocery stores and retail businesses. In addition to the Vlachs, were the roving Gypsies who traveled from village to village trading their wares. They traded pack animals like horses, mules and donkeys, repaired old and sold new flour sifters, loom reeds, and other fine crafts. They bartered with the village women and traded beads, string and sewing needles for beans and walnuts. To those that could afford it, they sold silk kerchiefs, hand made baskets and purses. With those who couldn't afford them they traded their wares for vegetables, eggs and a few bales of hay. Among themselves the Gypsies spoke their Gypsy dialect but with their customers they spoke Macedonian.

Another race that frequented the Macedonian landscape were the panhandlers from Epirus and Thessaly who performed magic on old copper pots and pans and made spoons and forks shine like mirrors. In addition to their own language, they too spoke Macedonian and were open to bartering for their wares and services.

Carpenters, stone masons, barrel makers, and woodcutters came from far and wide. They came from as far as Albania or as close as the poorest Macedonian village. For a fair wage, some rakija (alcohol spiced with anise during distillation) and three meals a day, they built fences, porches, staircases and entire houses.

For the Macedonians, the soil provided most of life's necessities, the rest was bought, traded or bartered for.

The only desires Macedonians had in the 19th century were to rid themselves of the tyranny of the oppressive Turks. This was most evident in the communique's, appeals and manifesto's of the legendary Macedonia Revolutionary Committee (more about this in part III).

While Macedonia was being choked by the Turkish noose of oppression, tormented by Hellenism, and frustrated by Bulgarian deception, the Greek army in 1881annexed Thessaly and in 1885 the Bulgarian army (with Russia's support) annexed Eastern Rumelia. While the Ottoman Empire was crumbling at the edges, it was tightening its grip ever harder on Macedonia. Looting, burning homes and murders were on the rise. More and more Macedonians were made homeless and forced to become outlaws. The brave ones took up arms and fought back only to see that their actions caused more deaths and misery. The Turks and their Albanian allies didn't care who they killed. If one Turk or Albanian died in battle, the army took revenge on the next village they encountered. Thousands of innocent women and children were murdered in revenge killings not to mention the assaults on countless young girls. Occupied homes with people inside were burned down and the inhabitants shot as target practice as they ran out to save themselves from the fire. Those too old or too sick to move died a horrible fiery death.

Many of the survivors from the burned out villages joined the outlaws in the mountains and as their ranks swelled they began to organize and fight back.

Western Europeans and Russians, on the other hand, were flooding the Ottoman Balkans on vacation, to do business or to lend a helping hand as missionaries or relief workers. They enjoyed all the freedoms and privileges as honorary citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the protection of their county's flag, and paid nothing for the honour bestowed upon them, not even taxes.

To be continued in part III, events leading up to the Ilinden Uprising.

Before I finish with part II, in view of what is happening in Macedonia today, I would like to say a few words abut how the Albanians came to be in Macedonia.

It has been said that soon after the Turks conquered Albania, Albanians began to convert to Islam. As Muslims, the Albanians to a large extent enjoyed the same privileges and advantages as their conquerors. The advantages of becoming a Muslim as opposed to staying Christian were obvious. Those who wanted to retain title to their lands did not hesitate to convert. In fact many realized that by converting they could amass wealth and increase their own importance at the expense of their Christian neighbours.

By the 19th century, about two-thirds of the Albanians embraced Islam and served in almost every capacity in the Ottoman administration including the Sultan's palace guard. Also by the 19th century a great deal of the Ottoman services became corrupt and self-serving. Being Muslims, the Albanians were protected from prosecution of crimes committed against the Christians. This encouraged them to perform predatory acts like kidnappings for ransom, illegal taxation, extortion, and forceful possession of property.

There are two documented ways, that I have come across, that describe how Albanians of the 19th century came to live in Macedonia, among the Macedonians. 

1. To keep the Macedonians in check, the Turks created and strategically positioned Albanian villages inside Macedonia among the Macedonian Villages.

2. By expelling or killing a few families in a Macedonian village, Albanian bandits could claim squatters rights and move in. By the next generation, the children of the squatters would become the &quot;begs&quot; of the village which made them legitimate landowners. Being in charge of the village they then appointed their own family members and trusted friends into positions of authority like tax farmers and policemen. In this manner, they could rule unchallenged.

Forceful occupation of villages was most prevalent during campaigns in the absence of the Turkish army. When the Turks were sent to fight against Russia in the East or against Napoleon in Egypt, the Albanians sought their chance and moved in unabated. Here is an excerpt from Brailsford's book about the habits of some Albanians. &quot;He will rob openly and with violence but he will not steal...He will murder you without remorse if he conceives that you have insulted him&quot;...(page 224 Macedonia its Races and their future).

To be fair, I want to mention that Albanians have their good qualities as well. Brailford speaks very highly of them when it comes to loyalty and honesty. As I mentioned earlier, under the right conditions Albanians can peacefully co-exist with other nationalities and be a contributing factor to the wealth of a nation. The Macedonians have always co-existed side by side with the Albanians. Also, the Albanians that fought to liberate Greece in Morea did not fight for Hellenism, they fought for the good of all the people of the Balkans, including the Macedonians. 

There was also that one-third of the Albanian population who remained faithful to Christianity that equally suffered the injustices of the Greek clergy and the Ottoman authorities, that also deserves mentioning.

&quot;People who originate from one and the same race, speak the same language, live together in harmony, and have the same customs, songs and mentality, constitute a nation, and the place where they live is their homeland. In this way, the Macedonians are a nation and their homeland is Macedonia&quot; (Gjorgji Pulevski, 1875).

You can contact the author via his e-mail: rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura

2. The University of Cyril and Methodius, DOCUMENTS of the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State Volumes I &amp; II

3. The World Book Encyclopedia

4. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology

5. H. N. Brailsford, Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971

6. David Holden, Greece Without Columns, The Making of Modern Greeks, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia &amp; New York

7. George Macaulay Trevelyan, British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782 - 1901), Longmans 1927

8. Kita Sapurma &amp; Pandora Petkovska, Children of the Bird Goddess, Pollitecon

9. Anastasia N. Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood, Passage to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870 - 1990, Chicago

10. Peter Mackridge, The Modern Greek Language, A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek, Oxford 1985

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>e3did1f7ds55mna1z4jxfclaqn4zsql</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part III - Before 1903</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2048</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11011</id>
      <parentid>4997</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:33:37Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="49507" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part III - Before 1903

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

August, 2002 

click here for a printable version

In the previous article (part II) I covered events leading up to but not including the 1903 Ilinden Macedonian Uprising. Events covered included the 1878 Berlin congress and its effects on the Macedonian people.

In this article (part III) I will start where I left off in part II and cover events from about 1880 to about 1903 with a special focus on Macedonian affairs and events that led to the 1903 uprising.

The 1878 Treaty of Berlin set events in motion in the Balkans for the next forty years. The re-appearance of Ottoman soldiers, the worsening economy and the reign of terror imposed by the Greek clergy was crushing the spirits of the Macedonian people. In the meantime the economic situation of the Super Powers and the new Balkan States was improving daily. In 1881, the Muhareem Decree gave Europeans complete control of Ottoman finances and trade markets. During the same year the Constantinople Conference of Great Powers agreed to the Greek annexation of Thessally and Epirus. Later that same year Austria-Hungary agreed to allow Serbia to annex parts of Macedonia in some future time. Four years later, Bulgaria with some Russian help annexed Eastern Rumelia. While the Western Powers were contemplating the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; and collecting returns from Turkish loans, the new Balkan states were plotting Macedonia's demise. Here is what each of them had to say;

&quot;Bulgaria's whole future depends on Macedonia, without her our State will be without importance or authority. Solun (Salonika) must be the main port of this State, the grand window to illuminate the entire building. If Macedonia does not belong to us, Bulgaria will never be firmly based&quot;.

&quot;Macedonia is the lung of Greece, without it the rest of Greece would be condemned to death. For Greece to become a greater power she must expand into Macedonia.&quot;

&quot;We (Serbia) are ready to enter into any combination if necessary in order to prevent the Macedonian Question being settled in any way that harms our vital interests, without which Serbia cannot survive&quot;.

In addition to being handed back to the Turks, the 1878 Treaty of Berlin now subjected Macedonia to three new tyrants. In time, Macedonia would be subjected to all kinds of evil but the most cunning would turn out to be Bulgarian chauvinism. The Macedonian people knew very well where they stood with the Greeks. Greek policies were straightforward, Hellenize everyone by any means possible, force and brutality included. The Bulgarian approach was very different. The Bulgarians were interested in educating the Macedonian masses into believing that they were Bulgarians. Anyone who showed any opposition didn't live to tell about it. And so became the legacy of so many educated Macedonian young men.

In part II of this article I explained, with ample evidence, that Greece was a &quot;Western creation&quot; to achieve two objectives. One, to keep Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and two, to break up the Ottoman occupied Slav lands into small, nationally divergent, easily manageable and loyal States (a solution to the &quot;Eastern Question&quot;). Created by the Western Powers, the new Balkan States would be loyal to their creator, British politicians were counting on it. The Western powers introduced &quot;nationalism&quot; in the Balkans as a way of replacing the Ottoman Empire, not with a single state but with many &quot;divergent&quot; and manageable sized States. Nationalism however, was not a way with which Balkan people identified before the 19th century. For over 2,300 years the region was without borders and without a sense of national identity. For over 1,800 years, the people in the region lived with &quot;religion as the only unifying force&quot; which brought them together and allowed them to live in peace. Freedom of movement allowed the diverse people to travel anywhere within the empire to settle and mix with other people. So, how does one create &quot;national consciousness&quot; where one does not exist? Ignoring the fact that the Ottoman Empire of the 19th century was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural pluralistic society, the Western Powers initiated the nation building process anyway. To them, it didn't matter what kind of &quot;nations&quot; they were building provided that the new nations were a &quot;non-Slav&quot; singular society that agreed to keep Russia out of the Mediterranean. While the Western Powers were trying to break up the Balkans into small and divergent states, Russia was promoting &quot;Panslavism&quot; to unite all the Slavs under Russian leadership.

The national awakening of Serbia was an accident that couldn't be helped but Greece was created by design. Greece was the opposite of Serbia and a solution for keeping the balance of power in the Balkans. While Serbia was destined to become a Slav State, Greece would be destined to become the &quot;opposite&quot;. The name &quot;Greece&quot; was chosen to denote a &quot;Latin&quot; lineage, to represent the Latin &quot;Romaos&quot; (Roman) character of the people. The name &quot;Hellas&quot; was later chosen by Hellenized Phanariots to denote a lineage from the old City States of antiquity. Both of these names were foreign to the 19th century Balkans, but ideal to reflect the character of the new State. The pre-19th century Phanariots has no notion of nationalism or knowledge of the Ancient City States. Their aim was to drive the Turks out of the Empire and keep the Empire intact so that they could rule it themselves. But this was not what the Western Powers wanted. The process of Hellenization began by educating some Phanariots about the existence of the old City States and their exploits. Phanariots that studied abroad, London in particular, were seduced by the eloquently written, romantic stories about a people that lived at the bottom of the Balkans a long time ago. Phanariots were especially thrilled when they were received by Westerners as the descendents of those Ancient people. Not all Phanariots were Hellenized or convinced to take the Hellenic road, some still wanted to re-create the Byzantine Empire (&quot;Megali Idea&quot;) but the West gave them no such choice. It was one thing to &quot;create a nation&quot; and another to &quot;give it life and a past&quot;. The idea of modeling the new Greece after the old City States was well received but lacked continuity. No one could explain how the Greeks progressed from the old City States to the present, pre-19th century history has no record of it. There was no Greek culture and no Greek language that would tie the Modern Greek to the old City State citizen. With some creative imagination and a lot of convincing, the problem was solved. Ancient history was &quot;re-engineered&quot; to fit the modern Greek model. Yes, read your (fake) classical history and learn how the Mighty Macedonian Empire was &quot;Hellenized&quot;, not by a powerful race, not by super intelligent beings, but by &quot;the vanquished and subjugated&quot; people of the old City-States. Alexander the Great, the most hated man of the old City-States, the King who wiped out and brutally crushed the spirits of the old City-State citizens, is now the &quot;Great King of the Greeks&quot; whom they revere and hold in such high honor. What hypocrisy!!! Perhaps some day, the English people will crown &quot;Sitting Bull&quot; as their King and rally around him (no offence to the native people of North America).

Altering classical history to say that the Ancient Macedonians were Hellenized, does not explain how and why there are &quot;Slavs&quot; all over the Balkans today. Thousands of years of Slav influence and culture could not be easily erased, but thanks to the ingenuity of the Western mind that problem too was solved. When the Westerners began to write the new &quot;Greek&quot; history, they quickly discovered that there was no continuity to tie the Modern Greeks to the Ancient City-States. Ancient Macedonia extinguished all the City-State cultures when she annexed them. The only continuity from the City-States to the Roman era was through Ancient Macedonia. Only through a Hellenized Ancient Macedonia could modern writers claim continuity for the Greeks. It was there and then that the &quot;history revisionists&quot; decided to KILL Macedonia in order to keep Greece alive. There is NO Greece without Macedonia! If Greece is to live then she must inherit everything that was Macedonian. Even after that however, there was still the &quot;Slav problem&quot;. The Slavs were always in the way of Greek Nationhood and for these reasons the &quot;Real Macedonians&quot; became and still are Greece's worst enemy. The Greek zeal to become &quot;who they cannot be&quot; was transformed into jealousy and hatred for Macedonia and her people. From the outset, the Greek State deliberately chose Macedonia and the Macedonian people as &quot;the enemy&quot; as is so often eloquently put and without hesitation announced for the world to hear. Again, thanks to the ingenuity and brilliance of the western mind the Slav problem for Greece was solved with the creation of &quot;Bulgaria&quot;. &quot;What is not Greek must be Bulgarian, what is not Bulgarian must be Greek, there is no such thing as Macedonian&quot;, are words echoed to this day. This is what Macedonians faced and must face, lived and must live, every day of their lives both at home and abroad from the 19th century to this day.

The 19th century creation of Bulgaria was the &quot;answer&quot; to covering up all remaining evidence of the existence of a Macedonia outside of the &quot;Hellenic model&quot;. Never scientifically proven, the so-called &quot;Slav invasions&quot; were concocted to cover up thousands of years of Macedonian culture and influence in the Balkans (and beyond). Modern history, without scientific proof, claims that the Ancient Macedonians died off (mysteriously to the last one) and were replaced by the &quot;newcomer Slavs&quot;. It was later declared that the Slavs living in Macedonia were actually Bulgarians of sorts.

To divide the Bulgarians from the Slav fold and to show that they were a distinct society, different form other Slavs (such as the Serbs), the non-Balkan name &quot;Bulgaria&quot; was chosen to represent a Balkan State created for the first time in the 19th century. The name &quot;Bulgaria&quot; is derived from the river &quot;Volga, allegedly where the Bulgarians came from. We are also led to believe that the Bulgarians were descendents of a small Tartar/Turkish tribe that invaded the region a long time ago and were assimilated by the Slavs. So according to Western sources, Bulgarians are not exactly pure Slavs or pure Tartar/ Turk but a mix of both, enough to make them different from other Slavs and enough to divide them from the Slav fold. Being part Slav, Bulgarians could lay claim to the &quot;Slav speaking residents of Macedonia&quot; on account that they too were Slav. Being part Tartar/Turk and a descendent of the &quot;Volga&quot; made the Bulgarians newcomers in their own land. Thus being newcomers to the Balkans, the Bulgarians could not lay claim to the heritage of Ancient Macedonia. Bulgarians however, could lay claims to items that did not fit the Hellenic model like the Modern Macedonian (Slav) Culture and language. More on this in future articles. If you wish to learn more about the above you will find useful information in George Macaulay Trevelyan's book &quot;British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782 - 1901)&quot;, Longmans 1927.

After 1878, while the Macedonian economy was crashing down by leaps and bounds, the Bulgarian economy was improving dramatically. This was partly due to the cheap labour provided by a large influx of Macedonian pechalbari (migrant workers). Experiencing a very different life in Sofia in contrast to life in the village, many Macedonian pechalbari were seduced into believing the Bulgarian propaganda (Macedonians are Bulgarians).

After 1878, the first Macedonians to take up arms were those who were wronged and wanted to see justice done. Soon however, they realized that their efforts were futile and their revenge only resulted in the loss of innocent lives (relatives and neigbours were punished for their crimes, sometimes by death). Macedonian leaders came to the conclusion that what they truly wanted could only be achieved if the Turks were expelled from Macedonia for good.

It was the charismatic humanitarian William Gladstone, a British Prime Minister three times, who uttered the words &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians&quot; which rang out like loud church bells throughout Macedonia. &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians&quot; was the signal that rallied the Macedonians into action and gave them hope that finally the West would support their cause. In spite of his great sympathy for the Macedonian people, unfortunately, Gladstone was not in a position to help. The best the Super Powers could offer were &quot;reforms&quot;. A great number of reforms were drafted and agreed upon but never implemented. The Turkish Pashas continued to humour the Westerners with reams and reams of fictional statistics and accomplishments while the Begs (feudal lords) continued to dominate the &quot;Chiflik&quot; (estates) and squeeze the village peasants out of their existence. The only visible reforms were rail and road improvements sponsored by western companies who were able to divert Ottoman finances from the state budgets. Peasants who owned some land were taxed so excessively that they had to work on Sundays at road and bridge building to catch up on back taxes. To get such a job, they had to resort to bribery. As if that was not enough, in 1889 the tax burden was further increased by re-imposing a personal tax of seven shillings per year for each newborn son, reduced only when the boy was able to work at age fifteen. Some of these taxes were raised to assist small-scale manufacturing, which was largely owned by foreign investors. Village peasants were forced to sell, for next to nothing, their most valued possessions, hand-made crafts, old coins and heirlooms to pay for these taxes.

To further aggravate the situation, lawless acts by the Turkish authorities, without any avenue for appeal, contributed to the oppressive climate in the villages. In addition to pillaging, Turkish soldiers now plundered the farms and villages for their daily sustenance. The Turkish administration was in such disarray that suppliers of the military were not paid for long periods of time and were refusing to feed the army.

To counter the plundering, peasant militias began to form but were soon outlawed by the Turkish authorities.

By late 1890, those Macedonians who had land couldn't afford to work it because of high taxes and frequent raids. Those who worked for the Begs were at the mercy of their landlord without rights or legal recourse. The courts were clearly working against the Macedonians and beyond &quot;external intervention&quot; there was no way to challenge their tyrannical authority. Though the land was fertile, there was no incentive to work. Agrarian life became a burden, filling village life with hopelessness and crushing the spirit of the Macedonian peasant. Many Macedonian men left their families and turned to pechalbarstvo (migrant work), travelling to various foreign countries in search of work but often returned home poorer due to high travel and lodging expenses. It was during these times that large emigrant Macedonian communities began to form in cities like Sofia, Paris, London, etc. Besides migrant workers, Macedonian young men also traveled abroad to attend higher education. They too became involved in the growing Macedonian worker communities. By the late 1890's over 100,000 Macedonian men were working or studying outside of Macedonia. Cafe conversations, dominated by discussions of &quot;what to do to improve the situation at home&quot; became commonplace. It was clear to many that the discontentment they were experiencing was not a local or village issue, but a matter that enveloped all of Macedonia. It was also clear that Turkey would not allow Macedonia to protect herself or Turkish courts to rule in Macedonia's favour. It became clear to all that the only option open to a Macedonian was outright rebellion, a rebellion that would have common purpose, tactical mobilization and central direction. There were many lessons to be learned from the great deeds and disasters of the American war of Independence, the French Revolution and others. By the late 1890's, Turkish tyranny was not the only ill in Macedonia. There was also the process of Hellenization, Greek propaganda and the Greek clergy to contend with. Beyond that, there was Bulgarian propaganda that was becoming more venomous by the day.

On another front, escalated Bulgarian activities in Macedonia prompted Greece and Serbia to reconsider an old alliance (1866-67) of restoring ecclesiastical unity under the Patriarch in order to take away from the Exarchate. This alliance, due to Greek greed, for the time did not work out. This however, would be a prelude for a future and deadlier alliance that would last to this day.

By 1890, the rebellion started to organize and gain momentum. The students were the first to take action. A student revolutionary organization was formed in Switzerland and one in Bulgaria. Both used various tactics to combat anti-Macedonian chauvinist Balkan propaganda. Organized in 1891, the group in Bulgaria allied itself with the organization of Macedonian emigrant workers (Pechalbari) in Sofia and had much success. In time more organizations sprung up in Russia, Britain and Greece but none could match the achievements of the Sofia based &quot;Young Macedonian Literary Society&quot; under the tutelage of Petar Pop Arsov. This Society of young Macedonians formulated its own constitution and managed the revolutionary publication &quot;Loza&quot; (Vine). The first issue of Loza came out in January of 1892, followed by six more publications before the Society was denounced by the Greek and Serbian press, and claimed as &quot;its own&quot; by the Bulgarian press. According to official Bulgarian State policy, &quot;Macedonians were Bulgarians&quot; and any worthwhile Macedonian creation belonged to Bulgaria.

While émigré Macedonian students were fighting Greek and Bulgarian propaganda and shoring up Western support, an historic moment inside Macedonia was about to unveil. It was October 23rd, 1893 in Solun (Salonika) when two high school teachers, Damjan Gruev and Anton Dimitrov together with Petar Pop Arsov, a former editor of Loza and Hristo Tatarchev, a doctor got together in bookshop owner Ivan Nikolov's house for an informal meeting. The main point of discussion was the plight of the Macedonian people and what to do about it. As word got around a committee was formed, more Macedonians got involved and a second (formal) meeting was held on February 9th, 1894. The topics of discussion included the drafting of a constitution to guide the committee. By the end of the meeting the committee made the following resolutions:

1. The committee will be revolutionary in nature and will remain secret. 2. Its revolutionary activities will be confined to inside Macedonia's borders. 3. Irrespective of nationality or religion, any Macedonian can become a member of the committee.

The committee also set out for itself the following objectives, which were later ratified at the first Revolutionary Congress held in Resen in August 1894:

1. destroy the Ottoman social system, 2. remain an &quot;independent&quot; organization, and 3. seek Macedonian autonomy.

The organization became known as Vnatrezhna (Internal) Makedonska (Macedonian) Revolutsionerna (Revolutionary) Organizatsia (Organization), VMRO (IMRO).

Being of clandestine nature, IMRO had some difficulties recruiting new members but within a year or so, its influence extended beyond Solun and into the rest of Macedonia. Initially, the organization was more ideological and less practical with the majority of its recruits being teachers, most of whom taught at the Exarchate schools inside Macedonia. To rally the masses the organization needed to educate them and bring them in line with IMRO's objectives. For that, it needed a charismatic leader who was able to talk to people at their own level, and who was free to travel without too much interference from the authorities. The man who answered that call was Gotse Delchev, a man of vision matched by only a few, the father of the Macedonian Revolution and the soul of the movement. (If you want to learn more about the IMRO leadership, you must read Michael Radin's book &quot;IMRO and the Macedonian Question&quot;). Gotse was a realist and at the same time an idealist who loved people, hated tyranny and saw the world as a place of many cultures living together in peace. As a realist Gotse knew that in order for a revolution to be successful it had to be a &quot;moral revolution&quot; of mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people. People needed to feel like people with rights and freedoms and not like slaves. With that in mind Gotse set out to build up a revolutionary conscience in the Macedonian population and thus set the revolutionary wheels in motion. Gotse's installment as undisputed leader of the IMRO was consolidated during the Solun Congress of 1896 after which IMRO began to massively organize. Gotse's abilities to &quot;listen and learn&quot; brought him close to the problems of ordinary people who wanted freedom but also wanted to preserve their religions, culture and way of life. With Gotse's field research in mind, the IMRO strategy was to &quot;give the people what they want&quot; and win them over. Initially, the strategy worked well and won IMRO the support it needed and by 1896, it was able to exert influence to a point where it acted as a state within a state taking over administrative positions from the Ottomans, leading boycotts against Ottoman institutions and offering isolated villages protection from Greek and Bulgarian sponsored brigands. In time, IMRO operatives were able to penetrate Ottoman economic, educational and even judicial functions. The downside of &quot;giving the people what they want&quot;, opened the doors for Bulgarian infiltration. By &quot;attitude&quot; and by use of the Greek language, it was easy to recognize Greek influence but it was not as simple to recognize the Bulgarian one. While the Greeks cared nothing about Macedonian affairs and loathed the Macedonian language, the Bulgarians were a part of Macedonian affairs and eloquently spoke the Macedonian language. By far the largest Bulgarian infiltration into Macedonian affairs took place in Sofia among the pechalbari. As I mentioned earlier, the cosmopolitan lifestyle in Sofia, a far cry from life in the village, seduced some Macedonians to succumb to Bulgarian propaganda, which resulted in the formation of the &quot;External Macedonian Revolutionary Organization&quot; better known as the &quot;Supreme Macedonian Committee&quot;. This organization was formed in Sofia in March of 1895 and was termed the &quot;Trojan Horse&quot; of IMRO by Gotse Delchev. The initial membership consisted of emigrant Macedonian nationalists but in time its leadership was infiltrated by officers from the Bulgarian State army ranks. The objectives, on the surface of this &quot;two faced&quot; organization termed &quot;Vrhovist&quot; (Supremacist) by the IMRO, were to fight for Macedonia's independence by armed intervention in an aggressive revolutionary manner. Its true nature however, (concealed from the people) was to undermine the IMRO by subordinating its central committee to its own &quot;Supremacist directives&quot;. This and the fact that Vrhovism masqueraded itself as &quot;Macedonian patriotism&quot; in the eyes of the Macedonian people very much disturbed Gotse Delchev. True to his nature of keeping an open mind, Delchev along with Gruev took a trip to Sofia in hopes of reconciling their differences with the Vrhovists but came back more disillusioned. Instead of receiving a handshake, on March 20th, 1896, Gotse was informed that IMRO would no longer be supported by Bulgaria and all finances and arms would be cut off and from here on forward, the Vrhovists would decide what actions the IMRO would take inside Macedonia. This was indeed an attempt by the Vrhovists to usurp control of IMRO. Disappointed but not disillusioned, Gotse turned to &quot;Mother Russia&quot; for assistance, but there too he found no welcome reception. Russia had no interest in helping IMRO because there were no advantages to gain from liberating Macedonia (given Russia's current relationship with the Western Powers).

Due to IMRO's popularity, strength and ability to recognize a &quot;Trojan Horse&quot;, the Bulgarian led organization failed to achieve its true objectives. After that it resorted to violent attacks and assassination attempts with the aim of eliminating the entire IMRO structure and its leadership. It used armed interventions in order to provoke Ottoman reprisals against innocent village peasants and put the blame on IMRO. By selective propaganda and by vilifying the Ottomans in the eyes of the world, the Bulgarian led organization was hoping for a Super Power intervention to weaken the Turk and at the same time create a climate for a Bulgarian invasion (disguised as a &quot;liberation&quot; of the oppressed Macedonians).

In the meantime both Delchev and Gruev were promoted to the rank of &quot;District Inspector of Schools&quot; in their employment, enabling them to travel unabated and without suspicion. Using inspection tours as cover, they were able to find ways to purchase and smuggle arms into Macedonia. They also took time to address Macedonian villages and make personal contacts with the village chiefs. Many people flocked to hear what these legendary figures of men, patriots, and saviors had to say. Unfortunately, lecturing out in the open placed IMRO leaders at risk from spies. As a result on one occasion, Gotse was arrested by the Turkish authorities in May of 1896 and spent 26 days in jail. When the Turks couldn't find anything to charge him with, Gotse was released.

Bulgarian influence was not limited to Vrhovist actions alone. Bulgarian undercover agents were dispatched to Solun to spy on IMRO activities and report back to the Bulgarian State. The Exarchate also had policies of its own and continued to rally the Macedonian youth for its own cause. When it seemed like the IMRO was unbreakable, the Vrhovists resorted to infiltrating the IMRO leadership itself, which in time brought them some success. Bulgarian interference in IMRO policies caused hardships and internal squabbling between executive committee members and eventually caused the organization to split into hostile factions. This undermined IMRO's credibility with the outside world. The Vrhovists badly wanted to provoke Turkey so that they could &quot;liberate&quot; Macedonia, but the Super Powers, especially Russia and Britain &quot;didn't buy it&quot; and saw their actions as provocative and dangerous. While the Vrhovist leadership agreed to curb its provocative actions, its armed wing of insurgents however, had already penetrated and captured parts of Eastern Macedonia. Even though the invasion lasted about two days, it became clear as to &quot;who was who&quot; and the true Vrhovist agenda was exposed. After that IMRO gave the Vrhovists a stern warning to &quot;stay out of Macedonia&quot; and to use Delchev's words, &quot;whoever works for the unification with Greece or Bulgaria is a good Greek or Good Bulgarian but NOT a good Macedonian&quot;. After that while IMRO worked for a &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians&quot; the Bulgarian Supreme Committee openly worked for a &quot;Macedonia for the Bulgarians&quot;. IMRO leadership strove to purify IMRO from the Vrhovist infiltration. In essence, the IMRO constitution was bolstered to exclude Vrhovist demands and still be able to give the Macedonian people what they wanted. The IMRO leadership, without much success, made attempts to infiltrate and sabotage the Vrhovist Supreme Committee by making frequent trips to Sofia and attempting to rally dissident emigrant forces inside Bulgaria.

While the Vrhovists were plotting against IMRO and the Macedonian people from the north, a new menace was brewing from the south. On April 9th, 1897 armed Greek bands began to aggressively cross into Macedonian. The Turks protested this action to the Super Powers but the Greeks denied responsibility insisting all along that it was the Macedonian Cheti. It didn't take too long before the Turks took the offensive and drove the Greeks out of Thessally. When the Turks were about overtake the entire country the Super Powers intervened on Greece's behalf to once again save her. The Greek Government in charge of the invasion fell out of grace and when a new Government was elected, it agreed to pay a hefty fine, which consisted of four million Turkish pounds, as well as giving up Thessally to the Turks. In addition to losing grace, Greece had to relinquish control of her own finances (to the Super Powers) to ensure prompt payment of the fine. The Super Powers, without German support forced the Sultan to accept the offer and sign a peace deal. The Germans never forgave the Greeks for lying to them about their aggressive actions against the Turks. The Germans at that time were responsible for Turkey. Outside of Greek brigand actions, for the moment at least, Greece was not a direct threat to IMRO.

IMRO demonstrated great leadership by its ability to organize Macedonia into seven revolutionary districts (Solun, Serres, Strumitsa, Shtip, Skopje, Bitola and Endrene{Macedonian Dardannelles}). It also demonstrated its weaknesses. Having allied itself with the poor village peasants and striving to refrain from obligations and debts, IMRO found itself strapped for finances. The IMRO committee was unable to raise all the necessary funds to finance its campaigns. While the leadership turned a blind eye, the local commanders resorted to kidnapping rich landowners, merchants and foreign dignitaries for ransom. Kidnappings did not exclude foreign missionaries like Miss Stone who fell into the hands of Sandanski's Cheta (armed band). Taken by the plight of her captors, Miss Stone herself voluntarily made sure the ransom was paid in full. Short of finances mostly due to the unfriendly terms with the Vrhovist Supreme Command in Sofia, IMRO found itself lacking the necessary arsenal to wage war. Subordination to Bulgarian demands was out of the question so Gotse had to look elsewhere to get his weapons. Efforts were made to purchase weapons from Greece, Albania and even from the Turks themselves but without too much success. By 1897, the situation was getting desperate so the IMRO leadership resorted to purchasing from the black market, even stealing weapons. One such purchase was made from the Bulgarian Military. The military allowed the sale of outdated guns but later refused to sell cartridges, fearing the weapons may be turned against them. On October 1900, Chakalarov, a local chief in the Lerin/Kostur regions who spoke Greek, dressed up as an Albanian pretending to be from Ianitsa, was successful in purchasing some arms from Athens. Later attempts by others however, were not so successful. On one occasion, a translator betrayed the purchasers to the Turkish console on the advice of a Greek priest. After that the Turks trusted this translator and made him a sergeant in their gendarme. He served the Turks well and brought them much success in their search and destroy missions until he discovered he could make even more money by taking bribes before turning people in. As a result of this man's actions many band members were killed in many villages.

The lack of sufficient arms brought home the realization that this &quot;uprising&quot; was going to be a long one. Here again Gotse and the IMRO leadership proved their worth by adopting a policy of self-arming. With a little bit of skill on weapons manufacture, learned from the Armenian Revolutionaries, IMRO set up a number of munitions factories in remote and secluded areas, capable of producing home made bombs and other explosives. Unfortunately, in 1900 during a raid at one of these factories, Dame Gruev was arrested by the Turkish authorities and imprisoned in Bitola. He came back to active duty in April 1903. In spite of all efforts made to obtain them, the Macedonian &quot;Cheti&quot; lacked arms but had plenty of courage to make up for it, which in time put fear in the Turkish hearts. As IMRO grew beyond its ideological stage, it began to recruit, equip and train fighters. Volunteers were recruited mainly from the villages, young men who were willing to fight for their freedom. Those who were in trouble with the law (brigands) were armed and recruited into active duty. Those were men who flourished by attacking Turks and stealing from them. They were admired for their courage and ability to live free. They were men who practiced the art of war, knew how to live in the open, how to ambush and how to hide. They were the men who taught the young Macedonian recruits to fight and win. The rest were reservists and lived at home, only called to duty as required. Each reservist was expected to purchase and secure his own rifle and ammunition. Recruitment was carried out in utmost secrecy. Even women were enlisted in the Macedonian revolution, but their role was limited to cooking, washing, mending clothing and nursing the wounded. The primary role of a fighter was to defend the people from Turkish and brigand attacks. The Cheti consisted of about five to ten men, organized for rapid mobilization and quick response. The goal was to have one Cheta responsible for one village (preferably their own) in all of Macedonia. The leader of each Cheta was chosen for his abilities to lead his men, and more so, for the peoples' confidence in him to protect their village. To respond quickly, the Cheta had to be familiar with the village's terrain and escape routes. To maintain secrecy all orders were given by word of mouth.

The IMRO mobilization managed to elude the Turkish authorities for a long time. However, an unfortunate discovery of some explosives accidentally uncovered the secret and led the Turkish militia on wide &quot;search and destroy missions&quot;. The militia's conduct unfortunately was less than honourable when the soldiers took to torturing innocent people and burning properties in order to obtain confessions. The Cheti's responsibility was to ambush the militia, using guerrilla tactics, before they entered villages and prevent them from doing harm. This however, did not always work so some of the Cheta Chiefs resorted to retaliations and reprisals for crimes already committed. Although poorly armed and vastly under-manned (sometimes as high as 10 Turks to 1 Macedonian), the Cheti fought fierce battles and gained legendary reputations among both the Turks and the Macedonians. Unfortunately, as the Ottoman authorities became more aware of IMRO's intentions the Turkish militias began to swell with soldiers. If that was not enough, at about the same time the Exarchate, suspecting IMRO affiliation, began to dismiss Macedonian teachers on mass. Even though most Macedonian teachers despised working for the Exarchate, they used the schools as a means of promoting IMRO's aims. They frequently gave lectures, taught Macedonian patriotic songs, canvassed house to house etc. This was a blow to IMRO. A more severe blow however, came in April of 1897 in what was termed as the &quot;Goluchowski-Muraviev Agreement&quot;. This was an agreement drawn up by Tsar Nikolas II of Russia and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria regarding the future of the remainder of the Ottoman Empire. In part, the agreement stated that, at some future time, the Macedonian territory would be divided equally between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. In other words, when the Super Powers got their fill of Turkey and abandoned her, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria were welcome to take their turn. This indeed was bad news and as history showed, it was devastating for IMRO and disastrous for the Macedonian people.

In about 1898, the Bulgarian Exarchate, instructed by the Bulgarian Prime Minister, created a Vrhovist organization inside Macedonia, based in Solun known as the &quot;Revolutionary Brotherhood&quot; which in turn began to form its own Cheti. While pretending to be part of IMRO, the purpose of this organization was to carry out terrorist activities and in the eyes of the world, discredit the real IMRO. By the year 1900, IMRO's enemies were growing in numbers and intensifying in ferocity. IMRO's woes were just beginning when they discovered that the Vrhovists had dispatched six assassins to murder Delchev and Sandanski (a legendary Cheta chief affectionately known as the &quot;Tsar of Pirin&quot;). The Vrhovist Cheti were raining terror on Macedonian villages provoking the Turks to act. Although never proven, it was alleged that the Vrhovist leaders were working with the Turks in successfully arresting members of IMRO, destroying munitions depots and torturing, raping and murdering people. Even the Turks themselves participated in sabotage tactics. Several Greek spies were killed at one time and the IMRO was blamed. As a result of this, many organizers were rounded up and arrested. In reality however, it was Turkish Begs who committed the crimes as was later discovered. The same Begs were seen attacking Turkish tax collectors. Failing to assassinate Delchev and Sandanski, the six assassins, in their frustration, turned to attacking people, burning down villages and stealing money and claiming it to be the work of IMRO. Several important leaders, including the famous &quot;Marko Lerinski&quot; (the &quot;Tsar of Lerin&quot;), Cheta leader of the Lerin and Kostur Regions, was killed in these attacks.

All was not lost however, during the next attack, Sandanski was ready for the Vrhovists and in September 1902, sent them packing. The Turks did the rest by crushing the Vrhovist remnants in November of the same year. The disturbances and civil strife were enough to convince Turkey that yet another uprising may be imminent and that she should take action to prevent it. As usual, violence was answered with more violence. The Turks initiated a wide campaign of search and destroy missions exacting serious retributions and terror on the village populations. In addition to regular Turkish troops, the Ottomans now enlisted reserves from the Albanian Muslim fold. Every bridge, railway cutting and railway tunnel was guarded. Also, every village had a garrison of ten or more troops guarding it. While the Turkish troops were content with &quot;fighting it out&quot; with the Cheti then retiring to their barracks, the Albanian reservists avoided direct confrontations and preferred to join the Bashi-Bazouks (armed civilian Muslims) in pillaging and plundering the villages. These gendarmes, recruited from the Albanian Gheg Muslim community, had a vested interest in disorder. The gendarmes allowed law-breakers to exist so that they could keep their employment. They rarely engaged in combat and their meager pay was always in arrears so they readily accepted bribes to make their living. Both the Patriarchate and Exarchate were known to bribe the gendarmes in order to allow Greek and Bulgarian brigands to function freely.

To make a bad situation worse, at the end of August 1902, the Vrhovists showed up in Macedonia uninvited and began to issue orders directly to the local chiefs to start the rebellion. According to Vrhovist plans the rebellion was ordered to begin September 20th, 1902. This was news to IMRO. This latest bold Vrhovist action turned a lot of heads including that of Vasil Chakalarov. Chakalarov was a respected chief and managed to sway the people away from the Vrhovists. But the Vrhovists were not finished and began to publicly accuse Chakalarov and the others of being cowards and peasants for not wanting to fight. When that still didn't work, Chakalarov was personally called a thief, allegedly having stolen a fortune from the Vrhovist money allocated for purchasing arms. Fortunately the Macedonian people knew that Chakalarov was a decent man. They also knew that the Vrhovists didn't contribute any funds for purchasing arms. Left alone, unable to start the rebellion, the Vrhovists tucked their tails and went elsewhere to cause trouble.

This latest Vrhovist action did not go unnoticed by the Turks and put IMRO in a difficult situation. The Vrhovists, for a long time wanted to get IMRO into a fight with the Turkish army but so far were not successful. This time unfortunately, their wishes were about to come true. The Vrhovists believed that a fight with IMRO would weaken Turkey enough to make a Bulgarian invasion possible. They encouraged the Cheti Chiefs to &quot;start the insurrection and Bulgaria would finish it&quot; for them. &quot;Bulgaria has hundreds of thousands of troops standing by and will come to your rescue as soon as the first shot is fired&quot; is what the Vrhovists were preaching to the Macedonian chiefs.

IMRO knew that its fighters were not ready for a frontal attack with the Turkish militia. They also knew that fighting or not, the Turkish militia was going to destroy Macedonia village by village one way or another. The Vrhovists on the other hand, could not be trusted for their help because they had no intention of honouring their promises, their actions made that point very clear in the past. In either case, IMRO had no choice but to act soon. The search and destroy missions were putting many innocent people in jeopardy including women and children. Local informants, Greek, and Bulgarian brigands did not hesitate to inform on the villages, especially if they had an axe to grind. On many occasion Patriarchate and Exarchate brigands (hired goons) were put out of action by the Cheti and that made their benefactors angry, who in turn informed on the villages. Brigands were hired to harass and exact terror on villagers to sway them to change allegiance from one church to another. The Cheti were fierce fighters and fought gallantly when it came to protecting their villages but were undermanned and poorly armed. As much as they wanted to they were not capable of always standing up to the large and well-equipped Turkish militia. The militia on the other hand, did not always operate under the best of ethics and was open to bribes. The poor people who couldn't afford bribes fared the worst. Some say it was less of a punishment to produce a rifle than not to have one at all. Some resorted to purchasing rifles and turning them in just so that they received a lesser punishment. On many occasions the houses of those suspected of aiding the Cheta were burned to the ground. The Turks did not even hesitate to jail old women accused of that crime. Historical accounts show that during the height of the search and destroy activities the jails in Macedonia were filled beyond capacity. In fact a Solun jail with the capacity for 500 was holding 900 prisoners (some were held in the White Tower). There is an old Macedonian saying, &quot;there is nothing worse than being locked up in a Turkish jail&quot;.

On January 31st, 1903, the Turks declared IMRO illegal and sought ways to destroy it. The bad news for IMRO gave the Vrhovist the necessary momentum they needed to become a wedge between those in IMRO who wanted an immediate uprising, and those of IMRO who believed that an uprising at this point in time was suicidal. Gotse Delchev was against this &quot;willing sacrifice&quot; and was hoping to find a better solution, but time was running out.

A second Solun Congress, dominated by the Vrhovists was staged in February of 1903. Delchev and most of IMRO's loyal supporters did not attend. A resolution was reached, but not ratified by the regional committees, that an uprising would take place on Ilinden, on the 2nd of August 1903. To weaken the Turks, the Vrhovists staged a number of bombings and terrorist acts. The Solun to Tsary Grad railway was bombed on March 18th as was the Solun Ottoman bank a month later. This did not weaken the Turks as expected but instead it brought more Turkish troops into Macedonia and further escalated the violence against innocent civilians. If that was not enough, the sudden rise in violence against Ottoman institutions was not well received by European investors and businessmen who saw Ottoman Macedonia as a safe place to invest. The few lonely voices in London calling for Macedonian support were quickly drowned out by the many voices of discontent calling for the demise of the terrorists.

Tragically, Gotse Delchev was killed by the Turks in Banitsa on May 3rd, 1903 a day after the IMRO Smilevo Congress had started. Termed the Bitola Congress, the purpose of the Smilevo Congress was to review the resolutions from the Vrhovist dominated Solun Congress held earlier in the same year. Damjan Gruev (a native of Smilevo) chaired the Congress and tried hard to realistically present the situation by arguing for and against an early uprising. When the matter was put to a vote however, the majority declared themselves in favour of an uprising. With these words &quot;better an end with horrors than horrors without end&quot;, Gruev also voted in support of the Ilinden rebellion. From here on there was no turning back. A general staff was elected with Gruev as the head and preparations for the uprising began. In due time plans were made, a military strategy was prepared, weapons, medical supplies and food-stuffs were requisitioned and stock piled, Cheti were organized and training drills performed. On July 26th, 1903, by a dispatch to the Great Powers via the British vice-consul in Bitola, the General Staff formally announced the uprising. Then on July 28th, 1903, IMRO dispatched mounted couriers to all the sub-districts with the message &quot;let the uprising begin&quot;. On the same day the General Staff informed the Ottoman Director of Railways to warn travelers to choose a different mode of transportation in order to avoid being hurt. In spite of all odds the brave people of Macedonia heroically rose to the task with valour. They knew well that the fight they were forced to fight might not bring them what they wanted but they chose to fight anyway because it was a fight for freedom and freedom after centuries of slavery was valued above life itself. That however, did not convince the Super Powers to lend a helping hand. Macedonia, again for a second time within a quarter century was exposed to treachery that would make the 1878 betrayal look like a picnic.

To be continued in part IV.

NOTE: Many of you have asked me to say something about the word &quot;Slav&quot;

The word &quot;Slav&quot; is an English translation of the Macedonian word &quot;Slava&quot; like the word Macedonia is an English translation of the word Makedonija. Slava in Macedonian means &quot;glory, fame, renown&quot;. &quot;Slaven&quot; in Macedonian means &quot;glorious, famous, renowned, celebrated, illustrious&quot;. &quot;Slavi&quot; in Macedonian means &quot;to glorify, to celebrate, to extol&quot;. (page 925, Dushan Tsrenkovski's &quot;The Standard Dictionary, English-Macedonian, Macedonian-English&quot;).

The word &quot;Pravo&quot; in Macedonian means &quot;right&quot; (page 850, Dushan Tsrenkovski's &quot;The Standard Dictionary, English-Macedonian, Macedonian-English&quot;).

Putting the two words together &quot;Pravo Slava&quot; assumes a holy meaning like &quot;Pravoslavna vera&quot; or &quot;Eastern Christian faith&quot;.

I want to make it perfectly clear that &quot;Pravoslaven&quot; in Macedonian means &quot;Most Glorious&quot; and refers to the Christian religion. &quot;Slava&quot; translates to &quot;celebrate&quot; as in a holy celebration. By no means does the word &quot;Slav&quot; have any connection to &quot;nationality&quot;. &quot;Slav&quot; to a Macedonian once meant the same as Catholic to an Italian, Jew to a Hebrew, Orthodox to a Greek, Muslim to an Arab or Hindu to an East Indian. Today however, the beauty of the word &quot;Slav&quot; has, for political purposes, been twisted into something ugly, undesirable and denigrating to all Macedonians. More specifically, the Greeks and now the Albanians call the Macedonian people &quot;Slav&quot; to mean &quot;new comers&quot;, &quot;foreigners&quot;, &quot;barbarians&quot;, &quot;simpletons&quot;, &quot;ignorant&quot;, &quot;inconsiderate&quot;, etc. So please do not call the Macedonians &quot;Slav&quot;, just call them Macedonian.

The Pravoslaven Empire (later renamed Byzantine Empire) lasted from 324AD when the Pravoslavna vera was first adopted as the official religion of the Empire to 1767 when the Phanariots with Turkish help, officially extinguished the Macedonian Church. After that up until 1850, the Macedonian Church lived underground and continued to operate illegally keeping the &quot;Pravoslavna vera&quot; and the Macedonian culture alive.

It is well documented that the language of liturgy of the Pravoslavni (people of the Byzantine Empire) was what we now call &quot;Old Church Slavonic&quot;. Old Church Slavonic is a Macedonian (Solunski) dialect spoken and understood to this day in most parts of geographical Macedonia.

You can contact the author via his e-mail: rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura

2. Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D., The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 - 1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966

3. H. N. Brailsford, Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971

4. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology

5. The University of Cyril and Methodius, DOCUMENTS of the Struggle of the Macedonian, People for Independence and a Nation-State Volumes I &amp; II

6. The World Book Encyclopedia

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>4gy2a7aomgla45jk4zqiirhmgd0ocnx</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part IV - The 1903 Ilinden Aftermath</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2049</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11012</id>
      <parentid>4998</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:33:47Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="53607" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part IV - The 1903 Ilinden Aftermath

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

September, 2002 

click here for a printable version

In the previous article (part III) I covered the rise of IMRO and internal Macedonian events leading up to but not including the 1903 Ilinden Macedonian Uprising.

In this article (part IV) I will start where I left off in part III and cover the 1903 Ilinden aftermath with special focus on the atrocities committed by the Turks and by the so called Greek-Bulgarian &quot;religious wars&quot;.

Before I get into the details of the uprising I would like to make a few points very clear. Many village civilians died in the aftermath of the 1903 uprising and they were ALL Macedonian. Brailsford in his book &quot;Macedonia Its Races and their Future&quot; and Dakin in his book &quot;The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913&quot; as well as many other authors provide statistics that show Greek and Bulgarian civilian casualties. Let me assure you that beyond some high-ranking Greek and Bulgarian clergy (bishops) and consuls most of whom lived in the larger cities, there were no Greek or Bulgarian civilians living in the Macedonian villages at that time. Everyone who died in the villages was Macedonian. The people that were (forcibly) Hellenized and pledged allegiance to the Greek Orthodox Church were Macedonian. The people that were lured by Bulgarian propaganda and fooled into joining the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were Macedonian. The informants that were killed by the Cheti (Macedonian armed revolutionary bands) were Macedonian. The Greek informants who informed on the Exarchists were Macedonian. The Bulgarian informants who informed on the Patriarchists were Macedonian. The Patriarchate priests who preached in Greek in the Churches were mostly Macedonian. The teachers who taught Greek in the Patriarch sponsored schools were mostly Macedonian. The Exarchate priests who preached Old Church Slavonic in the Churches were Macedonian. The teachers who taught Bulgarian in the Exarchate sponsored schools were Macedonian. Even some of the Patriarchate and Exarchate sponsored hoodlums and brigands were mostly Macedonian. 

What makes this sad affair bizarre is that while Macedonians were dying at the hands of the Turk, Albanian, Greek and Bulgarian armed bands the Greeks were falsifying statistics claiming the victims to be Greek and Bulgarian. Since there were no Greek or Bulgarian civilians living in the Macedonian villages then there could be no Greek or Bulgarian victims. Brailsford, Dakin and others obtained their information through &quot;politically correct&quot; official channels. Unfortunately, the official channels were quoting biased and unchallenged Greek sources, which supported the Greek interests and the Greek political point of view. There were no official channels to represent Macedonian interests or the Macedonian point of view.

The Macedonian people were exploited by the Turks and the Europeans and despised for complaining. They were forcibly Hellenized then profaned for not being model Hellenes. They were punished by the Bulgarians for accepting Hellenism then forcibly Bulgarized. Those Bulgarized were then violated and murdered by the Greeks for switching allegiance. Such was the fate of the Macedonians greeted by the 20th century. But this was only the beginning, for a new force, Serbian chauvinism was about to be unleashed. 

It was dawn August 2nd, 1903 and the men could see their breath in the cool, still morning mountain air. Darkness was finally giving way to dawn. Not a soul had slept all night. The fervor and business of the night before had died down. There was only silence now as darkness slowly yielded to dawn and each man reconciled his thoughts and comforted his fears. The stillness was interrupted by what seemed like a thunderbolt, when the Cheta chief soberly announced, &quot;It's time&quot;. Like Olympic sprinters, the men rose to their feet ignoring the stiffness of the long night's motionless rest. Hearts pounding, they picked up their gear and rifles and began the descent down the mountain towards the chiflicks (estates) below. It was still dark and there was no one in sight. The men crept up on the barracks in silence. The chief motioned with his hand and the men quickly scattered and took their positions. The barracks were now surrounded. When a guard inside the barracks stepped out, the crackle of rifle fire broke the silence of the new day. Black smoke of gunpowder greeted the first rays of the sun and the cries of the wounded disturbed the serenity of the morning stillness. It was August 2nd, 1903, Ilinden, a new dawn for the Macedonian people. 

By mid-day the Western Region of Macedonia was on fire as church bells rang, rifles crackled and bellowing smoke enveloped mountains and valleys alike. Five thousand strong had assembled to show their distaste for Turkish rule. They had no cavalry and no artillery except for the few cannons made of cherry wood which were more dangerous to them than to the enemy, but they had faith, spirit and trust in each other. They were the Macedonian Komiti (freedom fighters).

Following Damjan Gruev's orders from Smilevo, the village Cheti combined forces to form the following: the Smilevo and Gjavato Region Cheta of 650, the Krushovo Region Cheta of 400, the Kichevo Region Cheta of 350, the Bitola Region Cheta of 250, the Ohrid Region Cheta of 880, the Resna Region Cheta of 450, the Demir-Hisar Region Cheta of 420, the Prespa Region Cheta of 300, the Kostur Region Cheta of 700 and the Lerin Region Cheta of 450.

I am proud to say that my own great-grandfather Philip at age 53 participated in the Ilinden uprising. He was issued a rifle and a single shell and told to stand guard at Mount Preol at the entrance of Prespa. At the first sight of the Turkish militia he was required to fire a warning shot to let the Cheta know that the Turks were approaching. He survived his bout and lived to the ripe old age of 92 to tell about it.

The Cheti under the command of capable leaders such as Damjan Gruev, Vasil Chakalarov, Petar Pop Arsov, Pitu Guli, and others faired well and enjoyed considerable success in the few weeks before the Turkish militia began to amass. The local villagers also joined the movement giving moral support to the fighters. Even men from others regions that had not yet risen left their homes and came to fight.
All in all the Macedonian people possessed the will to fight but lacked the rifles and the ammunition with which to do it.

When the rebellion began, as a precaution, most villages were evacuated. People who left the villages took up residence in secluded places up in the mountains. They took with them whatever they could carry and set up camp with temporary shelters constructed from tree branches and covered with vegetation. The animals they took with them were fenced out of sight in wooded areas. They even built underground ovens to cook food and bake bread in safety. 

Some villages that did not join the rebellion felt it was unnecessary to evacuate because they posed no threat to the Turks. One such village was Neokazi near Lerin whose residents stayed home thinking they would be safe. When the Turkish militia passed by, not only did they raze the village, they also turned on the civilian population. Not being satisfied with just burning the village, the Turks summoned about 60 Macedonian men and placed them under arrest. On their way to Lerin the Turks, instead of taking the men to jail, tortured and massacred them in cold blood. Eyewitnesses reported observing the Turks lining up the men in rows and firing at them to see how many one bullet could kill. 
Three days later, it was Armensko's turn. After losing a skirmish to Chakalarov, Haireddin Bimbishi's (the butcher of Smrdesh) troops, defeated, angry and embittered were heading for Lerin when they came across a welcoming committee at Armensko. The priest and other members of the village went out to greet and welcome the Turks, but the Turks were not pleased and murdered the welcoming committee on the spot. Bambishi's men then turned on the defenseless village and pillaged, burned and satisfied their brutal lust undisturbed. Sixty-eight of the villagers were massacred and ten women and eight girls were violated. &quot;Several women who managed to crawl out of their burning houses were afterwards caught as they lay dying, and violated repeatedly until they expired&quot;. (page 160, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future, taken from the &quot;Blue Book&quot; P. 319.).

The Turkish soldiers had orders to burn down all empty villages because it was a sure sign that they belonged to the families of the insurgents, and to spare the rest. As it turned out however, those who didn't join the rebellion and didn't want any trouble not only lost their homes but some even lost their lives. It was a choice between having your village burned or having it burned and being massacred as well. It was a hard lesson learned but it didn't help the sick and bedridden who were burned alive where they lay. 

As battles raged on throughout Western Macedonia, the Cheti put down most of the local Turkish garrisons. They destroyed bridges, railway lines and communications centers, captured most chifliks and briefly liberated some regions such as Kichevo, Demir-Hisar, Kostur, Lerin, Klisoura and Neveska. The cities of Kostur and Lerin themselves were not liberated. The most successful and highly celebrated of all battles however, was the storming of the town of Krushevo. Nikola Karev led the Cheti in the attack and defeated the local Turkish garrison with ease. The Macedonians quickly took over the most strategic points like the Post Office, Town Hall and local Police Station and declared Krushevo liberated. True to their democratic commitments, the leaders of the liberating force constituted the Krushevo assembly which appointed a committee of sixty members, twenty from each of the community's Macedonian, Vlach and Albanian population. The committee in turn elected an executive body of six delegates, two from each community, which operated as a provisional government. The government in turn established a financial, judiciary and police force. &quot;At Krushevo, under the rays of temporary liberty, fraternity and equality, national hatreds were dispelled and peace and concord reigned. For eleven whole days Krushevo lived as a little independent state, and although in miniature, clothed with flesh and blood that idea which spurred Macedonians to fight, against tyranny up to the Ilinden rising&quot;. (page 193, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology).

True to his socialist ideals, Nikola Karev drew up the famous Krushevo manifesto, a document aimed at eliciting support from all the communities including the Muslim Turks and Albanians. (You can read the full text of the Krushevo manifesto in appendix 3B, staring on page 275, in Michael Radin's book IMRO and the Macedonian Question. It is most inspiring to learn that in spite of what the Turks and Albanians had done to the Macedonian people, the Macedonian leaders still found it within their hearts to show compassion for them.) I also want to add that Brailsford in his book &quot;Macedonia its Races and their Future&quot; has nothing but praise for the Macedonian Cheti for their more than exemplary conduct during the uprising.

The &quot;Krushevo Republic&quot; unfortunately, lasted only two weeks, but it was a glorious Republic that will forever remind the Macedonian people of their eternal struggle for independence and of their thirst for freedom. The liberation of Krushevo imprinted on the new Macedonian generations the legacy of a timeless and irreversible march towards self-determination. IMRO came a long way from a group of academics deliberating what to do in the face of repression to delivering, in a true revolutionary fashion, a democratic Republic with all the socialist trimmings. 
Here again, we see the Macedonian desire for multi-culturalism and for a new multi-ethnic society waiting to re-surface. The Republic was constituted on a multiracial basis in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Macedonian people.

Next to Krushevo, Kostur, under the command of Lazar Pop Trajkov and my favourite hero, Vasil Chakalarov who faired second best in the tactical mobilization of the Cheti. These brigades staged successful raids and liberated Klisura and Neveska then returned southward and with the support of over three thousand villagers, attacked Kostur but without success. In the meantime other Cheti attacked and liberated Ohrid, which remained free for almost three months. The Ohrid attack was the most successful in terms of advance planning and administering the establishment of medical aid, underground workshops, secret bakeries and securing foodstuffs. Ohrid later became the center for establishing refugee camps for many displaced persons.

Uprisings outside of Western Macedonia were limited to swift guerilla actions consisting mostly of attacks against Ottoman institutions, bombings of railway lines and the occasional skirmish with the Turkish militia. Many Cheti were successful in capturing important Turkish officials with aims of constructing dialog for prospective negotiations but in actuality they met with little success.
Vrhovist involvement, as expected, was minimal during the uprising and brought to light once again the true nature of Vrhovism (Macedonia for the Bulgarians).

As the Cheti fought gallantly putting down garrison after garrison in the larger towns many of the smaller villages were left unprotected and open to Bashi-bazouk and Turkish militia attacks. Keeping in mind the Neokrazi and Armensko incidents, many of the Cheta chiefs felt compelled to return home to repel such attacks. Due to this and the fact that the Cheti were overpowered by the numerically superior Turkish militia, in the short term, a large-scale operation against the Turks never materialized. Unfortunately, as time passed so did the opportunities for a decisive strike, as an even larger Turkish force was amassing. 

The initial success of the rebellion was a surprise to the Turks especially since the Turkish forces were numerically superior to those of the rebels. The Cheti however, demonstrated their abilities in battle and more than matched the numbers with will. Turkey unfortunately, was determined to put down the rebellion and amassed additional forces deploying a total of 167,000 infantry, 3,700 cavalry and 440 pieces of artillery (all cannons). Krushevo alone was surrounded by 20,000 Turkish troops with 18 cannons against an encircled force of no more than 1,200 rebel fighters. The battle to retake Krushevo began on August 12th with the Macedonians crying out &quot;Sloboda ili Smirt&quot; (liberty or death) against the onslaught of Turkish cannon fire. Pitu Guli and his men fought gallantly and provided stiff opposition to the Turkish advance but was no match for General Baktiar Pasha. Baktiar was a skilled war veteran who overwhelmed the Cheti by attacking the entire region simultaneously. The region was surrounded by soldiers, encircled by cannon fire, and every Macedonian stronghold inside was attacked simultaneously cutting off all reinforcements and all outside support. 

After the mountains lit up with gunfire and smoke filled the skies, no Super Powers came to the rescue. Macedonia was left alone to feel the full fury of the Ottoman Empire's army and to pay for all of Europe's sins committed against the Turks.
Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria were now free, their freedom guaranteed by the Super Powers. When Greece got into trouble, the Super Powers wasted no time to come to her rescue. Where were the Super Powers when Macedonia needed their help? Why did they not respond to the cries of the burning villagers? Why did they not intervene to stop the killing, razing and pounding? Where was Britain when the European-made Turkish cannons pounded Krushevo to dust?

Once Krushevo fell, one by one other IMRO strongholds began to yield winding down the ten-week-old rebellion. In Krushevo Baktiar Pasha allowed his troops to kill, pillage and rape for three days, permanently devastating the town. 117 civilians were murdered, 150 women were raped and 159 houses were burned.
In the Ilinden aftermath, according to Radin, in total 4,694 civilians were murdered, 3,122 women were raped, 12,440 houses were burned, 201 villages were razed, 75,835 people were left homeless and about 30,000 people left the country for good becoming permanent refugees (page 105, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). Besides the atrocities committed against the civilian population in Macedonia, the most significant impact of the uprising was the loss of so many great IMRO leaders. 

Despite the negative attitudes of the European Governments, there was much press about the Ilinden rebellion. World opinion was generally sympathetic to the Macedonian cause and highly critical of the Ottoman atrocities. Emigrant Macedonians the world over bombarded the Western Press with scathing attacks on the British, French and Austrian governments for supporting Turkey, militarily and financially. Even emigrants as far as the United States, staged large rallies in support of the rebellion. In New York alone more than 100,000 gathered to show support.
A Chicago newspaper reported that a Macedonian regiment had formed in that city and was preparing to take part in the rebellion. Closer to home, south Slav Nations such as Slovenia and Vojvodina held public meetings in support of the Macedonian Revolution. Even the European press featured sympathetic headlines when covering the rebellion. &quot;It was a bitter struggle between the tortured slaves fighting on masse, often without weapons, but on spirit alone, for life and liberty; and the sadistic Pasha and his cohorts, murdering and plundering with rabidity&quot; (Giorgio Nurigiani).
British official policy however, was less than sympathetic. According to the Daily News, September 14, 1903, Prime Minister Balfour told the House of Commons &quot;...the balance of criminality lies not with the Turks, but with the rebels&quot;. The paper was critical of this attitude and recorded the following editorial: &quot;The balance of criminality is surely here in our own land. Britain had denied Macedonia freedom at Berlin, knowing that (continued) Ottoman rule was synonymous with cruelty and tyranny, and by adopting a laissez-faire attitude at the juncture, Britain is a consenting party to all the ghastly murders and massacres in Macedonia...&quot; (Radin, page 107, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 
While there was public outcry in the streets regarding the treatment of Macedonians, the British Government cared less about Macedonia's suffering than about Bulgarian threats to their precious Ottoman Empire. Being weakened by the Macedonian rebellion, the thinking in London was that Turkey was now ripe for a Bulgarian invasion. Balfour used the Macedonian rebellion as a pretext to move Britain's Mediterranean Fleet into the Aegean Sea fearing that war between Bulgaria and Turkey was now inevitable.

At about the same time Greek-Turkish relations began to warm up. The souring relationship between Turkey and Bulgaria was seen as a new opportunity by Greece to accelerate her Hellenization activities inside Macedonia. Making her way to Turkey, Greece had to first prop up her cool relationship with Germany. Her first attempt was initiated by inviting German help to re-organize the Greek military. After that, Greece began to grant industrial and commercial favours to German businessmen including the re-organization of the Greek telegraph.
The Turks on the other hand, were looking for allies. The loss of Ottoman Crete to the Greeks was only a bruise to the Turkish ego, so the Turks were willing to forgive and forget. Losing Macedonia however, was serious business, and bolstering the friendship with Greece was one way of staving off Bulgarian advances.

To preserve whatever they could from a failing rebellion, IMRO turned its attention to diplomacy. In September 1903, Pere Toshev of IMRO took a trip to Tsari Grad (Constantinople) to elicit some guarantees from official representatives of the Super Powers. Toshev's only request was that Macedonia be governed by a Christian governor. Unfortunately, his request was rejected in favour of the status quo. Later however, when statistics of Turkish atrocities started pouring in, the Super Power attitude softened a little. In October the Super Powers re-considered Toshev's request, but instead of appointing a Christian governor each nation agreed to send a small &quot;peace-keeping&quot; force. This did not help the Macedonian position at all, in fact it hindered IMRO from self-defense initiatives even against Bashi-bazouk attacks.

Turkish atrocities committed against the Macedonian villages in the eyes of the world created bad publicity for Turkey and for her allies the Western Powers. As a result Turkish popularity started to decline and so did Turkey's favour with the Super Powers. Being financially strapped and having her hands tied, Turkey turned to her neighbours for assistance. By declaring Macedonia a &quot;multi-interest-zone&quot; and inviting armed propaganda from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia to counter the IMRO insurgence, Turkey was hoping to turn the tide of the rebellion in her favour. Again, Super Power inaction put Macedonia and the Macedonian people into peril. 

At the end of August, after the fall of Krushevo, Nasir Pasha was appointed to take over command from Omar Rushdi Pasha. Rushdi was blamed for the flare-up of the rebellion and Nasir was chosen to put an end to it. Nasir Pasha was a favourite of the Sultan, spoke German and was considered civilized by many who had high hopes for a quick end to the rebellion. Unfortunately, Nasir's plans involved the burning of ALL revolting villages and quickly cornering and rounding up all those doing the revolting. He certainly had the &quot;right men&quot; with the &quot;right courage&quot; to execute such a barbaric plan, unfortunately, Nasir Pasha's plan did not involve pursuing the Cheti. &quot;...the regiments which should have been pursuing the Insurgents found it more agreeable and interesting to pillage the defenseless villagers and make war on the women and children&quot; (page 155 Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future). Nasir Pasha's strategy forced IMRO and the Cheti to rethink their plans and change their tactics. Henceforth, organized Cheti attacks on the Turks subsided and the Cheti regrouped to take up defensive positions. Concerned for their families and villages some of the Cheti broke up and returned to defend their own homes. After that, fighting became disorderly and on November 2nd, 1903, the insurrection was declared at an end.
According to Brailsford, the Cheti fought about 150 battles in total with 746 casualties, which amounted to about 15 % of the total fighting force. In most of these encounters the Cheti were outnumbered by at least 10 Turks to 1 Macedonian. (Page 155 Macedonia its Races and their Future). Before it was all over, the Turks were attacking everywhere, even in secluded areas that once were beyond militia reach. To save themselves, many civilians resorted to camping among the fighters and even following them in wild battles. Their only safety was to be with the Cheti. &quot;...sometimes the battle raged about the lair where the women and children lay, the men fighting with all their manhood to defend some shallow trench, knowing that behind them cowered wife and child expecting massacre if their courage failed or their bullets missed the mark&quot;. (page 162, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future).

Before I finish with the Ilinden uprising I want to mention that even though not much action was seen in Eastern Macedonia, the Endene (Macedonian Dardanelles or Andrianople) region had also risen in 1903 to join the Macedonian rebellion. This forgotten region, that once ruled the world, belonged to Macedonia at one point in time because Macedonians to this day still live there. What the world calls Pomac (converts from Christianity to Islam) Bulgarians are in fact Macedonians that converted to Islam. It is believed that the Christians of Endrene initiated the revolt but could not sustain it for too long due to the numerical superiority of the Muslim militia and the fact that the region was without mountains and there were no places to hide. 

There is no good time to wage war in any society let alone inside a self-sufficient agrarian microcosm. The leaders of the Ilinden rebellion knew that. They also knew that they would be risking more than their own lives when they called for a revolt. The crops would not be harvested and people would starve to death. &quot;Fleeing incessantly, they soon left behind them their stores of food and their herds of beasts. They were now shelterless under cold skies. There were villages which lived for days together on roots and salad grasses. The young children died in large numbers, and men and women graduated for the epidemics which were to decimate those whom the Turks had spared&quot;. (page 162, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future). Those who came back from the mountains alive didn't fair well either. People from the burned villages crowded in towns where helpless masses of starving women begged for bread door to door. They lost everything, home, crops, cattle and hand made clothing that were to last them for half a lifetime. It was through the generosity and charity of neighbours that most of them managed to survive. Macedonians possess a unique compassion for all living things. Love and respect for life flourishes from generation to generation and is part of the Macedonian tradition.

IMRO leaders that survived the rebellion responded decisively to the new crisis by establishing temporary centers to distribute urgently needed food and medical supplies to the displaced population. While doing that, they were also fighting a political battle with the Vrhovists for control of IMRO itself. The Bulgarians had dispatched Komitadjis (assassins) to eliminate the &quot;old guard&quot; but the legendary Yane Sandanski and his Cheta remained active and fought back fearlessly. When word got out that Sandanski was still active he gained a large following and was able to successfully repel all the assassination attempts.

History, in a sterile sense, tends to remark on the numbers of casualties directly associated with the conflict but shies away from the true ugliness of a war's aftermath. The real casualties of a conflict are the innocents that through no fault of their own are left to bear the consequences of the war. The most unfortunate are those in whose homes the war is waged. For them, there is no escape. It is easy to show numbers and statistics of the dead, wounded, homeless, raped, orphaned, maimed, etc., but it is hard to imagine their horrific experience. History has a way of separating &quot;us from them&quot; and distancing our feelings from theirs. But that hardly does them justice if we can't even imagine their pain, anguish, frustration, fear, despair, hunger, humiliation and hopelessness. Many innocent children died a horrible death in the Ilinden aftermath and their sacrifices must not be forgotten. 
&quot;The young women fared the worst, for, when the troops (Turks) could catch them, they were often carried off to the Turkish camps and there kept for some days until the last brute who desired them had had his will&quot;. (page 163, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future). Many of these young girls that survived returned to their village but instead of finding a home they found abandoned ruins and again fell prey to prowling soldiers or marauding Bashi-bazouks.

The story of the Macedonian fallen becomes more tragic when &quot;history books&quot; written by Macedonia's enemies or by those influenced by &quot;politically correct propaganda&quot;, claim the Macedonian dead to be Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians. It seems that the injustices committed against the Macedonian people do not end with the living but continue to haunt even the dead. Is it not enough that the living are robbed of their dignity, must the dead also be robbed of theirs? As long as authors neglect to mention the &quot;Macedonians&quot; in the &quot;Macedonian epic struggle for independence&quot; there can be no rest for the living or the dead. Those fallen men and women were Macedonians and died in a courageous struggle to free Macedonia. They were NOT Greeks, they were NOT Bulgarians and they were NOT Serbians. Let's not allow their enemies who robbed their children of their future to also rob them of their dignity. It is imperative that historians understand that anyone who unwittingly or willingly is alleging Macedonians to be Greek, Bulgarian or Serbian is propagating the &quot;Greek lie&quot; and committing a moral wrong against the Macedonian people.

The Ilinden rebellion had no happy ending for Macedonia. The Macedonian people lost their bid for freedom and paid the ultimate price. Henry Brailsford in his book &quot;Macedonia its Races and their Future&quot; describes the Ilinden aftermath in some detail by providing specific accounts of some of the worst horrors perpetrated. Brailsford was an aid worker inside Macedonia during the conflict and was witness to some of the accounts in his book. The book is worth reading, as long as you keep in mind that when he talks about Bulgarians and Greeks he means Macedonians who belonged to the Exarchate or Patriarchate Church.
I also ran into an article on the Internet by Blagoj Stoicocski, Sixth International Congress on South-East Europe, Sofia, 1989 (MANU, Skopje 1991), &quot;THE POST-ILINDEN EVENTS IN MACEDONIA DURING 1904 ACCORDING TO NORWEGIAN REPORTS&quot; posted at www.makedonika.org/STOICOVSKI1.htm 
The author of these reports is Karl Ingvar Nandrup, who wrote on seven separate occasions to His Majesty Oscar II, king of the Norwegian-Swedish union during his stay in Macedonia, from the beginning of 1903 to December 30, 1904. In fact, this Norwegian officer had been sent to Macedonia under the sponsorship of Sweden and Norway to work as an inspector in the Turkish Gendarmerie (as a result of the &quot;Padar's Reforms&quot; of February 1903).
The author of the above article has succeeded in finding two of Nandrup's reports, one from May 16th, and the other from December 30th, 1904. The original reports were written in Norwegian and sent to the king in dispatches from Skopje.
In addition to being documents of value, the reports are also worthwhile reading. 

&quot;Every village which joined the revolt did so with the knowledge that it might be burned to the ground, pillaged to the last blanket and the last chicken, and its population decimated in the process. That the Macedonians voluntarily faced these dangers is a proof of their desperation.&quot; (page 159, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future).

The Macedonian rebellion did not succeed because there were too many factors working against it. The Macedonian people showed will and determination and rose to the task in spite of all odds. Compared to the Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian rebellions, the Macedonians were the most determined, well organized, and most desperate but they were not ready. The Serbians, Greeks and Bulgarian had only one enemy, the Turks and received a lot of help from friends in high places (the Super Powers). In contrast no one, outside of the Macedonians wanted the Macedonians to succeed. The Greeks and especially the Bulgarians went out their way to create obstacles. The Super Powers, believing that they had nothing to gain, also abstained from helping Macedonia. The Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian struggle for independence prepared the Turks and made them more determined to deal with the Macedonians. &quot;The Turks had made war upon the women and children, and the men dared not prolong the unequal conflict with starvation&quot;. (page 163, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future).

When the conflict was over, the people that returned to their villages were devastated to find their homes destroyed. On top of all their ills, winter was fast approaching and no food or shelter was to be found. &quot;The villages were mere heaps of charred wood and blackened stone, buried beneath a red dust which the rain converted to mud. A few walls still stood upright, the only hope for the winter&quot;. (page 164, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future). To make matters worse, a curfew was placed on travel and those away from home found themselves stranded. Those in need of work were no longer allowed to leave their vilayets. This was the first time in Macedonian history that Macedonians ever considered permanent emigration. Many early Macedonian emigrants to Canada, the USA and Australia were refugees from the Ilinden aftermath. 

When reports of the uprising could no longer be contained and filtered out to the foreign media, it became clear that the Turks were not as successful as they claimed in keeping peace and maintaining the status quo in Macedonia. The Great Powers, Britain in particular, were disturbed by the atrocities committed by Turkish soldiers. On Britain's insistence the Super Powers recommended European officers take over command of the Turkish gendarmerie. Unfortunately, the European officers were Christians and the Turks refused to take orders from them. The German officers had some success because they had trained the Turks but not enough to make a difference.
To prevent the situation from deteriorating further, Britain pushed for high-level reforms which resulted in the appointment of two Turkish inspectors. One was Hilmi Pasha, former governor of Yemen. Hilmi Pasha was dispatched to Solun as Inspector General with orders to reform the Turkish administration. But as usual nothing was done. &quot;Hilmi Pasha issued a proclamation in Monastir saying that the law courts had been reformed, that the police and gendarmerie had been reorganized, that Christian village guards had been appointed, that the schools had been reopened and that roads and bridges had been repaired. He went on to announce that if indeed all was not working smoothly it was because evil people endeavoured to impede the Government&quot;. (page 112, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913). No one was deceived by Hilmi Pasha's words.

Before the uprising, Russia and Austria proposed &quot;The Vienna Scheme of Reform&quot; which basically required the Turks to appoint an Inspector General to each of the Macedonian Vilayets for a minimum of three years. In short, the reforms proposed local control of troop enlistment, local control of finances and appointment of foreign specialists inside Macedonia. The gendarmes were to enlist from local sources that would reflect the proportion of the population. General amnesty was to be given to all under arrest or exiled and all pending law cases were to be settled without delay. Obviously these reforms did not work and their failure was blamed on Russian and Austrian neglect. 

After the uprising, as the situation in Macedonia worsened, Britain, fearing that Bulgaria would imminently declare war on Turkey, pushed for more reforms. As a result on October 2nd 1903, the Murszteg Reform Program was drafted and on October 23rd it was proposed to the Turks. The reforms in part read as follows:

1. Two Civil agents, one from Russia and the other from Austria were to be attached to the Inspector General (of police) Hilmi Pasha for two years to accompany him everywhere and call to his attention the abuses and recommend remedies. They were also expected to report all activities to their respective governments.
2. The Ottoman gendarmerie was to be reorganized by a &quot;general of foreign nationality&quot; and to him were to be attached military officers from the armies of the Super Powers to lead, supervise, instruct and report on the activities of the Turks. 
3. As soon as the rebellion was put down, the Super Powers would demand an administrative reorganization of the Macedonian territory based on &quot;nationalities&quot;.
4. Administrative and Judicial institutions were to be reorganized allowing Christian employees to run them.
5. Mixed committees with consular membership from Russia and Austria were to be formed in the vilayets to inquire into political and other crimes.
6. The Turkish Government was to allot a special budget to pay for the return of refugees and for re-building the damaged houses, schools, churches, etc. The money was to be distributed under the supervision of the Austrian and Russian consuls.
7. Christian villages burned down by Turkish troops and Bashi-bazouks were to be exempt from all taxes for one year.
8. The Turkish Government was obliged, without delay to implement the &quot;Vienna Scheme of Reforms&quot; introduced in February of 1903,
9. The Turkish second class reservists were to be disbanded and the Bashi-bazouks were to be prohibited from banding together.

The Murzsteg Reform Program, like its predecessor the Vienna Scheme of Reforms clearly did not have the Macedonian people's interests in mind. The priority here was to keep Turkey out of trouble and in control of Macedonia.
On November 24th 1903, the Turkish Government accepted the nine point Murszteg Reform Program in principle, reserving the right to negotiate the details later. Noting that there was a two-year limitation on provision 1, the Turks haggled over the details, introducing delay after long delay while the Super Powers continued to show indifference. Precious time was wasted as the Turks were claiming credit for the relative quietness in Macedonia, which was largely due to winter weather. In time the Murzsteg Reform Program, like its predecessor the Vienna Reforms entered the &quot;annals of empty promises&quot;.

As I mentioned earlier, determined to eradicate IMRO influence, Turkey turned to her neighbours for help. By declaring Macedonia a &quot;multi-interest-zone&quot; Turkey invited armed propaganda from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia to counter the insurgents.
The failed uprising, the loss of so many great IMRO leaders, the Turkish backlash and now the foreign influence was too much for IMRO. The close links with the villages and the ideological differences between isolated IMRO branches widened. Although IMRO continued to live, it lacked direction and was on the verge of an ideological collapse. In time however, it managed to muster two more congresses. With the advent of Krsto Misirkov's book a new tide of opinion was spreading throughout Macedonia. Misirkov warned against falling under the influence of the chauvinistic elements and recommended taking a more nationalistic approach in order to weed out Vrhovist and conservative elements. At the Prilep Congress held in May 1904 IMRO was re-vitalized and its independence reasserted (this time with a socialist character). The most significant developments to emerge from this Congress were IMRO's ability to shed itself of its conservative elements and to adopt a resolution to decentralize the organization and give more power to the sub-districts. This Congress literally split IMRO into two ideologically polarized halves.
While leftist IMRO adopted a defensive strategy, the right wing conservative Vrhovists pursued a policy of renewed confrontation. The two factions continued to masquerade under the same banner and were headed for a showdown. The showdown materialized in November of 1905 at the Rila Monastery, near the Macedonian-Bulgarian border and took the form of a General Congress. There was a single item of paramount importance on the agenda, to determine the direction of the Organization. Twenty-two elected delegates in total attended the Rila Congress and by secret vote the left came out victorious. 
As a result of the Rila Congress, a rulebook was issued proclaiming the aims of the Central Committee, which basically called for:
a. &quot;creating an autonomous and independent Macedonia,
b. achieving this by means of a united national front, over a long period of revolutionary activity, and
c. resisting all foreign interference&quot;.

There was one more safeguard added that is worth mentioning. IMRO now possessed the capacity to recall a rebellion by a 75% majority vote of its delegates who could only be nominated from regional sub-committees within Macedonia. A safeguard that guaranteed there would be no more interference from Sofia and the Vrhovists.
Defeated at the Rila Congress, the Right wing Vrhovists took up permanent residence in Sofia and continued to wage terrorist war on the IMRO leadership. Both Nikola Karev in 1905 and Dame Gruev in 1906 were indirectly eliminated by terrorist acts of the Vrhovists.

Bulgarian interference in Macedonia did not only damage the revolutionary movement but also put fear in the civilian population, ripening conditions for Balkan intervention. 
Greece and later Serbia were quick to take advantage of a weak IMRO and a frightened population. With the assistance of the Turkish military they were able to step up armed propaganda campaigns inside Macedonia. The aim was to kill two birds with one stone. By being the eyes and ears for the Turks, the Greek clergy spied on the Macedonians and disclosed information to the Turkish authorities. The Turkish military in turn, stepped up activities to eradicate the remnants of the Cheti and their leaders. At the same time, in the midst of terror, the same Greek spies were offering Macedonians Hellenism as a way to salvation. &quot;No one can deny that the Greeks owed much to the Turks. Indeed the victory of the Turks in 1903 was the salvation of Hellenism in Macedonia. From the outset the Greek clergy and notables devised means of passing information to the Turks. The Turkish authorities on their side welcomed this support.&quot; (pages 118,119, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913).

The most notorious of the Greek clergy was the Metropolitan of Kostur, Archbishop Germanos Karavangelis. Karavangelis was sent to Macedonia by the Patriarch Constantine V who favoured the Athenian (the most nationalist) style of Hellenism and selected Karavangelis as the right man to do the job. Dakin portrays Karavangelis as a charismatic and capable figure of a man that is a credit to the human race (pages 119-127, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913). That however, is far from the truth. Karavangelis was a ruthless killer and a disgrace to the Christian religion. Karavangelis was personally responsible for the assassination of hundreds of Macedonian patriots including priests, notables, teachers and IMRO leaders. He was also personally responsible for Hellenizing by force and by sheer terror hundreds of Macedonian villages. If you wish to know more about Karavangelis' terrorist actions in Macedonia read his biography (the original version) &quot;Arheio Makedonikou Agona, Pinelopis Delta, Apomnimoneymata, Germanou Karavaggeli, Georgiou Dikonymou Makri, Panagioti Papatzanetea&quot;. Karavangelis' first priority after accepting the post as Metropolitan of Kostur was to raise an army. He couldn't import one, the Super Powers were watching so he resorted to purchasing one. The most pliable and feeble-minded man who would sell his soul for gold was the self styled brigand Kote of Rula (&quot;the darling of Athens&quot;). Kote sold out his own people for Greek gold. From being the most revered Cheta leader Kote became the most hated man in Macedonia. When Karavangelis decided who was to die, Kote became the executioner. In addition to regular pay for murder, Kote and his band of no-goods received additional rewards of gold coins for turning in desired body parts from their victims.
While Kote was doing the murdering in the Macedonian villages, Karavangelis, in person with Turkish escorts, was doing the Hellenizing. Nothing and no one could stand in his way. Those who Karavangelis couldn't buy or bribe he had killed. 
&quot;By containing and fragmenting the Internal Organization in Western Macedonia, Kota (Kote) and Karavangelis not only caused the projected rising to be continually postponed but they also caused it to be undertaken prematurely; and eventually they both contributed towards its defeat and failure. True, most of the recorded action (the arrests, searches and attacks on villages and bands) were carried out by the Turks, but the Turks nearly always acted on information supplied by Karavangelis or his agents. It was Karavangelis again who prevailed upon the Turks to attack Smardeshi (Smurdersh) on 9/22 May 1903&quot;. (Page 132, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913)

&quot;After the Ilinden rising of August 1903, it was Karavangelis who, escorted by 600 Turkish soldiers, visited the villages, celebrating mass, speaking to the villagers and calling upon them to surrender arms. The result was that even such strongholds as Aposkepos (Aposkep), Zagoritsani (Zagoricheni) and Gabresi (Gabresh), which only a few months before had declared themselves Exarchist, now returned to the Patriarchist fold. Without the support of the Turks, it is doubtful whether Karavangelis's work would have been successful. It is equally doubtful, however, whether but for the activities of the Patriarchist counter-movement, the Turkish authorities could have dealt such a decisive blow to the Internal Organization (IMRO)&quot;. (Page 135, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913)

Even my own small village didn't escape the hand of Karavangelis. It was a Sunday morning when Georgios Tsantos (Varda) and his gang came to Oshchima looking to murder Pop Giorgi Popov. On the way they ran into a young man named Yane Zhigerov who was taking his mule to pasture. It is unknown what transpired but the young man was found dead with his throat cut. After killing Yane, Varda broke into Oshchima's Church of Svety Nikola and killed Pop Giorgi, by stabbing him multiple times. He then skinned the beard off his face and cut off his blessing finger. Varda was prepared to kill many more had it not been for the Oshchimian Cheta lead by Bozhin Temov who drove Varda and his hoodlums out of Oshchima at gunpoint.
Pop Giorgi Popov's beard and finger were delivered to Karavangelis in exchange for gold.

With regards to Kote from Rula, greed was stronger than loyalty. Lazo Papatraikov, an usher at Kote's wedding and a man who twice saved Kote's life, was on Karavangelis's hit list. After a skirmish with the Turks in Mariovo, word was out that IMRO leader Lazo Papatraikov had received a wound on the head and was on the run. Kote caught up to him at Turtska Polena in Oshchima and after a long chat the two men said their good byes and Kote left. On his way to Zhelevo, Kote sent some Zhelevtsi to kill and decapitate Lazo. Lazo's head was taken to Karavangelis to collect the reward. Lazo's headless body was buried behind the altar of the Sveti Nikola Church in Oshchima.

The ultimate disgrace for Karavangelis came after the massacre of the village Zagoricheni. Refusing to bend to Hellenism, Zagoricheni on direct orders from Karavangelis, was massacred to the last person the Greeks could lay their hands on, including the unborn children inside the wombs of pregnant women. Witnesses reported finding bodies of pregnant women with their abdomen cut open. The survivors that escaped the atrocity refused to bury the dead bodies of their neighbours. For days the dead were guarded until the European consuls in Bitola came to witness the atrocities for themselves. Here is what Brailsford had to say. &quot;The chef d'oevre of this Hellenic campaign was achieved at Zagorichani, a large Bulgarian village (author's note: Macedonian village, there were no Bulgarian villages inside Macedonia) near Klissoura, which, like Mokreni, took a leading part in the uprising of 1903, and like Mokreni was burned by the Turks. A Greek band, which is said to have numbered over two hundred men under three Greek officers in uniform, surprised it by night (April 6-7, 1905) by using bugle calls which led the villagers to suppose that Turkish regulars were manoeuvering in the neighbourhood. They burned ten houses, and twenty-eight of the temporary homes erected amid the ruins of the last conflagration. They wounded seven persons and killed no less than sixty, among them seven women, twenty-two persons over sixty years of age, and five children under fifteen. There was a good deal of evidence to show that the local Turkish authorities were privy to this massacre, and some circumstances seemed to include the Archbishop of Castoria (Kostur). It is quite clear that no conflict or provocation preceded what was simply a deliberate massacre, and the only reason for choosing Zagorichani was that it was an eager and patriotic Bulgarian center, and that it disobeyed the summons of the Greek Archbishop to return to the Patriarch fold&quot;. (pages 216-217, Macedonia its Races and their Future).
After the massacre when it was discovered that Karavangelis was implicated, to escape punishment, the cowardly Archbishop of Kostur fled to Sveta Gora (Holy Mountain) where he spent two years in hiding before fleeing to Austria. Today, there is a statue of Karavangelis in Kostur to commemorate his great contributions to Hellenism.

The Roumanie of Bucharest has published the text of a circular found by the Turks in some documents seized on the person of a Greek prisoner. It reads like a genuine Greek document, and its authenticity has not been questioned by the Greek organs. It is said to bear the seal of the Greek Committee. (Remember there were no Bulgarians or &quot;Bulgars&quot; in Macedonia). It read like this;

&quot;Brave defenders of Hellenism, I address you today in order to express the gratitude which the entire nation feels for all you have done and will yet do on behalf of the Fatherland. Continue the struggle against the Bulgarian assassins, and neglect no means of proving to the whole world that Macedonia is purely Greek. Exterminate the priests, the teachers, and the notables who compose the Bulgarian Committees. It is at length time to put in practice the saying: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. When it is a question of taking vengeance we must not spare the Bulgarians, even when they hide under the robes of a priest. Burn, shoot, assassinate, and purify the soil of Macedonia from all that is Exarchist. The Supreme Panhellenic Committee has decided to intensify the struggle by making use of your arms, O valiant combatants, and if for some time past the Committee has hardly seemed equal to the occasion, the reason is that official Greece hesitates. But what is official Greece to us, when we have the approbation of the whole Hellenic world? Forward, then, until you have wiped out the last Bulgarian in our Macedonia. Your names will be inscribed in letters of fire in the annals of the race. May Heaven grant that the day be near when the sun of Hellenism will shine on Macedonia; then there will be peace for us and for the Turks, with whom we stand on the best of terms. Let our motto be: Purge Macedonia of the Bulgars.&quot; I quote from M. Gaulis' admirable paper, La Macedoine. (page 217, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future). 

Macedonians were well acquainted with the murderous activities of the Bulgarian Vrhovists whose new waves of terrorist bands began to penetrate the Eastern borders of Macedonia in March of 1904. Fortunately, Yane Sandanski's forces were still in control of the Pirin district and more often than not, successfully repealed Bulgarian advances. In the West, bands of young Turks who deserted the army during the Ilinden rebellion, joined Albanian gangs and were looting and killing indiscriminately. From the north Serbian bands began to penetrate Macedonian territory. By mid 1905, there were eleven bands numbering almost 100 men pillaging, murdering, even razing entire villages, wreaking their own special brand of terror.
The most violent campaign was waged by the Greek terrorists who penetrated the south-central regions of Macedonia. By 1905 the Greeks imported a contingent of Cretans, a thousand-strong, reinforced by Turk deserters who roamed unhindered razing and slaughtering entire villages. By 1906, eight bands numbering over 400 men were operating in the Solun district alone and another twelve bands (600 men) around Bitola. 

Along with the intrusions of armed bands in Macedonia there reappeared the foreign schools and propaganda institutions directed by non-other than the Greek and Bulgarian churches. The terrorist bands instilled fear in the Macedonian population and the Churches were quick to take the role of protectors setting the stage for the partitioning of Macedonia. Unfortunately for them, something else was brewing within Turkey, liberalism, headed by a small group of European educated young Turks.

To be continued in part V.

You can contact the author via his e-mail: rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura

2. H. N. Brailsford, Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971

3. Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D., The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 - 1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966

4. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>p4bc5zugpbjvntjq3sfa8rgiza6rmoc</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part V - The Young Turk Uprising and the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2050</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11013</id>
      <parentid>4999</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:33:57Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="41571" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part V - The Young Turk Uprising
and the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

October, 2002 

click here for a printable version

In the previous article (part IV) I covered the 1903 Ilinden uprising aftermath and the interference IMRO received from Greece and Bulgaria. 


In this article (part V) I will cover the Young Turk uprising and finish with the Balkan wars of 1912-1913.


The Murszteg Reform Program was the last hope for the Super Powers to salvage the Ottoman Empire in Macedonia. While the Murszteg Reform Program proved fruitless for the Macedonians, it raised hopes for Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia.


Item 3 of the Murszteg Reform Program, which stated “as soon as the rebellion is put down, the Super Powers would demand an administrative reorganization of the Macedonian territory based on nationalities”, caught the eye of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian protagonists.


It was well known that there were no Greek, Bulgarian or Serbian nationalities living in Macedonia but that did not stop the new Balkan States from inventing some. The wheels of the protagonists were turning when they attempted to kill two birds with one stone by cleverly substituting “nationality” for “religious affiliation”. By the end of the 19th century, the Christian Millet of Ottoman Macedonia was already divided into two millets (the Greek Patriarchist Millet and the Bulgarian Exarchist Millet). First, since there was no Macedonian Millet there was no “governing body” to represent a Macedonian religious denomination. Second, since all Christians in Macedonia already belonged to one millet or another, it was easy to make “nationality” claims on behalf of “religious affiliation”. In modern terms, all Macedonians that belonged to the Patriarchist fold were considered to be Greek by nationality. Similarly, all those Macedonians that belonged to the Exarchist fold were considered to be Bulgarian by nationality. By introducing Serbian Churches and Schools, Serbia later used similar tactics to claim the existence of a Serbian nationality inside Macedonia.


All Macedonians that belonged to the Patriarchist church were given Greek or “Hellenized” names. Similarly, all Macedonians that belonged to the Exarchist church were given Bulgarian names. In many instances brothers born from the same mother and father were given different last names because they happened to go to different churches. Their choice of church had nothing to do with loyalty to one faction or the other, but rather with the church’s location relative to home. Each brother attended the church nearest to his house as he had always done for many years before. The sad part was that now with every spoonful of religion came a dose of venomous propaganda. Brother was pitted against brother, one fighting for “Hellenism” and the other for “Bulgarism”.


At the beginning of the Ilinden rebellion most Macedonian villages belonged to the Exarchate Church. With increased Greek activities through Karavangelis and others like him however, the tide was turning. The Greek success was mainly due to the Turkish-Greek alliance and the Turkish militia’s assistance. The Macedonian people were frightened to a point where they were willing to do anything to escape further punishment.


The alliance, which gave the Greeks the upper hand, did not go unnoticed by the Bulgarians. British fears of a Turkish-Bulgarian war were alleviated when Bulgaria on April 8th, 1904 signed a peace agreement with Turkey. Bulgaria promised to reduce subversive actions in Macedonia in exchange for Turkish promises to implement the Murzsteg Reform Program and to extend it to the Endrene (Macedonian Dardanelles) region. Russia was not too happy about the agreement especially since Bulgaria herself was beginning to make moves towards Endrene. Being of strategic importance, Russia was hoping to eventually annex Endrene for herself. 


The prospect of declining Bulgarian intrusions inside Macedonia was welcome news for Karavangelis. The Greeks could now import fighters from Crete to fight the Macedonian Cheti side by side with their Turkish allies, without Bulgarian interference. Unfortunately, while they reduced military intrusions, the Bulgarians stepped up Exarchist activities creating stiff competition for the Greeks. The clergy on both sides were going after the same flock as both sides appointed themselves protectors and guardians of the people. In the eyes of the world, they became ambassadors of the Christian flock in Macedonia. This competition to attract parishioners created friction between the opposing factions. Friction turned to violence in villages where both groups existed and fought for control over the village church. The Turks were indifferent to the squabbling due to its religious nature, and remained neutral in church disputes. When fights erupted, the Turks padlocked the Church so neither group could use it. As competition for control of the village churches intensified so did brigand warfare.


Local squabbling never went unnoticed and both Patriarchists and Exarchists sent their hatchet men to eliminate the so-called “troublemakers”. Many priests, teachers, notables and community leaders lost their lives this way. 


The Western Powers had little faith in the Turks and their old Ottoman conservative Islamic values but preferred the status quo maintained in Macedonia. There were two factors at play that hindered the Powers from taking action. The first was the lucrative Ottoman import-export markets upon which the Ottoman consumer was dependent for a variety of goods, and a moneymaking venture for the Western Capitalists which they did not want to lose. The second was the power struggle between the Super Powers themselves over Balkan domination. The Powers were locked in a diplomatic embrace where none could freely maneuver without upsetting the others. Each of the Super Powers knew that a sudden or massive shift in any one’s policies would result in an engagement that would involve all of them. No one wanted a “world war” on their hands.


Britain at one point contemplated creating an Autonomous Macedonia but knew that Russia and Austria would be against it. “It was fortunate for Greece at this juncture that Lansdowne’s plans foundered in a sea of European politics and that both Russia and Austria opposed Macedonian autonomy”. (page 152, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913). This is an important fact for ALL to know which goes contrary to “Greek propaganda” that no Macedonians existed before 1945. Here is documented proof that a Macedonian nation did exist prior to the 19th century and came very close to achieving independence. The Ilinden rebellion was ALL about Macedonia and about Macedonians asserting their desire to live as equals in the world. The Super Powers, especially Britain and Russia, owe it to the Macedonian people to come clean and put an end to the incessant “Greek propaganda”. It no longer makes any sense to keep the Macedonian people from taking their rightful place in the world. They are certainly not a threat to anyone. Those that committed crimes against the Macedonian people and continue to deny their existence obviously have a problem. But why punish the victims for being victims?


The Western powers were not happy with the way Turkey was dealing with the reforms in Macedonia but at the same time they could not agree among themselves about finding a viable solution. The Ilinden uprising was a wakeup call of how urgently reforms were needed. 


“During the later part of the C19th new social forces had emerged within Turkey. Given the conditions of absolutism within the Empire, the emergence of liberalism seemed inevitable. This new creed took the form of political agitation, calling for a broad spectrum of reforms. It was headed by an embryonic Turkish bourgeoisie, and supported by an European-educated intelligentsia”. (page 125, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 


The Young Turk movement had been active for at least thirty years, ever since Turkish students were allowed to attend European schools on mass. Among other things, the Young Turks were in favour of granting self-government to Macedonia, Thrace and Albania and believed that the Ottoman Empire could be salvaged via reforms. When the 1903 Ilinden rebellion started many of these European educated students had already joined the ranks of the Turkish military as junior officers. The atrocities committed and the methods used in dealing with the rebels during the Ilinden aftermath however, went against these young men’s principles and many deserted the Turkish army. Some joined Albanian roving bands in hopes of eliciting their assistance to form opposition against the Sultan. Some attempted to establish contacts with IMRO in hopes that IMRO too would join them to rise against the Sultan.


By 1905, the Young Turks organized under the banner of “Union and Progress” and established themselves in Solun away from the grasp of the Sultan in Tsari Grad (Constantinople). It was not too long before they gained some measure of control over the local Turkish army, especially in Macedonia. It was not difficult to convince soldiers serving in Macedonia that anything was better than killing and murdering women and children.


After observing the actions of the Young Turks, the IMRO leadership was convinced that it was better to work with them than against them. The Young Turks also offered self-government and significant agrarian reforms, if they gained power, which was attractive to most IMRO leaders. Dame Gruev and Nikola Karev were already dead which left the IMRO helm in the hands of Gjorce Petrov who favoured a policy of urban-led insurrection. Popularity and the strength of the rebellion however, lay in the hands of the legendary Yane Sandanski who was in favour of supporting the Young Turk regime, especially their prospective agrarian reform programs.


The actions of the Young Turks did not go unnoticed by the Sultan who complained to the Super Powers but did not receive an immediate reaction. The coup d’etat did not materialize until “rising star” Enver Beg from Albania was summoned to Tsari Grad to receive a military promotion from the Sultan. Fearing it was an assassination attempt, Enver Beg and his followers fled to the mountains and called for the revolution to begin.


The rebellion first materialized in the larger cities in the form of demonstrations. On June 22nd, 1908, Solun alone drew over 20,000 protesters. By July 3rd, the Young Turk officers took control over most of the Sultan’s forces and by July 22nd all of Macedonia was free.


True to their word, the Young Turks released all political prisoners and began to work on reforms. Their first act was to send the Sultan an ultimatum to re-instate the 1876 Constitution. Being in no position to resist, Sultan Abdul Hamid II reluctantly obliged. As soon as the constitution was re-instated, amnesty was proclaimed for all those under arms including the Cheti and all foreign bands. The Macedonians, Serbians and Bulgarians took advantage of the amnesty and came down from the mountains and surrendered their arms. The Greeks who had the most to lose were at first hesitant but warmed up to the idea. They had dreams that they might re-claim their former glory in the Phanar. 


As it turned out however, the Young Turks were very suspicious of the Greeks and watched them with caution. The Greek dream to rule from the Phanar did not materialize.


In time, by deactivating and expelling armed bands, the Young Turk regime brought some stability to Macedonia.


The Young Turk regime, headquartered in Solun, survived unobstructed for over six months. Then, with support from Yane Sandanki’s Cheta, the Young Turks attacked and successfully took Tsari Grad. Unfortunately, by now it was becoming evident that the Young Turk regime was too dependent on the Turkish establishment and bureaucracy for its survival. As a result, it had to subordinate most of its reform programs to safeguard its own power. In actual fact after all this time in power, the Young Turk regime did very little to alleviate the social and economic problems in the Macedonian villages.


To prompt the Young Turks to deliver on their promises, Sandanski had a plan of his own. He proposed that in exchange for IMRO’s help, the Young Turks were required to redistribute much needed land in favour of the poor (landless) Macedonians. Additionally, to ensure the land reforms were put in place according to agreements, Sandanski requested that he personally be given the task of organizing a peasant militia to supervise the implementation. Unfortunately, while Sandaski’s proposals were widely accepted by the Macedonian peasants, they attracted negative attention abroad. The first to complain were the Greeks as follows; “The consequences of Sandanski’s plan, as unfortunately confirmed by events, would be terrible (for us). Unless something else, like a war, or an agreement between the European Powers, settles the Macedonian question in our favour, it is my opinion that there can be no doubt that settlement of the agrarian question would create possibilities for the final settlement of the Macedonian question...”. (page 127, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).


Sandanski’s move for cooperation with the Young Turks was a radical departure from IMRO’s policies (seizure of power by revolutionary means). To take advantage of the new situation and stay on course, IMRO created an offshoot branch dubbed the “National (or Peoples’) Federative Party”(NFP). The NFP was officially launched in early 1909 and worked with (pressured) the Young Turk regime to develop a quasi-parliamentary system and to preserve the national and territorial integrity of Macedonia within an Ottoman Federation.


By the time the NFP was organized and ready to deal with the issues at hand, the Young Turk regime was losing momentum and stagnating. By now it was obvious to IMRO that without “grass roots” support from the Turkish establishment, the regime was fighting a losing battle. Its rise to power resulted from a coup and the regime itself was no more than a “dictatorship”.


The Young Turk regime was a “Western backed idea”, an “alternate solution” to a problem with no end. The majority of IMRO leaders could no longer agree to provide continued support and were contemplating breaking off relations with the Young Turks. To make matters worse, a class struggle (socialism) was brewing in Europe causing unrest between the rich and the poor and dividing people along class lines. The so-called “religious wars” between the Patriarchists and Exarchists were also having their effects, further dividing IMRO and the Macedonian people.


By 1910, armed propaganda in Macedonia was replaced by Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian “Political Clubs” which continually worked against NFP agendas and the NFP leaders. 


While Russia was having mixed feelings about the Young Turk regime, the European powers, especially Britain who through intrigue created the regime, were relieved to be rid of the old reform programs. Britain approved of the cooperation between NFP and the Young Turks which caused further fracturing between the NFP (who wanted to create an autonomous Macedonia inside an Ottoman Federation), and “grass roots” IMRO (who wanted independence by armed rebellion). Unfortunately, the Young Turk regime with all its promises did not meet expectations and reverted to the old Turkish way of rule. To stave off coup attempts by extremist factions, the Young Turk regime resorted to dictatorial rule in place of fostering liberal programs. This clampdown manifested itself in a number of repressive laws in Macedonia including the laws on strikes, political associations and armed bands. This policy reversal again destabilized Macedonian society by bringing back the old oppressive political climate. The NFP and all other political, cultural and professional organizations were effectively banned, forcing IMRO to go underground. The Macedonian people in the meantime were thrown back into anarchy and things went downhill from there on.


The Young Turk regime predicted its own demise and to save itself, between 1910 and 1911, it re-settled almost a quarter of a million Turks in Macedonia as it hoped to maintain control of Macedonia if it was ejected from Tsari Grad. Faced with several fronts however, including the Albanian revolution in 1909-1912, the Italian-Turkish war in Libya in 1911, domestic opposition, the resurgence of armed bands, and finally the Sultan’s new loyal army. The Young Turk regime could no longer maintain a hold on power and on July 13, 1912, capitulated to the Sultan.


In the meantime the Super Powers were locked in a struggle of their own where none could maneuver without upsetting the delicate balance of the status quo. While the Super Powers were held in balance by their own political vices, the new Balkan nations were flexing their economic and military muscles. Alliances like the Serbian-Bulgarian league against Greek-Turkish collusion or the Greek-Rumanian league against Bulgarian aims at Macedonia came and went. On the surface it seemed that everything was normal but deep inside a rift was starting to develop.


The rift became apparent when Russian-Austrian relations began to seriously cool. Dividing lines were drawn as Russia began to warm up to Britain and France while Austria began to warm up to Germany. Italy remained neutral for a while and took a few shots at Turkey but was prohibited (by the other powers) from attacking the centers of Turkish power. (It was through these campaigns that Italy occupied the Dodecanese).


Even though Italy was restrained from further campaigns, it weakened Turkey enough for the three new Balkan States to consider campaigns of their own.


Italy’s actions were also a sign of things to come and created an atmosphere of urgency for the new states to expedite their own plans for territorial annexation.


Everyone wanted a piece of Macedonia but no one alone dared stick out his neck to get it. The three wolves of the Balkans with Russian help, realized that each alone could not accomplish what the three could do together. They swallowed their pride, put their differences aside and by the end of 1911 they started negotiations.


As a way of preventing Austrian aspirations in the Balkans, Russia invited the idea of a Serbian-Bulgarian league. Russia had hopes that jointly Serbia and Bulgaria would be able to withstand Austrian advances in Macedonia without her involvement. After getting them to agree to talk, Serbia and Bulgaria listed their terms but could not reach an agreement. Autonomy for Macedonia was one major issue of contention that they could not agree upon. While Sofia supported the idea of autonomy Belgrade opposed it. Finally, for the sake of expediting the negotiations, all parties agreed that the “autonomy question” would be left separate and would be dealt with after the annexation of Macedonia.


Russia made it clear to both parties that they couldn’t invade Macedonia without Russia’s permission and only if Turkey became a threat to the Christian population. In the meantime, Serbia was encouraged to take steps to annex Albania and Kosovo.


A draft Serbian-Bulgarian agreement was reached and signed on March 13th, 1912. Included in the agreement was a crude delineation of prospective boundaries and suggestions that the final boundaries might be settled by force of arms. The Russians also insisted that Tsar Nikolas II would arbitrate any disputes regarding the exact territorial limits.


Even before the Serbian-Bulgarian agreement was finalized, Greece was already having discussions with Bulgaria about negotiating a Greek-Bulgarian agreement. The Greek-Bulgarian negotiations, like the Serbian-Bulgarian negotiations, were conducted in secret known only to the Greek King, Prime Minister Venizelos and their negotiator “The Times” correspondent J. D. Bourchier, an old friend of Venizelos. Like the Serbs, the Greeks had always opposed the idea of Macedonian autonomy but the Bulgarians were unwilling to proceed until Greece agreed to the autonomy. The Greek-Bulgarian treaty was signed on May 30th 1912, both parties promising not to attack one another and to come to each other’s defense should Turkey attack them.


The “Balkan League of Nations” was spawned in June 1912 and shortly after Turkey was given a signed ultimatum bearing the League’s signature, which in short, read “deliver the promised reforms in Macedonia or prepare to be invaded”.


There was much intrigue, agreements, counter agreements and secret deals between the League of Nations (Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia) but from the outset each was determined to exploit any situation that developed, purely for its own gain. “The League of Nations in fact was simply a device for synchronizing a military effort upon the part of the four powers (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro) who had come to realize that the simplest way to settle the Turkish question, before it was too late and while circumstances were favourable, was to attack Turkey simultaneously and present the European powers with a fait accompli”. (page 440, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913). All that remained now was to provoke Turkey into committing an offence against the Christian population and the invasion would become a reality.


Using proven techniques of terrorism to prepare the battleground, Vrhovists, masquerading as IMRO agents, conducted many raids inside Macedonia murdering, raping and plundering villages in hopes that the Macedonian bands would be blamed. When the Turks investigated the disturbances, both Patriarchist and Exarchist authorities corroborated their stories and pinned these acts on the Macedonians.


As expected, the Turks responded swiftly and dealt with the situation in the usual manner. Unfortunately for the Turks, their actions were welcome news to the League’s spies who dispatched them to the European press. 


The Turks, in the eyes of the world, committed atrocities against the Christians in Macedonia and something had to be done. It was now up to the Super Powers to decide the course of action.


Along with documents of Turkish atrocities, the foreign press was also receiving well-camouflaged League propaganda. The League had commenced extensive propaganda campaigns against the Turks, detailing every Turkish act for European consumption.


A war was imminent but according to the League’s propaganda, it was a necessary war to “liberate” the enslaved Christians from Turkish oppression. The League, through extensive media campaigns, called on all Christians in Macedonia to join the League and oust the oppressive Turk.


Here is what Yane Sandanski had to say; “We ought to work on the awakening of the consciousness of the Macedonian masses that they are an independent nation...because those who seek to ‘liberate them’... will actually be coming to enslave them...” (page 134, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).


As I mentioned earlier, the Western Powers had not exhausted the full potential of the Ottoman markets and were unwilling to let the Ottoman regime in Macedonia collapse. At the same time Britain, France, Italy and Russia were greatly concerned about the aggressive attitudes of Germany outside of the Balkans. More importantly, they were concerned with the Turkish regime’s leaning towards a Turkish-German alliance.


When Russia proposed the idea of a “Balkan League of Nations” it was welcome news for Britain, France and Italy. The League was viewed as an anti-German front, a way of ejecting the Ottoman regime from Europe and at the same time, safeguarding (British, French and Italian) interests and expansionary ambitions. The not so obvious Russian motive for sponsoring the League, was to guarantee its own influence in the Balkans perhaps through Serbia, or Bulgaria or both. 


On October 18th, 1912 Montenegro declared war on Turkey with the League following suit. The battles that ensued were fought almost entirely on Macedonian soil, once again causing the Macedonians to suffer from someone else’s war.


Russia, the architect of the Balkan League was against a war in 1912 and so were France and Britain. A war at this point might throw off the delicate diplomatic balance and escalate into a “world war”. Russia feared that the half-millennium old Ottoman Empire might not be as easy a target as the League had estimated. Britain and France feared a backlash from Germany and Austria now that Turkey was warming up to them as a prospective ally. To stop the League’s aggressive actions, both Britain and France threatened them with economic sanctions but that was not enough to suppress the appetites of the three hungry Balkan wolves.


The League’s plan was to surround the Turkish army in Macedonia and force it out to Tsari Grad. To everyone’s surprise however, the League won a crushing and unexpected victory in just six weeks. Five Ottoman divisions were surrounded and defeated in two battles in Bitola and Kumanovo. With the exception of Sandanski and a force of 400 Macedonians who fought back and liberated Melnik and Nevrokop, the League received no opposition from the Macedonians. In fact the enthusiasm created by the “liberators” not only helped the League fight harder but also encouraged thousands of Macedonians to enlist in the League’s armies. “A Macedonian Militia force of 14,000 fought under the Bulgarian command in the East. The ‘Volunteer regiment’, directed by IMRO veterans, consisted of a thousand Macedonians, Turks and Albanians. In the Serbian and Greek armies, Macedonian detachments such as the ‘National Guard’ and the ‘Holy Band’, were given the task of encircling the Turks to fight their retreat.” (page 143, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). Even Chakalarov, the protector of the Lerin and Kostur regions, joined the fight to help the League get rid of the Turks. The League’s victories and intense propaganda were so convincing that the entire Macedonian nation welcomed the “liberators” with open arms.


The moment the three wolves evicted the Turkish army from Macedonia, they quickly worked out a partitioning strategy along the following lines;


Serbia was to receive the northwestern portion of Macedonia, which included Skopje, Bitola, south to the west of Lerin, east to Gevgelija and west to the Albanian Mountains.


Bulgaria was to receive all of Thrace, west to Gevgelija, south to the Aegean Sea and east from Solun.


Greece was to receive north to Lerin, west to the Albanian Mountains, all of Epirus and east to Solun. “To ensure their hegemony and quell any dissent, the occupying forces set up the apparatus of government and, by legislative decrees, extended their own constitutions to these new bodies, from which Macedonians were absent. Indeed, in many provincial centres, such as Gevgelija, a double or triple condominium was established, much to the detriment of the Macedonian citizens” (page 143, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 


In view of the Macedonian contribution to the League’s success in evicting the Turks, in December 12th, 1912, Sandanski called for Macedonian autonomy. The League’s occupying armies however, refused to budge and initiated a violent assimilation program. The Macedonian fighters that fought side by side with the League’s armies found themselves policed by a joint League command ensuring that no resistance or independent action would arise. The League also pursued Sandanski and his men but Sandanski resisted and stayed active in the Pirin Region until his assassination in 1915 by Bulgarian agents. 


The changing conditions inside Macedonia forced the IMRO leadership to seek refuge in foreign cities away from home. Some of the more prominent leaders moved to St. Petersburg and joined the Macedonian community living there. This small group of Macedonians consistently lobbied for Macedonian Statehood and in the war’s aftermath, acted as a government in exile. The most outspoken advocate of the Macedonian leaders was Dimitar Chupovski who published the “Macedonian Voice” and continuously protested to the Super Powers against Macedonia’s partition. In June 1913 he wrote; “The division of Macedonia among the brother nations is the most unjust act in the history of these nations – it is trampling on the rights of man, and a disgrace for the entire Slav race.”. (page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). In total, eleven issues of “Macedonian Voice” were published and distributed all over Europe.


“A great terror reigns in Macedonia now. The ‘freedom’ of the allies has no frontiers, no-one from Macedonia has the right to travel outside, to protest or complain before the European states. Whoever disturbs this order is either killed or imprisoned. The allies surround Macedonia with a Chinese Wall...” (page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).


The Macedonian people must not stand idly by and accept the unworthy fate of being divided so that others may profit from it. “In the name of the Macedonian people, we demand that Macedonia remain a single, indivisible, independent Balkan state within its geographical, ethnographic, historical, economic and cultural frontiers...Macedonia represents a unified body both from the historical and natural viewpoints, and cannot voluntarily end its many centuries of existence by agreeing to be broken up...Can we allow a people to be, at one and the same time, Bulgarian, Serb and Greek? Is it not simpler to assume that the nationality attributed to us is dictated by the big power politics of the interested parties who wish to take over Macedonia?”. (page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 


By November it was becoming apparent that Turkey was running out of options and on November 12th, 1912, called on the Super Powers to bring about an armistice. To deal with the situations, a peace conference was scheduled for December 16th, 1912, to take place in London. Having some time to adjust to the new situation, the Super Powers, for the first time, opted from the usual “status quo” recommendations and considered making concessions to the victors. Austria however, was not too happy at the prospect of a “large Serbia” let alone allowing Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea. Austria was eyeing the Adriatic region as a prospective sphere of influence for herself. Being unable to make concessions by herself however, Austria did the next best thing and agreed with Britain to the idea of “creating” a new State (Albania). Another reason why Austria did not want Serbia to have access to the Adriatic Sea was because a “Serbian port might become a Russian port”. 


This attempt to deny Serbia access to the Adriatic not only left Serbia landlocked but upset Russia causing her to break relations with Austria. Italy too was affected by this diplomatic power play which pushed her to improve her relations with Austria.


This, as it turned out was the crucial historic moment that gave birth to the “Triple Alliance” (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the “Triple Entente” (Britain, France and Russia), a division that would have future consequences.


As a result of this sudden change of events, Austria began to amass troops along the Serbian border. At the same time, fearing German intervention, Russia ordered a halt to Bulgarian and Serbian advances towards Tsari Grad.


To fully curb Serbian and Russian expansionism, France, Britain and Italy voted to grant the newly created Albanian State, full independence. This did not only save Albania from partitioning by the Greeks and Serbians, it also made her a Super Power protectorate, which Albanians enjoy to this day.


I want to emphasize that by 1912, it was well known that a Macedonian Nation with a Macedonian consciousness existed and demonstrated its desire for independence. These actions were well documented and familiar to the Super Powers, yet even after pleading their case, the Macedonians were NOT ALLOWED to attend the London Peace Conference of December 16th, 1912. Numerous petitions were made by IMRO affiliates from St. Petersburg, all ignored. Also, Chupovski’s memo, to the British delegation, was not tabled. Here is what Chupovski (in part) had to say; “In the name of natural law, of history, of practical expediency, for the Macedonian people, we ask that Macedonia’s right to self-determination be admitted, and that Macedonia be constituted within its ethnic, geographical and cultural borders as a self-governing state with a government responsible to a national assembly.” (page 147, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 


The London Conference adjourned on August 11, 1913 officially declaring an end to the First Balkan War. In spite of all the wheeling and dealing that went on during the conference the resolutions left all parties dissatisfied. Serbia was dissatisfied with losing the Albanian territory. Serbia appealed to Bulgaria to grant her access to the Aegean Sea via Solun and the Vardar valley, but her appeals fell on deaf ears.


Greece also was not happy with Bulgaria’s invasion and annexation of Endrene (Macedonian Dardanelles). So to balance her share Greece wanted Serres, Drama and Kavala as compensation. That too fell on Bulgarian deaf ears.


Bulgaria, frustrated with not achieving her “San Stefano Dream” (fiction), was bitter about Russia deserting her during the London Conference negotiations.


Seeing that Bulgaria was not going to budge and the fact that neither Greece nor Serbia alone could take on Bulgaria, should a conflict arise, Greece and Serbia concluded a secret pact of their own to jointly act against Bulgaria. In short, the objective was to take territory from Bulgaria west of the Vardar River, divide it and have a common frontier. 


After stumbling upon this Greek-Serbian pact, despite Russian attempts to appease her by offering her Solun, Bulgaria remained bitter and in a moment of weakness, was lured away by Austria. By going over to Austria, Bulgaria in effect broke off all relations with the Balkan League.


The Bulgarian shift in loyalties disappointed Russia who made it clear to Bulgaria that it could no longer expect any help.


In what was to be termed the “Second Balkan War”, the Bulgarian army, unprovoked, attacked its former allies on June 30th, 1913, again on Macedonian soil. Preferring the element of surprise, Bulgaria turned on her former allies and renewed the conflict, officially turning the Macedonian mission from “liberation” to “occupation”. There were two things that Bulgaria didn’t count on, Romanian involvement and Austrian treachery. The bloody fight was short lived as Rumania, Montenegro and Turkey joined Greece and Serbia and dealt Bulgaria a catastrophic blow. The promised Austrian support did not materialize as the risks for Austrian involvement outweighed any benefits. The real surprise however, was Rumania’s break with neutrality. Up to now Rumania had remained neutral and refused to get involved. No one, not even Bulgaria anticipated this attack from the north. On the other hand however, this was a once in a lifetime opportunity for Rumania to regain lost territory.


Even Turkey was able to re-gain some of what she recently lost to Bulgaria. Being involved in too many fronts at the same time Bulgaria was unable to repel Turkey and prevent her from taking back the Endrene region.


The biggest winners however, were Greece and Serbia, both of whom got exactly what they wanted, virtually unabated.


The Macedonians fared worst in the conflict mainly due to their own enthusiasm. One faction misinterpreted Macedonian assistance to another, as disloyalty. As frontlines shifted positions, Macedonian citizens were exposed to the various factions. Those Macedonians that assisted one faction were butchered by another faction for showing sympathy to the enemy. “The Carnegie Relief Commission, dispatched to the Balkans in late 1913, reported the incredible story of human suffering. In Macedonia alone, 160 villages were razed leaving 16,000 homeless, several thousand civilians murdered, and over 100,000 forced to emigrate as refugees.” (page 149, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). This genocidal tragedy was committed in a relatively short time and by those who marched in and were welcomed as “liberators”. Worst and most unexpected was that “Christians” committed this genocide against “Christians” reminiscent of the 1204 tragedy committed by the Western Crusaders.


After a great deal of jockeying for position, deliberating and negotiating, the warring factions agreed to an armistice and peace between Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia was negotiated in August, 1913 in Bucharest. The map of Macedonia was again redrafted without Macedonian participation. The new boundaries ignored previously agreed upon considerations such as lines of “nationalities” (not that any existed), the Macedonian people’s democratic desires, etc., as the Bucharest delegates imposed their artificial sovereignty upon the Macedonian people. With the exception of one minor change in 1920 in Albania’s favour, these dividing lines have remained in place to this day. 50% of the total Macedonian territory went to Greece, 40% to Serbia and 10% to Bulgaria. August 10th, 1913 became the darkest day in Macedonian history.


Not since Roman times has Macedonia been partitioned in a way where three brothers were forced to assume three different (imposed) identities, forced to speak three different foreign languages in their own homes and treated as strangers in their own lands. The future will show that where half a millennium of Turkish suppression and a century of forced Hellenization/ Bulgarization couldn’t erode Macedonian consciousness, Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian aggression, in less than a decade, will. The once proud Macedonian nation that long ago conquered the world, bridged the gap between East and West, introduced Christianity to Europe, safeguarded all ancient knowledge and protected the West from Eastern Invaders has now been beaten and reduced to a shadow of its former self. The force of this latest intrusion transformed the Macedonian Nation into a shy creature seeking homes in foreign lands and hiding in the twilight while its enemies dance on the heads of its dead and to the world, proclaimed them as their own. It was not enough that they consumed the Macedonian lands, these new depraved creatures spawned by Western greed, have consumed all Macedonian treasures such as history, culture, religion, literature, folklore, ancient knowledge stolen from Holy Mountain (Athos), etc., and regurgitated them as their own. Without hesitation, they would lie to the world, even to their own people about “their true identities” and blame their ills on the innocent. Their propaganda will turn “lies to truths” and “truths to lies” until all people are poisoned with hatred, an artificially created hatred, which will haunt Macedonians for all time and render them mute. Silence will fill the air and children will not dare cry, for if they utter anything Macedonian a terrible curse will befall them which can only be partially lifted if they leave their lands or submit to the will of their new masters. The proud name “Macedonia” which echoed through the centuries and outlasted time itself, will become a “dirty word” never to be spoken. The Macedonian language, the mother of all Slav languages, the “Voice of Eastern Christianity” will be “muted” to be spoken only in the shadows, in fear that “enemy ears” may be lurking. In time it will become known as “our language” spoken by “our people” a mute language spoken by a nameless nation. In time the Macedonian nation, the Macedonian people and the Macedonian language will become “an anomaly” in its ancestral land.


This is the fate that awaits the Macedonian people in the 20th century all with the blessings of the Super Powers (Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy).


To be continued in Part VI.

You can contact the author via his e-mail: rstefov@hotmail.com


References:


1. A. Michael Radin. IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura


2. The University of Cyril and Methodius, DOCUMENTS of the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State Volumes I &amp; II


3. The Wold Book Encyclopedia


4. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology


5. H. N. Brailsford, Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971


6. Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D., The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 – 1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>9nro7zi4kignc9fejr91krehvs5el54</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VI - 1912 - 1939</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2051</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11014</id>
      <parentid>5000</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:34:06Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="44122" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part VI - 1912 - 1939

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

November, 2002 

click here for a printable version

  
In the previous article (part V) I covered the period 1903 to 1913 including the Young Turk uprising and the First and Second Balkan Wars. 

In this article (part VI) I will cover the effects of Macedonia's partition and the practices and policies of its subjugators.

The jubilance of liberation died down quickly as the fires of burning villages lit the night skies. Macedonia was in flames again, liberators turned to occupiers and rained havoc on the Macedonian population. The political, economic and ethnic unity of Macedonia was no more. Greek soldiers who came to liberate their Christian brothers from the oppressive Turks and terrible Bulgarians were now burning, torturing, and murdering people. In the words of Sir Edmond Grey, &quot;the Balkan war began as a war of liberation, became rapidly a war of annexation, and has ended as a war of extermination&quot;(Page 294, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology).

The Greek atrocities were revealed to the world when a lost mailbag was discovered containing letters from Greek soldiers in Macedonia to their families in Greece. The mailbag was turned in to the Carnegie Relief Commission and the contents of the letters were made public. Expecting to fight for the glory of the fatherland, the soldiers instead, found themselves torturing, murdering, burning houses and evicting women and children from their homes in a most vile way. The letters revealed that the soldiers were acting on direct orders from the Greek authorities and the Greek king himself. Macedonian families of known Exarchists (Macedonians belonging to the Bulgarian Church) were ordered by force to &quot;take with them what they could carry and get out&quot;. &quot;This is Greece now and there is no place for Bulgarians here&quot;. Those that remained were forced to swear loyalty to the Greek State. Anyone who refused to take the loyalty oath was either executed as an example of what would happen to those disloyal, or was evicted from the country. To explain the mass evacuations, Greek officials were claiming that the inhabitants of Macedonia were leaving by choice or becoming Greek by choice. The truth is, no one was given any choice at all.

&quot;A thousand Greek and Serbian publicists began to fill the world with their shouting about the essentially Greek or Serbian character of the populations of their different spheres. The Serbs gave the unhappy Macedonians twenty four hours to renounce their nationality and proclaim themselves Serbs, and the Greeks did the same. Refusal meant murder or expulsion. Greek and Serbian colonists were poured into the occupied country... The Greek newspapers began to talk about a Macedonia peopled entirely with Greeks-and they explained the fact that no one spoke Greek by calling the people 'Bulgaro-phone Greeks' ... the Greek army entered villages where no one spoke their language. 'What do you mean by speaking Bulgarian?&quot; cried the officers. 'This is Greece and you must speak Greek'&quot; (Page 104, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to define a new Balkan Nation).

In 1913, professor R.A. Reiss reports to the Greek government: &quot;Those whom you would call Bulgarian speakers I would simply call Macedonians...Macedonian is not the language they speak in Sofia...I repeat the mass of inhabitants there (Macedonia) remain simply Macedonians.&quot; 

&quot;The Carnegie Relief Commission, dispatched to the Balkans in late 1913, reported the incredible story of human suffering. In Macedonia alone, 160 villages were razed leaving 16,000 homeless, several thousand civilians murdered, and over 100,000 forced to emigrate as refugees.&quot; (Page 149, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).

History again turned its eyes away from the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian atrocities in Macedonia to focus on new events that were about to unfold and engulf the entire world.

After losing Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria in 1908 and the Albanian territories in 1912 (again because of Austria), Serbia became bitter and resentful. &quot;To the nationalist Serbs the Habsburg monarchy (Austria-Hungary) was an old evil monster which prevented their nation from becoming a great and powerful state. On June 28, 1914, a young Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated the heir of the Habsburg monarchy, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and his wife at Sarjevo&quot; (Page 104, Felix Gilbert, The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present).

Within two weeks of the assassination the First World War broke out engulfing all of Europe. It was inevitable and a matter of time before a &quot;world war&quot; would break out in the Balkans. The Super Powers were incapable of exercising diplomacy either between themselves or with the new Balkan States they helped create. Macedonia was sacrificed in order to appease the new Balkan states but that did little to satisfy their ferocious appetites for lands and loot.

While World War I raged on consuming the lives of millions of young men and women, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia were serving their own brand of chauvinism in Macedonia. For the next five years, with the world busy with its own problems there was no one to hear the cries of the Macedonian people at the hands of the new tyrants. If the gravestones of the dead Macedonians could speak they would tell tales of torture and executions, deception and lies. They would say, &quot;our Christian brothers came to liberate us but instead they killed us because we were in their way of achieving greatness. We were labeled 'criminals' because we would not yield to their demands. I ask you is it a crime to want to live as free men? Is it a crime to want to be Macedonian? Is it a crime to want to exercise free will? It is they who are the criminals for befouling everything that is Christian, for their lies and deception, and for murdering us to possess our lands. History will record August 10th, 1913 as the darkest day in Macedonia, the day our future died&quot;.

The triple occupation worsened living conditions in Macedonia but the fighting spirit of the Macedonian people continued to live underground and abroad. Three generations of fighting for liberty, freedom and an independent Macedonia came to a close. The Ilinden generation and IMRO were defeated, not by the Turks, not by Muslim oppression but by Christian cruelty and deception.

Soon after the occupation, underground societies sprang up everywhere urging the Macedonian people to refuse their new fate and oppose the partition. Accordingly, many Macedonians did so by refusing to obey the new officialdom and by not participating in the new institutions. This however, did not phase the military regimes occupying Macedonia from systematic denationalization and violent assimilation.

The battle for &quot;dominion of the world&quot; which started over Balkan affairs, soon took a sinister turn to again involve Macedonia. As the Entente Powers (Britain, France, Russia and Italy) were 'fighting it out&quot; with the Central Powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary), Bulgaria, smarting from her losses at Bucharest, remained neutral. In a turn of events and to the amazement of the Greeks, the Entente Powers approached Bulgaria with an offer of a substantial portion of Macedonian territory in exchange for her alliance. Bulgaria however, seemed to prefer the company of the Central Powers, perhaps they offered her a bigger portion, because by late 1915, her armies marched in and invaded Macedonia. To quote the Bulgarian War Minister General Nikolaev &quot; we care little about the British, Germans, French, Russians, Italians, Austrians or Hungarians; our only thought is Macedonia. Whichever of the two groups of Powers will enable us to conquer it will have our alliance!&quot; (Page 154, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).

While the Serbs were being engaged on their northern border, the Greeks were debating which side to take. Their hesitation or &quot;National Schism&quot;, as it was later called, lay in the differences that emerged between the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos and the Greek King Constantine I, over which side to join. Venizelos was a strong supporter of the Entente and within days of the outbreak of hostilities, was ready to offer Greek troops to fight alongside the Entente. King Constantine on the other hand, did not share Venizelo's zeal and believed that Greek policies would be served best by staying neutral. Being married to Sofia, the sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II however, predisposed Constantine towards the Central Powers. The tug of war between Prime Minister and king divided the people of Greece into two camps and the country slid towards a state of virtual civil war. Having the authority to do so, Constantine replaced Venizelos with a pro-German Prime Minister and to end the impasse, called for an election. Unfortunately for the King, Venizelos once again came out victorious with a clear majority. Bulgaria's attack on Serbia however, due to a Greek-Serbian treaty, predisposed Greece to offer Serbia assistance, but the King's camp refused to comply on the grounds that it was not Bulgaria alone who was committing the aggression and insisted on remaining neutral. Venizelos on the other hand, called on parliament and won support to send Greek troops to fight alongside the Serbs and to allow landings of Entente troops in the Solun region. Venizelos was again forced to resign. &quot;But whatever the constitutional rights and wrongs of the situation Venizelo's second resignation on 5 October 1915 signified a total breakdown in relations between the king and his elected prime minister. Britain and France, however, had not yet given up Greece for lost and held out to Venizelo's successor, Alexander Zaimis, the prospect of the cession of Cyprus to Greece in return for aid to Serbia, whose forces were now under severe pressure&quot; (Page 109, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece).

Soon afterwards, Zaimis too was forced to resign. New elections were held in December but were boycotted by the Venizelos camp. Events came to a head when the Royalists refused to allow evacuated Serbian troops to cross over from Corfu and join the Entente forces on the Solun front. Backed by the Entente, a group of pro-Venizelos officers launched a coup in Solun against the official government and created a provisional pro-Entente government with its own army. Once again many Macedonians, deceived by Balkan propaganda, joined the war with hopes of being liberated only to end up as &quot;cannon fodder&quot; used by both sides at the front. Macedonian casualties mounted and towns and villages only recently reconstructed were again bombarded to dust.

Soon after establishing the Solun front, the occupation of Greece was complete. France had dispatched 60,000 troops in the Balkans with hopes of safeguarding the Skopje to Solun rail links. By late 1917, Entente troops were emerging victorious over the Bulgarians and Germans in Macedonia. No sooner was the battle over than a problem developed between British and French commands in Macedonia. While the British General Milne supported Venizelos and his attempts to constitute a pro-British provisional government in Greece, the pro-Macedonian French General Sarrail opposed Venizelos and sought to drive the Greek army out of Macedonia. &quot;The ambitious plan for Macedonian autonomy drafted by the French command in 1915 and 1916 were but mere progressive steps to ensure France a strategic outpost for capital expansion&quot; (Page 155, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).

Once again, Macedonians were caught in the middle of someone else's war. To save face, France recalled Sarrail and replaced him with a pro-Greek commander, thus avoiding a diplomatic disaster.

After establishing a government in Athens and consolidating his power in Greece, Venizelos committed a total of nine divisions to the Macedonian front to assist the Entente forces on the Solun front. To further prove his devotion to the Entente, Venizelos committed two more divisions to fight the Bolshevists in Russia.

When the war was over, on November 11, 1918, a general armistice was signed and a Peace Conference was convened in Versailles France. Venizelos arrived in Paris as the principle negotiator for Greece, determined to reap his reward for his solid support to his victorious allies. One of Venizelos's objectives was to resurrect the &quot;Megaly Idea&quot; by annexing parts of Asia Minor, Smyrna (Ismir) in particular. He convinced the world that the Christians living in Asia Minor were Greek and should be part of Greece. Unfortunately for Venizelos, Italy had prior claims in Asia Minor (Anatolia) which created a problem for the peacemakers. Greek ambition was viewed with suspicion by Italy so to strengthen her claims, in March 1919, she began to build up troops in the region. The Greeks viewed this as a threat to their own claim and before a final territorial solution was reached, they demanded concessions. The reasons given were that the Greek people in Asia Minor were endangered by Turkish aggression and needed protection. After much protest on the Greek side, Britain, France and the Americans finally gave them permission to send a small defense force. Under the protection of allied warships, on May 15, 1919, Greek troops began their landing in Smyrna. Instead of staying put however, as per prior agreements, they began to occupy Western Asia Minor (more on this later). 

No sooner were the Central Powers driven out of Greek territories than the Greek Government, by passing LAW 1051, inaugurated a new administrative jurisdiction for governing the newly acquired lands in Macedonia.

When it started to become clear that the Entente Powers were winning the war, encouraged by Woodrow Wilson's principles of nationality, many Macedonian lobby groups placed their faith in the Peace Conference in Versailles. Wilson's fourteen principles of nationality implicitly asserted the right of all nations to self-determination.

In his address to the Pan Slavic Assembly in Odessa in August 1914, Krste Misirkov called for achieving autonomy by diplomatic means. An article was written and extensively circulated in May 1915, which specifically dealt with the autonomy call.

The student organization &quot;Independent Society&quot;, in Geneva Switzerland under the slogan of &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians&quot;, demanded the application of Wilson's principles to create an autonomous Macedonia based on the principles of the Swiss Federative model.

Remnants of the IMRO also took action in the rally for an Autonomous Macedonia. After the Bulgarians murdered Yane Sandanski in 1915, his supporters fled the Pirin region to save their own lives and later regrouped in Serres to form the &quot;Serres Revolutionary Council&quot;. &quot;Having noted the impetus for unification of the Southern Slavs against the Central Powers, the Council issued a 'Declaration of Autonomy' in October 1918, in which it appealed for membership of a Balkan Federation on the basis of Macedonian territorial integrity. This plea was ultimately rejected by the ruling cliques of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which later became known as Yugoslavia&quot;. &quot;By striving for political and economic hegemony over the Balkans, Balkan nationalism has thrown the Balkan peoples and states into deep contradictions and conflicts which must be begun by war, and finished by war and always war&quot;. (Page 158-159, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question). 

Once again the Macedonian people came to the forefront to plead their case and once again they were shut out. How many more wars must be fought and how much more blood must be spilled for the world to realize that there is no end to Balkan conflicts without involving the Macedonian people in resolving the Macedonian question?

The Peace Conference, which was supposedly &quot;the tribunal of international conscience&quot;, had no place for &quot;Wilsonian Justice&quot; or the opportunity for self-determination. Instead of practicing what they preached, the so called &quot;peace makers of Versailles&quot; rewarded aggression in exchange for self-interest. 

With the stroke of a pen, in 1919 at the Treaty of Versailles (Paris), England and France sealed Macedonia's fate by ratifying the principles of the Bucharest Treaty and officially endorsing the partitioning of Macedonia. 

This gave Greece the license she needed to pursue forced expulsion and denationalization of Macedonians and to begin a mass colonization by transplanting &quot;potential Greeks&quot; into the annexed territories of Macedonia. The Neuilly Convention allowed for forced exchanges of populations. About 70,000 Macedonians were expelled from the Greek occupied part of Macedonia to Bulgaria and 25,000 &quot;so called Greeks&quot; were transplanted from Bulgaria to Greek occupied Macedonia. 

&quot;Macedonia's fate has been the subject of every kind of political combination, negotiation and treaty since 1912, each more immoral than the last, each ignoring completely the local interests and desires of a population which, with the stroke of the statesman's pen, can be condemned to national dissolution, and denied the right to a free national life while Armenians, Albanians and Jews receive political freedom&quot; (Page 160, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).

The Super Powers did not dare lose the strategic importance and untapped wealth in Macedonia or dare disappoint their trusted allies in the Balkans. Think of the endless bickering and complaining!

What was surprising, especially to the Balkan delegation, was the raising of the Macedonian question by Italy. On July 10, 1919, Italy along with the USA made a proposal to the &quot;Committee for the Formation of New States&quot; for Macedonian autonomy. France flatly opposed the motion while Britain proposed establishing a five-year Macedonian Commissary under the auspices of the League of Nations. Greece and Serbia, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of a Macedonian question, literally killed the motion. 

Another item that came out of Versailles was Article 51, the League of Nations' code to &quot;protect national minorities&quot;. Article 51 of the Treaty of Versailles espouses equality of civil rights, education, language, and religion for all national minorities. Unfortunately, article 51 was never implemented by the Balkan States or enforced by the League of Nations which Greece and Bulgaria to this day, violate and ignore. Why is this? Because to this day, Greece and Bulgaria claim that &quot;the Macedonian nationality&quot; does not exist and has never existed. So, what minorities should they be protecting? In response to the Greek claim I would like to ask the Greeks the following questions;

1. To what minorities were you referring when on September 29, 1924 your Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikolaos Mihalakopoulou signed an agreement with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Kalkoff?

2. To what minorities were you referring when on August 17, 1926 you made an agreement with Yugoslavia regarding the nationality of the &quot;Slavophones in Greece?

(Pages 159-161 G.A.L. I Kata Tis Makedonias Epivouli, (Ekdosis Deftera Sympepliromeni), Athinai 1966).

On September 29, 1924, Greece signed an agreement with Bulgaria declaring that the Macedonians in Greece were Bulgarians. Not to disappoint the Serbians, when they found out about the Greek-Bulgarian agreement, the Greeks changed their mind and on August 17, 1926, declared that the Macedonians in Greece were in reality, Serbs.

As it turned out, the loudly proclaimed &quot;Wilson principles&quot; at the Paris Conference were only for show. The real winners at the end of the conference were the &quot;players&quot;, the biggest one of all being Venizelos of Greece. &quot;The entire forum was a farce, and its offspring the Versailles Treaty, the ultimate insult to the dignity and self-esteem (what remained of it after continuous war and bloodshed) of the long-tormented Macedonian people. Those Macedonians prodded by conscience, by the mistrust gained after generations of suffering, and by the desire for freedom, thereafter treated the Versailles Treaty, and all political treaties, with the contempt they deserve&quot; (Page 166, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question).

At the conclusion of the Treaty not only did Greece get back what she had previously annexed but additionally she received a large portion of Epirus, Western Thrace, Crete and the Aegean Islands. It is important to mention here that when Albania's affirmation for independence was signed at the London Conference in February 1920 more of Macedonia's territory was partitioned. A narrow strip of land running through Lake Ohrid and southward along Macedonia's western boundary was awarded to Albania. 

Soon after arriving victorious in Greece, Venizelos in a speech in Solun, announced his plans for a &quot;Greater Greece&quot; (Megali Idea) and for the bringing of all &quot;Greek peoples&quot; together under a single Greater Greek State. 

I remember as a child listening to old men in my village, sitting on the porch telling tales of bygone wars when as young soldiers they chased the Turks to Ankara yelling &quot;two Turks to a bayonet&quot;. They also told stories of how it took them sixty days to gain sixty miles and how they lost them in one day of retreat. I didn't understand what they were talking about then but they were talking about the Greek exploits in Asia Minor. As I mentioned earlier, after building up a large military presence in Asia Minor, a major offensive was launched in March 1921, and by the end of the summer, the Greek armies reached the Sakarya River about forty miles from Ankara.

The assault on Asia Minor was an &quot;exclusively Greek initiative&quot; without the blessing of the Entente Powers and as a result they found themselves alone and running out of ammunition. They knew they couldn't count on Italy or France for help but the realization of their predicament sunk in when Britain too refused to help them. By early autumn the Greeks were pushed back beyond the halfway point between Smyrna and Ankara, reaching an uneasy military stalemate. Realizing that they couldn't possibly win militarily or politically, the Greeks turned to the Paris Conference of March 1922 looking for a compromise. The compromise called for the withdrawal of the Greek armies and placing the Christian population under the protection of the League of Nations. Sensing a victory, Mustafa Kemal of Turkey insisted on an unconditional evacuation of the Greek forces, a demand unacceptable to the Greeks. Still counting on British kindness, in July 1922 the Greeks unsuccessfully attempted to get permission from their allies to enter Tsari Grad (Istanbul).

Turkey launched a full-scale offensive on August 26, 1922 (a dark day for Greece and her Megali Idea), near Afyonkarahisar and forced the Greeks into a hasty retreat back to Smyrna. On September 8, the Greek army was evacuated and the next day, the Turkish army invaded Smyrna. The worst came on the evening of the 9th when outbreaks of killing and looting began followed by a massacre of the Christian population, in which 30,000 Christians, mostly Armenians, perished. As a result of the violence 250,000 people fled to the waterfront to escape the catastrophic disaster.

The Asia Minor campaign was over along with the &quot;Megali Idea&quot; of a Greater Greece. Worse yet, as a result of this &quot;catastrophic Greek fiasco, over one million Turkish Christians were displaced, most of them into Macedonia. Their settlement affected the demography of the Macedonian landscape as well as the morale of the Macedonian population.

An entire generation of Macedonian young men that were drafted into the Greek military, were sent to the Asia Minor campaigns and many lost their lives. The Greek authorities never acknowledged their services and no compensation was ever paid to the families of those &quot;breadwinners&quot; who lost their lives. The reason for the omission, according to the Greek authorities, &quot;they were Bulgarian&quot;.

It is, I am told, noble to die for your country. Would it not be &quot;nobler&quot; to die for someone else's country? And how did the Greeks repay those nobler enough to die for Greece? They let their widows and children live in poverty. This is how Greece treated its noblest citizens!

By the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, the Greco-Turkish war came to an end. Greece and Turkey signed a population exchange agreement using &quot;religion as the basic criterion for nationality&quot;. (page 120, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece). 

The November 1925 issue of National Geographic Magazine best illustrates the magnitude of the human wave, the audacity of the Greek and Turkish authorities and the total disregard for human life. &quot;History's Greatest Trek, Tragedy Stalks the Near East as Greece and Turkey Exchange Two Million of their People. ...1922 began what may fairly be called history's greatest, most spectacular trek-the compulsory intermigration of two million Christians and Muslims across the Aegean Sea.&quot; &quot; ...the initial episodes of the exchange drama were enacted to the accompaniment of the boom of cannon and the rattle of machine gun and with the settings pointed by the flames of the Smyrna holocaust.&quot; (page 533, Melville Chater, National Geographic, November 1925).

&quot;Stroke of the Pen Exiles 3,000,000 People. It is safe to say that history does not contain a more extraordinary document. Never before in the world's long pageant of folk-wanderings have 2,000,000 people-and certainly no less than 3,000,000 if the retroactive clause is possible of complete application-been exiled and re-adopted by the stroke of the pen.&quot; (page 569, National Geographic, November 1925). &quot;Even if regarded as a voluntary trek instead of a compulsory exchange, the movement would be without parallel in the history of emigration.&quot; &quot;One might just add that history has never produced a document more difficult of execution. It was to lessen these difficulties that exchangeability was based in religion and not race. Due to five centuries of Turkish domination in Greece, the complexities in determining an individual's racial status are often such as would make a census taker weep.&quot; (page 570, National Geographic, November 1925).

&quot;Greece with one-fifth Turkey's area has 1,5000,000 more people. Turkey with a population of 5,000,000 and naturally rich territory contains only 15 people to the square mile...Greece, with less than one fifth of Turkey's area, emerges with a population exceeding the latter's for the fist time by 1,500,000 people averaging 123 to the square mile.&quot; (page 584, National Geographic, November 1925).

&quot;History's Greatest Trek has cost 300,000 lives. Conservative estimates place it at 300,000 lives lost by disease and exposure.&quot; (page 584, National Geographic, November 1925).

&quot;The actual exchange was weighted very heavily in Turkey's favour, for some 380,000 Muslims were exchanged for something like 1,100,000 Christians.&quot; &quot;The total population in Greece rose between 1907 and 1928 from 2,600,000 to 6,200,000.&quot; &quot;After the Greek advances of 1912, for instance, the Greek elements in Greek Macedonia had constituted 43 percent of the population. By 1926, with the resettlement of the refugees, the Greek element has risen to 89 percent.&quot; (page 121, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece). 

After all this, surprisingly (and shamefully) Greece still claims her population to be homogeneous and direct descendents of the peoples of the ancient City States.

&quot;If Greece exists today as a homogeneous ethnos, she owes this to [the Asia Minor Catastrophe]. If the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come to Greece, Greek Macedonia would not exist today. The refugees created the national homogeneity of our country. (Antonios Kandiotis, Metrpolite of Florina, page 141, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood).

According to Karakasidou, almost half of the refugees were settled in urban centers and rural areas in Macedonia. &quot;Searching for locations in which to settle this mass of humanity, the Greek government looked north to the newly incorporated land in Macedonia...&quot; &quot;...by 1930, 90 percent of the 578,844 refugees settled in rural Greece were concentrated in the regions of Macedonia and western Thrace. Thus Macedonia, Greece's newly acquired second 'breadbasket' (after Thessaly), became the depository for East Thracian, Pontic, and Asia Minor refugees.&quot; (page 145, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood).

While Greece was contemplating re-populating Macedonia with alien refugees, new developments were boiling to the surface in Macedonia.

&quot;A book of great importance to Macedonian linguistics and historiography was published in Athens; that was the primer entitled ABECEDAR (A B C), printed in the Latin alphabet, and intended for the children of the Macedonian national minority in Greece - the 'Slav speaking minority' as Sir Austin Chamberlain, British diplomat and delegate to the League of Nations, and Sir James Erick Drumond, General Secretary to the League of Nations, referred to the Macedonians in Greece&quot;. (Voislav Kushevski, 'On the Appearance of the Abecedar' in Istorija magazine, 1983, No. 2, p. 184).

&quot;In 1920 Greece signed before the League of Nations a treaty obliging it to grant certain rights to the minorities of non-Greek origin in Greece. Four years later, in 1924, at the suggestion of the League of Nations, Greece and Bulgaria signed the well-known Kalfov-Politis Protocol under which Bulgaria was obliged to grant the Greek minority in Bulgaria their minority rights (language, schools and other rights), while Greece, recognizing the Macedonians from the Aegean part of Macedonia as a 'Bulgarian' minority, was to grant them their minority rights. This agreement was seemingly very much in favour of Bulgaria, but when in 1925 the Greek government undertook certain concrete steps towards the publication of the first primer made for the specific needs of that minority, it made it clear that there were no grounds on which Bulgaria could be officially interested in any 'Bulgarian minority' or expect the primer to be in Bulgarian, for that minority - though speaking a Slav language - was neither Bulgarian nor Serbian.

The very fact that official Greece did not, either de jure or do facto, see the Macedonians as a Bulgarian minority, but rather as a separate Slav group ('Slav speaking minority'), is of particular significance. The primer, published in the Latin alphabet, was based on the Lerin - Bilola dialect. After Gianelli's Dictionary dating from the 16th Century, and the Daniloviot Cetirijazicnik written in the 19th century, this was yet another book written in the Macedonian vernacular. The primer was mailed to some regions in Western Aegean-Macedonia (Kostur, Lerin and Voden), and the school authorities prepared to give Macedonian children, from the first to the fourth grade of the elementary school, instruction in their own mother tongue (Grigorios Dafnis, 'Greece between the two world wars', 'Elefteria' newspaper, March 15, 1953, Dionisios Romas in 'Elefteria' newspaper of October 9 and 12, 1954 and Dimitrios Vazuglis in Racial and religious minorities in Greece and Bulgaria, 1954).

The Greek governments, however, have never made a sincere attempt to solve the question of the Macedonians and their ethnic rights in Greece. Thus, while measures were being undertaken for the opening of Macedonian schools, a clash between the Greek and the Bulgarian armies at Petrich was concocted, which was then followed by a massacre of the innocent Macedonian population in the village of Trlis near Serres, all this with the aim of creating an attitude of insecurity within the Macedonians, so that they would themselves give up the recognition of their minority rights, and eventually seek safety by moving to Bulgaria. The Greek governments also skillfully used the Yugoslav-Bulgarian disagreements on the question of the Macedonians in Greece, and with organized pressure on the Macedonian population, as was the case in the village of Trlis, tried to dismiss the Macedonian ethnic question from the agenda through forced resettlement of the Macedonian population outside of Greece.

The ABECEDAR, which actually never reached the Macedonian children, is in itself a powerful testimony not only of the existence of the large Macedonian ethnic minority in Greece, but also of the fact that Greece was under an obligation before the League of Nations to undertake certain measures in order to grant this particular minority their rights&quot; (HRISTO ANDONOVSKI).

Even before Greece had secured her grip on Macedonia, officials were sent to administer &quot;the new lands&quot;. The first official Greek administrator arrived in Solun near the end of October 1912 accompanied by two judges, five customs officials, ten consulate clerks, a contingent of reporters and journalists and 168 Cretan soldiers. Among other things, the first order of business was to &quot;Hellenize the New Lands&quot;. &quot;After the Greeks occupied Aegean Macedonia, they closed the Slavic language schools and churches and expelled the priests. The Macedonian language and names were forbidden, and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Serbians or natives. By law promulgated on November 21, 1926, all place names (toponymia) were Hellenized; that is the names of cities, villages, rivers and mountains were discarded and Greek names put in their place. At the same time the Macedonians were forced to change their first and surnames; every Macedonian surname had to end in 'os', 'es', or 'poulos'. The news of these acts and the new, official Greek names were published in the Greek government daily 'Efimeris tis Kiverniseos no. 322 and 324 of November 21 and 23, 1926. The requirements to use these Greek names is officially binding to this day. All evidence of the Macedonian language was compulsorily removed from churches, monuments, archeological finds and cemeteries. Slavonic church or secular literature was seized and burned. The use of the Macedonian language was strictly forbidden also in personal communication between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and work parties, and in burial rituals.&quot; (page 109, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

The act of forbidding the use of the Macedonian language in Greece is best illustrated by an example of how it was implemented in the Township of Assarios (Giuvezna). Here is a quote from Karakasidou's book Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood.

&quot;[We] listened to the president articulate to the council that in accordance with the decision [#122770] of Mr. Minister, General Governor of Macedonia, all municipal and township councils would forbid, through [administrative] decisions, the speaking of other idioms of obsolete languages within the area of their jurisdiction for the reconstitution of a universal language and our national glory. [The president] suggested that [the] speaking of different idioms, foreign [languages] and our language in an impure or obsolete manner in the area of the township of Assirios would be forbidden.

Assirios Township Decision No. 134, 13 December 1936&quot;. (page 162, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood).

By 1928, 1,497 Macedonian place-names in the Greek occupied Macedonia were Hellenized (LAW 4096) and all Cyrillic inscriptions found in churches, on tombstones, and on icons were destroyed (or overwritten) prompting English Journalist V. Hild to say &quot;The Greeks do not only persecute living Slavs (Macedonians)..., but they even persecute dead ones. They do not leave them in peace even in the graves. They erase the Slavonic inscriptions on the headstones, remove the bones and burn them.&quot;

The years following World War I (The Great War), the Macedonian people underwent extensive measures of systematic denationalization. The application of these &quot;denationalization schemes&quot; were so extensive and aggressively pursued that in the long term, they eroded the will of the Macedonian people to resist.

&quot;In Greece, in 1929 during the rule of Elepterios Venizelos, a legal act was issued 'On the protection of public order'. In line with this Act each demand for nationality rights is regarded as high treason. This law is still in force.

On December 18, 1936, Metaksas' dictatorial government issued a legal Act 'On the activity against state security' on the strength of which thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned, expelled or exiled (EXORIA) on arid, inhospitable Greek islands, where many perished. Their crime? Being ethnic Macedonian by birth. 

On September 7, 1938 legal Act No. 2366 was issued banning the use of the Macedonian language. All Macedonian localities were flooded with posters: 'Speak Greek'. Evening schools were opened in which adult Macedonians were taught Greek. Not a single Macedonian school functioned at the time.&quot; (page 8, What Europe has Forgotten: The Struggle of the Aegean Macedonians, A Report by the Association of the Macedonians in Poland).

Many Macedonians were fined, beaten and jailed for speaking Macedonian. Adults and school children alike were further humiliated by being forced to drink castor oil when caught speaking Macedonian. 

In Vardar Macedonia, the Yugoslav government attacked the problem of denationalization and assimilation by enacting Laws such as the September 24, 1920 &quot;Resolution for the Settlement of the New Southern Regions&quot; designed to effectively exclude Macedonians from owning any property. The Macedonian language was banned along with cultural institutions through a uniform code known as the December 30th, 1920 EDICT which was aimed at persecuting all political and trade union associations.

The bulk and most arable Macedonian land was awarded to Serbian army officers who survived the World War I Solun front. Land was also awarded to the Serbian administrators of Macedonia including government bureaucrats, judges and the police. 

The denationalization measures were complemented with aggressive re-education programs producing &quot;little Serbs&quot; out of the Macedonian children. As for the unwilling adults, they were given two options - &quot;live as a Serb&quot; or &quot;die as a Macedonian&quot;!

In Pirin Macedonia, the Bulgarian government enforced compulsory name changes and through repressive political and economic means, stepped up the assimilation process. Initially, land reforms favoured the poor, including the Macedonian peasants, later however, that too changed and exposed the Macedonians to a similar fate as the Macedonians in Aegea and Vardar.

The Macedonians in Albania, posing little threat to Albania's authority, faired relatively better than their kin in Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. The village inhabitants were not persecuted or subjected to any comprehensive denationalization programs. As a result, the Macedonian culture flourished, original names remained and the people spoke Macedonian uninhibited.

As I mentioned earlier, many of the IMRO regional leaders, fooled by the Balkan League's propaganda, voluntarily joined the Leagues armies in 1912 to help oust the Turks and liberate Macedonia. When it was over and the so-called &quot;liberation&quot; turned into an &quot;occupation&quot;, they found themselves as prisoners of the Leagues soldiers. The ones fortunate enough to have escaped fled to the Pirin region and joined up with Yane Sandanski's Cheta whch was still active at the time. After Sandanski's assassination in 1915 however, many of his followers went underground and later re-emerged in Serres to form the &quot;Serres Revolutionary Council&quot;. The left wing of IMRO re-emerged prior to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference with high hopes of settling the Macedonian question by lobbying the peace delegates. After realizing that their efforts were futile, they gave up and merged together with the Provisional Mission of Western Macedonia to form IMRO (United). Macedonia is alive, &quot;United&quot; in spirit if not in substance. Unfortunately, because of Macedonia's division and the impenetrable barriers erected, putting up a &quot;united&quot; national front was difficult if not impossible. Even though there was much desire to achieve a 'united autonomous Macedonia', no form of mobilization was practical. So how was IMRO going to achieve its objectives? Some leaders believed that by internationalizing the Macedonian question and by working with the supportive political elements of each Balkan State, the denationalization process could be slowed down, even reversed, and a climate for reunification created. The barriers erected in Macedonia, IMRO believed, could be penetrated by employing new, revolutionary, and non-nationalistic tactics. By joining the &quot;international class struggle against a common oppressor&quot;, IMRO believed self-determination could be achieved. The only political elements that sympathized with IMRO's objectives at the time were the Communist Parties of the respective Balkan States. IMRO called on the Macedonian people to join the class struggle and support those sympathetic to the Macedonian cause. Many Macedonians did rise to the task but found they had very little in common with the exploited working class in their respective new countries. Macedonians felt they were exploited first because they were Macedonians and second because they were a working class. To win them over, the Communist International (Comintern) was obliged to consider concessions like offering Macedonians autonomy and the right to self-determination or at least recognize the Macedonian nation with full rights and privileges. The Comintern saw the Macedonians as a potentially strong ally that could be persuaded to rally for its cause. Unfortunately, there were problems, many problems. First there were disagreements between the various Balkan State Communist Parties regarding the degree of concessions to be awarded. Then there were fears of losing Macedonian territory, if autonomy was considered. Moscow, the leading Comintern figure favoured a Balkan Federation with the whole of Macedonia as one of its republics. Bulgaria, unfortunately, still dreaming the San Stefano dream, backed out of the deal.

Without a way of breaking the &quot;artificial impenetrable barriers&quot; imposed on Macedonia by the Balkan States, IMRO was never again able to rise to the glory days of the Ilinden Rebellion. As a consequence, its role slowly diminished and it became extinct after the German occupation of the Balkans in 1941.

After the Great War there was peace in Europe, unfortunately, Macedonians continued to endure denationalization, forced assimilation, forced emigration, and economic neglect at the hands of the new masters. As time will tell, Europe will not have a lasting peace, a new menace with greater ferocity is emerging and will engulf the entire world. Once again someone else's war will be fought on Macedonian soil and once again it will prove even more devastating, almost fatal to the Macedonian people.

To be continued in part VII.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology

2. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question.

3. John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to define a new Balkan Nation.

4. G.A.L. I Kata Tis Makedonias Epivouli, (Ekdosis Deftera Sympepliromeni), Athinai 1966

5. Melville Chater, National Geographic, November 1925.

6. Felix Gilbert, The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present.

7. Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece.

8. Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood.

9. What Europe has Forgotten: The Struggle of the Aegean Macedonians, A Report by the Association of the Macedonians in Poland

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>4mxt6g0m9ag0azhjtw83rg46w6mc44d</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VII - 1939 - 1949 WWII &amp; The Greek Civil War</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2052</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11015</id>
      <parentid>10637</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:34:12Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="55837" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part VII - 1939 - 1949

WWII &amp; The Greek Civil War

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

December, 2002 

click here for a printable version


In the previous article (part VI) I covered the effects of Macedonia's partition and the practices and policies of its subjugators.

In this article (part VII) I will cover World War II, the Greek Civil War and their effects on the Macedonian people. This article contains first hand accounts of people who lived through the ordeals of World War II and the Greek Civil War.

After the conclusion of the Great War and the Soviet Bolshevik revolution the Super Powers were in ruins and began their lengthy process of rebuilding.

Russia's desires for imperialist ventures and her obsession with destroying the Ottoman Empire brought immense economic suffering to her people.

While the Macedonians in the Balkans were suffering from denationalization and oppression, the world around them was changing. 

Lenin's rise to power put an end to Russian imperialist ambitions in the Balkans, especially the Tsarist desires for annexing Tsari Grad (Constantinople) and Endrene (Macedonian Dardanelles). Germany on the other hand, bitter about her latest defeat, began to rebuild her economy. Smarting from their latest bouts with Germany, France and Britain too began to rebuild their economies and military strengths.

Germany as the vanquished party and instigator of the Great War was forced to pay restitution for damages to the victorious nations.

In spite of all efforts made to recover from the Great War, the economic situation in Europe was worsening and came to a climax in October 1929 when the stock market crashed in the United States.

The economic collapse of the 1930's and the &quot;Great Depression&quot; polarized the world into &quot;left and right&quot; economic camps. On the left were the supporters of the working class and Communism, while on the right were the supporters of industry and capitalism.

The tug of war between left and right came to a climax when civil war broke out in Spain in July 1936. Germany was in support of the right and sent troops to fight on the side of the Spanish Government. Germany at the time was only allowed to have a small army, so to compensate for her limited numerical capability she focused her efforts on producing a superior force. Germany's small but capable army was field-tested and battle hardened in the Spanish conflict. This explains her numerous victories during the course of World War II.

Russian and German influences did not escape the Balkan States and they too felt the pull from the two camps.

To maintain control of his kingdom, King George II of Greece made his state a dictatorship and in 1936, after the Greek premier's death, appointed General Metaxas to take charge of Greek affairs, who at the time was minister of war.

While there were some prospects for basic human rights for the Macedonian people in the Greek State in the early 1920's, those prospects died as Greece tightened her grip on Macedonia by implementing more racist assimilation policies. If that was not enough, on December 18, 1936 the Greek Government issued a legal act concerning, &quot;Activities Against State Security&quot;. By this act thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned, and expelled from their homeland.

Among other things Metaxas, on September 7, 1938 by legal act 2366, outlawed the Macedonian language and prohibited people from speaking it by imposing heavy fines and imprisonment.

In 1938 Australian author Bert Birtles in his book &quot;Exiles in the Aegean&quot; wrote, &quot;In the name of 'Hellenization' these people (Macedonians) are being persecuted continually and arrested for the most fantastic reasons. Metaxa's way of inculcating the proper nationalist spirit among them has been to change all the native place-names into Greek and to forbid use of the native language. For displaying the slightest resistance to the edict-for this too is a danger to the security of the State-peasants and villagers have been exiled without trial.&quot; (page 112, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

Once in control of the Greek State Metaxas acted against the labour unions and their leaders and declared strikes illegal. He then turned to suppressing all political opposition, outlawed all political parties and imprisoned the leaders who would not pledge their loyalty. The communist party too was outlawed and driven underground. The press was also heavily censored. 

Being a military man himself, Metaxas dedicated much of the State's finances to modernize the Greek army in both manpower and military hardware. In the sphere of education, he re-wrote Greek history to support his own ideologies declaring that there were three great periods in history: the classical, the Byzantine and his own regime, which was then known as the &quot;Regime of the Fourth of August&quot;. He created a National Youth Organization to bring together the children of the various social classes and provided military training for boys and domestic skills for girls.

Even though the Metaxa regime was ideologically similar to that of Spain and Italy, the Greeks were always loyal to Britain.

In Yugoslavia, events were progressing in a similar manner to those in Greece. After King Alexander declared himself dictator of Yugoslavia in 1929, he suspended the constitution and subdivided his kingdom in such a way that the Serbs would be a majority in all districts. He also abolished trade unions and removed personal liberties.

The Serbian occupied territory of Macedonia was referred to as &quot;South Serbia&quot; and the Macedonian language was forbidden from being spoken in public. The history of the Macedonian people and their surnames were changed as well, to give Serbian emphasis. Place names too were changed and replaced with historically Serbian names.

Unlike the Metaxa regime, after the 1930's the Yugoslav regimes began to relax their tight grip and allowed unofficial and limited use of the Macedonian dialects to be spoken in the streets of Macedonia and in plays and drama clubs.

In Bulgaria, events followed a similar course as in Yugoslavia and Greece. A military coup was imposed in May 1934, the 1879 constitution was abolished, and political organizations and trade unions were suppressed. In 1935, King Boris III, in a bloodless coup, overthrew the old dictatorship and replaced it with his own Royal one.

Bulgarian governments since Bulgaria's inception in 1878 have officially and adamantly denied the existence of the Macedonian nationality arguing that Macedonians are Bulgarians.

Thousands of Macedonians who over the years tried to express different views were jailed or exiled. The attitude that Macedonians are Bulgarians was used to justify violent assimilation acts and to deny Macedonians their basic human rights. 

Ever since her inception in 1878, Bulgaria has been obsessed with possessing Macedonia and has caused immense suffering for the Macedonian people.

The downfall of the Tsarist Russian Imperial Empire, the break-up of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire and the demise of the Ottoman Empire, removed three of the Super Powers from internal Balkan influence. While Britain played a less active role, France and Italy attempted to form competing alliances in the Balkans but did not have the military might to enforce them. The Balkan governments on the other hand, for the first time, had an opportunity to adjust their relations with each other and form alliances to protect their mutual interests. Unfortunately, their hatred for each other and fear of losing Macedonia always prevented such an alliance and allowed outsiders to again play a role in their internal affairs.

Germany's humiliating defeat in the Great War, coupled with her economic plight in the 1930's, gave rise to a new kind of German radicalism. Hitler exploited that and turned it to his own advantage. Hitler, in the short term, also gave the German people what they desired most, work and hope for a better future. Unfortunately, in the long term, he delivered disaster not only to the German people but also to many other nations, including the Macedonians. 

As a new-world order emerged, new alliances began to form. On one side stood the Axis partners, initially consisting of Germany, Italy and Japan, then as war broke out, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Thailand joined in. On the other side were the Allied partners consisting of Britain, the Soviet Union, the USA, and China. As the war progressed, more and more nations joined the allies, totaling about fifty before the war was over.

In September 1940, Germany, Italy and Japan signed a cooperation agreement, which basically identified their intentions with respect to each others' spheres of influence, and defined their political, economic, and defense strategies as well as their obligations to each other. The agreement came to be known as the &quot;tripartite pact&quot;.

After war broke out in the Balkans, the first to fall to fascist aggression was Albania. By an ultimatum delivered to Albanian King Zog on March 23, 1939, Italian troops landed in Albania and occupied her territory on April 7, encountering little resistance.

Soon after consolidating control in Albania, on October 28th, 1940, Italy declared war on Greece. Greece however, turned out to be a tougher nut to crack and Metaxa's foresight in arming his state paid off. 

Official history praises Greece and the Greek soldiers for their bravery and fighting spirit but neglects to mention Macedonian contributions and sacrifices made to keep Greece safe. Macedonians were the first to be dispatched to the front lines in Albania and took the full brunt, not just of the offensive, but of the winter cold as well. More Macedonian men suffered from gangrene than from Italian bullets and bombs. Unprepared for the frigid temperatures, many men lost their fingers, toes, limbs and even their lives to frostbite. Food too was in short supply and the brave Macedonian soldiers had to fight off starvation as well as the Italians. They did this to protect a country that refused and still refuses to recognize them.

All their sacrifices were in vain anyway because six months later, on April 6th, 1941, the German army marched into Greece. Again the Macedonians fought bravely but they were no match for the well-trained, well-disciplined German army. (If you wish to learn more about World War II, specifically about events that involved Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, please read Volume 4 of &quot;The Marshal Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II, but don't expect to find anything about the Macedonian contribution).

There is a story I am told of a Macedonian soldier, a real old coot, who refused to surrender to the invading Germans and continued to fire at them in spite of orders to cease. He held his position until he ran out of ammunition and the Germans practically grabbed him by the neck. Expecting to meet his maker, he stood up and bravely faced his enemy. But instead of killing him, the German soldiers, one by one, shook his hand and praised him for his bravery, then let him go. (I don't want to give you the wrong impression about the Germans. This is how they behaved in the beginning, later however, during the Partisan days, their policy was to &quot;kill ten innocent civilians for each German soldier killed&quot;). 

When the Germans reached Athens, the Greek government capitulated and the soldiers on the Albanian front were left on their own. Some were told to go to Epirus and regroup, expected to make the long trek on foot. Others were told nothing and were left to roam the countryside. Eventually they were all picked up by German patrols, disarmed and sent home.

At home, the returning soldiers were given a hero's welcome. Unfortunately for those who were wounded and lost fingers, toes and limbs to frostbite, there was no compensation or solace for their pain.

The German invasion was a welcome relief for the soldiers from the Italian front, but at the same time it posed an uneasy uncertainty as to what was going to happen next. No one was certain how the new invaders were going to react. The Macedonian people, having ample prior experiences with being occupied were expecting the worst. As time would show however, the new invaders were a mixed blessing for the Macedonian people. 

After the war broke out in Europe, Bulgaria allied itself with the axis powers and on March 1, 1941, joined the German led pact. The entry of German troops into Bulgaria put Yugoslavia in a difficult position. To avoid the German wrath, on March 25, 1941 the Regent, Prince Paul, also joined the German led pact. This did not sit well with young King Peter however, who with the help of the Yugoslav military, staged a coup and deposed the Regent. This meant that again Hitler had to negotiate with Yugoslavia. Hitler was counting on Yugoslavia to allow him passage to attack Greece. The new situation angered Hitler and instead of negotiating, he signed directive number 25 declaring Yugoslavia an enemy of Germany and ordered her destruction. Hitler wanted a swift strike so he withdrew troops from the Russian campaign. 

It took Hitler's army 12 days to demolish Yugoslavia, a small diversion in his destructive career, but there are those who believe that this little diversion changed the course of history. To begin with it gave the Soviet Union just enough time to adequately prepare for an offensive, which ultimately led to Germany's defeat. Secondly, the violent nature of the attack created the right conditions for a Partisan uprising, which ultimately helped to establish the Republic of Macedonia.

The battle for Yugoslavia and Greece was swift and effective. When it was over the Germans, as an ally to the axis powers, allowed Bulgaria to occupy Vardar (Yugoslav occupied) Macedonia and the eastern region of Aegean (Greek occupied) Macedonia. Later, after the Italians left, Germany allowed Bulgaria to occupy western Macedonia as well.

Many Macedonians from the Vardar region who had suffered under the Yugoslav regime welcomed the Bulgarian invaders as saviors and liberators. Their euphoria was unfortunately short lived as the Bulgarians quickly began to oppress and forcibly Bulgarize the Macedonian population. If there had been any pro-Bulgarian sentiment before, it quickly disappeared after the occupation.

Germany's violent entry into Yugoslavia, coupled with Bulgarian oppressive attitudes towards the Macedonian people, gave birth to an underground Macedonian resistance movement.

In Aegean Macedonia, after the Germans settled in, life for the Macedonian people took on an uneasy normalcy. The Greek police that had supported the Metaxa regime before the occupation now cooperated with the German military and again became active in Macedonia. To counter its oppressive tactics, the old Komiti (Ilinden revolutionary guard) rearmed and went back to active duty. The &quot;old timers&quot; were angered by Greece's oppressive laws and were spurred back into action by Bulgarian propaganda condemning the Greek oppressive tactics. The Bulgarians were well aware of the unfavourable conditions the Greek Government had created in Macedonia and used the opportunity to agitate the Greeks. Komiti actions were limited at best and were restricted to the Italian zones, as the Germans would not tolerate armed actions in their zones.

The Partisan movement in Yugoslavia was more organized and progressive than that in Greece. Led by Tito, the Communist partisans in Yugoslavia organized a war of national liberation in which the Macedonians, led by Mihailo Apostolski and Tito's representative Tempo, fought on an equal footing. Macedonians formed their own section of resistance even before they were recognized and accepted by Tito. The first anti-fascist war of national liberation began in the Republic of Macedonia on October 11, 1941. October 11th is the &quot;Second Ilinden&quot; for the Macedonian people. Since 1941 they have celebrated it as &quot;Macedonian Revolution Day&quot;. The Macedonian people by their actions, loyalty, and patriotism earned their place in the world. By hardship, determination, and the spilling of blood the Macedonian people demonstrated their desire for freedom and the willingness to rule themselves. The Super Powers in 1829 (by the London Protocol) satisfied the Greeks by making Greece a country. Similarly, in 1878 (by the congress of Berlin) Russia liberated the Bulgarians making Bulgaria a country. Unlike the Greeks and Bulgarians however, the brave people of Vardar Macedonia had to fight by themselves and for themselves to earn their place in the world among the free nations.

For just over a year the Macedonians of Vardar endured enough Bulgarian treachery to last them a lifetime. Then in April 1942 they rose up and demonstrated their displeasure. Macedonian Partisans took up arms against the Bulgarian army but were massacred in a bloody battle. Unarmed Macedonians then took to the streets to protest the massacre and they too were cut to pieces.

To escape persecution, sections of the Macedonian Partisan force fled into Aegean Macedonia. Some entered the Italian zones near the village of Besfina and the rest penetrated the German zones in the region around the village Sveta Petka and quickly went underground. The Besfina force, before it had a chance to make contact with the local population, was spotted by the Komiti who quickly sprang into action. Seeing uniformed men on the Besfina hillside startled the old Komiti. Thinking that it was a Greek police (Andari) invasion force, the Komiti appealed to the local Italian garrison and were given arms and permission to attack. When the Komiti started the offensive, the Partisans backed off and sent representatives to negotiate. They went from village to village and spoke with the local chiefs. The strangers wore handsome uniforms and conducted themselves seriously with charm and charisma. They spoke long and well about freedom, liberty and the treachery of the Bulgarian Fascists.

When the Komiti found out that the uniformed men were Macedonians, they accepted them with open arms, gave them their weapons and many voluntarily joined their cause. The Partisans of Sveta Petka, because of a German presence, had to work under cover and they too succeeded in recruiting volunteers from the local population. After the Partisan penetration, the Macedonian people of Aegean Macedonia learned about Bulgarian atrocities and ceased to believe the Bulgarian propaganda. The old Ilinden guard was demobilized and replaced by a Partisan movement.

Partisan organizers took extraordinary measures to explain to the Macedonian people that they were fighting for freedom and for the liberation of the Macedonian people from the tyranny of the oppressive states. The Macedonian involvement in this war and later in the Greek civil war was not about &quot;Communist ideologies&quot; or about alliances or obligations to the Super Powers. It was simply the next stage in the long struggle for &quot;liberation from oppression&quot; and to fulfill a longing for freedom, re-unification, and self-rule. The Macedonian contribution to fight against Fascism is not only under emphasized, but historians also misinterpret it. I will once again say that the Macedonian people during the Second Great War (WWII) rose on the democratic side and fought against fascism and for the liberation of the states in which they lived. The Macedonian people, like other people in the Balkans fought to liberate their homeland and thus earned their place in the world. This cannot be ignored and must be recognized and recorded in the annals of history.

Word of a Macedonian Partisan movement in Aegean Macedonia spread like wild fire. People came out to the streets to freely speak their native Macedonian language, to sing songs and write Macedonian plays and poetry. The Partisans even set up Macedonian schools and taught children patriotic songs, poems and Macedonian history using the local Macedonian dialects. The younger generations, for the first time, saw written words in their beloved, sacred Macedonian language. The newfound freedom brought happiness to the lives of the oppressed Macedonian people who welcomed the Partisans into their villages as &quot;our own boys and girls&quot;. The newfound confidence and strength projected by the Macedonians, terrified the Greeks especially the Andari and their collaborators. For a while they were no longer a threat.

The Germans and Italians did not care one way or another about Macedonian affairs as long as there was no trouble for them.

Macedonian interest in Partisan activities continued to climb, bringing new recruits and volunteers to the cause. Youth organizations (NOMS) were created with young men and women recruited to be the eyes and ears of the community and to help defend the villages. Many young volunteers of military age were recruited and trained to perform policing and civic duties in the newly formed organizations. The famous &quot;all Macedonian&quot; organization SNOF (Slaven Naroden Osloboditen Front or Slavic Macedonian People's Liberation Front) was formed and recruited fighters from the Kostur, Lerin and Voden regions. SNOF even cooperated with Greek organizations with similar ideologies. Later, there was talk about re-uniting Macedonia, possibly through a Balkan confederation. Britain unfortunately, was against the idea and discouraged Greece from taking part in such matters. Bulgaria too could not agree and withdrew support. As usual, the Bulgarians wanted to become rulers of Macedonia, which was unacceptable to the Macedonians.

There is a story told that about five hundred young Macedonian civilian men gathered at the village of D'mbeni eager to join the Partisan movement. Word of this reached the Greek Partisan leadership who appeared to be terrified at the prospect of a strong all Macedonian force. There is nothing the Greeks fear more than losing Macedonia. The Greeks by this time had formed their own Partisan movements (outside of Macedonia) and began to negotiate with the Macedonians about combining forces. For some time Greek Partisan representatives tempted the Macedonians to join them. When negotiations failed to achieve results, the Greeks tried ordering the Macedonians to surrender their arms. Macedonians were well aware of Greek treachery and refused to join them or surrender their arms. Instead they sealed the borders from Bigla to Korcha, rendering them inaccessible to Greeks. Initially the Macedonians acted alone but later they joined a wing of the EAM, the Greek Popular Liberation Army.

The leadership of the Macedonian force in Western Aegean Macedonia was shared between Voivoda Ilia Dimov code named &quot;Goche&quot; and our own Oshchima Voivoda, Mito Tupurkovski code named &quot;Titan&quot;. Both commanders were loved by their men for their fighting abilities and respected for their leadership.

I briefly want to mention at this point that in an ironic twist of events, while Mito Tupurkovski engaged the Germans in bitter battles, his mother Sulta was accidentally killed by a stray German bullet.

It was an ordinary summer day in 1944 and for some time now the local people had become accustomed to German patrols making their routine rounds, inspecting the road conditions and the communication lines between Zhelevo and Breznitsa. Early each morning two German soldiers left Zhelevo on foot for Breznitsa and a pair left Breznitsa for Zhelevo. When the patrols met they reversed direction and continued this routine all day long.

On this particular day, ten Partisans came to Oshchima and decided to attack one of the patrols and take the soldiers as hostages. They set a trap in a ditch near Ternaa and sat in wait. While they were waiting, two men from Oshchima, Paso Boglev and Giro Keleshov went to a nearby mill. Paso left his donkey to graze on the road above and stepped inside the mill. When the Germans passed by they borrowed the donkey and one of them rode it as they made their way. When they reached the Partisan trap, the only armed Partisan fired a rapid-fire volley in the air. Unfortunately, after the initial burst, his gun jammed. The Germans quickly took cover in the ravine and started to fire back. Discouraged by their failed attempt the Partisans quickly fled into the mountains. The loud gunfire alerted the German garrison in Zhelevo and reinforcements were quickly dispatched. Paso and Giro also heard the gunfire and came out of the mill to investigate. Seeing a rushing vehicle with armed soldiers headed towards them startled the two men and in panic they fled. Paso ran down to the river and hid out of sight. Giro unfortunately, ran up the hill and was in full view of the German patrol. The Germans, thinking he was the culprit, gave chase. Giro was a fast runner and the Germans couldn't catch him so before he could disappear into the woods, one of the soldiers fired a rapid-fire volley at him. Who would have expected that a bullet from that round would mortally wound Mito's mother Sulta who was quietly sitting in her yard enjoying a beautiful summer's day? Giro escaped unharmed but unfortunately Sulta died from her wound on August 20th, 1944.

In September 1944 German troops began to withdraw from the Balkans. Fearing reprisals, many Macedonians evacuated their villages and set up temporary homes in the mountains in seclusion. As it turned out the Germans were not a threat, so after a month or so villagers returned to their homes. The people that lived near main roads were afraid to return and took up residence with relatives in secluded villages and stayed there until all the Germans were gone.

There was one incident that I know of where the Germans did do damage. This was in the Village of Ternaa where returning Germans found their &quot;host village&quot; empty, became enraged and stoned two old people to death.

To protect soldiers from being attacked out in the open at night, the Germans assigned them residences inside the villages among the locals. Each house was identified with a marker and returning soldiers used it for shelter. In Oshchima, as in other villages, identification numbers were stamped on the outside door of each house. Time and time again the same soldiers came back to the same house. According to stories my family told me, several German soldiers used to spend the night at our house. When someone was missing my grandfather would motion &quot;what happened&quot; and point in the direction where the man had last sat. The Germans would then motion back &quot;sleep&quot;, meaning that he was killed or would say &quot;mama&quot; for gone home on leave to visit his family.

After all the German and Bulgarian occupying forces withdrew from Yugoslavia, the Partisans numbering about 800,000 men were in full control. There were no outside invasion forces (Allied or Russian) inside Yugoslavia, so foreign interference was not a problem. At that time the Macedonian Partisans possessed a sizeable force and wielded considerable influence in the ranks of the Tito regime. The Macedonian people did their share of fighting for the liberation of Yugoslavia from the Fascists and earned their place as equals among the Yugoslav people.

On August 2nd 1944, Macedonia was officially proclaimed a Republic within the Yugoslav Federation. A Bitola-Lerin dialect was chosen and adopted as the official language of the Republic and the city of Skopje was chosen as the new Republic's capital.

No sooner had the Germans withdrawn from Greece than the British military arrived in Athens. Athens was evacuated on October 12, 1944 and a British occupation force entered the city a few days later. 

While Britain entered Greece with only four thousand troops, most unfit for combat, ELAS (Greek Partisans) in contrast had seventy thousand men armed and ready for combat. Even the British admit that if the Greek Partisans wanted to, they could have seized power. The conditions were certainly right. The question is why didn't they, and what was the Civil War all about? Official history provides no answers, only more questions.

It took the British a couple of months to get organized and by mid December 1944 they had fifty thousand soldiers of their own and some loyal Greek troops to back them. The local Greek troops came from the ranks of the Andari (National Republican Greek League), the same men who fought alongside the Germans. They switched their German gear for British uniforms and they were back on the streets again attacking the Partisans.

As Greece started to collapse, before Germany invaded in 1941, King George II fled and formed a government in exile in London, which was recognized by the Allies as the official Government of Greece. Also, the British in advance of the German departure established a centre of Greek activity in Cairo where a Greek army, navy and air force operated under British command. 

After the British consolidated power in Greece, they were able to support the British appointed Greek Government and ordered the Partisans to demobilize. What is interesting here is that before the British were able to militarily enforce a disarmament they ordered the Partisan forces to disband. What is more interesting and noteworthy is that EAM agreed to demobilize its own forces with hardly any conditions. The only condition worthy of mention is the request for Britain to disarm the &quot;Government support units&quot; EAM's main opposition. Knowing full well that Britain would never allow communist rule in Greece and also knowing that the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Britain not to interfere in Greece, EAM still believed it could come to power with no outside help.

When the British went ahead with the original plan, ignoring EAM's request to disarm the Government Support Units, EAM withdrew from the government. EAM then protested against British actions by organizing demonstrations and general strikes. When the Athens square began to flood with thousands of demonstrators, the police were ordered to fire on the crowds killing fifteen people. To make matters worse, Churchill approved a plan for Britain to occupy Athens by any means necessary if required. ELAS still held more than three-quarters of Greece but because it could no longer count on outside (Soviet) support, it had to re-evaluate its own position.

Under these conditions, EAM on January 1945 accepted an armistice, trading guns for votes. The Varkita agreement was signed on February 12, 1945 requiring all bands to demobilize and surrender their weapons. The British, once again confirmed their allegiance to the Greek Government by giving Athens full political and military support, committing their willingness to fight to prevent a Partisan victory. The biggest losers of the Varkita agreement were the Macedonians. As soon as EAM signed the agreement, all anti-Macedonian laws were back in force and the Macedonian people lost all that they had gained during the German occupation. EAM/KKE (Greek Communist Party) made absolutely no effort to safeguard Macedonian rights in the agreements with Britain and as a result began to lose favour with the Macedonian leadership. When the Macedonian Partisan forces were ordered to demobilize as part of the Vartika agreement, the Macedonian leadership refused. Goche and Titan refused to disarm and disband without guarantees that no harm would come to their men or to the Macedonian people.

The question of &quot;what will happen to Aegean Macedonia under Greek communist rule&quot;, was still unclear. Greece unfortunately was determined to rid itself of the Macedonians one way or another and outlawed the Macedonian forces. A strike force was assembled by ELAS (the Greek Partisans) and sent north to intervene and arrest the Macedonian outlaws. Instead of putting up a fight however, the Macedonian brigades crossed over the Yugoslav border and entered Vardar Macedonia where they were a welcome addition to existing Macedonian forces fighting the Albanian Balisti (German allies) in Tetovo and Gostivar. The Macedonian leadership could have stayed and fought the ELAS but it would have made no sense to bring the war home to Macedonia. They knew very well that British troops would soon follow and they would be fighting a senseless, bloody war in their own backyard.

With the Macedonian force out of the way, the Greek police were back and up to their old tricks. This time it wasn't only the Macedonians who were their victims. They hated the Greek Partisans just as much. With practically no one to stop them, the Greek police escalated their terror activities arresting, torturing and murdering people indiscriminately. This included the EAM, ELAS and KKE (Communist Party of Greece) leadership. By the time the elections were convened most of the Partisan leadership had disappeared. They were either in jail serving hard time on fabricated and trumped up charges or they were dead. 

The elections were scheduled for March 31st, 1946 but instead of voting, the Greek Partisans re-armed themselves and rebelled against the Greek Government. The rebellion manifested itself as an attack on Greece in the village of &quot;Lithohorion&quot; situated East of Mount Olimp (Olympus) directly south of Katerini in Thessaly. 

Other attacks soon followed and in no time the conflict escalated into a full scale Civil War, engulfing not only Greece but Macedonia as well. 

In a bizarre turn of events the same ELAS, who less than a year ago turned their guns on the Macedonian fighters now extended their hands in friendship. All was forgiven and forgotten when the ELAS leadership asked the Macedonians for their help. This time they came with offers of &quot;equal rights&quot;, &quot;recognition&quot; and even possibilities of &quot;re-unification with Vardar&quot;.

Now tell me what Macedonian could resist that?

Many Aegean Partisan fighters who had crossed over to Vardar Macedonia only the year before came back. On their return they organized themselves under NOF, the Macedonian National Liberation Front and fought side by side with the ELAS. Many were well aware of the saying &quot;beware of Greeks bearing gifts&quot;, and knew that the Greek offer was too good to be true, but there was always that small ray of hope that perhaps this time the outcome for Macedonia might be different. Besides, their families, homes and lives were in Aegean Macedonia, so what other choice did they really have? They returned because they were lonely, because they loved their families and because they had to live with the guilt of leaving their loved ones in dire straits. Every Macedonian born in Macedonia, even in the most desolate places, knows the feeling of homesickness and yearns to return. 

The new alliance between ELAS and NOF opened many opportunities for the Greek Partisans beyond the Greek borders. While the Greek government controlled the big cities and towns, the Partisan strength was in the villages and mountains. Most of the Partisan recruits came from the peasant population and showed themselves to be idealistic, hopeful and determined to fight. Camps were set up in mountainous seclusion where new recruits were given combat training. There were also training camps and supply depots set up outside Greece, in Albania and Yugoslavia. One such camp was the town of Bulkes located in northern Yugoslavia. Bulkes was a beautiful town with neat rows of lovely houses and fertile lands that could feed an army. The Germans built Bulkes to house German families but after the German armies retreated, some residents of Bulkes were kicked out while others left voluntarily. The empty town was loaned to the Greek Partisans to use as a supply depot for warehousing food, uniforms and weapons. Bulkes was also a training centre for officers, and an administrative centre for propaganda. During the Partisan days the town of Bulkes was administered in the true spirit of socialism.

By early 1947, the Partisan force was showing real strength in military capability and promise for delivering on its commitments to the Macedonian people. About 87 Macedonian schools were opened in the Lerin and Kostur regions. A record number of students (10,000) were reported attending school. Macedonian literature and culture seemed to flourish. The Greeks, unfortunately, were never at ease with the Macedonian gains and there was visible resentment and mistrust between the two peoples. Greek chauvinism seemed to flourish even at the best of times. Macedonians on the other hand were never at ease about revealing their real names or identities, especially to the Greek Partisans. One Macedonian explained it to me this way, &quot;If they knew that you were Macedonian then you had to watch both your front and back, because you never knew where the next bullet was going to come from&quot;.

In Macedonia the ranks of the Partisans were swelling mostly with volunteers from the patriotic Macedonian villages. Some who had combat experience were promoted to the rank of officer. The Greeks were hesitant and careful not to promote Macedonians to high ranks. Those they reserved for Greeks only. In addition to enlisting men, the Partisans also drafted women as nurses, field medics, tailors, menders, launderers, cooks, supply organizers and even armed combatants. For a while the Partisans grew their own food in donated and abandoned fields. The workforce managing the harvests and delivering food to the Partisan camps was made up mostly of women volunteers. 

Britain was not happy with the new developments and squeezed the Greek Government to expand its military capability and to arm itself with heavy arms. &quot;Up to 1947 the British Government appointed and dismissed Greek Prime Ministers with the barest attention to constitutional formalities. British experts dictated economic and financial policy, defence and foreign policy, security and legal policy, trade union and unemployment policy&quot;. (page 306, Barbara Jelevich, History of the Balkans, Twentieth Century).

For her interference inside a Sovereign State's affairs and for allowing heavy-handed tactics, Britain received criticism from the United States whose dollars were used to rebuild Greece.

Both the Greek Government and the Partisans were recruiting fighters from the same population. While young men were drafted to fight for the Greek Government, their wives, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers were drafted to fight for the Partisans. There were heavy propaganda campaigns conducted on both sides poisoning the minds of the young and impressionable, dividing and tearing the community apart and pitting brother against brother.

This was the Greek legacy passed on to the Macedonian people for offering their help. This was the &quot;Greek curse&quot; that many Macedonians must bear for partnering with the Greeks. To this day many Macedonians harbour hard feelings and struggle to make amends. To this day the Macedonian community remains divided on this issue.

Ever since the day the British set foot in Greece, they were adamant about ridding themselves of the Partisans by any means possible, even condoning acts of violence and terror. From mid-1945 to May 20th, 1947, the Partisans reported that &quot;in Western Macedonia alone, 13,529 Macedonians were tortured, 3,215 were imprisoned, and 268 were executed without trial. In addition, 1,891 houses were burnt down and 1,553 were looted, and 13,808 Macedonians were resettled by force. During the war, Greek-run prison camps where Macedonians were imprisoned, tortured, and killed included the island of Ikaria near Turkey, the Island of Makronis near Athens, the jail Averov near Athens, the jail at Larisa near the Volos Peninsula, and the jail in Thessaloniki. Aegean Macedonian expatriates claim that there were mass killings on Vicho, Gramos, Kaymakchalan, and at Mala Prespa in Albania.&quot; (page 116 John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

In 1946 the Greek police attacked a band of musicians from Oshchima and Ternaa at Popli while they were on their way to play at a wedding in Rudari. The musicians were severely beaten and their musical instruments were destroyed. For one young man his trumpet was his only means of support. 

In 1946, a Greek policeman shot and killed Sofia Ianovska from Zhelevo for fun. The woman, whose husband was in Canada at the time, was standing on her front porch waiting for her children to arrive from work. The crazed policeman fired at the woman because she was looking in his direction, instantly killing her. According to local accounts, no inquiry was made regarding the shooting nor was the policeman ever questioned about his actions.

In 1945-46, in retaliation for one of their own being killed, the Prosfigi (people that Greece imported from Asia Minor during the 1920's) of Popli killed Nikola Cholakov, an innocent man from Orovnik. The only connection Nikola had with the dead man was that he was a supporter of the opposite side in the conflict.

I have been told that the Prosfigi in Macedonia committed atrocities against the Macedonian people, and were never punished for their crimes. I also want to emphasize that the Macedonian Partisans had the strength and opportunity to round up all the Prosfigi in north-western Macedonia and massacre them to the last one but instead they used sound judgement and left them alone. Macedonians understand that the Prosfigi are also victims of Hellenism. 

The Greek Government in Macedonia worked closely with local collaborators and enlisted from the Macedonian population only those who could be proven trustworthy. The collaborators worked hard to identify all those who were sympathetic to the Partisans and reported on their activities on a regular basis. Anyone reported aiding the Partisans was severely punished and sometimes executed.

In the spring of 1947, all those who were on the &quot;bad guys&quot; lists were rounded up, arrested and locked up in the Lerin jails. Those accused of aiding the Partisans were taken out and executed. The rest, after spending one hundred days in jail, without a trial, were sent to various concentration camps in the most desolate Greek Islands.

I want to mention something very important here because I believe the Greek Government, even before the Greek civil war, had plans &quot;to deal with the Macedonians in Greece&quot;. &quot;In 1947, during the Greek civil war, the legal act L-2 was issued. This meant that all those who left Greece without the consent of the Greek government were stripped of Greek citizenship and banned from returning to the country. The law applied to Greeks and Macedonians, but in its modernized version the act is binding only on Macedonians. It prevents Macedonians, but not former Communist Greeks who fought against the winning side from returning to Greece and reclaiming property. On January 20, 1948, the legal act M was issued. This allowed the Greek government to confiscate the property of those who were stripped of their citizenship. The law was updated in 1985 to exclude Greeks, but still binding on Macedonians.&quot; (Pages 116, 117 John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

Clearly acts L-2 and M were designed to work against the interest of the Macedonian people. Even innocent Macedonians who left before the Civil war were not allowed to return. The question now is, &quot;What was Greece planning to do with the Macedonians?&quot; The way acts L-2 and M were enforced over the years brings another question to mind. If there were no Macedonians living in Greece, as the Greeks claim, then what nationality were these people the Greek Government refused to allow back? Why is it that Greek law makes the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks when it suits Greece and not when it benefits the Macedonians?

By the end of 1947 battles were raging everywhere and the war was slowly moving north into Macedonia. Clearly this was a &quot;Greek War&quot;, yet again the Macedonian population was being sucked into it. The heavily armed Greek Air force and mechanized artillery gained control of most cities and main roads. The Partisans were literally trapped and continued their strictly defensive campaigns mainly from the mountains of Vicho and Gramos. 

As the situation became critical, both sides stepped up their recruitment campaigns and again were drawing from the same population. The Partisans could no longer count on volunteers alone and began to enlist fighters by force and drafted anyone they could get their hands on, male or female. In addition to support roles, women were now armed and given combat duties to fight alongside the men against the well trained, well disciplined and heavily armed Greek Army. Such was the fate of the Macedonian daughters, sisters, and mothers most of whom were taken by force to fight in someone else's war.

As the war intensified, the Greek air force regularly bombed Macedonian villages putting the civilian population, including the children, in danger.

To save the children, in the spring of 1948 a temporary evacuation program was introduced and implemented on a voluntary basis. It is estimated that about 28,000 children from the ages of 2 to 14 were rounded up and taken across the border into Yugoslavia (more on this in part VIII). From there they were sent to various Eastern Block countries.

Again, I want to point out that the evacuation program was sponsored and organized by the Greek Partisan Leadership which was fully versed in &quot;Greek Law&quot;(act L-2), yet they carried out the children's evacuation program and lied to the trusting mothers that the evacuation was only a temporary measure. Almost all the Macedonian children who were evacuated in 1948 are still not allowed entry into Greece.

By the spring of 1949, the Greek Civil War became a &quot;killing field&quot; consuming the Macedonian population. Some of the children who were previously evacuated were brought back to fight against the battle hardened Greek army. Children that were strong enough to carry a rifle, regardless of age, were snatched from the child refugee camps in Romania and brought back to Greece. Two of the three groups that were brought back were instantly massacred upon engaging the Greek Army. They were all under the age of fifteen and had no combat training and no idea of what to expect.

The third group was spared only because mothers protested against such barbaric acts. The Partisans demobilized the third group before it reached the battlefields and sent the children home. 

By the twisted hand of fate, Zachariadis the supreme commander of the Partisan forces and his cronies, in their wisdom, decided to make a final stand against Greece that would make or break the Partisan movement. Their rationale was that the Partisans needed to occupy a large town or city to serve as their base. This would make them worthy of consideration and perhaps gain the attention of the Super Powers, especially the Soviet Union. There are many who share my belief in believing that the Partisan attack on Lerin on February 12, 1949 was nothing more than an attempt to exterminate the Macedonian fighting force and terrorize the rest of the Macedonian population into leaving Greece. I can say that with certainty now because that is exactly what happened.

In one last-ditch attempt to gain composure and legitimacy the Partisans attacked the city of Lerin attempting to create a base of operation and show the world that they were a force worthy of recognition. Their effort however was not rewarded. They did not capture Lerin and lost most of the force in the attempt. Seven hundred young Macedonian men and women died on that fateful day, their bodies buried in a mass grave. The Partisan leadership waited until dawn before ordering the attack. Wave after wave of innocent young men and women were slaughtered, cut down in their prime by Greek machine-gun fire. The horror of the slaughter became visible at the crack of dawn when the first light revealed the red stained terrain. The fresh white snow was red with the blood and bodies of the fallen. 

To this day opinions are divided on the rationale of attacking Lerin so late in the war. The war was almost over and the Greek Army, supported by Britain, was unstoppable. In retrospect, some believe that gaining control of Lerin would have given the Partisan leadership a bargaining chip for surrender. Looking at the facts however, reveals a more sinister plan. By now it was well known throughout the world that Britain would not allow a communist influence in Greece. Britain's decision was supported by the Soviet Union and by Stalin himself. The Partisan leadership was well informed that it can no longer depend on support from the Communist Block countries under Soviet influence. Relations with Yugoslavia had broken off and the Greek-Yugoslav border was closed (more on this later). The Communist Party that promised Macedonians human rights and freedoms slowly began to distance itself from its commitments. Most of the Partisans who fought in the battle for Lerin were new recruits and inexperienced fighters. Most of the force was made up of Macedonian men and women under Greek leadership. The Partisan command hesitated when it was time to launch the offensive thus giving the enemy extra time to prepare its defenses. The hesitation demoralized the Partisan combatants who were not prepared for the prolonged outdoor winter cold. 

A cursory analysis of developments prior to the Lerin assault and a post-mortem of the aftermath led to one inescapable conclusion. As I mentioned earlier, the assault on Lerin was designed to destroy the Macedonian Partisan force. By offering the Lerin offensive instead of surrendering, the Partisan leadership &quot;sacrificed its own force&quot;. By accident or by design the assault on Lerin contributed to the demise of many Macedonian fighters and to the mass exodus of the Macedonian population. Many believe that the Greek civil war succeeded in &quot;ethnically cleansing&quot; the Macedonian people where many years of assimilation had failed. 

Fearing reprisal from the advancing Greek army, in August 1949 waves of refugees left their homes and went to Albania to save themselves. When the war was over, Greece did not want them back. As a result, they were sent to Eastern Block countries that were willing to take them.

Years later some tried to return but Greece (act L-2) would not allow it. Even innocent Macedonians, who did not participate in the conflict, including the evacuated refugee children, were refused entry (again act L-2). Years passed and still they were refused entry again and again. They were not even allowed to visit ailing relatives. Finally in 1985, as I mention earlier, a repatriation policy was introduced and amnesty was given but only to those of &quot;Greek origin&quot;. This again excluded the Macedonians.

As the Macedonian terrain was rained upon by bombs from the air and from cannon fire, the frightened Macedonian people, mostly made up of old men and women and mothers with young children, took with them whatever they could carry and left their homes for the safety of the mountains. From there they were told to go to Albania and meet up with their relatives.

&quot;One such group left the village of Kolomnati and was headed down the mountain towards Rula when it was spotted by a young Greek officer. The young man immediately telephoned his general and informed him of the situation. 'Should we intercept?' inquired the young officer. 'No, let the troublemakers go, we don't want them here,' replied the old general.&quot; (story told by the general's assistant who asked to remain anonymous).

When the Greek Army broke the Lerin front the Partisan force that survived the onslaught fled for Albania. The fighters closest to the city were captured and imprisoned. Those who confessed to having voluntarily joined the Partisans were all executed. The others were either exiled in the Greek Islands or released after serving their sentences in local jails.

In its pursuit of the fleeing Partisans, the Greek Army managed to cut off the escape route of a group of Partisans who were manning the cannons and artillery fire at Bigla (the cannons after the war were put on display in the city of Lerin). Being unable to flee for Albania, the Bigla group attempted to cross into Yugoslavia near Prespa Lake. At the Yugoslav border they were stopped by the Yugoslav army, which agreed to allow them passage only if they voluntarily disarmed. Expecting to continue the war from Albania, the Partisans were reluctant to disarm and chose a different escape route. Unfortunately, they attempted their escape during the daytime and were spotted by the Greek Air force. Many were killed by machinegun fire from above and some drowned attempting to swim across Lake Prespa. Only a small group made it to Albania.

When they arrived in Albania, to cover for their own blunders, the leaders of the Bigla group concocted stories claiming that Tito's forces attacked them and would not allow them entry into Yugoslavia. Later the same men changed their stories and told the truth about what happened. Unfortunately, by then Greek Partisan and Yugoslav relations had deteriorated. Even though Yugoslavia was one of EAM's strongest supporters, the Greek Partisans used this story in their propaganda campaigns to discredit Tito in the eyes of the Soviet Union.

When the Greek Civil War was over, the Partisan leadership assembled in the abandoned Italian camp of Bureli in Albania to assess what went wrong and why they lost the war. After some deliberation, they came to the conclusion that it was Tito and the Macedonian collaboration that sabotaged the war effort. The failure was blamed on the Macedonian Partisan leadership for co-operating with Tito's Partisans. Seven of the most loyal Macedonian leaders were accused of sabotage and sentenced to death. Fortunately, Ever Hodzha (Albania's highest State Leader) did not want atrocities committed in his country and would not allow the executions to take place. The men were then taken to the Soviet Union, tried for treason and sentenced to life imprisonment to be served in the prison camps of Siberia. After Stalin's death, Krushchev re-opened the case and found the men innocent of all charges and released them.

After the Greek Civil War was over, life in Aegean Macedonia was no longer the same. The smaller villages were evacuated (some permanently) and the people were relocated to the larger towns under the watchful eye of the Greek police. The familiar joy and laughter was gone and the streets were barren of children. The proud Macedonian people, who only a few years before had revelled in life, were once again joyless. 

Through the conflict of the Second Great War a new-world order emerged. Two industrial giants, the Soviet Union and the Unites States, rose above the rest and with their opposing ideologies would dominate the future world.

To be continued in part VIII. 

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

References:

1. John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, McFarland

2. Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans, Twentieth Century

3. The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II Volume 4

4. Benefit Society Oshchima 75th Anniversary 1907-1982 Toronto-Canada

5. Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology

6. Interviews with survivors of WWII and the Greek Civil War

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>11d0vnjkn29yw4f91xcetgico0ixk29</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part VIII - The Plight of the Macedonian Refugee Children</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2053</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11016</id>
      <parentid>5002</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:34:20Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="44075" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part VIII - The Plight of the Macedonian Refugee Children

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com

January, 2003

click here for a printable version


In the previous article (part VII) I covered World War II, the Greek Civil War and their effects on the Macedonian people.

In this article (part VIII) I will cover the evacuation of the Macedonian children and the consequences of the Greek Civil War. The entire article is based on information obtained from interviews.

It was a dreary spring day on March 25th, 1948 when it all began. It was a day filled with high emotions, tears and heartbreak for the mothers and children of western Aegean Macedonia. It was the day the Detsa Begaltsi (Refugee Children) left, and for most it was the last time that they would ever see their beloved family and home.

The idea of evacuating the children was proposed by a sympathetic group of young men and women at a Youth Conference in 1947 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The escalating conflict in the Greek Civil War posed a threat to the civilian population, which was a concern for the &quot;progressive youth&quot;. Although they couldn't do anything for the civilian adults who were needed to support the war effort, there was a way to help the children. They proposed a temporary evacuation whereby the children would be sent out of the country to pursue their education in safety with the intent of being returned once the conflict ended. Although it was a good idea, the Greek Communist Party (KKE) saw no immediate need for such a plan and as a result it didn't give it much support. Partisan General Markos Vafiadis however, saw merit in the proposal because he believed that the conflict would escalate and concentrate in western Aegean Macedonia. He was, at the time, responsible for the defense of parts of western Macedonia that included the territories of the Lerin region and parts of Kostur and Voden regions. In 1947 the Partisans were at their peak strength and with the exception of the large cities were in control of all territories in western Aegean Macedonia.

When the Greek Government began to use heavy artillery and aerial bombardment, the idea quickly gained KKE support and the &quot;save the children&quot; program was born. Before the program was put into action it gained approval from the Macedonian Liberation Front, the Women's Antifascist Front and the Red Cross. The host countries, willing to look after the children, were contacted to gain their approval and information campaigns were begun to inform the people about the program. The district and village organizations were also asked to participate and were eventually given the responsibility of organizing and implementing the actual evacuations. When the authorities in the Greek Government heard of this program they began the so-called &quot;pedomazoma&quot; (collect the children) campaign. The Greek army, upon capturing Macedonian villages, was ordered to evacuate the children, by force if necessary. After being gathered at various camps, the children were eventually sent to the Greek Island of Leros. There, they were enrolled in schools to study religion and became wards of the Greek Queen, Fredericka. After the conclusion of the Greek Civil War (1951-52) some children were returned to their homes in Macedonia while most, especially those whose parents were killed or fled the country as refugees, became wards of the Greek State and remained in dormitories until adulthood. All the children that remained at Leros were completely Hellenized and were never heard from again.

Pressure from the community prompted organizers of the &quot;save the children&quot; program to expedite the evacuation process to stop the &quot;Burandari&quot; (nickname for Greek Government soldiers and policemen) from taking more children.

The evacuations carried out by the Partisans were done strictly on a voluntary basis. It was up to the child's parents or guardians to decide whether the child was to be evacuated or not. No child was ever evacuated by force or without consent. The evacuation zones were selected based on the severity of the conflict and the degree of danger it posed to the children. Central command organizers decided on the selection criteria and qualifications of which children were to be evacuated. The lists included all children between the ages of two and fourteen as well as all orphans, disabled, and special children. Before the evacuation was put into effect, women over the age of eighteen were enlisted from the local population and from the Partisan ranks to be trained to handle young children. Widows of fallen Partisans were also recruited as &quot;surrogate mothers&quot; to accompany and assist the children through the evacuation process and during their stay in the host countries.

The evacuation program began to gain momentum in early March of 1948 starting with the recruitment and training of the special teachers. The actual evacuations were carried out on mass, starting on March 25th through to March 30th, 1948 until all the designated villages were evacuated. Most children were transported through Yugoslavia and were sent to Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Some were evacuated through Albania and Bulgaria. As the numbers of the evacuated rose, children were also sent to East Germany and to the USSR. It is estimated that about 28,000 children in all were evacuated, most of them from northwestern Aegean Macedonia. Although smaller in number some orphans, children of Partisans, and children of families that were in trouble with the Greek Government authorities were also evacuated. When their turn came the children from each village were summoned and escorted by Partisan guides to the closest designated border crossing. For their safety, the children traveled under the cover of darkness and away from the main roads. In some cases, due to heavy aerial attacks and falling bombs, some villages evacuated their children in haste without escorts and they became stranded in the snow-covered mountains without shelter.

Mothers prepared luggage, a change of clothing, food and eating utensils before escorting their little ones to the designated meeting places. With eyes tearing mothers said goodbye to their loved ones before sending them into the hands of destiny. Their cries could be heard for a long time as they disappeared into the distance. It didn't take too long before the emptiness was felt and many mothers could not stop crying and contemplating the fate of their little ones.

The children walked in single file behind their surrogate mothers holding hands. The older children comforted the young as they moved into seclusion. Under the cover of darkness they silently slipped over the terrain, avoiding roads and open spaces being constantly reminded by their Partisan guides to keep quiet. They crossed over high mountains and steep slopes ever mindful and vigilant of the flying Greek menace above as they made their way to the borders. The lucky ones spent the nights indoors in designated villages. The others however slept outdoors in the open spaces of the frigid mountains questioning the wisdom of their elders and wondering which was more dangerous the falling bombs or the freezing cold.

During their trek, one group came across a dangerously steep slope laden with loose rocks leading directly into the rushing waters of a river. Being too dangerous for the children to cross alone each mother had to make several trips carrying children on their shoulders one at a time. Expediency was in order as the slope was exposed to aerial view. One child was lucky that day as a tragedy was narrowly averted. In her haste to get across one mother tripped over a thorn bush, losing her balance. As she stumbled she managed to take the child off her shoulders and toss her up the slope. Luckily, the girl didn't panic and was able to brace herself. The mother then grabbed the child's feet and regained her own balance. It was a frightening experience for everyone in the group.

Another group, frightened by the heavy aerial bombardments, left their village under the cover of darkness at one thirty in the morning. It was cloudy and raining that night, ideal for escaping the bombers but a disaster for the morale of the children. It rained all night and through to the next day as the group hid in the mountains. They couldn't risk lighting a fire and being seen so they stayed wet and cold through the day, enduring nature's punishment. When night came they inched their way through darkness over snow covered, thorn infested terrain to the next village. The children were in shock and hardly felt the bleeding cuts on their feet. Some had no shoes and their mud soaked socks offered no protection against the sharp rocks and stinging thorns.

As one group made their way towards their destination one of the surrogate mothers couldn't stop crying. The person in charge of the group explained that there was no reason for her to be upset since all of the children were accounted for, fed, and looked after. But the mother was still upset and kept crying. When asked what was the problem, she explained that she couldn't properly take care of a six-month-old orphan baby that was left in her care. She only had one spare diaper and after washing it she had no means of drying it. The best she could do was put the diaper against her own chest. It never dried and she felt so sorry for the poor child who had to wear a cold, wet diaper out in the freezing cold.

The borders could only be crossed at night so the children had to wait in seclusion until it was dark. To prepare them for the journey the children had to leave the villages and head for the mountains before dawn. As they left they were told to leave their belongings behind, promised that they would be delivered to them later by wagon. As the children made their way past the border crossing, the wagon never materialized and they were left without food, utensils, blankets or a change of clothing. To this day many believe that the Greek Partisans stole their belongings.

After crossing the Yugoslav border the children were taken to the village of Dupeni and from there to Ljuboino to wait for more arrivals. In the care of their surrogate mothers the children were placed in designated homes where they spent up to a week sleeping on straw covered floors, fifteen children to a room. Food was in short supply so each child was only given a slice of cornbread for supper before being put to bed still hungry. After a few days of hunger some resorted to stealing food from the village homes. After spending a week in Luboino, the children were transported by military trucks to Bitola where they boarded a train for Brailovo. In Brailovo each group was assigned to a home where they slept together with their surrogate mother in a room lined with hay for bedding. Morale was low and the children constantly cried from the enduring hunger and homesickness. Food was scarce so to preserve rations the children were fed one meal every other day. Those who lost their belongings had no bowls or spoons to eat with and resorted to using discarded sardine cans and whatever else they could find. Some found discarded toothpaste tubes and fashioned them into spoons. One surrogate mother found a rusty bucket and after cleaning it, used it as a soup bowl. The warm soup took on a red colour as the rust dissolved and came to the surface. The children were too hungry to waste it so she skimmed the rust off the surface and spooned it into all the children. An old woman seeing this felt so sorry for the bunch that she offered them her portion, preferring to stay hungry rather than having to watch the children starve. At this point most of the older boys were contemplating escape but their concern for the younger ones kept them from doing so. Some were so hungry they scoured the countryside looking for food, eating kernels of grain and corn and even resorting to killing wildlife to satisfy their hunger. After spending a little over a week in Brailovo, the various groups were transported to the nearest train station where each child was pinned with a name and destination tag and prepared for travel to the various host countries. Separating the children was not an easy task as the young clung to the older children and refused to be separated. Siblings clung to each other with all their might, fighting back with tears and cries. It took a lot of convincing and reassurances before they could be separated.

The first groups to leave were the younger children aged five to ten. Most of them were sent to Bela Tsrkva in northern Yugoslavia. These children were the most vulnerable and had to be quickly rescued before they died of starvation. In Bela Tsrkva, after spending some time in quarantine, the children were placed in dormitories with proper facilities and plenty of nutritious food. The rest, after spending a week or so at the train station were sent to Skopje. Life at the train station was harsh as most children were nearly starving and had no energy to move. Their hunger was so overpowering that the children had no energy to even complain about the tormenting lice. Many spent their time resting in the stable cars nestled in the warmth and comfort of the hay. The cars, left from WW II were used by the Germans to transport horses.

When they arrived in Skopje the children were given milk and food, which seemed like a gift from heaven after starving for so long. Without much delay, the train wagons were again divided and a group was sent to Romania while the rest continued on their way to Bulkes. Considering the episodes from the last separation, this time the authorities decided not to inform the children or the surrogate mothers. As a result, some children were visiting friends in neighbouring cars and ended up going to the wrong destination. Many mothers didn't know what had happened and worried endlessly about the fate of the missing children. When they arrived in Bulkes (Vojvodina) the groups were supplied with food donated by the United Nations and the children were bathed and given new clothes. From there they were taken by wagons to a nearby hospital for physical examinations. Bulkes was a town built by the Germans and occupied by the Greek partisans. It was teeming with activities geared towards supporting the war effort. Food was plentiful and the children spent most of their days living in empty schools and warehouses. Besides the Macedonians, there were also children from Epirus and Thessaly. As soon as they became comfortable however, the children were again on the move. After spending about a month in Bulkes, they were again loaded onto train cars, given some food and sent off to various destinations. Unbeknownst to them, they had been separated again and sent to Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia.

When the group destined for Czechoslovakia arrived, the Czech authorities stripped the children naked from their lice infested clothing, cut their hair and gave them a bath on mass. It was a new experience for the Macedonian children to be bathed naked in front of so many people. The local buildings and baths once belonged to the German soldiers, but since their expulsion, they became a haven for the refugee children. After spending time in quarantine, the children were taken to a new camp to join other refugee children that had arrived there earlier via a different route and were assigned quarters and schoolmasters. The children were re-grouped into pre-school ages 4 to 6, public school ages 7 to 12 and technical school ages 13 and over. The surrogate mothers were responsible for looking after the younger groups consisting of about twenty children each. Their duties included waking them up in the morning, helping them dress into their uniforms, supervising their morning exercises and making sure everyone ate a good breakfast. In the evening they supervised the children playing until they were put to bed. They also had to make sure shoes were polished and uniforms cleaned and properly hung for the night. Morning started with exercise and a good breakfast. The Czech teachers were professionals, trained in child psychology, who did their best to educate the children properly. In addition to the regular curriculum, the children were expected to learn various languages including Czech, Greek, Macedonian and Russian. On occasion, mothers and children were sent on work assignments to the farms to assist with gathering fruits, berries and mushrooms. With time mothers and children began to adjust to their new life with the exception of the usual fighting between Greek and Macedonian children, especially the boys. There was friction between the Greek and Macedonian children with frequent verbal insults sometimes resulting in fistfights. Eventually the Greek children were moved to a new camp, which put an end to the fighting.

When the group destined for Romania arrived, about one thousand five hundred children were offloaded and sent straight to the baths and their flea-ridden clothes were washed in boiling water. After the bath, each child was issued under garments and pajamas and sent to a nearby compound formerly used by the Germans as a hospital during the war. The children stayed there from April until October 1948. Then on October 25th, 1948 many of the children were relocated to Poland. Most Macedonian children wore homemade woolen clothes that shrank during the hot wash. Fortunately, the good people of Romania donated replacement garments and the children were clothed before leaving for Poland. After spending six months in Romania in a quasi-supervised compound without any schooling, the children became wild and undisciplined. With one supervisor for the entire train, the trip to Poland was a joyride. Some children mischievously climbed through the windows of the railcars to the roof of the moving train and stood upright pretending to fly. When the train approached a tunnel they lay flat on their stomachs clinging hard to the roof of the rail car. As the billowing smoke from the steam engine enveloped them, their faces blackened beyond recognition. When they crossed into Poland the train was taken over by a Polish crew. A supervisor, trained to handle children was assigned to each car to deal with the rowdiness. For the rest of the trip, the children were well fed and rewarded with chocolates and apples for good behavior. When they arrived in Poland at the city of &quot;Londek Zdrui&quot;, the children were placed under Greek supervision, grouped by age and assigned to various school dormitories. Children of unknown age were grouped by size and height. Initially the children refused to cooperate, mistrusting the administrators and fearing separation again. It took Red Cross intervention and much re-assurance to convince them to cooperate. Unlike the compound in Romania, the dorms in Poland were well staffed with one director and two or three assistants per dorm. Each dorm had eight to ten rooms with four children per room. There was no shortage of food, toys or games. The directors were responsible for supervising morning exercises, breakfast and getting the children to school on time. After school they made sure the children came back safely, were given supper and put to bed.

About 2,000 refugee children were sent to Hungary and assigned to quarters in a military barracks in Budapest. There each child was undressed, sprayed with pesticide, bathed, dressed in new clothing and given a package of toiletries that included soap and a tube of toothpaste. The children, not knowing what the toothpaste was, mistook it for food. The aroma of mint reminded them of candy and many wasted the toothpaste, attempting to eat it. Initially, Greek and Macedonian children were mixed together in a single group. But due to fights, the authorities were forced to split the children into smaller groups, segregated by village of origin. After spending three weeks in quarantine the groups were adopted by the Hungarian community. Each village community, supported by a factory complex, adopted a group. Some found themselves among the richest communities in the region and were privileged to live in quarters made of marble. Nearby there was a small lake teeming with exotic and colourful fish. Unfortunately, the children were all homesick missing their mothers and had little appreciation for luxury. Slowly however, routine began to take over as the children attended school and became involved in school and community activities. Besides the regular curriculum, the refugee children were expected to learn to read and write in their native language. Even though Greek officials administered the programs and scoffed at the idea, the Macedonian children were given the choice of learning Macedonian if they wanted to.

I want to mention here that the Macedonian programs were a direct translation (word for word) from the Greek programs. Even though the children were learning in their native Macedonian language, they were learning what the Greeks wanted them to learn. The Macedonian teachers were not allowed to diverge from the established programs. In other words, Hellenization and Greek propaganda continued to influence the Macedonian children even outside the Greek borders.

By 1949 casualties were mounting at home and reports were filtering through to the refugee camps where children received bad news about the fate of their parents and relatives. Morale was so low that the children became isolated, withdrawn and would not sing, talk, cry or even eat. To boost their morale the surrogate mothers, who wore black to mourn the deaths of their husbands, resorted to wearing white and colourful dresses. For the sake of the children, in spite of their own sorrow, mothers had to appear cheerful and put on happy faces.

As the Civil War in Greece intensified, the Partisans were running out of recruits at home and began to look at the refugee children abroad as a possible source. Although draftees were recruited from all the camps abroad, most of the fighting force came from Romania. Initially, two new groups were formed and brought back for military training. The recruitment campaign and propaganda was so tempting that the youngsters couldn't resist it and were happy to volunteer. Any child strong enough to carry a rifle, regardless of age, was good enough for the draft. The first two groups recruited were instantly massacred upon engaging the battle hardened Greek Army. They were all under the age of fifteen, had no combat experience and no idea of what to expect. The third group left Romania and went to Rudary, Prespa via Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Upon arrival, the young soldiers were sent to Shterkovo, another village in Prespa, for about a month of military training and preparation for combat. The young men spent part of March and April 1949 performing military exercises, learning to operate weapons and set explosives. When word came that the first two groups of young fighters were decimated, there was a loud outcry by the community against such atrocities, &quot;We did not save our children so you can slaughter them.&quot; The third group was only spared because many mothers demonstrated and voiced their anger against such a barbaric draft. The group was demobilized before reaching the battlefields and many of the children were sent back to the refugee camps. Some were allowed to go home only to end up as refugees again during the mass exodus in the fall of 1949.

As the Greek Civil War was coming to a close, Western Aegean Macedonia was bombed to dust and Partisans and civilians alike fled to Albania to save themselves. When the war was over many wanted to return but Greece did not want them back. Anyone who voluntarily fled was not allowed to return, regardless of whether they were guilty of any crimes or not. After spending some time in the camps in Albania, the people of Macedonia, again victims of someone else's war, became permanent war refugees and were sent to various Eastern Block countries. Before departure, the refugees were separated into two groups. One, made up mostly of Partisan fighters was sent to the USSR. The other consisting mostly of civilians and Partisan support staff was sent to Poland. After the groups were separated they were transported to the port of Durasi, loaded onto cargo ships and sent westward through Gibraltar to Poland and eastward via the Black Sea to the Soviet Union. The voyages were long and unpleasant. To avoid detection the refugees were literally hidden inside the cargo and at critical times ordered to remain immobile and quiet for long periods of time. When they landed at their destinations, the refugees were stripped and their flea-infested clothes were burned. After being powdered with pesticide and bathed in hot baths, they were then placed in quarantine where they spent about a month and a half resting idly before being relocated to permanent quarters.

After settling down and securing employment in their new countries, many parents who had refugee children began to look for them and with the help of the authorities were able to bring them home. As a result, many children left their host countries to join their parents in Poland, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.

Refugees who had relatives in Canada, the USA and Australia through sponsorship made attempts to immigrate themselves and look for their children or have their relatives look for their children if immigration was not possible. Initially &quot;the iron curtain&quot; was shut tight and made it difficult to make inquiries, but as the Red Cross became involved it became easier. In 1953 during a Red Cross convention in Switzerland the question of the Refugee Children from the Greek Civil War came up and the various Red Cross agencies agreed to cooperate and exchange information with each other. After that, anyone requesting help to locate missing persons in Eastern Block Countries was not refused.

There are instances where Macedonians did experience problems with the Red Cross but these were due to Greek misinformation. When the Red Cross went looking for refugees in the Greek administered refugee camps they were told that the Macedonians were &quot;migrant workers&quot; and not refugees. Here is an actual account of what happened to one Macedonian woman in Poland.

The woman was well liked by her colleagues and in time became a model worker and qualified for a month's paid vacation. When her turn came, she was sent to a luxurious mountain resort. She was alone and felt uncomfortable going places but did agree to go and see the nativity in a local church. There she met two women who suspected that she was not Polish and were curious about how she had gotten there. After some discussion, it turned out the women were Red Cross workers and interested in finding people like her. When the women found out that she was a refugee interested in returning home, and that many others were in a similar situation, they urged her to seek help. She was given an address in Warsaw where she could meet with Red Cross officials and tell them her story. Upon returning from her vacation she and a friend went to Warsaw and after eleven days of appealing and pleading, their story was heard. Officials were curious as to why this hadn't come up at the refugee camps during the official Red Cross visits. As she recalls, unbeknownst to her, the Greek organizers made sure that the Macedonians were sent on day trips on the days of the Red Cross visits. Even after all this, the woman was still not allowed to leave. Greece would not accept her without a request from her husband. Her husband at the time was serving a prison sentence in the Greek concentration camps. It was not until 1954, three years later, that he was able to initiate the process for repatriation. The woman arrived home in May 1958 but could not stand the oppressive atmosphere and soon afterwards she and her family immigrated to Canada.

By 1950, Greece was taking extreme measures to close her borders with Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Trusted Albanians from Epirus were brought into Macedonia and seeded throughout the border villages to act as eyes and ears for the Greeks. Greek authorities clamped down on the remaining population and no one was allowed to travel without permission. There were strict rules of conduct put into effect, including curfews. Anyone caught wandering outdoors past dusk was shot on sight. Many shepherds quit their jobs for fear of being killed and left their sheep wandering aimlessly. One little boy had an argument with his stepfather and ran away. The authorities were not at all sympathetic and wouldn't allow the family to go looking for him. The boy's mother and sister went looking for him anyway and brought him home safely at great risk to their own safety.

When the violence in Greece subsided parents and relatives began to inquire about repatriating their children. Those who displayed some loyalty to the Greek cause were told that their children would be allowed to return if decreed by the Greek Queen Fredericka. Unfortunately, this process required connections with the local Greek authorities and a lot of money, money that most Macedonians did not have. Those considered for repatriation had to meet a number of conditions including the willingness to accept permanent Hellenization. Children from Partisan families were automatically disqualified. Those who weren't willing to change their names or weren't liked for some reason were also disqualified. As the years passed fewer children were allowed to return and requests for repatriation continued to be ignored. Parents and relatives died and still their children were not allowed to return, not even for a visit.

After travel restrictions to countries behind the iron curtain were lifted, parents in spite of the expense, old age and ill health made their way to visit their children.

One woman on her deathbed made her husband promise her that he would visit their daughter in Poland before he died. Feeling his own mortality the man, in poor health, made the long trek and after thirty years of separation saw his daughter for the first time. She will never forget her father's sacrifice.

Another woman who let all four of her children (two sons and two daughters) leave during the dreaded May 1948 evacuation, also made the trek to Poland to see them for the last time. The woman was crippled from a war wound and could hardly walk but knew that soon she would die and wanted to see her children one more time. She traveled by train and in spite of her condition made it to Poland in good spirits. When she arrived, two of her children, a son and a daughter came to greet her. The daughter recognized her mother and after a long and emotional hug asked her if she knew which daughter she was. Her mother would not answer because she didn't know and didn't want to make a mistake. That deeply troubled the adult daughter who began to weep uncontrollably. She did recognize her son and called out his name but would not answer her daughter's pleas. After a while she finally recognized her, wiped her tears and with a wide smile called out her name. It was an emotional but happy ending for that family. Unfortunately for every happy ending there are dozens of sad ones. One old couple did not have enough money or the strength to make the trip to visit their children. Since then, both have passed on heartbroken, with their desires to see their children unfulfilled.

Many of the people I interviewed don't know why the Greek authorities wouldn't allow the children to return. In spite of pleas, even on humanitarian grounds, the Greek authorities decade after decade, government after government, maintain the same policy and will not allow the Macedonian refugee children to return home.

After all the remaining Partisans were captured or killed, people were slowly allowed to go home to their own villages. While many returned to their old homes, a few families decided to make their home in the new village. Some lost their farm equipment, tools, livestock and personal belongings to looters. For most, life had to start all over again. As tensions began to ease, those held in concentration camps were released and began to arrive home only to find their property gone. The Greek authorities, in addition to confiscating the properties of many of those who fled as refugees during the mass exodus of 1949, also confiscated the properties of those held in concentration camps. People were demoralized and constantly lived in fear of the authorities and retributions from their collaborators. There was a certain stigma attached to the relatives of Partisans or their supporters that caused them to withdraw from society and keep to themselves. Those who served in the Greek concentration camps were constantly harassed with curfews, restricted mobility and suspicion of espionage. Many were followed by plainclothes policemen and pressured themselves become informants and spy on their neighbours. Strangers were viewed with suspicion and automatically assumed to be foreign spies.

As radios became affordable people began to purchase them and listen to various programs, including broadcasts from Eastern Europe and the Federal Republic of Macedonia. The Greek police became vigilant and on many occasions they were observed outside people's yards listening to hear what programs were playing. Those caught listening to foreign programs were accused of espionage. The Macedonian language was once again banned from use and the &quot;M&quot; word became a dirty word even if it was spoken on the radio. Ever since Greece invaded the Macedonian territory, successive Greek Governments refused to acknowledge the existence of the Macedonian language.

One by one, all those who came back from the Eastern European countries left for Canada, the USA and Australia because they could no longer stand the Greek oppression. They had tasted freedom and wanted more even if it meant abandoning their beloved ancestral homes. They remembered how life was before the latest Greeks clampdown and now it was not the same. The people too had changed, they were still courteous and kind but their spirits were broken. Everyone was afraid, careful not to say anything incriminating as if every word was going to be judged and punished. Children born during this time were brought up believing that this was how life was and it was supposedly the best life one could have. They were taught to understand that Greece was the cradle of democracy and no one in the world was freer than the Greeks. Those who knew better did not dare speak otherwise. There were certain things that could not be done or discussed, especially the Greek Civil War. Children were taught Greek chauvinist songs in school and sang them at home in front of their parents who didn't dare say anything. Even their children could unwittingly betray them. The Macedonian language became &quot;our&quot; language and could only be spoken in secrecy with relatives and trusted friends. The word &quot;Macedonia&quot; or &quot;Macedonian&quot; was banned from the peoples' vocabulary and could not be spoken, especially in public. Pre-school children who learned &quot;our&quot; language at home from their grandmothers spoke Greek with a heavy accent and were constantly teased and scolded for not knowing how to speak properly. If a child was caught speaking &quot;our&quot; language in class or in the yard, punishment ensued which varied from being publicly told not to speak &quot;those filthy words&quot; to being given a good dose of castor oil. Sometimes children sang Greek songs about the deeds of the Greek heroes and broke their parents' hearts. Their precious children were unknowingly idolizing the true criminals and murderers, Macedonia's worst enemies. Some parents, when their children were old enough to keep a secret, taught them that they were a different people, that they were Macedonian and not Greek. Other parents however, thinking that it was in the best interest of the children not to know their true identity, allowed them to believe that they were Greek. Their loyalties however were never rewarded since it was very rare for a Macedonian child to be accepted in Greek society. It was not because Macedonian children were incapable of being intellectual, as the Greeks would have us believe, but because the Greek Government systemically discriminated against Macedonians. Discrimination was common practice especially at the individual level. Macedonians were constantly put down and as a result kept to themselves. Sometimes however, during heated discussions or unavoidable arguments Macedonians did show discontentment but the arguments always ended with the lethal insult of being called a &quot;Bulgar&quot;, the lowest form of life known to Greeks. The highest level of education a Macedonian child was permitted to achieve was grade six. Junior high was possible only for the children of those who had shown and continued to show loyalty to the Greek cause. One young man whose parents were killed during the Greek Civil War joined the Greek military and afterwards considered the army to be his only family. He was very loyal, studious and hard working but was constantly denied promotions. During a military exercise he saved a high-ranking officer from drowning and for saving his life the officer promised to help him if he ever needed it. After years of frustration, finally the young soldier went to the officer with his complaint. After some investigation, the officer advised him that his requests for a promotion were turned down because he was not Greek, more specifically because his parents were of Slav origin. This unfair treatment angered the young soldier enough to leave the Greek military, the only family he had ever known. Disheartened he left Greece altogether and joined his aunt in Toronto, Canada where he is currently learning to speak Macedonian. Even though he speaks no other language, he refuses to speak Greek.

After the fall of the dictatorship in Greece in the mid-sixties, many Macedonians were publicly encouraged by the Greek politicians to leave Greece because &quot;there was no future for them there&quot;. Many of the empty villages in western Macedonia were filled with Albanians from west central Greece. Vlahs who originally lived in the highlands of Thessaly and spent summers in the Macedonian mountains took up permanent residence there. Many applied for and were granted the properties of post-Greek Civil War migrant families.

Macedonians that immigrated to Canada, the USA and Australia at the start of the 20th century organized village associations that assisted fellow immigrants in adjusting to their new countries. As post-Greek Civil War immigration accelerated, these village associations became a haven for new immigrants and their membership grew. Encouraged by their newfound freedoms, many of the new émigrés enjoyed their Macedonian culture and language in the diaspora. This was perceived as a threat to Greek influence both at home and abroad. As the associations grew in strength so did their threat to the Greek chokehold. To counter this, with help from the Greek Embassies and Consulates, pro-Greek factions began to infiltrate the Macedonian associations. The weaker associations were overpowered and rendered ineffective. Those that resisted managed to survive and preserve their unique Macedonian identity. For the ones that the Greeks could not subdue, parallel and competing pro-Greek associations were formed. The day a Macedonian association held an event, the pro-Greek association held a similar event, to divide the people. Macedonians wishing to participate in events and prone to blackmail were discouraged from joining the Macedonian organizations and encouraged to join the pro-Greek ones. To this day many Macedonians will not go to any of the events fearing retribution from both the Greeks if they went to Macedonian events or fearing disappointment and disgust from the Macedonians if they went to a pro-Greek event. This is precisely why the Macedonian community in the diaspora has become a silent community. This suits the Greeks perfectly and leaves the Macedonians frustrated and disappointed.

The most anti-Macedonian organization to surface from all the Greek associations is the Pan Macedonian Association, which aims to not only divide the Macedonian Nation but also destroy everything that is Macedonian. To this day this organization preys on the weak, innocent, naïve and those that can be bought and continues to spread hatred and lies at every opportunity. The Pan Macedonian Association is a &quot;false organization&quot; fully financed by Greek taxpayers most of whom are unaware of its discriminatory practices and the friction it creates between fellow Greek citizens.

In addition to disseminating anti-Macedonian propaganda and lobbying for &quot;the Greek cause&quot;, many of these so-called &quot;Greek-Macedonian&quot; organizations spy on Macedonian organizations and individuals, reporting their activities to the Greek authorities. Many activists and supporters of the Macedonian cause even though they are Greek citizens are barred from returning to Greece. Their cause is noble if they serve the Greeks at their own expense, but as soon as one attempts to serve his or her own cause, they suddenly become traitors.

Macedonians are refused entry into Greece at the border points without any explanation. Without consent, their passport is stamped &quot;void&quot; and thrown back at them. They do the same to individuals with foreign passports without respect for the foreign State's property.

After years of living in Australia, one man decided to visit the Republic of Macedonia. Upon entry his passport was stamped with a beautiful red symbol, a real treasure, which made him very proud and happy. His visit to Macedonia was so wonderful that he decided to cross over into Greece and visit the village Nered where he was born. Unfortunately, the Greek customs officials would not allow him entry. What was most unbelievable is the Greek officer took the man's Australian passport without his consent, and stamped it &quot;void&quot; all over. They literally destroyed the Macedonian symbol by repeatedly stamping &quot;void&quot; over and over until it was no longer visible. No explanation or apology was given.

The Macedonian Refugee Children wish to express their gratitude to the counties and people who opened their doors to them at a time of their greatest need. They treated them not as strangers or immigrants, but as equals. They also wish to express many thanks to the countries and people for giving them the opportunity of free education in their institutions. Only through their generosity away from Greek bias did the Macedonian children prove themselves equal to all the children in the world. Free from Greek oppression they excelled in education and talent becoming professors, doctors, engineers, poets, playwrights, composers, economists, etc.

Most of the refugee children today are living in the diaspora. A great number of them have immigrated to Canada, the USA, Australia and the Republic of Macedonia. Some remained in their host countries (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Germany and Russia) and have made them their homes. They maintain contact with each other through associations and clubs and from time to time meet, attempting to gain entry to visit their homeland. Unfortunately, to this day they have had no success. Greece, after fifty-five years, still does not want them, not even to visit.

I would like to thank all the people who participated in the interviews and made this article possible.

To be continued in part IX.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>t44dxnq46msgvph2ciw8jn0ttuvm4y6</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years - Part IX - Conclusion</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2054</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11017</id>
      <parentid>5003</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:34:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="44839" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/Macedonia-What-went-wrong-in-the-last-200-years.pdf}}
Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years

Part IX - Conclusion

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

February, 2003

click here for a printable version

In the previous article (part VIII) I covered the evacuation of the Macedonian children and the consequences of the Greek Civil War. 

In this final article I will offer my conclusion of what went wrong for Macedonia in the last 200 years.

Even before Alexander's time Macedonia was a single nation. With time she grew and shrank but always remained a single nation until her partition in 1912-13. Today however, while new nations spring up and flourish, Macedonia is still partitioned and fighting for her identity. Why? What went wrong and who is responsible?

In the previous articles (parts I to VIII) I did my best to present an objective analysis of historic events that took place in the last 200 years. Beyond my own editorializing, I abstained from using biased and politically motivated sources and tried my best to be as neutral as possible.

The southern Balkan region, which includes present-day Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and European Turkey, was part of the Ottoman Empire and the region had been multi-ethnic and multi-cultural up until the 19th century when nationalism was introduced. Even though the Balkans were nationally pluralistic, the Ottomans used religion as the basic criteria with which to identify their societies. 

More than 400 years of Ottoman rule and neglect for basic human rights, halted and reversed the creative spirit of the Balkan people. Education was nonexistent for the Christians and as a result there was no progress. Driven away from their fertile lands, Christians moved to secluded villages away from the Turks. Fear of travel and of strangers isolated them from each other and from the outside world. As a result, very few new ideas and innovations filtered in or out of their communities.

Poor roads as well as the fear of being robbed kept communities isolated thus prohibiting the development of trade. Over time villages developed local economies and became entirely dependent on local resources and the soil to provide everything they needed to survive.

Prolonged isolation and lack of outside contact also caused language divergence resulting in the development of many dialects. Outside of the Turkish language, almost the entire Balkan region from the Peloponisos to Romania spoke the language of the Slavs (Macedonian). There were also small pockets of people who spoke Tosk, Gheg, Vlach, Roma and some Greek around the Aegean and Adriatic coastlines.

Under Turkish occupation, the region survived relatively uninterrupted having almost no contact with the outside world up to the 18th century. The Turkish ruling class and Turkish military lived exclusively off the Christian working class through land ownership and by farming taxes. Having no need to develop economically or militarily, the Ottoman Empire remained static for many years in comparison to the rest of the world.

With the advent of technology and regional economies, Western Europe and Russia began to modernize and by the late 18th century began to expand their empires and infiltrate the Ottoman world. Russia was first to come into contact during the Russian-Turkish war of 1774. After Russia defeated Turkey, she gained access to the Black Sea and became protector of the Christians inside the Ottoman Empire. This was also the first time Turkey ever allowed foreign diplomats (Russian consular agents) inside her empire.

The weakening Ottoman Empire alarmed the Western Powers and for the first time raised the &quot;Eastern Question&quot;. What will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire is gone? 

As the Western and Russian economies expanded, the Imperial Great Powers began to compete with each other for territorial expansion and economic influence. Being the last frontier for Imperialist penetration, the Balkans became the &quot;apple of discord&quot;.

While the Super Powers were jockeying for a cut of the Balkan pie, Turkey was finding it more and more difficult to maintain her territorial integrity. Having fallen behind in technology and military capability, Turkey found it very expensive and increasingly difficult to defend herself. Having no economy or any other means of supporting her defense budgets, waging war became an added tax burden for the working Christians.

In addition to supporting the Turkish establishment, the Balkan Christian also had to contend with corruption and lawlessness. With the army away fighting wars, Muslim outcasts and professional criminals preyed upon the defenseless Christians. The Christians could not defend themselves because they were not allowed to bear arms.

By the turn of the 19th century, the Balkan peasant population was so oppressed that it could no longer bear the burden and began to rebel. 

The first rebellion manifested itself in 1804 when a group of Ianitsari attempted to take control of a region in present day Serbia. In the absence of the Turkish army, bandits and unruly Ianitsaries attacked the unguarded villages killing Christians including priests and prominent village leaders. 

Those that fled to the forests took matters into their own hands, organized themselves into fighting units and retaliated by attacking the bandits. The Sultan's army eventually put down the peasant uprising but fear of Russian wrath prompted him to reconsider his actions, giving the rebels autonomy.

The success of the rebellion in Serbia and the willingness of the Super Powers to entertain uprisings inside the Ottoman Empire, prompted another group of people, the Phanariots to consider a rebellion of their own. This particular rebellion was a planned conspiracy designed to oust the Sultan from power and install a Patriarch in his place. In other words, the Phanariot plan was to remove and expel the Muslim Turks out of the Balkans and replace them with Christian rulers, leaving the Empire intact. 

The Phanariots were a nationally diverse class of Christian people who served in the Turkish administration. They were called Phanariots because their home was in the Phanar (lighthouse) District of Tsari Grad (Constantinople). In today's terms, the Phanariots were a class of Christian businessmen, professionals and clerics who worked in the Ottoman administration. They were employed by the Sultan to fill the necessary positions that, due to cultural and religious restrictions, could not be filled by Muslims. Subservient to the Muslims, the Phanariots were also rulers of the Christian world.

Due to class differences and being poorly organized, the Phanariot rebellion of 1821 failed to achieve its objectives. It did however, spark an uprising in the Morea district in modern Peloponisos. This uprising was not a call for independence as the Modern Greeks claim it to be but rather a reaction brought on by fear of Turkish retribution.

By the early 1820's it was apparent that the Ottoman Empire was seriously crumbling. Up to now no Powers other than France had economic interests in the Ottoman Empire. The Morean incident however, opened the door for new opportunities. In their eagerness to influence the outcome of the Morean uprising in their favour, the Powers sank the Ottoman fleet at Navarino Bay, thus preventing the Turks from retaking Morea.

Up to the turn of the 19th century France was the dominant power in the west and Russia in the east. With Napoleon's defeat however, Britain was emerging as the dominant power in the west. Unfortunately when it came to Balkan matters Britain and Russia found themselves at odds with one another. Britain had vested interests in her eastern colonies and wanted her shipping lanes secure. Russia on the other hand had ambitions of expanding her shipping into the Mediterranean Sea. This Britain viewed as an intrusion into her interests.

Another matter, which surfaced by the mid 1820s, was the Eastern Question. By 1826, it was becoming obvious that no Super Power wanted a single large state in the Balkans. Super Power strategy was to encourage the formation of a number of smaller states, perhaps on the basis of nationality, following the western model.

With the help of the Super Powers, the first small state to emerge and become independent was the Kingdom of Greece. The Super Powers created Greece and the British took it upon themselves to protect her. A German King and administration were chosen to rule her because the Greeks were incapable of ruling themselves. The distrust among the Powers prevented any one of them ruling. The Germans, who at the time had no vested interest in the Balkans, were viewed as neutral. When Greece became a state for the first time, her people had no notion of a national identity or a national language. Morea was as multinational and multicultural as any region in the Balkans. 

The multilingual population of the region was made up mostly of Albanian Tosks, Vlachs, Slavs and some Greeks along the Peloponisos coastline. The idea that these people were Hellenes and descendents of the old City States came later, after an exhaustive search for a national identity. Finding a national language was also a problem that was not solved until the 20th century. 

At one point the people of the Greek fledgling nation went as far as considering the Albanian Tosk as their national language. Hellenism was an afterthought, an academic idea imported from Britain and France. When the nation builders created the Greek nationality, they did not follow the natural progression of the national evolution. Instead, they opted for creating an identity with a 2,300-year break in continuity. In other words, the national consciousness of the 19th century Greek is a myth created for the sake of assimilating the various nationalities into a single nation. 

Britain's desire to keep Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea created a &quot;non-Slavic&quot; mythical State that would be loyal to Britain and not to Russia. The idea of &quot;a Greek State&quot; satisfied some of the people in the Balkans but left most, especially the Phanariots who wanted to rule the entire Balkans, disappointed.

By the early 1850's, the West European economies were experiencing an economic explosion and the Imperial Powers found themselves competing with each other to win favours from the Ottoman authorities. The power struggle peaked in 1853 and developed into the Crimean war.

On the surface the issue of controversy was who was responsible for controlling access to Christian Holy places in the Ottoman Empire. The real struggle, however, was about who had the most influence over the Ottoman domain. While Russia pitted herself against Turkey and the West in this power play, she failed to see the strength of the British influence over the other Powers. Russia also failed to see that Britain would never accept a Russian victory. As tensions mounted, the Russian armies invaded the Ottoman Empire and occupied Romanian Principalities. 

Austria, Romania's neighbour, reacted and demanded that Russia get out of Romania. Encouraged by the Western powers, Turkey refused to negotiate any terms with Russia and in 1853 declared war on her. Others followed and in 1854 Austria forced Russia to evacuate Romania. Then in 1856 Allied Western Powers attacked Russia and took Sevastopol (a chief Russian port on the Black Sea). 

Tsar Alexander II could not repel the invaders and gave in to their demands, including opening up the Danube River to shipping for all nations. For the first time Imperial Eastern Europe was opened to capitalism. As a direct result of losing out to the Western allies Russia lost her political influence in Romania and her clout as a power broker in the region.

The Russo-Turkish Crimean war drained Turkey economically. To avoid economic collapse the Western Powers stepped in and helped Turkey, with loans. Turkey, unfortunately, was incapable of properly managing her finances and as a result was unable to manage paying back the loans. Most of the State's income was diverted to military campaigns in order to contain the uprisings. Taxes were raised again and again causing more uprisings and further instability.

Fed up with Turkey's inability to pay off her loans, in 1875 the Western Powers created the Ottoman Public Debt Administration. This allowed foreign investors to take over management of the Ottoman State budgets for the first time. Much needed funds were now diverted to paying off the debt instead of helping the local economy. The local population was overburdened with taxes causing even more discontentment among the peasants. 

The situation reached the boiling point in 1875 and manifested itself by many independent uprisings in Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia (Razlog uprising). The growing peasant discontentment &quot;disturbed&quot; the Great Powers and in the same year a conference was convened in Tsari Grad to discuss how to handle the problem. The Great Powers decided to place Bulgaria and Macedonia under Great Power control but Turkey disagreed and rejected their demands and again found herself at odds with Russia.

Humiliated by the defeat in the Crimean war, upset over the economic plight of the Balkan people, alienated by the Western Powers, frustrated by the violent demonstrations in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Macedonia, Tsar Alexander II of Russia again attacked Turkey and invaded Bulgaria. The Turkish armies were decimated and on March 3, 1878 Russia alone negotiated the San Stefano Treaty with Turkey, which called for the creation of a Greater Bulgaria. The area in question included roughly all of present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia, western Thrace, part of Albania, and a district of Serbia.

The San Stefano Treaty sent shock waves through the Western world including Greece and Serbia, who both had ambitions for future conquests in the region.

Greatly disturbed by the Russian move, the Western Powers convened a conference in July 1878 in Berlin. The San Stefano Agreement was revised giving independence to Serbia, Montenegro and Romania. Bosnia was given to Austria-Hungary (Britain did not want more Slavic States to form in the Balkans). Northern Bulgaria was given autonomy while southern Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thrace, Kosovo and Albania were given back to the Turks.

On the verge of bankruptcy, Russia could not resist the Western Powers and gave in to all their demands.

The decisions made during the Berlin conference of 1878 reshaped the Balkans and set the stage for future events including both World Wars, the Cold War and every Balkan conflict that has since taken place.

At the Berlin Conference of 1878, the Great Powers could have freed Macedonia and given her autonomy, it was within their power to do so but they didn't. Why? There are two obvious reasons.

First, by 1878, with the exception of Russia, all other Super Powers had vested economic interests in the Ottoman Empire. Besides collecting interest on loans, they owned government bonds, shares in road construction, interests in infrastructure projects and investments in the lucrative Ottoman import-export business. Allowing the Ottoman Empire to collapse at this time made no economic sense.

Second, if Macedonia was allowed to become a state, what would have happened to the smaller states like Serbia and Greece? Greece for certain would not have been able to survive economically without the fertile lands of Macedonia.

With Macedonia back in Ottoman hands, the &quot;Eastern Question&quot; became the &quot;Macedonian Question&quot;. What would happen to Macedonia after the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire?

While Macedonia's future was being decided, to ease the pain of oppression, the Super Powers squeezed Turkey to implement some &quot;reforms&quot;. Recommendations were made to reform government institutions, the military, educational institutions as well as to reform the tax system. 

As part of the reforms, the Super Powers also requested that the Ottoman authorities identify the &quot;various nationalities&quot; living inside Macedonia and define the &quot;regions they lived in&quot;. One of the options contemplated in solving the Macedonian question was to break up the Macedonian territory based on &quot;nationality&quot; groupings and then merge &quot;like&quot; groups with the neighbouring States of similar nationality.

There were two problems with that idea. First, Turkey had no statistics that identified people by &quot;nationality&quot;. Turkish statistics were based solely on religious affiliation. Second, since no such statistics existed there was motive for the neighbouring States to invent them. 

Once the Greek State was created, the Greek Church began to intrude inside Macedonian territory and by 1850 had taken over the administration of all Macedonian Churches. Secure in their position inside Macedonia, the Greek clergy began disseminating Greek nationalist propaganda with aims of &quot;Hellenizing&quot; the Macedonian population. 

This unfair practice prompted Russia to intervene and in 1870 they convinced the Sultan in Tsari Grad to allow the creation of the Exarchist Church. Initially, the Exarchist Church was not affiliated with any State and was probably administered by a Slav faction of the Phanariots. With the emergence of the Bulgarian State in 1878 however, the Exarchist Church began to identify more and more with the Bulgarian State and to vigorously compete with the Patriarchist Church for Macedonian parishioners.

After the conclusion of the Berlin Conference, and with the emergence of the Bulgarian Autonomous State, the Ottoman Empire's decline had passed the point of no return. From then on it was a matter of time before it completely collapsed. For Macedonia, this set the stage for a long and painful struggle.

After 1878, realizing the mortality of their Empire, the Ottoman authorities began to take rebellions seriously. Unfortunately, instead of taking measures to ease tensions, the Turks further tightened their oppressive grip, ignoring the Great Power call for reforms. With Macedonia back in the hands of the Ottoman Empire, Macedonian territory was again available for the taking.

As the 19th century was coming to a close Macedonia was facing many enemies on many fronts. The Macedonian people came to the realization that no one was going to help them and it was time they took matters into their own hands.

On October 23rd, 1893, in Solun, Damjan Gruev, Anton Dimitrov, Petar Pop Arsov, and Hristo Tatarchev gathered together in Ivan Nikolov's house to discuss the plight of the Macedonian people and how to help them. On February 9th, 1894 a committee was formed and a constitution was drafted with the following resolutions:

1.
 The committee would be revolutionary in nature and would remain secret.
 
2.
 Its revolutionary activities would be confined to inside Macedonia's borders.
 
3.
 Irrespective of nationality or religion, any Macedonian could become a member of the committee.
 

The committee also set out the following objectives for itself, which were later ratified at the first Revolutionary Congress held in Resen in August 1894:

1. Destroy the Ottoman social system.
2. Remain an &quot;independent&quot; organization.
3. Seek Macedonian autonomy.

The organization became known as Vnatrezhna (Internal) Makedonska (Macedonian) Revolutsionerna (Revolutionary) Organizatsia (Organization), VMRO (IMRO).

Initially, IMRO had a single enemy, Turkish oppression. With the rise of &quot;nationalism&quot; and with the increased activities and intervention of foreign churches in Macedonia, three more enemies, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia were added to the list.

The &quot;religious wars&quot; of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Macedonia were fought between the Greek Patriarchists on one side and the Bulgarian Exarchists on the other. Greece intended to solve the &quot;nationality&quot; question by proclaiming that all Orthodox Christians in Macedonia were Greek because they belonged to the Greek Church. Bulgaria and later Serbia followed suit by also claiming &quot;nationality&quot; rights by church affiliation.

Since Macedonia was predominantly Christian Orthodox all three factions were claiming rights to the same people at the same time. When diplomacy no longer worked, the factions resorted to coercion, violence, blackmail, and armed propaganda campaigns. Prior to the 1903 Ilinden rebellion the Turks were against such action. After the rebellion however, they welcomed the interventions and allowed anti-Macedonian brigands to operate uninhibited.

By 1900, IMRO was facing several fronts in defending the Macedonian people. On one front it was fighting the Turkish army trying to prevent it from attacking and burning Macedonian villages. On another it was fighting foreign incursions sponsored by the Patriarchist and Exarchist Churches. At the same time it had to deal with the conditions of lawlessness and Bashi-bazouk attacks on the civilian population. 

On top of that, IMRO was also fighting ideological battles against the Bulgarian Vrhovists who were attempting to sabotage the uprising effort. Unprepared for a full-scale uprising due to lack of arms and ammunition, in the spring of 1903, the IMRO leaders were faced with an important decision. They knew that they were not ready for a full-scale attack against the Turkish army. In fact some believed that a rebellion under those conditions would be suicidal. 

They also knew that the Turkish army would destroy Macedonia, village by village, if they didn't do something soon. When the matter was put to a vote the majority voted in favour of an uprising. In Damian Gruev's words it was &quot;better an end with horrors than horrors without end&quot;. 

Unlike the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian rebellions which flared up at random reacting to Turkish oppression, the August 2nd, 1903 Macedonian Ilinden uprising was a &quot;planned rebellion&quot;. The Macedonian uprising was a well-organized fight for independence that involved the entire Macedonian community at the grass roots level. Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia were liberated with outside help from the Super Powers while Turkey was weak and disorganized. Macedonia, on the other hand, fought with no outside support against Turkey, which was strong and well organized. 

Macedonia's bid for independence failed in 1903 not because of a lack of courage or desire for freedom on the part of the Macedonian people, but because of a lack of outside support. Ignoring the Macedonian people's desire for self-determination, the Super Powers allowed Turkey to take back Macedonia. Why? Official history offers no answers.
According to European press accounts, when Westerners received news of the Macedonian uprising they cared more for their investments than for the independence of the Macedonian people.

In 1903, Macedonia reached the crossroads of her destiny and failed to gain independence. Why? What else could have been done?

There are those who believe that the qualities that made IMRO successful also made it weak. Instead of working with the bourgeoisie class of Macedonia, IMRO aligned itself with the poor village peasants who did not have the finances or the means to support an armed insurrection.
Others believe that not enough lobbying was done to solicit outside (Super Power) help. If IMRO had assured foreign investors that their investments would be secure the outcome may have been different. It is true that IMRO made little effort to solicit outside help.

I believe that after the 1878 Berlin Conference, Macedonia's fate was decided. First, Greece could not have survived economically without the Macedonian territory, Britain was well aware of that. Second, Britain at that time was not prepared to allow another Slav State to emerge in the Balkans. If Macedonia was not allowed to become an independent State, then she should have at least been allowed to merge with another Balkan State. Unfortunately, no Power wanted a &quot;Large State&quot; in the Balkans that had the potential of overpowering the others and dominating the region. The balance of power was best assured with equal sized States. 

Prompted by Italian Imperial ventures, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia expedited their own plans for conquest and in 1912 on the pretense of liberating the Macedonian people, declared war on Turkey and invaded Macedonia. 

What was to be a liberation quickly turned to occupation in 1913 when the liberating forces set up the apparatus of government and, by legislative decrees, extended their own constitutions to the new Macedonian territories they occupied. Not only was Macedonia illegally partitioned by imposing artificial borders on its territory but worse than that, over time, the Macedonian people were either forcibly assimilated into the new folds or forcibly expelled from their own ancestral lands.

By the treaty negotiated in August 1913 in Bucharest the map of Macedonia was redrafted ignoring previously agreed upon boundaries as the Bucharest delegates imposed their artificial sovereignty upon the Macedonian people. 

With the exception of one minor change in 1920 in Albania's favour, these dividing lines have remained in place to this day. 34,603 square kilometers or 51.57% of the total Macedonian territory went to Greece, 25,714 square kilometers or 38.32% went to Serbia and 6.789 square kilometers or 10.11% went to Bulgaria. August 10th, 1913 became the darkest day in Macedonian history.

Macedonia's hopes were dashed again at the conclusion of the Great War (WW I) in November 1918, when Macedonians were not allowed to attend the Versailles France Peace Conference. Up to this time Macedonia's partition was illegal and not sanctioned by the Powers. With the stroke of a pen in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles (Paris), England and France sealed Macedonia's fate by ratifying the principles of the Bucharest Treaty and officially endorsing the partitioning of Macedonia. 

This unfortunately encouraged Greece to further pursue forced expulsions and denationalization of Macedonians, to begin mass colonization of Macedonia and by the Neuilly Convention, transplant &quot;potential Greeks&quot; into the Macedonian territories. About 70,000 Macedonians were expelled from the Greek occupied part of Macedonia to Bulgaria and 25,000 &quot;so called Greeks&quot; were transplanted from Bulgaria to Greek occupied Macedonia. 

By the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, the Greco-Turkish war came to an end. Greece and Turkey signed a population exchange agreement. By the stroke of the pen some 380,000 Muslims were exchanged for something like 1,100,000 Christians. The total population in Greece, between 1907 and 1928, rose from 2,600,000 to 6,200,000. After the Greek occupation of Macedonia in 1912, for instance, by their own accounts the Greek elements in Greek occupied Macedonia had constituted 43 percent of the population. By 1926, with the resettlement of the refugees from Asia Minor, the Greek element has risen to 89 percent.

The next major event in Macedonia's history started with high hopes but unfortunately ended with tragic consequences for the Macedonian people. While the Macedonians in the Vardar region of Macedonia had gained some concessions and were re-building their lives after the conclusion of World War II, the Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia were engaging in someone else's war. World War II rekindled Macedonian hopes for freedom but the Greek Civil War shattered them. The oppressive aftermath was too much for most Macedonians to bear so they abandoned their beloved villages and immigrated to Canada, the USA and Australia. 

As I mentioned earlier, throughout the 19th century the Western Powers, Britain in particular, were in competition with Russia for political and economic influence of the Balkan region.
The Western Powers feared Russian Imperial expansion into the West and exercised every means to keep her at bay.
Early in the 19th century, the Southern Balkans including Romania, were dominated by Slavs. The Western Powers feared that with Russian influence, an Eastern Slav alliance (Panslavism) was possible and did everything in their power to prevent it. 

To prevent the Slavs from uniting, the Western Powers encouraged the creation of &quot;easily manageable Slav opposing&quot; States. These Slav opposing States would not only counter Russian and Slav influence, but they would also remain loyal to their benefactors. And that is exactly why Greece and Albania were created. Being Christian Orthodox and loyal to Russia, Greece, perhaps under a different name, could have easily become a &quot;Slav State&quot;.

Hellenism did not exist in the Balkans when the Kingdom of Greece was created for the first time in 1829. The idea of relating modern Greeks to those of 2,300 years ago came from Britain and France as a way of giving the newly created Greek nation a different &quot;national character&quot; from that of the Slavs to the north. This was a reliable way of ensuring Greece would not become a Slav State. Similarly, Albania was also a Western Power (Austrian-Hungarian) creation designed to counter Russian and Slav influence in the Adriatic.

Not all people of newly created Greece were happy with the idea of becoming Hellenes. Many wanted to pursue their Christian roots and maintain a &quot;Christian character&quot;. Unfortunately, as nationalism gripped the Balkans, the Hellenic forces gained momentum and slowly extinguished the &quot;multinational and true character&quot; of Greece. With the creation of Bulgaria, competition for influence in Macedonia intensified. By the turn of the 19th century Macedonia became the &quot;apple of discord&quot; between Greece and Bulgaria, two states with diametrically opposed national ideals. 

Not to be outdone, Serbia too laid her own claims insisting that the Slavs of Macedonia were Serbs and not Greeks or Bulgarians. So, were the 19th and early 20th century Macedonians &quot;nationally&quot; connected to the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians all at the same time?

The 19th and early 20th century questions of what nationalities lived in Macedonia had little do with the &quot;real nationality&quot; of the Macedonian people and a lot to do with the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian assertion of it. This was done purely for the purpose of laying claims to Macedonian territory. Attesting to her long history, Macedonia has always been and still is multinational and multicultural with a Macedonian majority. Greece on the other hand discarded her &quot;true national identity&quot; and opted for an ideal one. 

Bulgaria and Serbia followed suit by claiming &quot;homogeneity&quot; but remained &quot;Slav&quot;. In addition to claiming ties to ancient Greek ancestry, Greece went a step further and claimed &quot;racial purity&quot; and &quot;homogeneity&quot;. By superficially connecting herself to the ancient people of the Balkans, Greece not only laid territorial claims to their lands but also intentionally excluded all others from making similar claims, including the &quot;most recent owners&quot;. Additionally, without proof of &quot;bloodline&quot; Greece also claimed ties to ancient Macedonian ancestry and with that proceeded to take possession of Macedonian territory from its Modern Macedonian owners.

Greece is occupying 51.57% of Macedonia's territory today because according to Greek claims, it belongs to the Modern Greeks. Modern Greeks further claim that they are a pure race descended from the &quot;ancient owners of the land&quot; and thus the land is rightfully theirs by inheritance. Conversely, Modern Greeks claims that the 51.57% of Macedonian territory they occupy today does not belong to the Slavs (Modern Macedonians) because the Slavs are newcomers who migrated to the region only 1,400 years ago. They also claim that today only &quot;pure Greeks&quot; live in &quot;Greek Macedonia&quot;.

Let's put these assertions to a test. Is a Modern Greek a &quot;pure Greek with ties to the ancient Greeks&quot; if he or she is a direct descendent of Modern Macedonian, Turk, Albanian or Roma parentage? 

If &quot;yes&quot;, then Modern Macedonians, Turks, Albanians and Roma MUST ALSO have roots with links to the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians.

If &quot;no&quot; then Modern Greeks are NOT &quot;pure Greeks descended from the ancient Greeks&quot; and therefore cannot &quot;EXCLUSIVELY LAY CLAIMS&quot; to Macedonian territory on the basis of &quot;inheritance by bloodline&quot;.

Let's take a look at some facts.

1.
 It is a well-documented fact that between 1907 and 1928 the population of Modern Greece grew from 2,600,000 to 6,200,000. Where did these people come from? 
 
2.
 It is also a well-documented fact that any Christian Orthodox, be it a Slav, Turk, Albanian, Vlach or Roma, regardless of race, who assumed a Greek name and spoke the Greek language was considered to be Greek.
 
3.
 History has recorded that millions of people were assimilated and added to the Greek fold, regardless of race, some willingly some forcibly, between 1907 and 1928. Today, Greece claims that these people are &quot;pure Greeks descendents of the old Greeks&quot;.
 

Based on the above facts does Greece have the following rights?

1.
 To discriminate against those who assert their non-Greek (Macedonian) identity?
 
2.
 To &quot;exclude&quot; Macedonians from &quot;their own&quot; heritage on the basis that they are Slavs and not &quot;Hellenes&quot;?
 

Here is a summary of what past Greek Governments have done to the Macedonian people in the name of Hellenism.

1923. Greece and Turkey signed a population exchange agreement and by the stroke of the pen some 380,000 Muslims were exchanged for something like 1,100,000 Christians. Most of the Christians from Asia Minor were settled in Macedonia on the lands of those Macedonians killed and exiled in 1912-1913.

1926. Legislative Orders in Government Gazette #331 ordered the names of Macedonian towns, villages, mountains, etc to be changed to Greek. The Macedonian people, under duress, were ordered to abandon their Macedonian names and adopt Greek ones assigned to them by the Greek State.

1927. Cyrillic inscriptions on churches, tombstones, and icons were destroyed or overwritten. Law prohibited Church services in the Macedonian language.

1928. From 1926 to 1928 1,497 Macedonian place-names in Greek occupied Macedonia were Hellenized.

English Journalist V. Hild reveals, The Greeks do not only persecute living Macedonians, but they also persecute dead ones. They do not leave them in peace even in the graves. They erase the Cyrillic inscriptions on the headstones, remove the bones and burn them.

1929. The Greek government enacted a law whereby any demands for national rights by Macedonians were regarded as high treason.

LAW 4096 directive on renaming Macedonian place-names.

1936. From 1936 to 1940 Fascist dictator General Metaxas REIGNED TERROR. Macedonians suffered state terrorism and pogroms. Thousands of Macedonians were jailed, sent to internal exile (EXORIA) on arid, inhospitable Greek islands, where many perished. Their only crime was being ethnic Macedonian by birth.

LAW 6429 reinforces Law 4096 on Hellenization of toponyms.

DECREE 87 accelerated denationalization of Macedonians. The Greek ministry of Education sent specially trained instructors to accelerate the conversion to the Greek language.

1938. LAW 23666 banned the use of the Macedonian language and strove to erase every trace of the Macedonian identity. Macedonians were fined, beaten and jailed for speaking Macedonian. Adults and school children were humiliated by being forced to drink castor oil when caught speaking Macedonian.

LAW 1418 reinforced previous laws on renaming.

1940. From 1929 to 1940 another 39 place-names were Hellenized.

1945. LAW 697 had more regulations on renaming toponyms in Greek occupied Macedonia.

1947. LAW L-2 decreed that Greek citizens suspected of opposing the Greek government during the Greek Civil War were arbitrarily and without due process stripped of their citizenship.

1948. LAW M allowed confiscation of properties from Greek citizens who were accused of assisting the opposition or who fought against the Greek Government.

28,000 CHILD REFUGEES, mostly from Macedonia were evacuated to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. To this day Greece denies their right to return.

DECREE 504 continued property confiscation of exiles and colonization of Greek occupied Macedonia with people from Turkey, Egypt and other parts of Greece. Parcels of land were given to colonists along with financial incentives.

1959. LAW 3958 allowed the confiscation of property of those who left Greece and did not return within five years.

Several Macedonian villages in Greek occupied Macedonia were forced to swear LANGUAGE OATHS to speak only Greek and renounce their Macedonian mother tongue.

1962. DECREE 4234 reinforced past laws regarding confiscated properties of political exiles and denied them the right to return.

1968. The EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS accused Greece of human rights abuses.

1969. The COUNCIL OF EUROPE declared Greece undemocratic, illiberal, authoritarian, and oppressive. Greece was forced to resign from the Council of Europe under threat of expulsion.
A Military Junta continued the policy of colonizing the confiscated lands in Greek Occupied Macedonia. Land was handed over to persons with a proven patriotism for Greece.

1979. 135 more Macedonian place names were renamed in Greek Occupied Macedonia since 1940. 

1982. The Greek internal security police urged an intensive campaign to wipe out the remaining Macedonian language and Macedonian consciousness in Greek occupied Macedonia.

LAW 106841 allowed political exiles, who fled during the Greek Civil War and were stripped of their citizenship, to return providing they were Greek by ethnic origin. The same rights were denied to Macedonian political exiles born in Greek occupied Macedonia.

1985. DECREE 1540 stated that political exiles, provided they were Greeks by ethnic origin, who fled during Civil War were allowed to reclaim confiscated lands. The same rights were denied to Macedonian exiles who were born in Greek occupied Macedonia.

In the 1990s Greece made every effort possible to block the formation of the Republic of Macedonia. 

IT IS TIME TO EXPOSE GREECE FOR WHAT SHE REALLY IS AND PUT AND END TO HER TYRANICAL WAYS. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE SENSLESS PERSECUTION OF HER CITIZENS WHO WISH TO ASSERT THEIR TRUE NATIONAL IDENTITY.

The world is becoming a small place and in order to achieve peace and harmony, exclusion, oppression and discrimination must end. I believe that Europe is on the right track in its support for human and minority rights. Greece must also recognize her past mistakes and make amends to the Macedonian people. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that there is no peace and harmony as long as there is exclusion, exploitation and oppression.

For the unbelievers and for those who think that the &quot;Greeks can do no wrong&quot;, I offer you the following books, written in Greek by Greek authors;

1. If you wish to know more about Karavangelis' terrorist actions in Macedonia read his biography (the original version) &quot;Arheio Makedonikou Agona, Pinelopis Delta, Apomnimoneymata, Germanou Karavaggeli, Georgiou Dikonymou Makri, Panagioti Papatzanetea&quot;. By his own accounts and through his bragging you will learn what an upstanding religious figure, a Bishop no less, he was and how many people he had killed for the good of his country and for Hellenism.

2. If you wish to learn what the Greeks did in Macedonia from 1903 to 1905 during and around the time of the Ilinden Uprising, read the book &quot;Ellinikos Antimakedonikos Agonas, Apo to Ilinten Sto Zangoritsani (1903 - 1905), Megali Popeza, 1998&quot; by Dimitris Lithoxoou.

3. For the lady who told me to &quot;be ashamed for writing such lies&quot; and for the gentlemen who asked me &quot;are there no ends that you Skopians will go to propagate your propaganda and attempt to steal our Greek Heritage?&quot; I offer you this two volume book. &quot;Istoria Tis Makronisou, Meros Proto, Meros Deftero, Athina 1966&quot; by Nikou Margari.

4. For those of you who do not believe Macedonians exist and therefore no Macedonian language exists, I offer you this book. &quot;I Apagorevmeni Glossa, Kratiki Katastoli ton Slavikon Stis Eliniki Makedonia, Mavri Lista, Athina 2000&quot; by Tasos Kostopoulos.

On a more personal note! 

As a result of distributing this article series on the Internet I received a fair number of comments both positive and negative. Your comments were well appreciated.

While your positive comments gave me the encouragement to continue to write, your negative comments reminded me why I started writing in the first place. Thank you.

For those of you who have referred to me as Skopian or an agent of Skopie, I would like to set the record straight.

1.
 I am not Skopian, have never been to Skopie or to the Republic of Macedonia.
 
2.
 I am a Greek Citizen of Macedonian descent.
 
3.
 You can't just turn a blind eye and assume Greece is problem free and that people like me don't exist or are agents working for someone else.
 

Unlike many of you, I have found the truth that I am a Macedonian and not a Greek and have accepted it. I know who I am and no longer wish to live a lie for the sake of propagating more lies.

On the subject of the Greeks calling Macedonians &quot;Albanian half-breeds&quot;, &quot;Gypsies&quot; and &quot;Bulgars&quot;, you speak as if those people are not human. Calling them derogatory names does not change them from who they are. By doing so you only expose your own contempt for those people that think differently than you. In democratic societies like Canada we have laws against such practices. 

And finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone for showing interest in the series of articles and for providing me with your comments. 

In the near future, I will be starting a new series of articles on Macedonia, which will cover the period from ancient times up to the 19th century. Again as always, I will strive to provide you with an objective and unbiased analysis of the historic events with the aim of countering the Greek position on Macedonia and setting the record straight.

---------------------------------------------------

References:

H.G. Wells
An Illustrated Short History of the World

A. Michael Radin
IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura

The University of Cyril and Methodius
DOCUMENTS of the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State Volumes I &amp; II

The World Book Encyclopedia

Vasil Bogov
Macedonian Revelation
Historical Documents rock and shatter Modern Political Ideology

H. N. Brailsford
Macedonia Its Races and their Future, Arno Press, New York 1971

Peter Mackridge
The Modern Greek Language
A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek, Oxford 1985

The National Geographic Magazine, November 1925
History's Greatest Trek by Melville Chater

David Holden
Greece Without Columns, The Making of Modern Greeks
J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia &amp; New York

R. Auty
Handbook of Old Church Slavonic, Texts and Glossary
University of London

Rev. Dr. Charles Francis Potter
The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed

Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D.
The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 - 1913
Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966

Arnold J. Toynbee
A Study of History, Oxford 1975

David Thomson
Europe Since Napoleon, Pelican

George Macaulay Trevelyan
British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782 - 1901)
Longmans 1927

Richard Clogg
The Struggle for Greek Independence
Essays to mark 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence
Archon 1973

Giorgio Nurigiani
Macedonia of Yesterday and Today
Teleuropa, 1967

Kita Sapurma &amp; Pandora Petkovska
Children of the Bird Goddess
Pollitecon

Fred A. Reed
Salonica Terminus Travels into the Balkan Nightmare
Talonbooks, 1996

John Shea
Macedonia and Greece
The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation
McFarland

Anastasia N. Karakasidou
Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood
Passage to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870 - 1990
Chicago

Loring M. Danforth
The Macedonian Conflict
Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World
Princeton University

Vladimir Ortakovski
Minorities in the Balkans
Transnational

D. Fishwick, B. Wilkinson, J. C. Cairns
The Foundations of the West
Clarke, Irwin

Scott Taylor
Diary of an unCivil War
The Violent Aftermath of the Kosovo Conflict

Felix Gilbert
The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present
Institute for advanced Study
W.W. Norton &amp; Company Inc New York

Barbara Jelavich
History of the Balkans, Twentieth Century

The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II Volume 4

Benefit Society Oshchima 75th Anniversary 1907-1982 Toronto-Canada

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>m4na492yqukmayilaqrbknw18t3m3y8</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2057</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11072</id>
      <parentid>4969</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:26:53Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1762" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Introduction]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - The Rise of Macedonia]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - The Early Macedonian Kingdom]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Rise of the Macedonian Empire]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Philip II - The Greatest of the Kings]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - The Greatest of the Great Conquerors]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - Lord of Asia]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - To the Ends of the Earth, the Trek to India]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - The Aftermath of Alexander's Empire]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Prelude to War with Rome]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - War with Rome the Decline of the Macedonian Empires]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Cleopatra VII the Last of the Great Macedonian Monarchs]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - The Rise of Christianity a New Beginning]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Constantine I and the Triumph of Christianity]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Justinian I the Greatest Ruler of Byzantium]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - The Period of Decline]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Revival of the Macedonian State, Language and Culture]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Decline and Fall of the Pravoslav Empire]]
*[[History of the Macedonian People - Ottoman Rule in Macedonia]]

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>hxnf4ejniakfvc7elfk3jx1ru94reoi</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Introduction</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2058</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11073</id>
      <parentid>4970</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:26:59Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="48008" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 1 - Introduction

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

All people that have existed on this planet have left their mark in some form or another. The Macedonians are no exception and will be the subject of this series of articles.

To properly reconstruct history, corroborating information from at least two sources must be obtained. One such source might be data collected from analyzing material finds like tombs, artifacts, relics and inscriptions, the type of information that can be derived from archeological research. Another source might be a body of literature derived from stories, legends, myths, folklore, poems, songs, etc. passed down from generation to generation.

Unfortunately, for obvious reasons upon which I will expand, the reconstruction of the Macedonian history has been neglected and as a result has not achieved the desired maturity to be considered adequate.

Scientific interest in the southern Balkan region in general began for the first time in the early 1800’s alongside political and economic interests. While German and British scholars were studying findings from the Bronze Age in the Peloponnesus and Crete, Macedonia was still in the grip of the Ottoman Empire. Later, after 1912 and 1913, in the hands of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian States, anything to do with Macedonia became politically sensitive. Since the time that Greece annexed a large part of Macedonia the Greek authorities have concealed all archeological materials which didn’t agree with their political agenda. Only materials that strengthened their claims to Macedonia and attracted tourists are made public.

Without sound archeological data, reconstruction of history is scant at best. “Early twentieth-century historians continued occasionally to write political biographies of the pre-eminent fourth-century B.C. kings, and when they did consider Macedonian affairs they viewed them only as part of general Greek history. What was required for a deeper understanding of Macedon and its kings were serious source studies and archeology, but archeological interest remained dormant for decades because twentieth-century interest in Macedonia sprang from modern politics rather than from a study of antiquity.” (page 8, Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon).

As for using literature to reconstruct Macedonia’s history, 19th century Western scholars relied heavily on Greek and Roman sources and neglected to reference Eastern, Macedonian and other literary sources. Eastern scholars on the other hand by political motivation or by nonchalance, continued to stagnate. 

Unfortunately to this day, Greek and Bulgarian opposition still remains the biggest obstacle to reconstructing Macedonia’s history. Both states occupy Macedonian territory and refuse to cooperate on matters of Macedonian interests, especially archeology. Greece, which occupies the largest and archeologically richest part of Macedonia, will only cooperate if Macedonian history remains peripheral to mainstream Greek events and if it is presented from the Greek point of view. 
Bulgaria still refuses to recognize a Macedonian nation and is in agreement with Greece on matters of ancient history. 

The academic community to date has been hesitant to become involved in the reconstruction of a mainstream Macedonian history (outside of the 4th century B.C.) partly due to the difficulties in obtaining information from non-Greek sources but mostly due to Greek pressure to keep Macedonia under the Greek periphery. Whatever evidence exists today, is fragmented and derived mainly from biased sources. “What we know about the Macedonians are primarily from Greek sources or from translations derived from the Greek sources and therefore we have a skewed view of them depending upon the views of people who were largely their enemies in antiquity”. These are the words of Dr. Eugene Borza, the “world authority” on ancient Macedonia. Dr. Borza clearly summarizes the conditions under which mainstream Macedonian history has been presented.

I want to emphasize that the Ancient Macedonian history taught in schools today was written during the 19th and early 20th centuries mostly by Western authors who relied mainly on politically motivated Greek sources for their research. Even though the Ancient Macedonian people were a unique and separate nation, their history presented to us always places them together with the people of the Greek city-states. There is no western text where the Macedonian identity is treated separately from the Greek identities of the city-states. Also, the same mainstream history which is taught to our children today, personifies the ancient Macedonian people as a mere vehicle that united the city-states and did nothing more than do their bidding in spreading Hellenic culture throughout the ancient world. Also, Modern Greek historians made sure that the negativity of orators like Demosthenes referring to the Macedonians as “barbarians” and “culturally backwards”, was well portrayed in the minds of western writers. 

The fact that some modern authors ascribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come as no great surprise, given the impact of Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-century historians where Macedonia is depicted as a natural &quot;unifier&quot; of the Greek city-states. The same role was played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unification in the nineteenth century. &quot;On this false analogy the whole of Greek history was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian leadership&quot;. (Werner Jaeger)
To paraphrase Eugene Borza, it was a dynamic idea in the minds of 19th century German intellectuals and politicians to see something of themselves, of the German State unification, conquests, creativity and culture in the Greeks and Philip as the embodiment of national will and the unifier of Greece.
In other words, the ancient history written for the modern Greeks by 19th century German scholars was nothing more than a German vision of the “Glorious” German unification superimposed on the Greek model. 

To Demosthenes and others like him, the Macedonians were an enemy that conquered and subdued them and embodied everything that was vile and despicable. Ignoring all signs of a rich and civilized culture beyond imagination, modern Greek scholars hid the real face of ancient Macedonia under a veil of contemptible words spoken by enemies and by bitter politicians. 

Modern day Greeks would like to pass off Demosthenes’s castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that, “Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave.” Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: “If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares.” (J.T. Griffith) Greece &quot;ruled&quot; not &quot;united&quot; by a Macedonian Ares. Also, was it not the Greek philosopher Lycurgus who said, &quot;With the death of Chaeronea was buried the freedom of Greece?&quot; 

The reader should be aware that the word “Greek” is a Latin term that originated during Roman times and should not be used to refer to a people that existed hundreds of years earlier. The people of the ancient city-states could not possibly have been called “Greek” before the word was actually invented. Also, modern Greek academics are more than willing to interpret ambiguous evidence when it serves their political interests, and at the same time, to dismiss the obvious when it doesn’t. If you want to learn more about the differences between the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians please read Josef S. G. Gandeto’s book, Ancient Macedonians, Differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

“ There is not a single word or fact written by the ancient authors that shows that the Macedonians are Greek. There is not a single word or fact written where the Macedonians thought of themselves as Greeks. There is not a single book written by the ancient authors, including the ancient Greek authors, that has mixed the lineage and has not shown diverse differences between Macedonians and Greeks.” (Joseph Gandeto) 

Since the emergence of the Republic of Macedonia in the 1990’s, research in the field of archeology has increased dramatically but mainly inside the Republic of Macedonia. Also, new Macedonian literature and publications are slowly emerging and in time should provide an alternative to the vast, biased Greek sources. 

On the subject of language, it would be evident from the text of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius Rufus that Alexander's army spoke Macedonian not Greek. Any other interpretation would be intolerably difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
“ The main evidence for ancient Macedonian existing as a separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically. The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic (ancient Athenian) used as a language of the court and of diplomacy. The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect.” (Eugene Borza)

There are many scholars who will argue that there is ample evidence to place the ancient Macedonians as a distinct nation with a unique culture and language, separate from the ancient city-states. Unfortunately, until recently there was little interest and not much incentive to carry the argument beyond discussion.

If the ancient Macedonians were a distinct nation, then where did they come from? What language did they speak? Has any part of their language survived? What was their culture like?

To answer these questions we need to avoid being bogged down by conflicting arguments. We need to get away from the well-trod mainstream path, free ourselves from the biased modern Greek sources and take a fresh look at the old and new evidence, especially the evidence that has been omitted or intentionally bypassed in the past.

It has been my belief that the arguments presented by Greek historians are not only biased and politically motivated, but are designed to bog down the academic world and keep it on the defensive thus stifling any chance for real progress. 

On the topic of new archeological and linguistic evidence, there have been numerous projects undertaken since the 1960’s.

A major archeological discovery was made in 1977 in Kutlesh (Vergina) about 30 miles north of Mount Olympus. Archeologists uncovered what appeared to be the royal tomb (Golemata Tumba) of Philip II. In addition to yielding much information about the Macedonians, the find also unearthed much controversy. Some of the artifacts found, according to Eugene Borza, belonged to a later period of the 4th century B.C., which cast some doubt as to whether it was truly Philip II’s tomb. What is more important however, is the type of treasure found in the tomb. The treasure is physical evidence which “proves unmistakably” that the Macedonians were not a barbarian tribe whose only accomplishment was making war. Archeologists are finding increasing evidence that the Macedonians were a far more sophisticated culture than previously thought.
What was most impressive in this find, besides the solid gold casket with the symbol of the starburst, was the exquisite gold foiled wreath made from 313 gold oak leaves. It is the heaviest and most elegant gold wreath ever discovered. 

Since the emergence of the Republic of Macedonia new and exciting archeological discoveries have been made. Rocks with inscriptions never before deciphered were found in several sites inside the Republic of Macedonia. Similar inscriptions have also been found in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and even Crete, Pil and Knosos. Unfortunately, up until now archeologists have consistently failed to decipher them. Thanks to dedicated archeologists like Vasil Ilyov the inscriptions have now been deciphered.

According to Ilyov’s palaeographic and paleolinguistic research, the signs on the rocks are actual letters of an old pre Slavic phonetic alphabet that belongs to the Macedonian language of Aegean Macedonia. In other words, the language of the Pelazgian and other Macedonian tribes, like the Payonian, Piertian, Brygian or Phrygian, Venets or Enets, etc., is in fact the language of the ancient Macedonians which dates back to prehistoric times.

Symbols found on Prevedic solar and cosmographic artifacts that belong to the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, place the inscriptions somewhere between 7,000 to 3,000 B.C. (Page 37, October 15, 1999, number 560, Makedonija magazine).

What is more interesting is that Vasil Ilyov and his team have translated almost every inscription discovered and so far have identified and tabulated 35 characters of the ancient alphabet. (Pages 60 and 61, July 1, 2000, number 577, Makedonija magazine). There is finally proof that a Macedonian written language existed in prehistoric times. In fact, according to Vasil Ilyov, not one but two phonetic alphabets have been discovered. One was known as the common alphabet used by the general public and the other was known as the “secret” alphabet used for religious and ceremonial purposes. To date, the texts of more than 150 artifacts have been translated and about 6,000 ancient Macedonian words have been identified.

According to Ilyov, apart from giving us the oldest phonetic alphabet found to date, the prehistoric Macedonians have also given us clues that they were gazing at the skies. The word “cosmos” which the Hellenes borrowed from the Macedonians, and the modern Greeks without offering adequate etymology pass off as their own, Iliov says comes from the Macedonians. 
In the ancient Macedonian language the base of the noun cosmos comes from the adjective KOS (winding slanted) and the noun MOS (bridge). “Kosmos” was the winding bridge that the ancient Macedonian astronomers called the cluster of stars in the Milky Way galaxy looking like a winding bridge when viewed from the earth.

Even before Irodot (Herodotus 484-424 B.C.) gave the world the idea of history as we know it today, the ancient Macedonians were already familiar with the notion. The West considers Herodotus to be the father of history. As for the word “history”, its roots are found in the ancient Macedonian noun “TR” which is the oldest name given to the god of thunder. In time, the word evolved from “TR” to “TOR”, “TORI” and in the past tense, “STORI” which in Macedonian means “happened”. If we apply this action to events that involve people we then come up with the Macedonian words “TIE I STORIA” which in English translates to “they did”. So, when Herodotus published his work under the title “HISTORY” by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, he in fact used a Macedonian word for his title.

If Herodotus, using a similar analogy derived his title from the Atikan dialect, as modern Greeks claim, he would have had to produce a noun from the verb “KANO” or “EKANA” and the actions “they did” would translate to “AVTI EKANAN” which is a far cry from the word HISTORY. (Pages 56 and 57, June 15, 2000, number 576, Makedonija magazine).

I want to mention here that in spite of Greek claims otherwise, Irodot (Herodotus) was not Greek and was not from Athens. Herodotus was Karian born in the city of Halicanassus in Asia Minor.

More evidence that gives credence to the existence of an ancient prehistoric Macedonian civilization comes to us from ancient literature. One such source that greatly influenced our impression of the ancients and inspired Alexander the Great to seek adventure was Homer’s epic poems. About five hundred years after the Trojan Wars, Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer’s work captivated his audience with events that, according to Tashko Belchev, began and ended in Macedonia. Homer was born in the 8th century B.C. and created true literary masterpieces that are enjoyed as much today, as they were in the days of Alexander the Great. Originally, Homer’s stories were folktales told and retold for millenniums until they were immortalized in print in the 6th century B.C.
What is most interesting about Homer’s stories, especially the Iliad, is that they were originally written in the prehistoric Macedonian language. The first paleolinguist to openly proclaim the similarities between the words of the Iliad and those of the modern Slavic languages was the German Homerologist Pasov. Inspired by Pasov and others, researcher Odisej Belchevsky has furthered the study by clearly illustrating the fundamental relationship between the modern Macedonian language and the language of Homer. 

“ In the Iliad and Odyssey, attributed to Homer, the great multitude of non-Greek people living around Olympus and further north in Europe were described as being as, ‘Numerous as the leaves in the forests… with chariots and weapons decorated with gleaming gold and silver…like gods.’
Unless destroyed by natural disaster, large nations and their languages do not simply disappear but rather change and evolve over time. This evolution is influenced by the conditions of life and interaction with other nations, called ‘symbiosis’ by Lidija Slaveska in The Ethnological Genesis of the Macedonian People. 
A tremendous number of words from everyday life as well as the names of a number of places, rivers, mountains, kings, gods, common people, and numerous tribes can be found in the Homeric poems. The majority of these words have survived until today. This is not a strange phenomenon. What attracts our attention is that these words have retained their basic meaning and can be easily recognized especially by the speakers of the contemporary Slavic languages. This linguistic material clearly shows the existence and strong influence of a language, which surely was neither Greek nor Latin.
After extensive research taking over twelve years, I (Oddisej Belchevski) have studied, analyzed and resolved a large number of linguistic problems through the evidence of that archaic language which profoundly influenced the Greek, Latin, and Germanic languages in their historic development since ancient times.

The question of what constituted ancient Macedonian has been studied by many scholars over many centuries. There have been many attempts to reconstruct it as a “Greek dialect.” My research indicates the following:
1. 1. Not a single linguist nor scholar in any other field has ever conducted a comparative study of this ancient language with the largest linguistic group in Europe and Asia--the Slavic languages--in use today! The question is: Why? It seems that the truth has been hidden in darkness and altered by western scholars and politicians for almost two hundred years. It is easy to suppose that this has been done for nationalistic, political interests and gains.
2. 2. The Macedonian words identified in Homer (1000-800 BC) are a part of the basic everyday life of the Macedonian people today. When compared to the contemporary Macedonian language, there is an incredible similarity and in many cases there are complete cognates.
3. 3. Moreover, those Homeric words which belong to that base are found in the roots of many words in the modern Macedonian language. They form huge families of words--a series of words that are interrelated on a functional basis or are simply built according to the Law Of Functional Etymology. 
4. 4. Some of these words have been adopted in the Greek language, but have been assimilated beyond recognition. Others again “stand alone” in the Greek language, without Greek roots or functional relationships. But most of these words are absolutely not related to modern Greek.

Many western scholars think that kinship terms from 1500-1000 BC disappeared long ago. My research proves that they exist today in the largest language group of nations in Europe and Asia, including the modern Macedonian nation. These specific terms were of utmost importance as they were the basis for preserving large family units --clans, tribes, and the prevention of marriages between family members. All this resulted in forming of great nations.

The Pelazgian people are clearly described in Homeric poems as non-Greek, with their own language and traditions totally different from Greek. They inhabited the Balkan Peninsula (known by the names Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, etc.) and they spread throughout south-eastern Europe (under the common name Scythians). Later, they migrated to the east in Asia Minor (Lydians, Brigians-Frigians etc.) and to the west into central and northern Italy (Etruscans, Veneti etc).
Their name, Pelazgians, most logically could be interpreted as the ‘dwellers of the flat lands’. They cultivated the fertile valleys and became a part of the landscape their fecundity only paralleled by the far Eastern nations. In the Iliad, they are identified as Trojans and as the inhabitants of Crete. According to Greek writers, they are credited with building the Acropolis and as those natives that the ‘Greek’ tribes met when they arrived in Southern Europe. How could it have happened that so great a number of Pelazgian tribes disappeared without leaving traces of their language? It should be pointed out that there is forgotten evidence revealed in the linguistic inscriptions on stones in Delphi (Greece) and Asia Minor (Turkey). These are written in Greek and in ‘another language’, which western scholars identify as Etruscan. In his study ‘The Language of the Etruscans’, L. Bonafonte identifies the ‘other language’ as Etruscan. My study of the Etruscan and Lydian languages reveals that these languages were closely related to the ancient and modern Macedonian language. Other apparent lexical correspondences between the Homeric and modern Macedonian are, for example: paimiti(s)-pamti; veido, veiden-vide; ischare-izgara, skara; idri-itar; kotule-katle; okkos-oko; steno-stenka; pliscios-seli, preseli; oditis-odi od odenje. There are a great many examples like this in the 1800 dictionary compiled by the German linguist Ludwig Franz Passoff on the basis of the most ancient extant manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad. The English edition was prepared by Henry George (New York, 1850). Not knowing the Macedonian language, Passoff concentrated on the most contrasting preserved words, unknown in Greek and Latin with the Czech and Slovak languages of that time. So these words were identified, in fact, as Slavic words. Hence, in my opinion the golden rule for analyzing a language is the aforementioned Functional Etymology. Since the functional relations of words are the fundamental building blocks of word forms, I name this rule the ‘GOLDEN RULE OF FUNCTIONAL ETYMOLOGY.’
In studies of the ancient and modern Macedonian language at the Canadian-Macedonian Historical Society in Toronto the priority project based on an earlier understanding is the question of ‘Studying The Macedonian Language--Ancient and Modern’. Another interesting topic is the problem of the ‘Lost Words in the Indo-European Language Exist Today in the Modern Macedonian Language’. In order to illustrate my argument in this respect, I focus on some examples of the genetic relationships between ancient and modern Macedonian language, through the Macedonian word daver, dever ‘brother in law’.

When a young woman marries, the brother of her husband (usually the youngest) becomes a ‘dever’. This is an ancient tradition done to ensure that the young male is entrusted with the care of the family in case the husband dies or is killed.

In such circumstances the youngest brother becomes the new husband and takes over the family. This was necessary to protect the children and keep accrued wealth and property within the same family. The meaning of the word in Macedonian, according to functional etymology could be extracted as follows: vera-verba-doverba-doveri-dever ‘to be entrusted’. This word belongs to a large cluster of Macedonian words containing the root (-verba-).
In ancient Macedonian (1000 BC), according to Homer (p.305 L.L.) there is da-DAVER; dao(s), where the digama stands for/v/ and the word means ‘brother in law’. In the word daver-daer we note the missing consonant /v/ in inter vocalic position. This indicates that the rule of the speech economy has been in force for a long time in the language. Dropping consonants has been a rule quite often occurring in Macedonian as in the examples: to private &gt;to praoite; covekot ojde &gt; coekon ojde, etc. Yet in Greek ‘brother in law’ ginaika delfos ‘ginaika delfoos’, could obviously not be related to the Homeric daver-davero(s).”( Odisej K. Belchevski, Pages 29, 30, 31 and 32, Number 503, III 1995, Makedonija magazine).

If you didn’t know who Homer was and happened to be reading his stories about the customs of the Trojans, you would think that he was talking about modern Macedonia. After three millenium, we find the same customs, crafts, hunting techniques, agricultural methods, etc. being practiced today. Be it spinning, weaving, dowry, hospitality, nature, or house design, everything else described in Homer’s epics, says Angelina Markus, is unchanged and present all around us today. (Page 56 and 57, July 1, 2000, number 575, Makedonija magazene. 

Another archeological source that provides evidence for the Macedonians is the work of German Toponimist Max Fasmer. Fasmer in his book “The Slavs in Greece” examines the origins of 334 prehistoric Phoenician toponyms in Epirus and concludes that they are of Slavic origin. Through his studies, Fasmer has discovered that there is a relationship between the ancient Phoenicians and the medieval Slavs. He also clearly emphasizes that that “Slavs” inhabited Epirus. What is also interesting is that in German, the words “Slaven” and “Vinden” are synonymous. Tashko Belchev furthers the idea that the Slavs inhabited the Balkans long before previously thought by connecting the Vindi, Veneti and Phoenician to a single family of people with common origins. (Page 68, February 1, 2001, number 591, Makedonija magazine).

According to the writings of G. S. Grinevich, dealing with the subject of pre-Slavic literacy, the decoding and linguistic coding results show that pre-Slavic literacy existed much before the creation of the letters and coding of the Slavic language by the brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodi. This is more evidence that the proto-Slavs originated in Macedonia and according to Grinevich, the language spoken by the Aegean Pelasti is the same as that spoken by the pre-Slavs (p. 175). Grinevich has also stated that the pre-Slavic written language is very close to the Old Slavic written literary language of all Slavs. (Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994)

According to Alexander Donski, “There are many indications that the ancient Macedonians were of Venetic origin (the term &quot;Slavic&quot; came into use much later), and there is evidence in favor of this.

Historical Evidence We can see from several ancient documentary sources that Macedonians and Hellenes were two different peoples. Some Greek, as well as Roman historians, have explored this view, and have left evidence collected from earlier periods, clearly showing that ancient Macedonians were of Venetic origin.

Linguistic Evidence Although the surviving vocabulary of the ancient Macedonians is relatively small, it gives a good indication in favor of our thesis; which is, that the modern Macedonian language is at least in part the continuation of the language spoken by Alexander the Great and his contemporaries.

Onomastic Evidence There is considerable heritage from the area of burial customs and archaeological remains. They contain many examples of sameness or similarity between the ancient and modern Macedonian, and other Slavic languages. There are also some narrative, oral testimonies pointing in the same direction.”
Alexander Donski has recently published a book on this subject, which will be available in English soon. 

A recently published book &quot;Veneti: First Builders of European Community&quot;, considered to be one of the most comprehensive works on the early history of Slovenes, presents the Proto-Slavic Veneti as the first known nation of central Europe and the Slovenes as their most direct descendants. The Veneti (not to be confused with Venetians) settled in the alpine area in Slovenia, northern Italy, eastern Switzerland and Austria during the Bronze Age around 1200 B.C. In their original settlement area there are to this day countless Slovene place-names.

These facts presented in the book are not new and have already been studied and reported by earlier researchers but for unknown reasons, have not been taken seriously.

Besides important historical data, the authors of this book have presented numerous Slovene toponyms in the alpine region and to the west and north where the Veneti once lived. Also, the book reveals many similarities between the modern Slovene and the Venetic languages. Research done on the Venetic inscriptions has proven that not only was the ancient Venetic language (contrary to official linguistics) Proto-Slavic, but also that the modern Slovene language is a continuation of it.

The first known nation of central Europe, according to the authors of this book, were the Proto-Slavic Veneti and the original language of central Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans around 2,000 B.C. was Slavic. 

The book &quot;Veneti: First Builders of European Community&quot; is a first step towards the gradual correction of the “distorted history” which was “written for us” by foreigners.

Until recently, no one had been able to decipher the Venetic script on the urns unearthed from archeological digs because no one ever thought of using the ancient Slavic language as a basis to try and solve this ancient mystery. So they say!

Matej Bor, a Slovenian linguist, seems to have cracked the Venetic script using the Slovenian language. (Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, “VENETI: First Builders of European Community”)

Soon perhaps, Macedonian researchers will compare notes with Slovenian researchers and shed some new light on this ancient mystery.

In the article “Who is Afraid of Ancient Macedonian Culture, and Why?” Tashko Belchev talks about Deyan Medakovic, President of the Serbian Academy of Science and his attempts to cover up certain archeological facts that do not agree with mainstream Serbian history. 

On March 4, 1987 Academic, Vladimir Dediyer, President of the research board of the Serbian Academy, sent a letter to Deyan Madakovic complaining about his involvement in stopping the symposium devoted to the Vincha world which existed 6,000 – 3,000 years B.C. The symposium was organized by the Serbian Academy of Science and Art, the Historical Science Department and the Center for Scientific Research at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. Among other things, the letter chastised Medakovic with the words, “Damn you Deyan Medakovic, for your petty ambitions to be President of the Serbian Academy of Science. You are a sycophant to the authorities, breaking all human principles of behaviour. (L. Klyakic, ‘Beginning of the Road’, p. 56.)” (Page 69, August 1, 2000, number 579, Makedonija magazine). 

On the subject of the Vincha Group, Vasil Iliov, in an article in the Makedonija Magazine, talks about a discovery of a rather imposing monument containing an ancient script found in Sitovo cave, located near the city of Plovdiv in Bulgaria. The monument has two lines of inscriptions about 3.4 meters long and the text is about 40 centimeters high, written from right to left. According to Ilyov, the text can be dated back to 4,500 B.C. and is written in the ancient, prehistoric Macedonian phonetic language. The text, although not deciphered at the time, was published in 1950 and again in 1971. With Ilyov’s assistance, the text was finally deciphered in 1995. In a crude attempt, here is what it says in English “and the father-in-law ran in (flew in) and in the flight horrors have haunted him and there the house psalms (in the house they sing psalms) and in roast you are a guest of the ducks-go dream!” (Page 71, December 15, 1999, number 564-565, Makedonija magazine) You can decide for yourself what the ancient scribe wants to say. More importantly, it is not what the message says but rather that it has been deciphered and translated. Perhaps it is not a message meant for us. In any case here is Iliov’s interpretation. The duck in this message refers to an ancient swamp bird, which rises from a deceased person and carries his/her spirit to the blue sky. Ilyov has based his interpretation on an artifact in the shape of an anthropomorphic figure standing on a chariot drawn by harnessed swamp birds. The central figure is decorated with symbols of the sun and planets. 

Yet another source of archeological data in support of a Macedonian civilization comes from Bronze Age research. According to Vangel Bozhinovski (page 61, June 1, 2000, number 575, Makedonija magazine) the Neolithic civilization in Macedonia appeared 3,000 years before it appeared in Western Europe. Similarly the Bronze Age appeared in Macedonia 1,200 years earlier and the Iron Age 200 years earlier. The tragedy of the Bronze Age is reflected in the death and destruction it brought to Macedonia after it was introduced to Western Europe. In the hands of the Europeans to the North and to the West, the metal that once shaped art in Macedonia became a weapon of death and destruction. Was it mankind’s nature to crave war above peace? If we examine our behaviour by the amount of money we spend on our military budgets today, I would say yes.

Almost all of the valuable artifacts made between 1,200 and 800 B.C. were discovered in cemeteries. Macedonia dubbed “the culture of the fields of urns” has an abundance of cemeteries. It seems that no matter how many are unearthed or destroyed there are plenty more to be found. It is in mankind’s nature to be this way says Vangel Bozhinovski, just look at the textbooks from which our children learn in school today and you will realize that civilization is nothing but an endless war. War is a western invention which was imported to Macedonia during the Bronze Age and has become our way of life ever since.

It has been said that thousands of years ago many small tribal kingdoms occupied the region where the three continents meet (Europe, Asia and Africa). They lived off the land, traded, and peacefully co-existed with each other for many centuries. Even though they were known by many names, the people had a common ancestry and spoke dialects of the same language.
For a thousand years the masters of the crafts possessed the secret of the metals with which they made their cities beautiful with sculptures and decorations.

It was foretold that if the secret of the metal (bronze) was allowed to escape, the gods of peace would curse the people and allow disaster to befall them for a thousand years. Unfortunately, after a thousand years or so of contentment, ignoring the ancient warnings, the old masters became arrogant and careless and let the secret of the metal escape. No one could have predicted the outcome of what was about to happen, especially the gentle tribes who knew nothing of evil, violence or bloodshed.

When the gods of war who lived to the north and west of the gentle tribes learned the secret of the metal, they forged mighty weapons. With promises of power and glory, they bewitched the tribesmen’s leaders to use the weapons against their enemies. Greed and lust for power soon blinded the tribesmen who unleashed bloodshed, death and destruction. When the cities of light turned to dust the wars ended and the dead were buried in cities of tombs below the surface of the earth where their bones lay in peace, undisturbed for all eternity or until archeology unearthed them.

In 800 B.C. when the catastrophic wars were finally over, the survivors of the small tribal kingdoms were left weak, devastated and vulnerable. One of those small kingdoms was Macedonia. But Macedonia’s story does not end with the tribal wars, it only begins.

There are those who believe that the name “Macedonia” was first spoken by the child warriors who longed to return home during the tribal wars. What they affectionately called “Makedon” was not their kingdom but their wish to return to “mother’s home”. 

“Make” (mother) and “don” (home) or Makedon as it came to be known to the outside world, was “mother’s home” to the children of Macedonia.
There are other stories that make reference to the meaning of the name “Makedon” but this, I believe, is the most realistic meaning.

One of the oldest sources of evidence written on stone in the ancient Macedonian phonetic language dates back to the Neolithic period, to the time of the “Zets”. I want to mention here that a “Zet” is a “son in law”. From the deciphered inscriptions, it appears that the Zets of various tribes seemed to be involved in some sort of conflict with each other.

Perhaps one of the most characteristic documents ever found was the text engraved on a stone in the shape of a long fish found in Osinchani, near Skopje. Here the inscription describes a battle between Zets expressing how one Zet subdued another.

Another description that dates between 2,100 B.C. and 1,200 B.C., tells a boastful story of how the Zet Ig’Lal destroyed the Ege kingdom. (Vasil Ilyov, page 51, August 15, 2000, number 580, Makedonija magazine).

Yet another Neolithic inscription from the Tsrna Loma or Ilina Gora locality, near the village Osinchani, conveys the following message: “taa, rechta, zasega e uteha na majkite, koishto loshoto voinata, niv gi oshteti”, which in English translates roughly to, “the word for now is consolation for the mothers, whom the wicked war damaged”. 

Outside of Homer’s epics, nothing has captured the young imagination more than the adventures of the ancient mythological gods and heroes.

Were these gods and heroes exclusively Egyptian, Greek and Roman? Because that is exactly what the modern Greeks would want us to believe.

Contrary to modern Greek claims, Professor Tashko Belchev believes that the mythology as we know it today originated in the fertile minds of much older people than the ancient Greeks, the ancient Macedonians. The Greeks simply took the mythology and adopted it for themselves. Even the word “mythology” comes from the ancient Macedonian words “mit” and “log”. In modern Macedonian the word “mit” means “telling” or “bribing” (potmiti go, bribe him) and the word “log” (logika) means “logic” or “science”. Putting the two words together we come up with “Mitlog” or, in modern Macedonian, “Mitologija” the science of telling or the science of “bribing” the young imagination. (Page 58, June 15, 2000, number 576, Makedonija magazine).

Taking all evidence into consideration, it is not difficult to piece together a theory of what the pre-Macedonian world looked like. We already know a lot about the ancient city-states and how they dealt with overpopulation and expansion. For example, as each of the ancient city-states grew beyond the city’s ability to support its population, people were driven out or left voluntarily to start a new city. New settlements followed the coastline indicative of the peoples’ desire to pursue a familiar means of livelihood. 
The same principle can be applied to the pre-Macedonian inland dwellers who lived in what we today call geographical Macedonia.

For personal protection and for companionship, the ancient people built their homes in close proximity similar to those of today’s modern villages. As the community grew in population beyond the land’s ability to support it, people moved and started new communities. This practice continued uninterrupted as long as there was space to expand. In time, the entire region of Macedonia became dotted with settlements. Unchecked by war, disease and pestilence, the populations grew and expanded outwards.

Since the people of the various towns were related to each other, they maintained close contact through visits, celebrations, etc. which kept their traditions and language from diverging.
The maximum population an ancient town could hold was dependent upon the land’s ability to support it. If a family could no longer make a living because it was too large for its land holdings, it either moved away in whole or split up. Some family members moved away to a smaller town or started a new community elsewhere. Newly founded towns usually took the name of the founding family.

Keeping track of genealogy was very important for several reasons. Family size usually dictated social status in the community. The family clan protected its family members and expected certain loyalties from them in return. Marriages between family members were avoided by knowing who belonged to which family. It was common practice in those days for a young man to leave his own family, marry and become a Zet (son in law) in another family. Based on the ancient scripts, being a Zet had its privileges, including those of waging war on other Zets for control over the family. 

Because the Balkan terrain could not support uniform population growth, clusters of settlements developed usually with the larger towns in the fertile lowlands, surrounded by smaller towns in the highlands. As the older settlements grew and matured they began to trade with other settlements and developed transportation routes, commerce and a written language. They also developed a central administration, a security force and appointed central tribal leaders, who in time evolved into tribal kings. With the expansion of trade beyond the boundaries of the local community, the ancient people came into contact with other people who had new ideas and innovations.

With the discovery of metal, powerful weapons were built and bloodshed and destruction was not too far behind. Even family squabbles over small matters turned violent and ugly. A society that valued kinship and family above all else had the tendency to stick together and interact freely and peacefully. Unfortunately, at around 1,200 B.C. something went terribly wrong and war erupted between the various groups (families?), bringing four centuries of death and devastation to the peace loving people of ancient Macedonia. 

Documented but not well understood are ancient “kinship and family ties”. Kinship was very important to the ancient people of Macedonia who ranked it at the top of their value system. A good example of this is Philip II’s marriages to various women from his annexed worlds. Marriages were a powerful symbol for bonding family ties and for forging powerful alliances. This custom may seem bizarre today but it was common practice in ancient Macedonia.

From a cultural and linguistic standpoint, the close relationship between the ancient societies allowed free interaction between the various peoples and kept their language and culture from diverging. This could account for the widespread Slav language commonality we are witnessing today.

Thus far, I have given you a glimpse of the remnants of an old prehistoric world with a rich culture and language. The sources of information that I have referenced provide valuable evidence of the existence of a world never before acknowledged. Also, the deciphered inscriptions and translated texts not only suggest that a pre-historic civilization existed, but also that the people of this old world are the ancestors of the modern Macedonians. 

Some of the artifacts, like the stone writings and the “Iliad” translations, have been discovered and deciphered since the 1990’s but to this day they have not attracted the attention of mainstream archeology and paleolinguistics. Why? 

I believe there are several reasons for this:

1. There are some who think the work is not serious enough to warrant their consideration.

2. Others, especially the highly paid administrators, are satisfied with the status quo and don’t want to rock the boat.

3. Yet others believe that any involvement on their part could undermine the entire foundation of ancient history as we now know it.

4. Unfortunately, there are also those, myself included, who believe that mainstream ancient history as we know it today, had been fabricated to support the political objectives of the 19th century Great Powers and their allies. 

As George Orwell once pointed out, &quot;Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.&quot; History is written by the victors. 

As I mentioned earlier, when the foundation of ancient history was laid down by the 19th century revisionists, it was done in aid of political objectives. Modern Greece was created by the Western Powers expressly to curtail Slavic expansionism. Moreover, Greece was created to divide the Slavs and stop Imperial Russia from achieving her long ambition of sailing the waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

In their zeal to satisfy their own ambitions, the 19th century Powers, perhaps unbeknownst to them at the time, unleashed a “Balkan turmoil” that would have long lasting consequences for the Balkan people.

People that existed together, united for centuries by a common faith, were divided without their consent and thrown into disarray by artificially imposed values and ideals.

A century has passed and peace has not been achieved. Why?

When the Western Powers superficially created Greece in 1829, they launched her on a polemic course, her survival to be made possible only at the expense of the Macedonian nation. 
The problems experienced between Greece and Macedonia today are nothing new but another stage in a continuous and timeless struggle.

Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia have generated more literature to disprove the existence of a Macedonian nation than they have written books about their own histories. This is truly sad and such a waste of effort. 

To be continued…

References:

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace

Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994

Makedonija Magazine – Ilustrirana Rebija za iselenitsite od Makedonija, Broj 503, 560 - 591


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>4lw8o90ylrh374jl50tkhlnc2xwrl3k</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - The Rise of Macedonia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2059</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11074</id>
      <parentid>10714</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:04Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="50339" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 2 - The Rise of Macedonia

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

&quot;History has often been referred to as a record of the winners. A more accurate definition might be, 'a record of how the winners wish to be seen.' Many governments, in a reptilian effort to justify their conduct, have distorted the past in order that it serve the present.&quot; (Michael Dimitri)

Weakened by the tribal wars, the small kingdom of Macedonia was vulnerable to outside attacks. The people, who for thousands of years knew nothing of war, after four centuries of it, had grown weary and apprehensive. Their long time kin, friends, and allies were now the enemies who had them surrounded. Too weak to stave them off by force, the Macedonians of the 10th century BC devoted their energies to diplomacy.

In the last article (Part 1), I provided some archeological and linguistic evidence which hints to the idea that the ancient Macedonian people, including those of the 4th century BC, were of non-Greek origins. As much as it is contrary to official history, this evidence can no longer be ignored.

Macedonians are not alone in their arduous task of setting the historical record straight. There are also Slovenes, Poles, Russians and even Italians and Americans who believe the European continent was settled by different groups of people than official history would have us believe.

My intention in this article is to provide more evidence that will dispute Greek claims on Ancient Macedonia and that will prove that not only were the ancient Macedonians not Greek, but that they were an ethnically unique people with a prehistoric Slav identity. My main focus, however, will be to analyze the factors and events from the 10th century BC onwards, which created the conditions that elevated Macedonia from a tribal kingdom to a Super Power.

Four centuries of war did not only bring death and destruction to the prehistoric tribal kingdoms, but also isolated them from each other. Forced to look for trade elsewhere and away from their traditional trading routes, the warring tribes were brought into contact with and exposed to new and different people. With new exploration came external influences and exposure to new ideas and new blood. Tribes closest to the sea began to traverse the waterways, crossing the Mediterranean which brought them into contact with much more advanced civilizations than they had ever encountered before. Besides trade, the primitive seafaring people began to acquire new skills and knowledge never before encountered.

Isolated from each other and influenced by external factors, in time, the warring tribes began to diverge ethnically and acquired varying linguistic and cultural characteristics.

Even though they may have shared a common ancestry in the past, isolation and cultural evolution made them unique and different from one another. The tribes closest to the Mediterranean Sea influenced by the more advanced middle-Eastern civilizations evolved into democratic city states with unique languages and cultures. The mainland people, on the other hand, influenced by their northern neighbours took on a different character, which will be the subject of this study.

For the sake of the Modern Macedonian Nation, which for political reasons has been exploited by the Great Powers and its allies, my interest here is to show that the Macedonian people living in geographical Macedonia today, contrary to official history, are the descendants of the Ancient and prehistoric Macedonians. The Macedonian lineage has survived and remained intact from prehistoric times to today. My arguments do not imply racial purity but rather cultural and linguistic continuity. It is well known that many outsiders have invaded Macedonia and there is no doubt that many have left their mark as well. However, in spite of all attempts to subdue it, the Macedonian character, over the ages, has survived.

Aided by the rough and impenetrable terrain the Macedonian village has become the bastion and saviour of the Macedonian language and culture. Invaders of cities and fertile lands rarely showed interest in villages that were poor, arid, secluded, and impossible to reach. Ironically, Macedonia's ethnic strength, in numbers, lies in its villages. Anyone wishing to conduct business in Macedonia has to learn &quot;the ways of the village&quot; including the village language and culture. This is as true today as it was in Homer's time.

In spite of great efforts by the Greek authorities in the last century to eradicate the Macedonian consciousness in the villages, the Macedonian language and culture have survived and in time, will flourish again.

Why do people still live in virtually inhospitable places? Such human behaviour defies logic. Those, myself included, who were born in such places, have an unexplainable &quot;deep love&quot; for them. In spite of all hardships, we demonstrate great admiration for &quot;our piece of rock&quot; but provide no logical explanation as to why that is.

My point here is that the preservation of the Macedonian language and culture over long periods of time has been due to the stubborn and unyielding nature of the Macedonian peasant whose way of life over the long years, has been bound to the land by age-old traditions.

Once the threat of the invader was gone, the Macedonian language and culture seemed to percolate right back, even from virtual extinction. This has certainly been proven true through the century old Greek occupation and the five-century old Ottoman occupation. The villages managed to survive because they posed no threat and offered no great benefits to the invaders. For the invaders to influence any change in the lifestyle of the self-supporting, soil dependent peasant, was simply a waste of time.

Mainstream history, outside of the exploits of the Great Macedonian Empire, offers very little in terms of Macedonian prehistory. In fact, Eugene Borza, the leading expert on ancient Macedonian history, is the first to admit that the construct of Macedonian prehistory does not exist. &quot;Anyone interested in this early period would do well to remember Geyer's comment, made nearly half a century ago, that the 'time for Macedonian prehistory has not yet come'.&quot;

(Page 283, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

There are many historical sources, including Josef Gandeto's well-documented claims that the ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks. Unfortunately, as of yet, I don't know of anyone who has made any attempt to explain who the ancient Macedonians were and where they came from.

In order to explain the origin of the Ancient Macedonians, one has to widen the scope of research and not &quot;just endlessly analyze the Greeks&quot;.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of today's modern Macedonians speak a variation of the Slav language, enjoy a variation of the old Slav culture, and practice the Pravoslaven (Eastern Orthodox) religion. Also, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Macedonia today is a multicultural nation with unique customs and social characteristics.

The identity, origins, and time of the arrival of the minorities living in Macedonia today can be easily traced back to past events. Five centuries of Ottoman occupation produced the Turkish and Albanian minority, four centuries of Roman occupation produced the Vlach minority, etc. As for the identity, origins, and time of arrival of the Macedonian majority, there are no straightforward answers. Most Macedonians including archeologists and linguists today do not trust the politically motivated mainstream history for answers and are thus dissatisfied with its explanations.


&quot;The study of history developed a strongly nationalistic trend in the latter half of the last (19th) century. The goal of the field was no longer to document the development of culture and history through new and improved methods, but rather to create history that would assure cultural prestige and even superiority. Uncovering historical truths was of secondary importance.

These ideological foundations remain to the present day in the minds of many scholars and even entire schools of thought and method. Most studies on history and linguistics in Central Europe have been suffused with these nationalistic attitudes, with historians guided by predetermined aims. Their primary concern has often been to maintain the belief that the Slavs are not indigenous to Central Europe. With the tragic events in the region (Yugoslavia) since 1990, the debate has become increasingly polarized, with little hope of real progress in developing a true history of Central Europe that serves no agenda.

The principle aim of this work (the book Veneti, First Builders of European Community) is to draw attention to the need for a new attitude and a new vision of the early history of Central Europe, and hopefully to promote unbiased research methods. It is a plea for more openness and honesty, as well as recognition of the common heritage of the peoples of Central Europe regardless of nationality, language, and religion.&quot; (Page xi, Foreword by Professor Dr. Tareq Y. Ismael, University of Calgary Alberta, Canada, May 1996, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, Veneti, First Builders of European Community, Tracing the History and Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes)

Fortunately, today there is evidence emerging that promises to cast a new light on Macedonia's past as part of a new understanding of European prehistory.

At this point I will digress for a while in order to acquaint you with some of the new discoveries that not only provide hints as to who the prehistoric Macedonians were, but also challenge mainstream history on its accuracy in presenting the identity of the first Europeans.

The following is an essay written by Anthony Ambrozic, author of several books including the &quot;Gordian Knot Unbound&quot;, &quot;Journey Back to the Garumna&quot;, and &quot;Adieu to Brittany&quot;, that deals with the translation of stone inscriptions found throughout Europe and dating back to prehistory. Here is what Anthony Ambrozic has to say.

[Widely accepted since the 19th century, the Kurgan Theory of Indo-European origins has since the 1970's come under severe attack and calls for reexamination. Its basic proposition has been that Indo-European beginnings were on the north shores of the Black Sea in what today is southern Ukraine. From there, the Indo-Europeans, primarily shepherding nomads, were to have expanded and, in the 4th millennium BC, to have subjugated, if not exterminated, the then peaceful agricultural society of Europe. As a result, the Indo-European Kurgan culture and language were imposed on the agricultural remnants of a subjugated continent.

What had persuaded archeologists and historians to adoption of this theory for such a long time were the artifacts found in excavated Kurgans since the 19th century. A Kurgan is a circular burial mound constructed over a pit grave and containing grave vessels, weapons, bodies of horses, and a single human body. The earliest Kurgans were found to have been in use in the Russian Steppes, but in the 3rd millennium BC spread into eastern, central, and northern Europe.

Supported by evolving research into linguistic similarity among the extant Indo-European languages, excavation of these Kurgans led scholars to presuppose a common origin for the Indo-European shepherding horsemen, all speaking a mutually-understood, undifferentiated language still in the 4th millennium BC.

As a regrettable ideological adjunct, the Kurgan Theory also spawned the hybrid myth of Aryan superiority, still quite widely acclaimed and practiced with unfortunate consequences into the first half of the 20th century.

From accumulating scrutiny and new developments in the last 30 years, however, the Kurgan Theory has been subjected with every passing year to more and more stress. As a result, it has lost much of its former credibility.

The main thrusts of this discomfiture come from three sources. The chief among them is the scientific advance in the C 14 carbon-dating measuring. Not far behind are the newest findings in the field of genetics. But of major significance is the discovery in the Near East during the last 30 years of over 10,000 inscription-bearing clay tablets.

Instigated by this new information, claims of archeologist Colin Renfrew already in the decade of the 1980's seriously cast doubt on the Kurgan Theory. The gist of Renfrew's assertions is that archeology simply does not support the conclusions of conflict and suppression of the pre-Indo-Europeans in the 4th millennium BC theretofore postulated by the Kurgan Theory. By extension, therefore, the hypothesis of a common Indo-European protolanguage still having been in existence as late as the 4th millennium BC was also put in doubt.

According to Renfrew, the Indo-Europeans were only the first agriculturalists in Europe. What we are witnessing, he states, is a latter Stone-Age revolution during which farming-cattle raising succeeded in replacing the economy based on hunting and gathering. And based on the evidence of the new clay-tablet discoveries, this revolution expanded from Anatolia to Western Europe. And further, what is most significant for the quest of Indo-European origins, he asserts that such expansion took place 3,000 years earlier than claimed by the Kurgan Theory.

So, what we are faced by are two fundamental departures from the Kurgan Theory. One, the Indo-European expansion into Western Europe had been peaceful and not accompanied by genocidal invasions; and two, it took place 3,000 years earlier.

Foremost in espousing the compelling force of these reasonings today is Mario Alinei. Now dean emeritus of the University of Utrecht, he is director of several linguistic reviews and president of the Advisory Council in related matters to UNESCO. As author of an 1,800-page examination of the historical aspects of the Indo-European beginnings, he concludes that Indo-Europeans have lived in Europe basically in the same territories they occupy today ever since the Stone Age. As the linchpin to his theory, Alinei deals especially with the Slavs (and specifically mentions the Slovenes) and concludes that they had since antiquity lived in the area of southeastern Europe and, further, that they had from there expanded northward and northeastward.

Arguing for an Indo-European dispersion to have taken place even a few millennia earlier than claimed by Renfrew, Alinei provides evidence for a continuity of settlement ever since then. Appropriately, his theory became known as the Theory of Continuity.

As evidence for the foregoing, Alinei reminds us that in Anatolia 4,000 years ago we already have three distinct Indo-European languages spoken by three different peoples (Hitites, Luwians, and Palaiks). And since we know that the speakers of these languages had come into Anatolia already 5,000 years ago, it is difficult to imagine that during the 4th millennium BC a common Indo-European language could still have existed. Such a hypothesis would necessitate the Indo-European to have so rapidly diffused itself into three separate languages in such a limited area in just a few centuries. This would run counter to every established linguistic observation.

The Theory of Continuity has shaken the foundation of the Kurgan Theory and exposed the sandy underpinning on which it rests. Mired with it in inextricable quicksand is the Aryan myth of an ancestral super warrior horseman's élan vital bursting with godlike energy upon a primitive pre-Indo-European and supplanting his genes, language, and culture on all who submit and eradicating those who do not.

The Theory of Continuity is in full alignment with the recent advance in the field of genetics. According to Joseph Skulj of Toronto, genetics points to the Balkans having been a place of refuge during the Ice Age and having had a relatively undisturbed history of indigenous settlement since then.

The Theory of Continuity is also a challenge especially to the Slovenes, the inheritors of a linguistic telescope into the misty past. It is a timely prod for them to cast aside the postulates of the dated Kurgan Theory and join the quest for a new perspective.

To this end, research has been undertaken on the Old Phrygian and Early Thracian inscriptions from Anatolia and Thrace. By placing Old Phrygian and Slovene words side by side, it has been demonstrated in my book &quot;Gordian Knot Unbound&quot; how very little the two have departed from each other in close to 3,000 years. In half the interval allotted by the Kurgan Theory for diffusion of the bedrock Indo-European into separate languages, the Old Slovene (i.e. Old Phrygian) has changed hardly at all. Especially in the dialectal forms, it still reverberates across 26 centuries, little altered in the speech, morphology or meaning, the syntax or sentence structure of the contemporary Slovene. It yet echoes in the diction of the Alpine redoubt of Slovenia 2,700 years after the empire of the legendary kings Midas and Gordius had crumbled under the Cimmerian onslaught.

The unyielding granite of the Slovene clinging stubbornly to its linguistic salient, buffeted through centuries by gales from the north and south, by itself is proof positive that Indo-European origins are shrouded in the recesses of a much more distant past than the 6,000 years the Kurgan Theory presumes to accord them.

In this respect, to fix a definitive focus on the Slavic perspective of the issue, a few poignant excerpts from Mario Alinei's Theory of Continuity are being quoted:

&quot;I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the 'arrival' of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times.&quot;

&quot;Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs... because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The southwestern portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands.&quot;

&quot;The surmised 'Slavic migration' is full of inconsistencies. There is no 'northern Slavic language', it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic... The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic... and connected with Anatolia... Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age... The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture... agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs... The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven...]. This was a sobering analysis by Anthony Ambrozic.

I realize that I am taking you deeper and deeper into academia but I believe it is necessary in order to build a solid foundation for my arguments.

The following is an English translation of the last part of a talk given by Charles Bryant-Abram, PhD, FSO at the World Slovenian Congress at Ptuj Castle, near Maribor, Slovenia, on the 20/21 September 2001.


&quot;But indeed I do suspect that history is about to be written, or rather rewritten. We stand on the threshold of a new world of insight into the prehistory of Europe and of the Mediterranean.

Parallel to the ongoing analysis of the Venetic inscriptions, a thorough search must be undertaken throughout the Balkan Peninsula for all extant lapidary evidence of its former presence there. Foremost - and I have called attention to this elsewhere - an investigation must be made of all inscriptions associated with the age of Philip of Macedon preceding the Hellenization of his son, Alexander, under the tutelage of Aristotle. The close collaboration of Macedonian and Greek scholars must be solicited and sustained for this effort. We are encouraged in this direction by the findings of Anton Ambrozic who has successfully demonstrated Venetic presence in the Hellenistic city, Dura-Europos, founded by Alexander in the Syrian Desert and destroyed by the Sassanids in AD 256, some 400 years before the supposed first penetration of Slavs into the Balkan Peninsula. These Venetic inscriptions from Dura-Europos lend weighty if still circumstantial evidence to my original conjecture that Alexander and his Macedonian people may very well have been Veneti. If this does prove to be the case, then the Macedonian people today will have every justifiable reason to reclaim their own linguistic patrimony.&quot; (Charles Bryant-Abram, PhD, FSO Linguistics, Medieval Castilian philology, Université de Montréal). The article in its entirety can be found at &quot;http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/anthony_ambrozic.htm&quot; under the sub-heading &quot;Refinement and Future Directions in Venetic Scholarship&quot;.

I included the three quotations (above) to highlight the fact that:

1. Mainstream scholars are beginning to admit that mainstream ancient European history, including that of Macedonia, is politically motivated and does not provide a realistic interpretation of past events.

2. Mainstream theories of prehistory are being challenged and are losing ground to new and revolutionary ideas backed by archeological and linguistic evidence and by science.

3. Finally, there is archeological and linguistic evidence that provide clues to the true identity of the prehistoric and ancient Macedonians.

As indicated in Ambrozic's essay (above), mainstream history is not only being challenged over the identity of the prehistoric Balkan people but also over the identity of all Indo-European nations that occupied all of Central Europe during prehistoric times. Traditional thinking is that the ancestors of the present day Germans were the first people to settle Central Europe. With archeological, scientific, and linguistic evidence however, that thinking is being challenged and is losing ground. Supported by DNA, genetic, and archeological evidence, more and more scientists are convinced that the prehistoric Indo-European people of Central Europe, known by many names, were not proto-Germans but proto-Slavs. Contrary to mainstream beliefs that the Slavs migrated to the Balkans around the 6th century AD, this &quot;new evidence&quot; seems to lead us to the conclusion that the Slavs were always there and have always lived where they live today.

If you wish to learn more about the prehistoric identity of the Central Europeans or if you wish to study the translations of the various prehistoric inscriptions, please consult the works of Anthony Ambrozic, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic (see reference section for book names).

If you wish to learn more about Vasil Ilyov's work, Macedonian artifacts, ancient inscriptions, and translations, please go to the &quot;Macedonian Civilization&quot; website http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html.

With the emergence of more new evidence, there will be proof that the Macedonian continuity from prehistoric times to the present has never been broken. This will vindicate the Macedonian nation and expose all Greek falsifications for what they truly are. The Macedonian people have always known where their roots lay but never had the evidence to prove it. Now for the first time there is tangible evidence that will prove, without any doubt, that the modern Macedonians are the descendents of the ancient Macedonians and that the ancient Macedonians were never Greek.

We are on the verge of an historical revolution, poised to cast away the shackles of the 19th century's politically motivated and nationalistically energized, historical mentality. For the first time we have evidence to set the record straight.

During the fall of 2002 when I was thinking about writing these articles, I mentioned my idea to Vasil Bogov, the author of Macedonian Revelations, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Thinking that I would be writing conventional &quot;Classical History&quot;, his immediate reaction was to plead with me not to do it because it would promote the falsehood of classical history and further legitimize Greek claims to ancient Macedonia. To make a long story short, something that Vasil told me during that conversation stuck with me.

While doing research for his book, Vasil visited northern Italy to have a look around. On one of his guided trips, the tour guide took them on a diversion to a remote village. This was her ancestral village where her family was still living. In typical Italian fashion, the young woman's mother came out of her house and loudly greeted the tourists in Italian. But when she spoke to her daughter, she used a different language, a language that did not seem to belong to that region. To Vasil's surprise, he understood most of the words, which to him sounded like Macedonian words from the Kostur/Lerin region. Dying to find out, Vasil immediately inquired. Expecting the family to be Macedonian, to his surprise, the young woman told Vasil that the language they spoke was an old Italian dialect that existed before the Roman period and that many remote villages still used it.

I knew Vasil well enough and trusted him not to be telling me stories, so I found myself puzzling over this &quot;anomaly&quot; for a long time. How could people so far back in time be speaking Macedonian? There had to be some mistake? We were led to believe that the Slavs came from north-eastern Europe during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries AD, so what was a Slavic speaking people doing in northern Italy before 100 BC? I had never heard anything like this before. I could find no answers. In fact I could find no documentation to indicate that Slavs had ever settled northern Italy. Then, around the beginning of March 2003, after reading Anton Skerbinc's English translation of the Slovenian texts on the Veneti, it all started to make sense.

Macedonians are not alone in their quest for the truth. Other Slavic speaking people who have also been shackled and bound by the same politically motivated historical ideologies are also looking for answers. Leading the search are the Slovenes who have dared to challenge the old mindset and are now in the process of setting the record straight.

There are those who believe that the Slovenes are the closest relations and have the least disturbed links to the prehistoric Indo-Europeans. Nestled in the Alps, the Slovenes have survived many invasions and many attempts at assimilation. The Slovenes also believe, with ample evidence to prove it, that Central Europe, including Italy, were settled by the Proto-Slav Veneti long before the so-called 6th century AD Slav migrations. This agrees with independent findings in the Republic of Macedonia, which not only confirm, but reinforce the idea that the prehistoric Macedonians belonged to the same group of Slavic Veneti.

At this point, irrespective of exactly who the prehistoric Macedonians were (more on this later), there are two important facts that seem to emerge:

1. The prehistoric Macedonians were not Greek.

2. Like the modern Macedonians of today, the prehistoric Macedonians also spoke a Slavic language.

And now for the skeptics! Since I am a skeptic myself, there is no doubt that there are those who may find this a bit unbelievable.

That which was taught to us from youth and re-enforced by repeated exposure becomes familiar and comforting. Sometimes however, in view of new evidence, we must dispense with our comforts and start facing facts. I want to tell you that I carefully examined Anthony Ambrozic's translations and I must admit they are brilliantly well done. Ambrozic is a master of simplicity who uses a sound methodology to achieve his translation. I am convinced his work is genuine and I invite all skeptics to examine it for themselves. While they are at it, they should also examine the works of Vasil Ilyov, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, and Anton Skerbinc to judge for themselves. (See the reference section for book titles and URLs).

By the 10th century BC, there was a small group of people living in the region between present day Kostur and Lerin who identified themselves as Macedonians. The great wars of the Bronze Age had devastated the region and the Macedonians felt themselves surrounded and squeezed by the larger tribes. Large disturbances in the East caused population shifts in the region, thus pushing invaders into Macedonian lands.

It would appear that the Macedonians became a nation after the great wars when they collectively began to work together for unity and for the defense of their small kingdom. Intimidated by the constant invasions, the small group of people collectively fought to repel their neighbours whom they no longer considered kin.

Who were the Macedonians before they became a nation? Here is what conventional mainstream history has to offer. &quot;As an ethnic question it is best avoided, since the mainly modern political overtones tend to obscure the fact that it really is not a very important issue. That they may or may not have been Greek in whole or in part-while an interesting anthropological sidelight-is really not crucial to our understanding of their history.&quot; (Page 96,Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon,) I have great respect for Eugene Borza's work, but I do not agree with his assessment.

Current theory is that the prehistoric Macedonians came from a mixture of people that occupied the small Macedonian prehistoric kingdom. Among these people were the Pelasgian, Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian tribes. The people that constituted the 10th century BC Macedonians, in earlier times, belonged to the Central European family of the proto-Slav Veneti.

I could not find much information about the Pelasgi beyond old sources like Herodotus who claims that they occupied parts of Macedonia and parts of Greece even before the Greeks came into existence. The Pelasgi were one of the indigenous groups of people from the Indo-European era that Herodotus called barbarians who spoke a barbarian language. Later, even though some Pelasgi lived among the Athenians, they were considered by the Athenians, to be non-Greek, a barbaric race indigenous to the region. (Herodotus: from The History, c. 430 BC, I.56-59). Given that they were non-Greek speakers, and the fact that they were seen as barbarians even though some lived in Athens, it is conceivable that the Pelasgi belonged to the larger family of Indo-Europeans, the proto-Slav Veneti.

Legend has it that the first Phrygians settled geographical Macedonia a long time ago (3rd millenium BC). The Phrygians (or Bryges as they were known to the Macedonians), lived and mingled with the Macedonian people for centuries before their migrations to Anatolia.

While living in Macedonia, it is believed that they established their capital at Voden (Edessa) and mixed culturally and linguistically with the local populations of the region.

By the 9th century BC, the Phrygians became a kingdom in Anatolia with its centers located at Gordium and Midus City.

&quot;Old Phrygian comes to us from a small number of unfragmented rock inscriptions in a script which in several characters resembles those found also in the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic alphabets.

Even though the Old Phrygian and Greek alphabets share most of the letters, Old Phrygian contains half-a-dozen letter symbols not used by the Greek alphabet. It would appear, therefore, that the two alphabets drew their writing from a common source, each adapting the relevant symbols to the dictates of their phonetic needs.&quot; (Page 23, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound, Cythera Press: Toronto, 2002) In his analysis, Ambrozic, without much difficulty, manages to translate Old Phrygian scripts using the same methodology employed to translate proto-Slav Venetic scripts found in present day France. &quot;Even though the language of the Old Phrygian appears to be of a somewhat earlier cast in the Old Early Slavic mold than the Slavenetic of Gaul, there are many words they have in common.&quot; (Page 4, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound )

&quot;The Greek tradition that the Phrygian migration into Anatolia in the 12th century BC having originated in Macedonia and Thrace was based on another often-encountered claim, namely, that both of their northern neighbors spoke the same language.&quot; (Page 58, Anthony Ambrozic,Gordian Knot Unbound) In other words, according to the ancient Greeks, both the Phrygians and the Thracians spoke the same language which today is proving to have Slavic origins.

In his conclusion of the Gordian Knot Unbound, with regard to his findings on the Phrygians, Ambrozic leaves us (in part) with the following words. &quot;They are enough to give us insight into the ethos of their culture and the spirituality which guided it. Above all, cast in stone, the passages give us an unadulterated imprint of an Old Early Slavic spoken on the Anatolian plateau 3,200 years ago. (Page 118, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound)

The Illyrians to the west and to the north of Macedonia were a tribal people governed by tribal chieftains. It is believed that they settled the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the Bronze Age around the middle to late second millennium BC.

The Illyrians were bearers of the Hallstatt culture - a period in history that denotes the transition from bronze to iron in Central and Western Europe.

Of the many explanations I encountered regarding the origins of the Illyrian name, I found this one most interesting; that they were named Illyrians because they worshiped Iliy, their sun god. (Page 56, July 15, 2000, number 578, Macedonian magazine)

&quot;The ancient western movement of the Slavs (Veneti) and the later eastern movement of South Slavs met on the Balkan peninsula, resulting in the development of a new Slavic language group. Did this process include borrowing from the Illyrian and Thracian? If so, can we determine the extent of these borrowings? If the ancient Illyrians and Thracians had been Latinized and Greekocized, there would have been preserved in South Slavic (Macedonian) languages some of the Latin and Greek vocabulary; also, we cannot imagine that, as the Slavs advanced, both (Illyrian and Thracian) established ethnic groups collectively ran and took refuge behind the walls of the coastal (Greek) cities or disappeared in the 'sea' of Slavs. On the contrary, the native inhabitants remained in their places and merged with the newly-arrived Slavs. The fact that Thracian and Illyrian vocabularies are not clearly distinguishable in present South Slavic languages can be explained by the probability that Proto-Slavic as well as Thracian and Illyrian were still very close to Indo-European, which means they were related to each other.&quot; (Page 92, Anton Skerbinc, taken from the book &quot;Veneti, First Builders of European Community&quot; by Jazko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic).

Falmerayer's assertions seem to agree with Skerbinc's idea, which extends the hypothesis that the Slavs were a major presence in the Greek peninsula before and after the so-called Slav migrations to the south. Falmerayer wrote his assertions about 170 years ago, unfortunately, due to Greek protests his work has never been widely publicized.

&quot;Falmerayer's work deals with proving that the ancient Greek races had totally vanished from the lands where they had once achieved great things. Falmerayer writes that these peoples underwent a natural extermination by consecutive waves of nomadic peoples and that, at the end of a 10-century period, what has come to be present-day Greece was inhabited by Slavs, Albanians, and Greek-speaking Byzantine populations that had moved there from Asia Minor. This substantive racial repudiation has always been difficult to doubt and is becoming more and more so. Falmerayer's fundamental adversaries, Zinkeisen, Kopitar and Paparrigopoloulos, attempt to refute him mainly by interpreting the scant historical documents available from that dark period of the Greek Middle Ages. However, they have never been capable of making a convincing response to his most crucial, most concrete argument - the almost exclusively Slavic and Albanian toponymy or place-names, especially the microtoponymy or names of uninhabited places such as fields and small places in the geographic region of Greece. To solve this problem, the Greek State developed a &quot;science&quot; of para-etymology. That is, it corrupted linguistic history and, to make it more effective, recruited ethnologists to change the entire main toponymy of the country. But these devices assuage only the average, parochial conscience - not that of the scholar. So official Greek ideology had to seek its last hideout in the continuity of culture, at the core of which stands the argument of the continuity of the Greek language.

According to Falmerayer, the modern Greek language is what the Byzantine administration taught its new populations through the Orthodox Church and through the transferred Greek-speaking Byzantine populations. The Orthodox Church also continued to play a hegemonic role in matters of culture during the years of Ottoman rule. However, Falmerayer has demonstrated that, in each period, Byzantine culture and the Byzantine Orthodox Church was not the continuation of ancient Greek culture - but its complete negation. In fact, this rejection was its most energetic enterprise for it meant the use of flame and sword and untold violence and coercion to uproot any surviving vestiges of ancient Greek culture on the peninsula.&quot; (The above quotation was taken in part from Info Zora - The Rainbow/Vinozhito Newsletter December 2002/January 2003 - No.9. The article in its entirety can be found at http://www.mhrmc.ca/reports/info9.html ). (More on this in future articles).

While analyzing his discoveries, here is what Ambrozic has to say. &quot;A tangible connection between the Old Phrygian and the Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan and Venetic on the other is established. This confluence brings into question the conventional wisdom that the source of early writing had its origins only in the Middle East. It insinuates the need for reexamining assumptions heretofore regrettably far too often taken for granted. If the Pelasgi, the ancient pre-Hellenic people, who occupied Greece before the 12th century BC, and who were said to have inhabited Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice, had their own alphabet, it unquestionably predated the alleged import of the Greek from the Phoenician. And again to quote the Encyclopedia Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 624), if the Etruscan alphabet had been the prototype for the Greek, we can not look upon the Greek as having been the precursor of either the Early Thracian nor the Old Phrygian. Both of these appear to have too many home-grown elements.

Concrete evidence for such reevaluation comes from excavations of the Vincha culture sites in the Balkans itself. The archeological site at Banjica (near Belgrade), in particular, is of significance. According to the C-14 method, its artifacts have been assessed as dating no later than 3473 BC. This makes the script found there 373 years older than the Proto-Sumarian pictographic script. (See Radivoje and Vesna Pesic, Proceedings of the First International Conference, 'The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population,' Ljubljana, 2001, p. 66).

According to Pesic, it has been the sea-faring, merchant rivermen, the Veneti, who had disseminated the Vincha script to the Etruscans as early as the end of the second millenium BC. The Veneti at the time are attested to have existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also in the Morava, Timok, and Vardar (69). In fact, the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus records them in the 5th century BC (I,196).&quot; (Pages 85-87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound)

We have to give Vasil Ilyov and Anthony Ambrozic a lot of credit for the fantastic works they have done in translating the many prehistoric inscriptions found in Macedonia and all over Europe. While Ilyov has concentrated in the lower Balkans, Ambrozic's work includes translations from inscriptions found in Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Italy, and France but unfortunately, not from Macedonia. By Macedonia, I mean the Greek occupied part of Macedonia. &quot;I (Ambrozic) have been trying to find non-Greek, pre-Hellenic-Age inscriptions from Macedonia. So far, unfortunately, in vain.&quot; (Page ii, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound) I wonder why that is?

Macedonia, the tiny tribal kingdom that exploded into a super power in a matter of a century and swallowed up the entire known world in a couple of decades has, according to the Greeks, no past. In spite of thousands of prehistoric relics and tens of thousands of inscriptions found and translated in the Republic of Macedonia in the last decade, &quot;there are no non-Hellenic prehistoric inscriptions found in Greece&quot;. If we are to believe Greek sources, then I suppose we should also believe the Greek propaganda that the Macedonians had no alphabet, no writing ability, and not even a language, and, that they learned &quot;everything&quot; from the Greeks. I suppose the old Macedonians &quot;grunted&quot; their way around before they met and learned everything from the Greeks.

It seems that the Macedonians are not the only ones to owe everything to the Greeks. I have in my personal library a history book, left over from my high school years, entitled &quot;The Foundations of the West&quot; by D. Fishwick, B. Wilkinson and J. C. Cairns, 1963. I have enjoyed reading this book and kept it for years because, like many young minds interested in history, I was captivated by it. After reading it again however, impressed as I was with the authors' skills, confidence, and abilities to present the subject, the accuracy and bias of its contents left a bad taste in my mouth. Besides endlessly praising the Greeks for &quot;knowing all&quot;, &quot;telling all&quot;, and &quot;civilizing all&quot;, the book distastefully denigrates the ancient Macedonians. It seems, according to this book, that the leaders of the empire that conquered the world, were mere &quot;Greek puppets&quot;. The book has dedicated four chapters or 47 pages to the Greeks and one chapter or 11 pages to the Macedonians. The one chapter on Macedonia entitled, &quot;Expansion and Dispersion&quot; begins as follows; &quot;The most significant event of the 4th century BC was the rise of Macedon to a position in Greek affairs.&quot; Even the chapter on Macedonia is about Greece. Is this is what our children are learning today?

I wonder, when the western authors were composing these texts, if they were even remotely aware of their actions and what this duplicity, in the hands of the Greeks, would unleash against the innocent Macedonians? I wonder if they were at all aware of the injustices they would bring to the Macedonian people?

Now that evidence is piling up against them, which in time will undoubtedly expose all Greek historical fabrications, I wonder what explanations the Greeks will have for this moral misconduct? How will they explain themselves to the world and to their own people, from whom they kept the truth and have lied to, for so many years?

There is one more piece of prehistoric evidence I would like to introduce before I continue with the main presentation.

It has been said that about fifty thousand years ago Europe was covered by a thick sheet of ice. It has also been said that the Balkans were one of the first places in Europe to gradually thaw out from the prehistoric freeze and to harbour the first life on the European continent. It only makes sense then, at least in the last fifty millenium, that life started from the Balkans and progressed inward into Europe as the ice sheet melted. It also makes sense then to say that the Balkans were one of the first places in Europe to be settled by humans.

Even before humans were capable of writing or communicating by using written words, they had an uncanny ability to draw. On the rocks in caves they drew symbols of everyday objects like people, animals, etc. or they drew phenomena which represented major events in their lives.

What is most interesting about these rock carvings, more commonly known as &quot;rock art&quot;, is that they are far more numerous and prevalent in Macedonia than anywhere else in the world. Macedonia seems to be a major source of rock art with over 460,000 pieces found in just over 10% of the Macedonian territory which has been explored. Some of the pieces seem to be over 40 thousand years old and hold a myriad of carvings from fertility symbols to stars in the sky. For a long time the meaning of these symbols seemed to be a riddle for science but Dr. Dusko Aleksovski, a Macedonian scientist, unraveled their mystery. Aleksovski published his finding in an article, which he presented at the Rock Symposium in Capo de Ponte, Northern Italy in 1977. By observing rock art from the Paleolithic period through the ages, scientists were able to record the evolution of the development of the written language from simple schematic forms to symbolic shapes and finally to geometric drawings and letters, the kind of we use today. If you wish to learn more about Rock Art click on http://www.unet.com.mk/rockart/angliski/prva.htm.

Just recently a World Rock Art Congress was held in Macedonia during which the World Rock Art Academy was launched to which Dr. Dushko Aleksovski, its founder, was elected President.

1,000 BC seems to be a crucial period in the development of the Macedonian nation. While still in its tribal stages, the Macedonian kingdom began to gain military strength and political influence in the region. Their desire to free themselves from their invading neighbours fostered unity and organization among the first Macedonians. Then, as their Phrygians neighbours (to the east) began to retreat to Anatolia, a power vacuum was created which in time the Macedonian kingdom began to fill. Also, the fertile lands abandoned by the retreating Phrygians were too much for the mountain dwelling Macedonians to resist, so in time the Macedonians too began to migrate eastward and occupy those lands. It took the Macedonian people about a century to build up their populations but by the 9th century BC they made their presence felt in Central Macedonia.

It is believed that the first known Macedonian center before the eastward migrations, was Rupishcha (Argos), located about eight kilometers south of Kostur. Over the years, as the Macedonian kingdom expanded, its center was moved to a new place called Aegae located near present day Voden. &quot;Herodotus (8.183) wrote that '[Perdicus] came to another part of Macedonia and settled near the gardens named after Midas, son of Gordias...above the garden rises the mountain called Bermion, unassailable in winter'.&quot; (Page 65, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

And now I will leave you with this.

It has been recorded that six proto Slav Venetic inscriptions have been found in Dura-Europos, a city founded by Alexander the Great in the Syrian desert. These inscriptions provide evidence that Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonian people may very well have been Veneti. If this proves to be the case, then we the Modern Macedonian people have every justifiable reason to reclaim our own patrimony and our rightful place in the world.

SLAV INSCRIPTIONS IN ALEXANDER'S TIME? How is that possible? Will the truth set us free?

To be continued...

References:

Michael Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, Differences Between The Ancient Macedonians and The Ancient Greeks. New York:Writer's Showcase, 2002.

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI First Builders of European Community. Boswell B.C. 1996.

George Nakratzas, M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace. Thessaloniki: Batavia Publications, 1999.

D. Fishwick, B. Wilkinson and J. C. Cairns, The Foundations of the West, Toronto: Clarke, Irwin &amp; Company Limited, 1963.

Makedonija Magazine - July 15, 2000, number 578.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany. Toronto: Cythera Press, 1999.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2000.

Charles Bryant-Abram, PhD, FSO, Refinement and Future Directions in Venetic Scholarship, http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/anthony_ambrozic.htm.

Vasil Ilyov, Macedonian Artifacts, Ancient Inscriptions and their Translations, http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html.

Info Zora - The Rainbow/Vinozhito Newsletter December 2002/January 2003 - No.9, http://www.mhrmc.ca/reports/info9.html.

Macedonian Rock Art, http://www.unet.com.mk/rockart/angliski/prva.htm


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>796inzpxoa9wovukr7x702jcs3jjc2f</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - The Early Macedonian Kingdom</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2060</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11075</id>
      <parentid>4972</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:09Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="50161" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 3 - The Early Macedonian Kingdom

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

&quot;Although the darker side of modern politics has cast its shadow in Macedonia and its people for decades, new light is beginning to shine in this area. Some of that incandescence derives from continuity in the past. The ancient Macedonians did not vanish, but continue to provide the world with endowments in education, religion, art, and architecture. They also provided their inheritors with ideals of world unity, religious freedom, and the invincibility of the human spirit. The brightness of the ancient Macedonians, therefore, shines into the present like the sunburst which best represents the radiance of ancient Macedonia.&quot; (Michael Dimitri)

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of articles I introduced various independent discoveries relating to rock art, translations of prehistoric inscriptions, translations of words from ancient texts, and a number of prehistoric linguistic assessments.

In this article I will summarize the findings from parts 1 and 2 and provide my own assessment. For the remainder of the article, my main focus will be to present Macedonian events and actions, from the time of Perdiccas I to the time of Perdiccas II, which have been recorded in the annals of history.

It has been estimated that approximately fifty thousand years ago a glacier covered Europe. It is also known that the glacier's retreat began from the south and advanced northward. It is therefore safe to assume that the Balkans were the first lands in Europe to be thawed and to support life. It is also safe to assume that the first humans to resettle Europe came through the Balkans making it the oldest hospitable place in Europe since the latest ice age.

From analyzing cave drawings and rocks in Macedonia, we can deduce that the earliest &quot;rock art&quot; came into existence about forty thousand years ago. Rock art represents the earliest and most primitive form of written communication.

It is my belief that rock art began with the drawing of stick objects depicting simple messages. Over time rock art evolved into sophisticated shapes and patterns depicting more and more complicated messages. Once the artists realized the power of their &quot;written message&quot; there was no stopping them. Over time, pictographs evolved into symbols not only of objects, like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but also of sounds, which make words. From the evidence discovered, Neolithic Macedonians, if I can call them Macedonians, may have been the inventors of the &quot;phonetic language&quot;.

Because of the great number of rock art objects found, scientists are becoming convinced that the first phonetic alphabet may have originated in Macedonia. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of people like Dusko Aleksovski, the Republic of Macedonia is becoming the leader in rock art research.

Many prehistoric inscriptions and artifacts discovered in the southern Balkans in the past thirty years or so, were deemed to be of unknown origin. Scientists were unable to decipher them because they did not fit any of the &quot;known&quot; ancient or prehistoric languages. Thousands of these inscriptions have now been translated thanks to the efforts of dedicated scholars Vasil Ilyov, Anthony Ambrozic, Matej Bor, Anton Skerbinc, and many others. What was deemed an &quot;impossibility&quot; for mainstream scientists proved to be a simple task for the scholars of the Slavic languages. &quot;Even an ordinary Slovene at a simple glance can tell you what they mean&quot;, says Anthony Ambrozic.

What is most interesting about these inscriptions, which puzzled scientists for many years, is that they are of &quot;Slavic&quot; origin. &quot;No one ever thought of looking at them from a Slavic perspective because it was thought that Slavs did not exist in that region during this period.&quot; At least that is what mainstream science claims.

Archeologists and linguists are now in the process of collecting evidence that will not only prove that prehistoric Macedonians spoke a proto-Slav language but that they have Venetic roots which originated in Macedonia.

In part 2 of this series I mentioned that six inscriptions of Venetic origins have been found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian desert founded by Alexander the Great, or more correctly by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire.

&quot;The Macedonians built Dura as a frontier town to control the river trade. Goods including silks, jade, spices, ebony, ivory, and precious stones were brought from the east and transferred onto camels for the desert leg of the journey, via Palmyra, to the Mediterranean.

Dura was an outpost bordering a clutch of kingdoms in unsettled times. It became an ethnic melting pot. Greeks, Byzantines, Persians, Christians and diaspora Jews lived and worked side by side. In 140 BC the nomads of Parthia in the east captured the city, which was then passed backwards and forwards between the Romans and the Sassanians, another Persian people. It was the Sassanians who finally destroyed Dura Europos in AD 256, possibly because of a revolt by the inhabitants.&quot; (http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/dura.htm)

I have seen all six Dura-Europos inscriptions and translations but for the sake of saving space, I will only show one of them. Here is what Anthony Ambrozic, the translator of the inscriptions, has to say:

&quot;The following six passages were found in different places of the Roman fortress of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River. In view of the fact that the commander of the archers makes his dedication to Mithras in the Venetic language, as can be seen in the passage that follows, it is highly likely that there are other Venetic inscriptions at this site. Further research will undoubtedly reveal them. The passages that follow are only representative samples and by no means exhaustive.&quot; (Page 74, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The passage I am going to describe appears on a relief of Mithras in a temple at Dura-Europos along the Roman Euphrates defense line. One of the dedicators (in the company of two distinguished acquaintances) is commander of the archers, Jaribol.

The Oblate is marked passage XXXXIV.

{Division and alphabetization:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H IO SDRAIE IA JE I RASIA RIBOLEUJC

...&quot;AT JE&quot; (?) GOSTOJETOT ON JE TOJI DE I TE ROJ...J

Transcription:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H JO SDRAJE JA JE

I RASJA RIBOLEUJC

...&quot;AT JE&quot; (?) GOSTOJEDOT ON JE TOJI

DE I TE ROJ (VAR) J!

Translation:

&quot;...May you save me the wife this fall so that she is healthy and that the fisherman grows...'AT JE' (?) [Guest-food] he is yours. May heaven also protect (?) you!&quot;

Looser Translation:

&quot;...May you save my wife in the fall so that she stays healthy and the little fisherman grows...'AT JE' is your [guest-food]. May heaven also protect you!&quot;

Explanation:

DI (DE) - &quot;so that, may&quot; - DA is the current literal usage but DE and DI are also still in dialectal use. Please note that the last sentence DE is used with the same meaning.

MI - &quot;to me, me&quot; - dat., sing. of JAZ - &quot;I&quot;

HRANET - &quot;save&quot; from HRANITI - &quot;to save, to preserve, to keep&quot; - The symbol &quot;8&quot; for &quot;H&quot; had to be sought from Venetic sources since neither Greek nor Latin had anything undiacritical for the sound.

TO - &quot;this&quot;

JESEN - &quot;fall, autumn&quot;

ZHENO - &quot;wife&quot; - fem., acc,. sing. of ZHENA- the ZH comes from as far back as the ancient Venetic writings at Este, Italy.

H (K') - &quot;so that&quot; - still very much in dialectal usage - Again, please also note the &quot;8.&quot;

JO - &quot;her&quot; - shortened from fem. acc., sing. form of ONA - &quot;she&quot;

SDRAJE - &quot;health&quot; - The form of a phonetic twin of ZDRAVJE, the current literal use.

JA - &quot;to her, her&quot; - This archaic and dialectal form is a repetition of JO (above) and has the same meaning, but the reflexivity of it is an idiom. The literal form now - fem., dat., sing. of ONA &quot;she&quot; - is JI.

JE - &quot;is&quot;

I - &quot;and&quot;

RASJA - &quot;grows&quot; - from RASTI - &quot;to grow&quot; - The form used has discarded the T between the two consonants.

RIBOLEUJC - &quot;the fisherman&quot; - &quot;the fetus&quot;, in a colloquial fashion - This is a combination of RIBA - &quot;fish&quot; and LOV - &quot;to catch, hunt.&quot;

&quot;AT&quot; (?) - It is impossible to guess what precedes these two letters.

JE -&quot;is&quot;

GOSTOJETOT (GOSTOJEDOT) - from GOST - &quot;guest&quot; and JESTI - &quot;to eat&quot; - This combinational form has no comparable dialectal, archaic, or literal form and will therefore have to remain rendered only in its basic components. It is realized that an exact translation is called for since the word is at the very core of Jaribol's votive intent, but anything more than the above would be presumptuous.

ON - &quot;he&quot;

JE - &quot;is&quot;

TOJI - &quot;your, yours&quot; - a somewhat archaic form in that even dialectically the current form would be TOJ and not TOJI

DE - &quot;may, so that&quot; - see DI supra

TE - &quot;you&quot;

ROJ - &quot;paradise, heaven&quot; - dialectal of RAJ

I - &quot;and, also&quot;

(VAR)J - &quot;protect&quot;}. (Pages 74-77, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

After translating the six passages here is what Ambrozic had to say. &quot;Since scholars ascribe passage XXXXIV to 170 A.D., passage XXXXVII to 61 A.D., and passage XXXXVIII to 3 B.C., we can safely conclude that the Venetic speaking presence at Dura-Europos preceded the Roman annexation of 165 A.D.

Throughout the Seleucid (Macedonian) ascendancy between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C., the position of the commander (strategos) had been the privileged preserve of the scions of the original Macedonian conquerors. Upon the annexation of the site, the Romans adhered to this practice, if for no other reason than the lack of other sources of leadership in the far-flung border zone. Accordingly, we see a descendant of the erstwhile Macedonian rulers make a dedication to his god in the still extant Venetic language of his ancestors some four-and-a-half centuries after the conquest. The survival of the language may be attributed to the closed-circle, tight-knit Macedonian plutocracy reigning over the indigenous peoples in an hegemonic desert bailiwick.

Founded by Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals (whose father had been a general of Philip of Macedon's), Dura-Europos, having languished buried mute on the banks of the Euphrates all these many centuries, now speaks to us about a people on another river, in another time, on another continent. In the fifth century B.C., Herodotus (I, 196), having found them on the lower Danube, called them Enetoi (Veneti).&quot; (Page 86, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

Coincidental to the inscription research, linguistic research has also been conducted independently on various ancient texts. Hundreds of Macedonian words of Slavic origin have been found and translated from Homer's books. Macedonian inscriptions from Alexander's time have also been translated and proven to contain words of Slavic origin. Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Donski, Tashko Belchev, Odisej Belchevski, and others these discoveries have been brought out into the open.

Let's not forget that there are also vast regions in southern, central, and eastern Europe, including the Pelloponisos, which to this day still bear many Slav toponyms, some of which date back to prehistoric times.

On a different subject, it is my belief that a number of great wars took place in Macedonia between 1,200BC and 800BC which may have been responsible for the destruction of Macedonia's proto-Slav civilization. Based on Bronze Age evidence, found in the many urn-filled tombs in Macedonia, these wars may also have been responsible for decimating the Macedonian population.

Independent evidence of these wars can be found in Homer's epic stories, which places them before the 8th century BC.

I have not been able to find information about the scope and duration of these wars, however advancements in metal weapons made them lethal and devastating to Macedonians and surrounding populations.

Traumatized by the devastation, the war survivors lost their modern ways, became isolated, and sank back into tribal life. Defenseless and devoid of population the small Macedonian kingdom was now vulnerable to invasions.

After the wars, the sparsely populated, war torn regions experienced population influx from neighbouring tribes. At the most southern tip of the Balkans, near the Mediterranean coast, the influx was predominantly from the Middle East. Further inland the influx was predominantly from the north and east.

It is believed that the prolonged isolation and unusual population influx caused great changes in some places in a relatively short period of time and almost none in others. The coastal people to the south, influenced by the more advanced Middle Eastern civilizations, developed a democratic political system and advanced agriculture, capable of sustaining large cities. The inlanders, on the other hand, influenced by their primitive neighbours advanced very little.

I have not found any information that would show whether or not a Macedonian civilization existed before the great wars. If it did, we can say that by 800BC Macedonia was on its way back to recovery, again re-asserting herself as a major force in the region and again headed on a collision course with her neighbours. It was now only a matter of time before another great war would take place and again engulf the entire region. Fortunately however, it would not be for another five hundred years.

Mainstream historians have attributed much to the ancient Greeks and almost nothing to the ancient Macedonians. The Greeks for example were civilized, &quot;spirited and intelligent, were able to govern themselves. But the barbarians, being 'servile by nature', or spirited but stupid, or both servile and stupid could not govern themselves.&quot; (Page 7,8, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia). If that were the case shouldn't the Greeks have won the battle at Chaeronea?

If the Greeks were the most civilized and dominant people in ancient times as Hammond puts it, why don't they dominate the world today? Why are there so few Greek speakers in the world today (there were almost none at the start of the 19th century)?

Putting it another way, why are there virtually no Greek yet so many Slav speakers in Central and Eastern Europe today if that region was supposedly dominated by civilized Greek speakers? It has been scientifically proven that civilized people have greater influence over uncivilized ones. Conversely, uncivilized people have very little influence over civilized ones regardless of which ones are more dominant. Egypt is an excellent example of this.

Why are there so many people in such a vast territory today speaking derivatives of the prehistoric Macedonian language if the Greek language was supposedly the most dominant language?

Why is there not a single pre 1912 village in Macedonia that bears a Greek name or speaks the Greek language? If the primitive Slavs conquered and assimilated the so-called Hellenized and civilized Macedonians, why did they not adopt their more advanced language, culture, and toponomy?

The answer is very simple. The Macedonians were never Hellenized and thus retained their Slav language and culture from the time of the Veneti. Recent and independent DNA and genetic studies confirm that the Modern Macedonians are one of the oldest people living in the Balkans today. To think that an intellectually inferior race would replace a superior one is not only remote but also unscientific.

There is no doubt that today's Slavic languages are literary derivatives of Slavic dialects that existed in the various regions before the Slavic States were formed. Nevertheless, in order for dialects to exist, there had to be a common root or mother language at some point earlier in time. It is impossible for dialects to form without a root language. Also, the divergence in language and the formation of dialects is directly proportional to the age of the root language. The more divergent the dialects, the older the root language. Divergence in a language can be attributed to two factors, prolonged isolation and external influence. We know that the brothers Kiril and Metodi instituted a revision of the Macedonian language during the 8th and 9th centuries AD. We also know that the brothers did not invent but rather updated the Macedonian script to properly represent the natural evolution of the spoken language. The Macedonian oral language always existed and naturally evolved. Unfortunately, due to prolonged Roman influence, the written form of the Macedonian language was neglected. The brothers updated the written part of the Macedonian language in order to take advantage of its natural evolution and keep it phonetic. This is something the English language desperately needs. With a phonetic language no one would ever need years of lessons to learn how to spell.

Unlike the Macedonian language, which was spoken by all Macedonians through the ages, the Greek language was lost to a point of extinction, only to be resurrected and artificially imposed as the &quot;katharevusa&quot; in the late 19th century.

During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, free from Roman oppression and positively influenced by Christianity, the Macedonian civilization flourished and again rose to its former glory. (More on this in future articles). The Greeks, on the other hand, lost their ways and remained subordinate to the Byzantine and later to the Ottoman up until the 19th century.

According to Mario Alinei's theory of continuity, the Slavs have always existed where they exist today. With much certainty, I can make the same claim about the Macedonians. Supported by the theory of continuity and by recent independent DNA and genetic studies, the Macedonians are one of the oldest groups of people to exist in the southern Balkans. I have to also emphasize that this negates old beliefs that the modern Macedonians migrated to the Balkans during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries AD during the so-called Slav invasions. These politically motivated assertions are purely concoctions of 19th century Greek and Western scholars, fabricated to allow Greece to lay claims to Macedonian territory. Serbian and later Yugoslavian authorities went along with this idea for the sake of keeping the south Slav people unified under the slogan &quot;one Slav people, one Slav nation&quot;. This, however, is not true. As has been shown, the Macedonians are a unique nation, different from other Slav nations, and have been this way for at least 3000 years. The Slovenians too, are making similar claims in that their roots also may run back to the prehistoric Proto-Slav Veneti.

There is evidence that shows &quot;people moving&quot; during the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries AD but these were not invasions as described by modern scholars, but rather refugee movements. Pressure and terror tactics from the invading proto-Turk and Tartar tribes from the north pushed the indigenous people off their lands sending them deeper and deeper into the Balkans. (More on this in future articles).


The fact that there are so many Macedonians today who have retained their Macedonian language and culture without institutionalized support and have endured much oppression and many attempts at assimilation by other nations, shows that they have an immense desire and great determination to remain Macedonian. What is true today was probably true three thousand years ago when the small Macedonian kingdom was re-awakening in the aftermath of the horrible wars.

It is unknown who the first tribal kings of Macedonia were and how far back their line extended. Mainstream history places the birth of Aegae (the Argead Macedonian Royal House) around the start of the 7th century BC, with Perdiccas I as its first ruler. (Page 98, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

Before the Macedonians expanded their territory beyond the Kostur/Lerin mountainous regions their center was located at Rupishcha (Argos). Legend has it that the first ruler to establish the Argead house in Rupishcha was Caranus. He is believed to have been the first king to rule the Macedonian kingdom from approximately 808BC to 778BC. (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html)

It is my belief that Caranus was not a ruler at all but the name of a starting point used by the Macedonians to establish the beginning of their royal lineage. We can derive a more appropriate meaning for Caranus if we strip the Latin &quot;us&quot; to form Caran. Now if we convert Caran to its Macedonian equivalent we have Koren. The English meaning of the Macedonian word &quot;koren&quot; translates to &quot;root&quot; or &quot;beginning&quot;. In other words, it is estimated that the lineage of the Argead Macedonian royal house began in approximately 800BC. Alexandar Donski has a different interpretation for Caran(us). &quot;This name might be connected to the present day Macedonian noun 'kruna' (a crown). The name 'Karanche' is present in today’s' Macedonian onomasticon.&quot;

It took the small Macedonian kingdom about 200 years to build up its population before it was able to fully occupy the lush and fertile Phrygian abandoned lands of Voden.

We know from Herodotus that Perdiccas and his brothers moved the Macedonian center but no date for the move was given. &quot;Herodotus (8.183) wrote that '[Perdiccas] came to another part of Macedonia and settled near the gardens named after Midas, son of Gordias...above the garden rises the mountain called Bermion, unassailable in winter'.&quot; (Page 65, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990). I believe this other part of Macedonia, to which Herodotus is referring is located near the city of present day Voden. Being capable of living in mountainous terrain, the Macedonians, I believe, descended to Voden via a more direct route over the mountains rather than following the Bistritsa River, as some historians have argued. Unconfirmed, is my belief that Aegae was established near Voden during the 7th century BC and became the second Macedonian capital. Hammond estimates that Perdiccas came to the throne in 650BC. (Page 11, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

Beyond some stories about his younger days, there is little information written about Perdiccas and his accomplishments as the first king of Aegae.

Translated by George Rawlinson, here is what Herodotus has to say about Perdiccas. &quot;Three brothers, descendants of Temenus, fled from Argos to the Illyrians; their names were Gauanes, Aeropus, and Perdiccas. From Illyria they went across to Upper Macedonia, where they came to a certain town called Lebaea. There they hired themselves out to serve the king in different employs; one tended the horses; another looked after the cows; while Perdiccas, who was the youngest, took charge of the smaller cattle. In those early times poverty was not confined to the people: kings themselves were poor, and so here it was the king's wife who cooked the victuals. Now, whenever she baked the bread, she always observed that the loaf of the labouring boy Perdiccas swelled to double its natural size. So the queen, finding this never fail, spoke of it to her husband. Directly that it came to his ears, the thought struck him that it was a miracle, and boded something of no small moment. He therefore sent for the three labourers, and told them to begone out of his dominions. They answered, 'they had a right to their wages; if he would pay them what was due, they were quite willing to go.' Now it happened that the sun was shining down the chimney into the room where they were; and the king, hearing them talk of wages, lost his wits, and said, 'There are the wages which you deserve; take that- I give it you!' and pointed, as he spoke, to the sunshine. The two elder brothers, Gauanes and Aeropus, stood aghast at the reply, and did nothing; but the boy, who had a knife in his hand, made a mark with it round the sunshine on the floor of the room, and said, 'O king! we accept your payment.' Then he received the light of the sun three times into his bosom, and so went away; and his brothers went with him. When they were gone, one of those who sat by told the king what the youngest of the three had done, and hinted that he must have had some meaning in accepting the wages given. Then the king, when he heard what had happened, was angry, and sent horsemen after the youths to slay them. Now there is a river in Macedonia to which the descendants of these Argives offer sacrifice as their saviour. This stream swelled so much, as soon as the sons of Temenus were safe across, that the horsemen found it impossible to follow. So the brothers escaped into another part of Macedonia, and took up their abode near the place called 'the Gardens of Midas, son of Gordias.' In these gardens there are roses which grow of themselves, so sweet that no others can come near them, and with blossoms that have as many as sixty petals apiece. It was here, according to the Macedonians, that Silenus was made a prisoner. Above the gardens stands a mountain called Bermius, which is so cold that none can reach the top. Here the brothers made their abode; and from this place by, degrees they conquered all Macedonia.&quot; (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

I will not, at this point, get into the details of the family makeup of the Macedonian Royal House because it is very vague and conjecture at best. If you wish to learn more about it consult page 31, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia or page 80, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon.

Herodotus continues &quot;From the Perdiccas of whom we have here spoken, Alexander was descended in the following way Alexander was the son of Amyntas, Amyntas of Alcetas; the father of Alcetas was Aeropus; of Aeropus, Philip; of Philip, Argaeus; of Argaeus, Perdiccas, the first sovereign&quot;. In other words, the known kings of Macedonia before Herodotus's time reigned as follows: Perdiccas I, Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus I, Alcetas, Amyntas I, and Alexander I.

Again, I have not been able to find much about the Macedonian Royal lineage and the accomplishments of the reigning kings up to Alexander I's reign (498-454).

Borza, in the beginning of chapter 5, in his book, &quot;In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon&quot; describes the Macedonian kingdom during the reign of Amyntas I as weak, thinly populated, and surviving in the absence of external threat. Amyntas's territory of control during his reign included the central Macedonian plain and peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain (Katerini) beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia (Meglen). To the south lay the people of Thessaly and on the western mountains were the Molossians or people of western Epirus, tribes of non-Argaed Macedonians. Beyond lay the fierce Illyrians and east of the river Bistritsa lay the Paeonian and Thracian tribes.

As the Macedonian kingdom expanded and made its way to the lowlands and to the shores of the Aegean Sea, it was no longer isolated and began to enjoy the economic and cultural currents of the Aegean world as well as tangling in its politics.

After moving their capital to Aegae the Macedonians were no longer seen as a tribal but rather as a monarchic kingdom. Then, just as Alexander I was about to be crowned, the Macedonian Kingdom was seen as a power of influence. Unfortunately, it was still too weak to hold its own, militarily, against its powerful neighbours.

Unlike his father, Alexander I was born into a world of social turbulence and political change. With the rise of the Persian Empire and its westward movement, new conflicts were about to take place that would forever alter the balance of power in the Balkans.

In an attempt to encircle the Black Sea, Persian forces crossed over the Bosporus Strait around 513 BC, defeated eastern Thrace, and marched westward up to the Struma basin. Victorious over the Thracians, King Darius left Megabazus, one of his commanders, in charge of his forces and returned to Persia. After making peace with the rest of the Tharacian tribes, Magabazus deported some of the captured population to Asia, presumably for slave labour, and sent envoys to Macedonia to offer the Macedonians an opportunity for a peaceful settlement.

Fearing the Persian wrath, king Amyntas offered no resistance and graciously accepted the envoys. As the story goes, everything went well until the Persians demanded that Macedonian women entertain them for the night. That demand did not sit well with the Macedonians and the Persian envoys disappeared, never to be found.

Here is what Herodotus had to say. {As for Megabazus, he no sooner brought the Paeonians under, than he sent into Macedonia an embassy of Persians, choosing for the purpose the seven men of most note in all the army after himself. These persons were to go to Amyntas, and require him to give earth and water to King Darius. Now there is a very short cut from the Lake Prasias across to Macedonia. Quite close to the lake is the mine which yielded afterwards a talent of silver a day to Alexander; and from this mine you have only to cross the mountain called Dysorum to find yourself in the Macedonian territory. So the Persians sent upon this errand, when they reached the court, and were brought into the presence of Amyntas, required him to give earth and water to King Darius. And Amyntas not only gave them what they asked, but also invited them to come and feast with him; after which he made ready the board with great magnificence, and entertained the Persians in right friendly fashion. Now when the meal was over, and they were all set to the drinking, the Persians said- &quot;Dear Macedonian, we Persians have a custom when we make a great feast to bring with us to the board our wives and concubines, and make them sit beside us. Now then, as thou hast received us so kindly, and feasted us so handsomely, and givest moreover earth and water to King Darius, do also after our custom in this matter.&quot; Then Amyntas answered- &quot;O, Persians! we have no such custom as this; but with us men and women are kept apart. Nevertheless, since you, who are our lords, wish it, this also shall be granted to you.&quot; When Amyntas had thus spoken, he bade some go and fetch the women. And the women came at his call and took their seats in a row over against the Persians. Then, when the Persians saw that the women were fair and comely, they spoke again to Amyntas and said, that &quot;what had been done was not wise; for it had been better for the women not to have come at all, than to come in this way, and not sit by their sides, but remain over against them, the torment of their eyes.&quot; So Amyntas was forced to bid the women sit side by side with the Persians. The women did as he ordered; and then the Persians, who had drunk more than they ought, began to put their hands on them, and one even tried to give the woman next him a kiss. King Amyntas saw, but he kept silence, although sorely grieved, for he greatly feared the power of the Persians. Alexander, however, Amyntas' son, who was likewise there and witnessed the whole, being a young man and unacquainted with suffering, could not any longer restrain himself. He therefore, full of wrath, spake thus to Amyntas:- &quot;Dear father, thou art old and shouldst spare thyself. Rise up from table and go take thy rest; do not stay out the drinking. I will remain with the guests and give them all that is fitting.&quot; Amyntas, who guessed that Alexander would play some wild prank, made answer:- &quot;Dear son, thy words sound to me as those of one who is well nigh on fire, and I perceive thou sendest me away that thou mayest do some wild deed. I beseech thee make no commotion about these men, lest thou bring us all to ruin, but bear to look calmly on what they do. For myself, I will e'en withdraw as thou biddest me.&quot; Amyntas, when he had thus besought his son, went out; and Alexander said to the Persians, &quot;Look on these ladies as your own, dear strangers, all or any of them- only tell us your wishes. But now, as the evening wears, and I see you have all had wine enough, let them, if you please, retire, and when they have bathed they shall come back again.&quot; To this the Persians agreed, and Alexander, having got the women away, sent them off to the harem, and made ready in their room an equal number of beardless youths, whom he dressed in the garments of the women, and then, arming them with daggers, brought them in to the Persians, saying as he introduced them, &quot;Methinks, dear Persians, that your entertainment has fallen short in nothing. We have set before you all that we had ourselves in store, and all that we could anywhere find to give you- and now, to crown the whole, we make over to you our sisters and our mothers, that you may perceive yourselves to be entirely honoured by us, even as you deserve to be- and also that you may take back word to the king who sent you here, that there was one man, a Greek, the satrap of Macedonia, by whom you were both feasted and lodged handsomely.&quot; So speaking, Alexander set by the side of each Persian one of those whom he had called Macedonian women, but who were in truth men. And these men, when the Persians began to be rude, despatched them with their daggers. So the ambassadors perished by this death, both they and also their followers. For the Persians had brought a great train with them, carriages, and attendants, and baggage of every kind- all of which disappeared at the same time as the men themselves. Not very long afterwards the Persians made strict search for their lost embassy; but Alexander, with much wisdom, hushed up the business, bribing those sent on the errand, partly with money, and partly with the gift of his own sister Gygaea, whom he gave in marriage to Bubares, a Persian, the chief leader of the expedition which came in search of the lost men. Thus the death of these Persians was hushed up, and no more was said of it.} (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

Borza does not quite agree with Herodotus's story but does agree that Gygaea's marriage to Burbares was real. Borza believes that it was Amyntas, not Alexander, who arranged the marriage as part of negotiating the Macedonian-Persian alliance. (Page 102-103, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Outside of the tall tales surrounding Alexander, I couldn't find any more information about Amyntas's reign. It is believed that Amyntas died in 498 or 497 BC and was succeeded by Alexander I the same year.

Life in Macedonia was relatively peaceful until 492 BC when a Persian expeditionary force, under the command of Mardonius, crossed over into Europe with orders to attack Athens. But before marching into Athens and with total disregard for the Macedonian-Persian alliance, Mardonius decided to attack local towns, captured Tracian and Macedonian civilians and made them slaves. The Persian action provoked the local people and prompted a counter attack. The Persian fleet was attacked and sunk by the Bryges (Phrygians) of Thrace as it attempted to navigate around Athos (Sv. Gora). Weakened by the attack, Mardonius could not fulfill his mission so he returned to Persia. Seeing his people enslaved by an ally did not sit well with Alexander.

The loss of the Persian fleet in 492 BC was only a minor setback for the Persian plans. The next scene to be played out would be two years later on the Athenian plains of Marathon.

With the accession of Xerxes to the throne in 486 BC, an enormous Persian force was prepared and in 480 BC, was led into Europe. The force was allowed to pass through Macedonia unchallenged.

As a Persian envoy, Alexander's diplomatic skills were tested in the winter of 480/479 BC, when the Persian commander Mardonius dispatched him to Athens to negotiate an Athenian surrender. In spite of his accomplished skills, no peaceful settlement could be reached and war broke out. The Macedonians fought on the Persian side against the Athenians. Although there is no reason given for his motives, Alexander seemed helpful to the Athenians. Some say that he was a double agent and played both sides against each other. There is evidence however, that suggests that Alexander did, on several occasions, warn the Athenians of Persian plans.

The Persian invasion of Athens proved unsuccessful. After Mardonius's death the invasion collapsed and the Persian expeditionary force abandoned its plans and made a hasty retreat back to Persia. With the Persians gone, Alexander was left with a couple of problems. On the one hand, he was facing the powerful Athenians to whom he had to answer for his involvement with the Persians. On the other hand, the Persian devastation in Thrace weakened the Thracian strongholds and made them easy prey for adventurers. The Thracian lands were rich in mineral deposits, very valuable, and very attractive to possess.

From what Herodotus tells us, Alexander played his part convincingly well with the Athenians. He was quick to point out the great deeds he did for them and the good will he had towards all Greeks. His pleading must have worked because the Athenians brought him no harm and most importantly, they continued to purchase lumber from his kingdom.

As for the eastward expansion, the Macedonians were not the only ones with desires to possess the mineral rich Thracian lands. After the Persians withdrew, the Greeks also made it clear that they too wanted a piece of the action. But Alexander was first to make his move and occupied the abandoned Crestonian territory, the hilly region between the Vardar plain and the Strumitsa valley. The Thracians, who disliked the Persians, chose to abandon their homes rather than submit to Persian rule, leaving their land unprotected.

With the newly acquired territory came the rich Dysoron silver mines that would yield much needed silver for the Macedonian mint.

Athens, unfortunately, was not pleased with Alexander's move so in 476 BC an Athenian expedition was sent to seize the lower Strumitsa valley, an area that was once a vital Persian supply base. After defeating and expelling the remnant Persians and local Thracians, Athens settled the area with some 10,000 Athenians. This was indeed troublesome for Alexander and by 460 BC, conflict between Macedonia and Athens was imminent. It appears that the Athenians were preparing to invade Macedonia. But, before they got their chance, rebellious Thracians who did not appreciate Athenian presence on their lands, especially the settlers, attacked them and annihilated their armies. This latest encounter not only saved Macedonia but also indirectly created a new Thracian-Macedonian alliance. As for the Athenians, for the next ten years or so they redirected their interests to the south and west leaving Macedonia and Thrace alone.

Herodotus seems to be silent about the last years of Alexander's reign, perhaps nothing happened which was of significance or worthy of reporting. It is believed that Alexander I, died of old age, at age 80, in 454 BC. Alexander's reign lasted 43 years from 497 to 454 BC.

Alexander fathered at least six children. Three were male and legitimate heirs to the Macedonian throne but it was his son Perdiccas who rose above all and became ruler and king.

What began as Athenian interests in the Aegean coastline to protect the Balkans from Persian invasions, over time, turned into an Athenian empire. By late 450 BC, Athens was exploiting the region for her own economic and military interests.

Coincidental with Alexander's death, Athens resumed her interests in the north and began to import more settlers. Her plans were to settle the northern and eastern coasts of the Thermaic Gulf near the Vardar-Galik delta. This was indeed a bold move but her crowning achievement did not materialize until the establishment of Amphipolis in 437 BC. I could not find any information about the Macedonian reaction to this but I am certain that Perdiccas was not too happy. It is unknown whether Perdiccas was a friend of Athens before this, but now for certain he had become an enemy. To make matters worse, Athens started an anti-Perdiccas campaign by openly supporting his enemies, including the rebellious factions within his own family. The stakes for Macedonia were high. Athens was a powerful empire, too powerful to challenge militarily. Also, she was a good customer of Macedonia's timber and pitch, which Perdiccas could not afford to lose. If he did nothing Perdiccas could risk losing the Dysoron mines, something he could not afford to do either. Athens, on the other hand, could profit from gaining the mines and could set up her own lumber industry on Macedonian land if Perdiccas did nothing to stop her.

As it turned out Athens had no intention of starting a war with Macedonia. Instead she believed that by supporting rebellious factions within the Argead house she could keep Perdiccas busy at home, too busy to notice Athenian incursions into the Struma basin where she was hoping to set up her own timber industry.

Because of this Athenian treachery, Perdiccas faced two decades of rebellions and unrest. Too weak to do anything, he allowed the Athenians to further settle the region uninterrupted.

&quot;By 432 BC Perdiccas and Athens were at odds, and their hostility produced the opening northern volleys of the Peloponnesian war. To counter an Athenian policy directed against his throne, Perdiccas, sensitive to events building in Greece, attempted to start a general war by involving Athens in hostilities against the Peloponnesians, Sparta in particular. He encouraged the Corinthians to support a revolt of their loyal Chalcidic colony at Potidaea, which had been tributary to Athens since at least 446/5, and he stirred up rebellion against Athens among the Chalcidians and Bottiaecans. It was an aggressive foreign policy, and one wonders how Perdiccas hoped to support it with force.&quot; (Page 141-142, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Predictably, the Athenian reaction was quick and decisive. In early summer of 432 BC, Athens sent a strike force to attack Perdiccas and quell the uprising. When they arrived, the Athenians realized that their force was too weak to do the job. They remembered what had happened to them the last time they clashed with the Thracians. Prudently, no engagement took place.

The Athenian commander sent for reinforcements and when they did arrive, they joined with the Macedonian rebels hoping to cut off Perdiccas from Chelcidice. Knowing he could not successfully engage them, Perdiccas convinced his allies to abandon their defenses and flee to the mountains. Even in the safety of the mountains the Macedonia-Chelcidice coalition was still no match for the reinforced Athenian army, but as luck would have it, time was on their side.

Concerned for their own interests, the Corinthians intervened by sending an army to counter Athens. In view of this counter check, Athens abandoned her plans and instead of attacking Perdiccas, she turned to him for assistance. But, as it turned out, this was another treacherous Athenian ploy to break up the Macedonian-Thracian alliance. In the end, Athens did prevail, but just barely.

Athens then turned her attention to suppressing the rebellions in Chalcidice and left the Macedonian king alone. The uneasy peace unfortunately, had its price. Perdiccas was forced to abandon his allies and withdraw his support from Chelcidice. For his cooperation and for his promise to protect Athenian interests in the north, Athens returned the occupied lands at Therme and withdrew her support from the rebellious factions in Perdiccas's family.


This uneasy relationship between Macedonia and Athens didn't last too long. In 429 BC, Athens was again preparing to invade Macedonia, this time with Thracian help.

At the same time Athens was squeezing Perdiccas for concessions, she was befriending the Thracian tribal chiefs with handsome tributes and gifts.

Athens planned to have the Thracians attack Macedonia from the north while her fleet attacked from the south. The Thracians did as expected and emerged from behind the Rhodopi mountains, invaded Macedonia, and moved into the lower Vardar valley. Outnumbered, the Macedonians fled up the mountains and regrouped in their traditional strongholds.

Borza believes that this latest Athenian change of heart towards Macedonia was provoked by Perdiccas's secret dealings with Athens enemies, the Peloponisians. (Page 146-147, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

This time Athens was determined to destroy Macedonia and rid herself of those meddlesome Argeads once and for all, but circumstances would rob her of this victory as well.

While the Thracians were advancing on Aegae, a sizable cavalry force from western Macedonia arrived just in time to repel them. The force was not strong enough to subdue the Thracians, but it was intimidating enough to stop their advance. Even though no engagement took place, the Thracian attack was averted.

Problems at home prevented Athens from sending the fleet so the attack from the south never materialized.

With the Thracians roaming the Macedonian lowlands, Perdiccas knew there would be no easy solution so he turned to diplomacy and offered the Thracians a peaceful way out. To show that he was sincere, he offered the marriage of his own sister Stratonice to the nephew of one of the Thracian chiefs.


Perdiccas's problems unfortunately, were not over. A new threat was beginning to surface, this time from within Macedonia. I couldn't find any information detailing the problem but in 424 BC, king Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia (Bitola/Ohrid region) became hostile to Perdiccas. Unable to quell him on his own, Perdiccas turned to the Spartans who themselves were desperately looking for allies in the north. By acquiring the assistance of a Thessalian friend, Perdiccas was able to provide passage for 1,700 Spartan hoplites through Thessaly. When Athens got wind of this, she immediately reacted by breaking relations with Macedonia and sent reinforcements to her colonies in Chalcidice. Still desperate to make allies, when the Spartans arrived in Lyncestia, instead of attacking Arrhabaeus as they had agreed with Perdiccas, they asked him to become a Poloponnesian ally. Given the choice between fighting the Spartans or joining them, Arrhabaeus chose the latter and agreed to finance part of the Spartan campaign. Arrhabaeus was spared for now but Perdiccas was unhappy with the outcome.

Loose on the northern frontiers, the Spartans wreaked havoc on the Athenian towns and outposts. As a result of these encounters, Athens, in the future, would be re-considering policies regarding venturing to the north.

Unhappy with the Spartan outcome, Perdiccas turned to the Illyrians who were more than happy to subdue Arrhabaeus. After arriving in Lyncestia however, the Illyrians had a change of heart. Instead of attacking Arrhabaeus, they decided to join him and attack Perdiccas instead. When Perdiccas's army got wind of this they broke ranks and fled to the mountains in panic.

Perdiccas was now in serious trouble. Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies closing in on his kingdom, Arrhabaeus from the north, the Spartans from the south, and the fierce Illyrian fighters on the loose.

What was Perdiccas to do?

To be continued...

And now I will leave you with this:

Many of you have written encouraging notes to use western and foreign sources because you believe they are neutral and impartial. Let me assure that I have and I will. Also, allow me to remind you that foreign scholars are like foreign soldiers who will do their best as long as it serves their own interest. The true fighters are those who will go the extra mile for Macedonia because they are patriots and not because it serves their personal interests. I can assure you that the true fighters and patriots of Macedonia will always be the Macedonians and not the foreigners. Let us give our Macedonian scholars the respect they deserve. They are our soldiers who will protect our history and culture, they are our patriots who will fight our battles to the end and will safeguard our nation's honour.

References:

Michael Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community.

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound.

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna.

Nickolas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia, Sidwig and Jackson, London 1991.

Vasil Ilyov, Macedonian Artifacts, Ancient Inscriptions and their Translations, http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html.

Macedonian Rock Art: http://www.unet.com.mk/rockart/angliski/prva.htm.

Macedonian History: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html

Dura-Europos: http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/dura.htm

 
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>mkd3i43fxnr6a9pgmz9ug89kew6c34q</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Rise of the Macedonian Empire</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2061</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11076</id>
      <parentid>4973</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:14Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="54004" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 4 - Rise of the Macedonian Empire

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies. Arrhabaeus was still alive and well and prepared to attack from the north. The Spartans, upset with Perdiccas, were preparing to attack from the south and the fierce Illyrian mercenaries were loose in his kingdom.

What was Perdiccas to do?

Perdiccas considered his situation carefully and decided to go to the Athenians for help. He was certain that Athens would welcome his alliance just to counter the meddlesome Spartans. Sure enough, the Athenian generals in Chalcidice accepted Perdiccas's offer but not without conditions. For securing an alliance, Perdiccas had to provide Athens exclusive rights to his timber industry and join her in fighting the Peloponnesians. Perdiccas hesitantly accepted and honoured the agreements.

As for Arrhabaeus, Athens offered him a friendship agreement and a chance to reconcile his differences with Perdiccas. The Spartans on the other hand, after losing financial backing from Perdiccas and Arrhabaeus, scaled down their campaigns. Additionally, Perdiccas used his influence and persuaded Thessaly not to allow any more Spartan reinforcements to pass through.

The deal Perdiccas received from Athens may seem skewed in Athens favour, but it had its advantages for the Macedonian king. Athenian presence maintained peace and stability in the region and with the loss of Amphipolis, Macedonia became the main supplier of timber for the large Athenian market. I couldn't find any information as to what happened to the Illyrian mercenaries, but I am certain that after losing Arrhabaeus's support, they went back to Illyria.

All through the first phase of the Peloponnesian war, Perdiccas kept his alliance with Athens and tried not to become embroiled in Athenian affairs. But in 421 BC Athens reached a peace agreement with the Peloponnesians and regained control of parts of her northern empire. Although the Peloponnesians sanctioned the agreement, the Chelcidicians, who preferred autonomy to occupation, did not. Refusal of the agreement brought the war back and the region was again engulfed in hostilities. The war lasted until Amphipolis gained her independence. Perdiccas meanwhile, managed to stay aloof and avoided becoming involved in the conflict. 

With peace in place, Athenian power was again on the rise, which troubled Perdiccas. But Perdiccas was not the only one troubled. Sensing Athenian assertiveness in the north, in 418 BC, Sparta attempted to counter Athens by recruiting Perdiccas into a Macedonian-Peloponnesian alliance. Athens, on the other hand, had hoped for an Athenian- Macedonian alliance. The prospect of losing Perdiccas, especially to the enemy, infuriated the Athenians. Athens was counting on Macedonian help to aid her fleet in challenging the Chelcidice coalition.

In view of the Spartan offer, Perdiccas considered his options carefully and decided to join the Peloponnesian alliance.

As punishment, in the winter of 417 BC, Athens blockaded the southern Macedonian coast and stopped all shipments of lumber. The blockade didn't hurt Macedonia as much as it did Athens, so in 414 BC a new arrangement was reached and Macedonia and Athens once again became allies.

Perdiccas died a year later and was succeeded by his son Archelaus in 413 BC. Archelaus's reign, which lasted approximately fourteen years from 413 BC to 399 BC, was a little more stable than that of his father. Unlike his father, Archelaus remained loyal to Athens, which gave him a firm market for his timber industry and the security he needed to take care of business at home. Archelaus maintained his father's policy with regard to the Lyncestians and Illyrians along the western frontier and managed to keep them at bay. Along the eastern frontier, the absence of Athenian influence and the decline of Thracian power granted Archelaus an opportunity to gain control of Basaltia and its valuable mines.

Due to political and social changes in Thessaly, Archelaus was given the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the ruling faction for which he was awarded Larisan citizenship and the lands of Perrhaebia, an important strategic location to the west of Olympus which connects Macedonia to Thessaly.

As for internal changes, Archelaus made improvements to roads, built fortresses in the countryside, fortified entry points into Macedonia and modernized his army. But most importantly, Archelaus is credited for moving the Macedonian principal city from Aegae to Pella. Aegae still remained a royal city but Pella became a royal residence for Archelaus and an administrative and military centre for his kingdom.


The main reason for making Pella the principle city was its strategic location within the Macedonian kingdom. &quot;The largest of the Macedonian towns in classical times, Pella, was constructed on a low plateau where Mt. Paiko merges with the marshland of the central plain, and where the route of the Via Egnatia hugged the northern edge of the swamps. Pella might have been (or had) a seaport, as the head of the Thermaic Gulf extended some distance into the plain in those days. Pella's strategic position lying across the main east-west route near the west bank of the Axios gave it an importance surpassed only by Salonica at a later time.&quot; (Pages 41-42, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Archelaus chose Pella to be his principle city because it gave him easy access to the many waterways which would provide him passage to a wider area than just the central Macedonian plain. Pella was built by design, laid out on a grid plan, using blocks approximately 100 meters by 50 meters. Archeological excavations of the site have revealed &quot;a series of elaborate private houses, in which were discovered the well-wrought floor mosaics... These large pebble mosaics, which formed the floors of rooms and passageways of Pella's villas, depict a variety of scenes, including Dionysus riding a panther, a lion hunt, an Amazonomachy, and a magnificent stag hunt...&quot; (Page 170, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

The move to Pella was the first step on the road to greatness for Macedonia. Pella was becoming an impressive Macedonian political, military and cultural showcase, which in time would become the birthplace of Alexander III, the greatest conqueror that ever lived to earn the title &quot;Great&quot;.

I would like to mention at this point that Archelaus is also credited with establishing the uniquely Macedonian Olympic festival that took place at Dion in honour of Zeus and the muses. Dion was an important place where Macedonians participated in their own Olympic games, dramatic contests and celebrated many of their religious rites.

Archelaus was accidentally shot during a hunting accident in 399 BC and died of his wounds. His premature death cast the Argaed house into chaos for almost six years after which Amyntas III surfaced as the leading figure who would rule Macedonia next. Amyntas III was the great grandson of Alexander I.

The shakeup of the Macedonian kingdom due to the early and unexpected departure of Archelaus, was a signal for Macedonia's enemies to make their move. Just barely on the throne, in 394 BC, Amyntas found himself at odds with the Illyrians. Ever since the incident between Perdiccas II and Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia, Illyrian-Macedonian animosities had been on the rise. The situation climaxed in 394/93 BC when a powerful Illyrian force attacked and invaded Macedonia, driving Amyntas off his throne and out of his kingdom.

Only with a great deal of diplomacy, land concessions and Thessalian help did Amyntas appease the Illyrians, allowing him to regain his throne. As it turned out, the Illyrians raided Macedonia for her booty not political gain, which was common practice in those days.

Amyntas was lucky this time but his enemies were too numerous to allow chance to guide his fate so he worked hard to establish an alliance with his immediate neighbours to the southeast, the Chalcidic cities. The treaty, signed in desperation, seemed one-sided favouring the Chalcidic cities. It was, however, necessary for Amyntas, if Macedonia were to survive.

Free to help themselves to Macedonian timber and pitch, the Chalcidic cities grew wealthy and powerful with each passing year.

Feeling uncomfortable by this unfair alliance and by the steady buildup of Illyrian power, Amyntas was not happy with the Chalcidians and felt compelled to seek new allies.

In 386 BC, he made his move and through his adopted son, who was married to the daughter of a prominent Thracian chief, Amyntas established contact with the Thracians.

Sensing the Macedonian-Thracian alliance, the Illyrians bypassed Macedonia and made their move against Epirus. In 385 BC the Illyrians attacked Epirus, unaware that they would provoke a Spartan counterattack. Sparta was quick to react and invaded the region. This bold move became worrisome not only to the Macedonians but also to the Thessalians who soon would become willing partners to a Macedonian-Thessalian league.

Having secured his western boundaries, Amyntas now turned his attention to the greedy Chelcidic cities. Having greatly benefited from this unfair alliance, the Chelcidites were not enthusiastic about breaking it off. When Amyntas turned to the Spartans for help he found them to be willing partners. An allied Spartan force under Spartan leadership was dispatched from Sparta and arrived in the vicinity in the spring of 382 BC. With some Macedonian and Thracian assistance, the Spartans attacked the Chelcidic League but were unable to subdue it. The Spartan commander called for reinforcements and in 381 BC the attack was renewed and by 379 BC the Chalcidic League was dissolved.

Athens and her allies did not approve of the Spartan presence in Chalcidice, so within a year or so a new and more powerful anti-Spartan alliance was formed. Being clever enough not to be caught on the losing side, Amyntas slowly withdrew from the Spartan alliance and began to draw closer to Athens. The new relationship not only strengthened Macedonian security but also brought back an old and dependable timber and pitch customer. Unfortunately, there was never a &quot;good&quot; relationship with the &quot;Greeks&quot; without a catch. Soon after establishing ties with Macedonia, Athens demanded that Amyntas support her claims for control of Amphipolis. This called for a total reversal on the long-standing Macedonian position, which had always been in support of an independent Amphipolis. Giving Athens control of Amphipolis was a disaster waiting to happen for Macedonia's economic and political interests.

Having left his kingdom's affairs unsettled, Amyntas III died in 370 BC (perhaps assassinated by his former wife?) leaving his throne to his eldest son Alexander II. &quot;The decade of the 360s plunged the kingdom of Macedon into a new dynastic crisis, intensified by continuing external threats. Early in his reign, Alexander was forced to buy off the Illyrians, although it is problematic whether he also gave his younger brother, Philip (the future Philip II), over as a hostage.&quot; (Page 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Hammond believes that Philip was an Illyrian hostage before he was turned over to the Thebans. Borza, however, believes that the chronology of events does not support this occurrence.

The new Illyrian campaign against Macedonia did not start until after the winter of 370/69 BC. &quot;Within a year (368, by Hammond's own chronology) Philip had been shipped off as a hostage to Thebes. It seems unlikely that Prince Philip would have been shunted around so (what prompted the Illyrians to give him up?), the chronology is too tight, and our best sources for Philip, Diodorus, gives mixed signals to the matter of an Illyrian hostageship. Griffith (HM 2: 204 n. 5) also has some doubts about Philip in Illyris.&quot; (Page n 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Young Alexander did not have enough experience to maintain a strong and stable kingdom, or to secure any permanent alliances. He was given a chance in Thessaly but he couldn't make it work.

Experiencing internal problems, the feuding royal families of Thessaly turned to Macedonia for help. Alexander intervened, occupied Larissa and restored one of his former allies to the throne. This, unfortunately, disappointed another ally to whom Alexander had also promised the throne. While unable to secure peace by diplomacy, Alexander continued to occupy Thessaly by force. Discontent with Alexander's inability to resolve the impasse, the faction in power abandoned Alexander and turned to the Thebans for help. The Thebans accepted without hesitation and brought a force to drive Alexander out. Unable to resist, Alexander withdrew from all Thessalian territory.

Dissatisfied with his inability to rule and especially with the way he handled the Thessalians, Alexander's position as ruler was challenged at home by Ptolemy. Being unable to resolve the challenge, Alexander agreed to bring in an outside arbitrator. On Ptolemy's request, the arbitrator chosen was a Theban commander, the same Theban commander who drove Alexander out of Larissa.

The dispute was eventually resolved in Alexander's favour but not without a price. To ensure Alexander would not take action against his rivals or renew activities in Thessaly, prominent members of his family, including his younger brother Philip II, were taken to Thebes to be held hostage. Philip at the time was only thirteen years old.

Even though he was secure back on his throne Alexander's problems, unfortunately, were not yet over. He was assassinated while taking part in a festival. Ptolemy of course was suspected since he had the most to gain.

Alexander II died in the spring of 367 BC and the rule of Macedonia was passed on to Ptolemy.

A woman named Eurydice, it is believed, was allegedly involved in plotting Alexander's assassination. During the investigation it was noted that before Alexander's death, Ptolemy and Eurydice closely collaborated and may have planned Alexander's deposition. When that failed, they conspired to have him assassinated.

Just to give you an idea of who this woman was, her mother was the daughter of the Lyncestian king Arrhabaeus and her father was Sirrhas, an Illyrian tribal chief. Eurydice was the wife of Amyntas III from an arranged marriage. Her relationship to Ptolemy is unknown (perhaps a lover?) but she was instrumental in his rise to power. 

Eurydice's deeds, even though disreputable, have been etched in the history of the Macedonian royal court as the acts of a strong willed woman who wished to rule.

It goes to show that unlike their neighbours to the south, the Macedonians showed respect and admiration for their women both as leaders and as equals. In fact the Macedonians were vastly different from those to the south when it came to customs, culture and mannerisms. &quot;The Macedonians were a thoroughly healthy people, trained not by Greek athletics, but, like the Romans, by military service. But alongside much that was good, they had many rougher habits,... which tended to make them appear as barbarians in Greek eyes. The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt.&quot; (Page 26, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

Alexander's death seemed like an easy victory for Ptolemy, but in actual fact it was not. Ptolemy's relations with Eurydice, a known troublemaker and a suspect in the plotting of her own husband's assassination landed him in hot water. Even though Ptolemy was a legitimate heir to the throne, the way he achieved his appointment upset many Macedonians. New challengers rose to the task and for the next three years the kingdom was in turmoil. 

One of the more serious challengers was an exiled Macedonian named Pausanius. He put together a small army and occupied parts of central Macedonia. Unable to drive him out, Ptolemy and Eurydice called on Athens for support. Eager to regain influence in the north and hoping to regain access to Amphipolis, Athens accepted the challenge and helped Ptolemy drive Pausanius out of Macedonia.

Another challenge came from a faction loyal to the dead Alexander who called on the Thebans for support. Losing no time, the powerful Thebans invaded Macedonia and forced Ptolemy into an undesirable alliance imposing more conditions on his kingdom and taking more hostages. One good thing that came out of this alliance was the breakup of Macedonian relations with Athens putting an end to Athenian ambitions in Amphipolis and in the north.

Ptolemy died in 365 BC, probably assassinated by Perdiccas, Amintas III's second son who became the next ruler of Macedonia.


Soon after Perdiccas III was installed ruler of Macedonia, he brought back his younger brother Philip from Thebes. Philip was sixteen years old at the time.

Since the Spartan defeat in 371 BC, Theban power was on the rise and by 365 BC it was formidable enough to challenge the Athenian navy at sea.

Being a Theban ally under these conditions had its advantages. In exchange for Macedonian timber, Thebes was willing to provide long-term guarantees of security for Macedonia as well as protection of her frontier interests, especially against Athenian interference in Amphipolis.

Athens however, wasn't at all phased by this Theban generosity and had some plans of her own.


When a formidable Athenian naval force made its presence in the Thermaic Gulf and began to seize Macedonian ports and threaten the sovereignty of Macedonia, Perdiccas quickly gave in to the Athenian will. When informed that Thebes was about to attack the Athenian fleet, Perdiccas reconsidered and withdrew his support for Athens. Furthermore he reverted back to opposing Athenian desires for Amphipolis. The expected Theban naval attack unfortunately never materialized but that didn't stop Perdiccus from continuing to oppose the Athenians anyway.


Just as the war started to stabilize in the southern frontier, a serious Illyrian attack materialized from the north drawing Perdiccas's army into a second conflict. With his forces divided Perdiccas bore the full brunt of two fronts. His army, well trained and equipped, could have met the challenge. Unfortunately, Perdiccas's luck ran out and he was killed in one of the battles.

Perdiccas III died in 360 BC defending his homeland and like his father before him, left his kingdom in disarray. It was now up to his younger brother Philip to make things right.

Philip II replaced his brother Perdiccas III as ruler of Macedonia in 360 BC.

Philip was well aware that in order for Macedonia to achieve peace and economic prosperity she needed to free herself from outside interference and from the constant bickering and infighting. Philip was also aware that this was only possible through a strong defense. 

It is my belief that historians misunderstood Philip II. Given the weakness of his kingdom and his experience in a world of turmoil, Philip's only desire was for the security of his kingdom. By his actions and not by the words of others, we can see that Philip's early ambitions were not of conquest but of defense. His idea of achieving security and peace was through building a protective zone or buffer all around his kingdom. What made Philip truly great was the fact that he achieved this economically and in a relatively short period of time.

By his actions alone one can see that Philip had no ambition to &quot;unite&quot; the Greeks but rather to extinguish their desire to interfere in his affairs. Philip knew that by destroying his enemy's ability to wage war, his enemy would no longer be a threat to him.

At this point I would like to digress for a moment and take the opportunity to analyze some other issues. 

We have been repeatedly bombarded with information, mainly from Modern Greek propaganda sources, that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek language, worshipped Greek Gods etc., and as such were Greeks.

Trivial as this may sound, there are people today who still subscribe to this idea. Since we have no genuine data to concretely dispute them and almost all the information that we have is derived from Greek or Latin sources, we have no choice but to challenge them purely on merit.

Given that our basic understanding of the ancient Macedonians comes from non-Macedonian sources that had little or no understanding of Macedonian affairs, makes such claims questionable and perhaps biased.

Since Modern Greece occupied Macedonian territory in 1912-1913 no Macedonian has ever been allowed to conduct archeological research. Greek authorities control all archeological discoveries; the very sources of data needed to conduct such studies. Any new evidence that may surface is automatically scrutinized and is either hidden or distorted to protect Greek interests.

With regard to the ancient Macedonians speaking a Greek language, I offer you this:

If 19th century archeologists were to dig in Macedonia instead of Greece, and if they were to find inscriptions written in the language of the ancient Macedonians, would they have called it Greek?

If the same archeologists continued digging in Greece and Egypt and found the same language spoken there as well, would they have called it Greek?

The logical answer, of course, would be no! They would have realized their error and called it a &quot;common&quot; language to all three nations.

In my estimation it is more accurate to state that &quot;besides speaking their own languages, the more enlightened of the ancient people, including the Macedonian royalty, also spoke a 'common' language or 'lingua franca' if you prefer&quot;.

It is more accurate therefore to state that &quot;Koine&quot; was not a &quot;Greek&quot; but rather a &quot;common&quot; language or &quot;lingua franca&quot;, spoken by the various educated and enlightened people.

Modern Greeks make such outrageous claims not because they are interested in the pursuit of truth but rather because it serves their political interests. Given that the Modern Greeks have vested political interests in the ancient Macedonians would naturally make their claims dubious at best.

The real question however, is not what language the royal Macedonian families spoke but rather what language did the common ancient Macedonians speak?

To find out I will again take you back to Dura-Europos, this time to 3 BC,

[XXXXVIII

3 B.C.

This inscription on a slab of stone is ascribed by scholars to 3 B.C.

Division and Alphabetization:

NOS TOJ JE TOJ, SMRDOT

FILOPATRASTES, DIO DO TOJ. TOJ DA NI

MOJ MI DIO NOS D'JE TOJ AL JE SAN

D'ROJ GYNAIKOS.

Translation:

&quot;Your nose, yours, having smelled the pederast, spoke to you. Your nose itself, and not mine, said to me that it is yours that prefers women.&quot;

Explanation:

NOS - &quot;nose&quot;

TOJ - &quot;yours, your&quot; - TOJ, for the literal TVOJ, is dialectally still very much in use.

JE - auxiliary to DIO (DJAV) to form the past tense

SMRDOT - &quot;having smelled&quot; - If we insert the Italian

MERDA - or French MERDE (&quot;shit&quot;) for the

punctuated O, the Indo-European SMERHD -

&quot;stink&quot; ensues to odorize the Venetic.

FILOPATRASTES

- &quot;pederast, professional sodomite&quot; - in Greek

DIO - &quot;said, spoke&quot; - The dialectal variant now is DJAV

- &quot;said, spoke&quot; which is here governed by the

auxiliary JE above.

DO - &quot;to, at, towards&quot;

TOJ - &quot;you&quot; - The form is very archaic and dialectal and

no longer in use. DO TOJ in current usage would be described by TEBI or TI in the genitive case and not via a preposition.

TOJ - &quot;your, yours&quot;

DA - &quot;that, but&quot; - Here it means &quot;but not&quot; together with NI, however, in the sense of &quot;and not.&quot; This is still the literal form.

NI - &quot;no, not&quot; - still exactly the same literally and dialectally

MOJ - &quot;mine&quot; - exactly the same literal and dialectal form

MI - &quot;me, to me&quot; - still the same dialectally and literally

DIO - &quot;said, spoke&quot; -see supra - It is governed by the auxiliary JE, which follows three words later.

TOJ - &quot;your, yours&quot;

AL - &quot;but, and, or&quot; depending on context

JE - auxiliary to DIO which is not repeated but the meaning is clear that the nose was very emphatic in saying it itself by repeating JE.

SAN - &quot;itself, the one, the very one&quot; - The present literal form SAM still has dialectal SAN echoes. (Prekmurje)

D' - &quot;that&quot; - Dialectally this is still current.

ROJ - &quot;would rather, likes, prefers&quot; - The current literal and dialectal usage is RAJ.

GYNAIKOS -&quot;woman&quot; in Greek]

(Pages 81-83, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The meaning of the inscription is not as important to us as the language in which it is written. Granted these are not words of wisdom but they are clearly of Venetic (Slav) origins.

The following quotation was taken directly from Anthony Ambrozic's book &quot;Gordian Knot Unbound&quot;. 

I decided to include this in its entirety to give you a glimpse of Ambrozic's work. My main motivation however, was to show you that he makes a connection between the Old Phrygian and Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic languages on the other. 

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[ 

Reflection

Even though the transcriptions for the Early Thracian and the Old Phrygian inscriptions by Vladimir Georgiev, Claude Brixhe, and Michel Lejeune have, with minor exceptions, been accepted in both Part I and Part II of this study, a dilemma in respect to several characters in each group stands out begging for answers. The | | symbol for N in the Kjolmen inscription is the most glaring. No other alphabet of the time has it. Not the Pelasgic, nor the Etruscan, Old Phrygian or Greek, nor the Venetic. Plainly and simply, it is unique to that inscription, which, incidentally, is the oldest of the five Early Thracian passages. In the same vein, the Early Thracian and Old Phrygian sigmoid S and snaking S have no ancient counterparts.

The inverted ) character, to which Georgiev incorrectly ascribes the value of a gamma, is found also in the Palasgic and the Etruscan alphabets, where it has the sound value of a C. The Venetic mirrors it in the symbol &gt;.

The symbol I, prominent especially in the Ezerovo inscription, and according to Georgiev having a Z sound value, is not repeated in either the Kjolmen Z (i.e. in Zesasan) nor the Duvanli one. However, we find the same character in the Pelasgic alphabet, and as a variant, in the Etruscan (single vertical bar with two horizontal crossbars).

Again, the Pelasgic and the Old Phrygian contain the symbol (PSI) for H (and G on occasion). The Greek PSI approximates it but has a different sound value. On rare occasions, the Old Phrygian and the Etruscan make use of the arrow (the Old Phrygian pointing up and the Etruscan pointing down). However, each assigns different sound value to it. And lastly, the Old Phrygian and the Dura-Europos 8s resonate with the same sound value in the Venetic (fat 8).

From the foregoing a tangible connection between the Old Phrygian and the Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic on the other is established. This confluence brings into question the conventional wisdom that the source of early writing had its origins only in the Middle East. It insinuates the need for reexamining assumptions heretofore regrettably far too often taken for granted.

If the Pelasgi, the ancient pre-Hellenic peoples, who occupied Greece before the 12th century BC, and who were said to have inhabited Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice, had their own alphabet, it unquestionably predated the alleged import of the Greek from the Phoenician. And again, to quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1973-74 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 624), if the Etruscan alphabet had been the prototype for the Greek, we can not look upon the Greek as having been the precursor of either the Early Thracian nor the Old Phrygian. Both of these appear to have too many home-grown elements.

Concrete evidence for such reevaluation comes from excavations of the Vincha culture sites in the Balkans itself. The archeological site at Banjica (near Belgrade), in particular, is of significance. According to the C-14 method, its artifacts have been assessed as dating no later that 3473 BC. This makes the script found there 373 years older than the Proto-Sumerian pictographic script. (See Radivoje and Vesna Pesic, Proceedings of the First International Conference, &quot;The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population,&quot; Ljubljana, 2001, p.66).

Indeed, Vesna Pesic, the co-author of the above article, has made a comparison study of the Vincha script with the known ancient scripts. The number of identical letters in the said comparison scripts was as follows:

1. The Brahma script -5

2. The Cretan Linear A - 4

3. The Cretan Linear B - 2

4. The West Semitic -8

5. The Old Phoenician -10

6. The Cyprian - 9

7. The Palestinian - 7

8. The Old Greek - 12

9. The Anglo-Saxon Runic - 4

On page 67 Pesic concludes as follows: &quot;The comparison of the Vincha and Etruscan scripts is very interesting; the complete Etruscan alphabet is totally identical with the Vincha script.&quot;

According to Pesic, it had been the sea-faring, merchant rivermen, the Veneti, who had disseminated the Vincha script to the Etruscans as early as the end of the second millenium BC. The Veneti at this time are attested to have existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also on the Morava, Timok, and Vardar (69). In fact, the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus records them in the 5th century BC (I, 196). ] (Pages 85 to 87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound).

With regard to ancient names, I want to inform you that in South-Western Macedonia, there is a tributary running into the River Bistritsa named &quot;Veneticos&quot;. This tributary is located about ten kilometers southeast of the city of Grevena in southwestern, geographical Macedonia. The tributary lies south of Kostur (Orestikon), inside the heartland of what once was prehistoric Macedonia. Could this be a coincidence or a sign of Venetic presence in prehistoric Macedonian origins?

With regard to Macedonians worshiping Greek gods or worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, I offer you this:

Gods by definition do not belong to a race but rather to a sect of people sometimes encompassing many races and cultures. Worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, does not make the ancient Macedonians Greek.

The following quote was taken from John Shea's book &quot;Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation&quot;. It is included here in order to provide you with an alternative to the modern point of view regarding the ancient Greek language and religions.

&quot;Linguistic evidence and the ancient model. Bernal provides evidence in support of his view that Egyptian and Phoenician elements were powerful in the development of ancient Greek culture. He notes that it is generally agreed that the Greek language was formed during the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Its Indo-European structure and basic lexicon are combined with a non-Indo-European vocabulary of sophistication. He argues that since the earlier population spoke a related Indo-European language, it left little trace in Greek; thus the presence of that population does not explain the many non-Indo-European elements in the later language. Bernal suggests that it has not been possible for scholars working in the Aryan model over the last 160 years to explain 50 percent of the Greek vocabulary and 80 per cent of proper names in terms of either Indo-European or the Anatolian languages supposedly related to &quot;pre-Hellenic.&quot; Since they cannot explain them, they simply call them pre-Hellenic. 

Bernal suggests to the contrary: that much of the non-Indo-European element can be plausibly derived from Egyptian and West Semitic and that this would fit very well with a long period of domination by Egypto-Semitic conquerors. He claims that up to a quarter of the Greek vocabulary can be traced to Semitic origins (which for the most part means the Phoenicians), 40 to 50 percent seems to have been Indo-European, and a further 20 to 25 percent comes from Egyptian, as well as the names for most Greek gods and many place names. Thus 80 to 90 percent of the vocabulary is accounted for, as high a proportion as one can hope for in any language. 

Bernal argues that the Indo-European component of the Greek lexicon is relatively small. There is a low proportion of word roots with cognates in any other Indo-European language. Further, the semantic range in which the Indo-European roots appear in Greek is very much the same as that of Anglo-Saxon roots in English, another culture strongly influenced by invaders (in this case, the French-speaking Normans). These roots provide most pronouns and prepositions, most of the basic nouns and verbs of family, and many terms of subsistence agriculture. By contrast, the vocabulary of urban life, luxury, religion, administration, political life, commercial agriculture and abstraction is non-Indo-European. Bernal points out that such a pattern usually reflects a long-term situation in which speakers of the language which provides the words of higher culture control the users of the basic lexicon. For example, he claims that in Greek the words for chariot, sword, bow, march, armor, and battle are non-Indo-European. Bernal explains that river and mountain names are the toponyrns that tend to be the most persistent in any country. In England, for instance, most of these are Celtic, and some even seem to be pre-Indo-European. The presence of Egyptian or Semitic mountain names in ancient Greek would therefore indicate a very profound cultural penetration. Bernal presents many examples of these and notes that the insignificant number of Indo-European city names in Greece, and the fact that plausible Egyptian and Semitic derivations can be found for most city names, suggest an intensity of contact that cannot be explained in terms of trade. 

Bernal maintains that when all sources, such as legends, place names, religious cults, language and the distribution of linguistic and script dialects, are taken into account alongside archaeology, the ancient model, with some slight variations, is plausible today. He discusses equations between specific Greek and Egyptian divinities and rituals, and the general ancient belief that the Egyptian forms preceded the others, that the Egyptian religion was the original one. He says that this explains the revival of the purer Egyptian forms in the fifth century B.C. The classical and Hellenistic Greeks themselves maintained that their religion came from Egypt, and Herodotus even specified that the names of the gods were almost all Egyptian. 

Using linguistic, cultural, and written references, Bernal presents interesting evidence connecting the first foundation of Thebes directly or indirectly to eleventh-dynasty Egypt. He argues that both the city name Athenai and the divine name Athene or Athena derive from Egyptian, and offers evidence to substantiate this claim. He traces the name of Sparta to Egyptian sources, as well as detailing relationships between Spartan and Egyptian mythology. He says that much of the uniquely Spartan political vocabulary can be plausibly derived from late Egyptian and that early Spartan art has a strikingly Egyptian appearance. For Bernal, all these ideas link up with the Spartan kings' belief in their Heraklid - hence Egyptian or Hyksos - ancestry, and would therefore account for observations such as the building of a pyramid at Menelaion, the Spartan shrine, and the letter one of the last Spartan kings wrote to the high priest in Jerusalem, claiming kingship with him. 

Bernal claims that there has been a movement, led mainly by Jewish scholars, to eliminate anti-Semitism in the writing of ancient history, and to give the Phoenicians due credit for their central role in the formation of Greek culture. A return to the ancient model is less clear with regard to Egyptian influence. However, Bernal proposes that the weight of the Aryan model's own tradition and the effect of academic inertia have been weakened by startling evidence showing that the Bronze Age civilizations were much more advanced and cosmopolitan than was once thought, and that in general the ancient records are more reliable than more recent reconstructions. He believes the ancient model will be restored at some point in the early twenty-first century. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that even the current acknowledgment of the significance of Phoenician influence in the formation of ancient Greek culture indicates some of the ethnic mix that made up ancient Greece&quot;. (Pages 81 to 83, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation). 

There is one more item I would like to mention before I continue with Philip's story. Unlike the ancient Greeks who despised everything foreign, the ancient Macedonians on many occasions adopted other peoples' customs, religions and ideas in order to enrich their own. This was most prevalent and well documented during Alexander's exploits to the east. Wherever Alexander went he took with him craftsmen, philosophers, poets, physicians, etc. Wherever Alexander found people of skill and wisdom, whom he admired, he sent them back to Macedonia.


It is grossly misleading to state that the ancient Macedonians were just mere conquerors. 

From what the ancient authors (Diodorus Liculus) tell us, Philip was no ordinary man. When he was taken hostage to Thebes he was only thirteen years old and yet at that young age he was more interested in the affairs of the Theban government and military than playing with his peers.

At age fourteen, Philip studied the equipment and tactics of the Theban army including those of the elite Sacred Band. Becoming eighteen in 364 BC, he was given a force of Macedonians to command.

After Perdiccas's death, Philip was recalled to the Macedonian court where he was given the position of leader of the military. &quot;Philip knew the Macedonians as soldiers and they knew him, when they elected him not as king (that office having been given to Amyntas IV, the infant son of Perdiccas) but as guardian and deputy of the king as commander-in-chief.&quot; (Page 58,Nikolas G.L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

There is some disagreement between Hammond and Borza with regard to Philip's appointment. Borza (and others) believe that Philip may have been appointed king and not guardian to Amyntas.

In any case, it was Philip who took over the reign from Perdiccas and who prepared his army to defend his kingdom. With the Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and Athenians poised to invade no one would have predicted what was going to happen. But as Diodorus tells us, Philip dealt with all issues directly.

Philip's first act as ruler was to buy off the Paeonians and Thracians. To deal with the Athenians however, Philip had to learn to use his famous diplomatic charm.

Athens had a long-standing ambition to possess Amphipolis; her motives were made very clear. Reassuring that he would not interfere in her affairs, bought Philip some time to continue reorganizing his military and building his power.

After some success in his reorganization, Philip got the chance to test his troops in action. During the spring of 358BC the Paeonian king died and an opportunity to secure the northern frontier presented itself. A short campaign gave Philip a decisive victory and a secure northern frontier.

The invading Illyrians were next on his list as he approached them with a warning to vacate western Macedonia. Perched atop the western mountains of Lyncus, the fierce Illyrians were confident they could hold their own and ignored Philip's warnings. In fact they were so confident of a victory that they made Philip a counteroffer &quot;peace for status quo&quot;. Philip was not amused and a battle ensued. 

Equally matched, the Macedonians fought bravely and decimated the Illyrian army giving Philip another victory. &quot;The antagonists were equally matched, each side fielding about 10,000 foot, with the Macedonians maintaining a slight edge in cavalry, 600 to 500. More than 7,000 Illyrians lay dead on the field, according to our source, Diodorus.&quot; (Page 202, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Was this overwhelming victory a result of Philip's superior military training, his tactics or simply Illyrian overconfidence? In my estimation, at this point in time, it was a combination of all three. This victory against a feared opponent not only saved Macedonia but also gave Philip and his military the needed confidence to take on more formidable foes.

Philip wasted no time and began his reorganization the day he took over running his kingdom.

Despite what historians may claim, I believe Philip's main motivation for rebuilding his military was to create a formidable and lasting defense barrier around his kingdom. The Macedonia Philip inherited was surrounded by warlike, aggressive tribes who desired conflict. Philip's vision was to achieve peace through strong defense. To do that he had to subdue the aggressive elements all around his kingdom and ensure that they were kept down. There was also the matter of the greater powers who would not agree to a strong and large Macedonia and would challenge him just to safeguard their own interests and survival.

As problems presented themselves, Philip used his extraordinary talents to seek solutions.

To fight a mightier opponent, Philip had to invent better military strategies and superior weapons. To keep a lasting peace Philip needed a well-trained, professional and full time army. To keep his opponents down, he needed to crush their military abilities and to hinder them from rebuilding. All these factors were combined to produce the greatest military might the ancient world had even seen.

Up to Philip's time, soldiers were selected from the nobility and usually lived and trained at home only to be called to duty before battle. Philip, on the other hand, raised and rigorously trained a full time professional army. Additionally, Philip combined the use of infantry and cavalry in coordinated tactics in ways never before applied. In terms of weapons, Philip used his experience from Thebes to enhance his military techniques and created modern weapons for his army. The most effective weapon was the Macedonian Phalanx which employed sixteen to twenty foot spears or pikes known as Sarissas. The body of the pike was made of dogwood (Dren) while the tip was made of a foot long, sharp metal blade. The Phalanx was employed in a rectangular or oblique battle array of soldiers each holding a pike underhand tipped at an angle. The first row held the pikes parallel to the ground while succeeding rows elevated them slightly. The twenty-foot long sarissas extended five rows beyond the first row of soldiers making the Phalanx an impenetrable fortress of very sharp pikes. The front and rear rows of soldiers wore body armour and heavy shields while all inside rows wore no armour and carried only light shields.

Despite popular beliefs otherwise, it took Philip a long time to transform his army into an efficient fighting machine. Much time was needed to recruit men, develop the administration, build up finances, train soldiers and gain field experience before his army would be ready for serious engagements.

&quot;The new Macedonian army was marked by its great speed in movement, by versatility in tactics and weapons, and by the coordination of cavalry with infantry. Finally, there can be no doubt that unusual skills in personal and military leadership created, reflected, and depended upon excellence in the Macedonian army, as kings and men complemented one another&quot;. (Page 205, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Let's not forget the contributions of the Macedonian corps of engineers who designed the magnificent machines and built the siege engines that made Alexander famous.

Again I must emphasize that there is no evidence to indicate that Philip possessed consistent policies for empire building or plans for conquest beyond his own needs to secure his kingdom. Philip simply reacted to events as they unfolded and, judging from his actions, he preferred to use diplomacy over force. I believe it was Greek hatred and mistrust that gave Philip a bad wrap. &quot;...it was Philip's ill fortune to be opposed by the most skilled orator of his era, and most nineteenth- and twentieth-century classical scholarship, impressed by the power of Demosthenes's oratory, has seen Philip as a barbarian determined to end the liberty of Greek city-states.&quot; (Page 198, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

&quot;At this most critical moment of Macedonian history, Philip, who was then twenty-four, acted with astounding energy and skill. By brilliant feats of arms and by most subtle and cunning diplomatic skill, he promptly succeeded in removing perils from without and within, and was soon acclaimed king by the Macedonian army.

In the first year of his reign Philip has reached the height of his powers. His extraordinary capabilities as general, statesman and diplomat, which made possible this rapid and thorough salvation of the state, explain to us also the extraordinary success of his career. Yet the greatness of this man was not understood till the nineteenth century. Not merely was his fame obscured by the glittering achievements of his son Alexander. His memory has suffered from this disadvantage too: the greatest orator produced by Greece, Demosthenes, was his political opponent, passionately attacked him in his incomparable speeches, and, in the interest of his policy, presented to the Athenians a picture-distorted by hatred-of Philip 'the barbarian'. In the age of classicism especially, everyone was dazzled by the fine periods of Demosthenes, and accepting them literally, judged the life work of Philip purely from the Athenian standpoint-and that too from the standpoint of Demosthenes. This was accentuated by the political tendencies of the period. Barthold Georg Niebuhr had a passionate hatred for Philip, in whom, with his vivid conception of history, he saw a parallel to Napoleon, and before Austerlitz published a translation of the first Philippic of Demosthenes, to produce a political effect against the Gallus rebellis, as is shown by the motto he affixed to it. To reach a just estimate of Philip, historical science had first to be liberated from the Athenian-Demosthenic point of view. It is modern research alone that, following the lead of J. G. Droysen, has tended more and more to set out from the one correct point of view; the Macedonian King Philip must be judged by the standard of Macedonian interests only.

If we do this, Philip stands before us as one of the great rulers of the world's history, not only because he laid the foundations for the exploits of his still greater son Alexander, on which Alexander, in conformity with his own genius, erected a new world, but also as a man in himself of far-seeing aims and achievements&quot;. (Pages 27 to 29, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

The drive to secure his kingdom took Philip west to Orestis and Lyncus where he erected defensive barriers and created new frontiers which to this day mark the western borders of geographical Macedonia. To the south in 357 BC, Philip sought and secured the alliance of Epirus sealed in part by his marriage to Olympias, a very important figure in Macedonia's future and the Epirian Chieften's niece, and in part by taking Olympias's brother, Alexander into the Macedonian court. Being Philip's protégé, in the long term, Alexander proved himself a good ally to Macedonia.

Macedonia's neighbours to the north and to the south viewed all these good things that were happening in Macedonia with great suspicion.

What happened so far was only a prelude of things to come and the major battles for Philip were yet to be fought. 

To be continued...

And now I will leave you with this. 

In my mission to expand my understanding of the world I read John Chadwick's book &quot;The Decipherment of Linear B&quot; in hopes of learning a little more about the Minoan (Mycenaean) era.

I will get straight to the point. It appears that according to Chadwick, the Mycenaeans who lived in the region about 700 years before the ancient Greeks were also Greek.

Speaking about peoples' and place names, Chadwick claims that &quot;Many names of course are much harder to interpret as Greek, and some are certainly foreign; but the presence of an element foreign in origin, if not still in speech, does not contradict the positive evidence that Greeks were widely spread throughout society, and we feel sure that the Mycenaeans were at least predominantly Greek. The 700 years or so between the coming of Greeks and the Pylos tablets (Mycenaean inscriptions) are time enough to allow the pre-Hellenic inhabitants to have been absorbed.&quot; (Page 102-103, John, Chadwick, The Decipherment of Linear B, Second Edition, Cambridge 1970).

After reading the above quote, I had to really question what is meant by Greek?

As I read further I ran into this:

&quot;We know not only that the Mycenaeans were Greeks, but also what sort of Greek they spoke. They were not Dorians, nor apparently Aeolians; it is tempting to follow a widespread custom and call them Achaeans, the name Homer most often uses for the Greeks as a whole. The name Hellenes does not appear until after Homer, and Greek is of course only taken from the Roman name for the people of Greece&quot;. (Page 103-104, John, Chadwick, The Decipherment of Linear B, Second Edition, Cambridge 1970).

Are you as confused as I am?

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the term &quot;Greek&quot;. Without proper definition it could mean anything. From Chadwick's definition &quot;Greek&quot; practically encompasses everything that has existed before and after the rise and fall of the ancient &quot;Greeks&quot;.

I am really surprised to see such sloppiness and negligence in such scientifically important documents that pride themselves on precision.


By using Chadwick's analogy, I can claim that the aboriginal people of Ontario, Canada that lived in Ontario 1000 years ago were English because certain toponyms like Ottawa, Algonquin, Oshawa, Mississauga, Nottawasaga, Kanata, Ontario, etc., were found to exist in both cultures. I can also claim that the aboriginal people of Ontario have been absorbed and their descendents are now English even though I know for a fact that indigenous people exist to this day.

Unwilling to &quot;drop the subject&quot; or &quot;forget about it&quot;, I decided to consult the World Book Encyclopedia for clarifications on the definition of the term &quot;Greek&quot;. To my surprise, I found the exact same ambiguity there as well. Here is an excerpt:

Speaking about the ancients &quot;...the Greeks used many different dialects before writing was introduced. But the dialects never differed so much that the Greeks of one region could not understand those of another&quot;. (Page 400, G 8, The World Book Encyclopedia).

By this analogy I can claim that the Spanish, French, Italian and English people are one and the same because they are Europeans, speak dialects of the Latin language, use the Latin alphabet and the majority of them pray to the same God, etc., etc. Furthermore because the Romans, who introduced the Latin language and alphabet, were actually from Italy, makes the Spaniards, French and the English Italian.

Does anyone buy this?

I believe the definition of the term &quot;Greek&quot; the way it is applied to the ancient period and to the modern period requires a major overhaul.

References:

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. London: McFarland &amp; Company, Inc., Publishers, 1997.

Michael Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon. New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1990.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community.

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002.

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany. Toronto: Cythera Press, 1999.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna.

Nickolas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia. London: Sidwig and Jackson, 1991.

John Chadwick, The Decipherment of Linear B, Second Edition, Cambridge 1970.

Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great, New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Company 1967.

The World Book Encyclopedia, G 8


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>3fazkpyrgizhct00flgzzikx7b5hw1l</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Philip II - The Greatest of the Kings</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2062</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11077</id>
      <parentid>4974</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:19Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="51169" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 5 - Philip II - The Greatest of the Kings

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Philip II was born in Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia, in the year 382 BC and ruled Macedonia from 359 to 336 BC. Philip was the youngest son of King Amyntas III and Eurydice.

After the death of Amyntas III, Macedonia's stability began to decline as Alexander II and later Perdiccas III unsuccessfully fought to keep it intact.

The instability was triggered mainly by external attacks from the neighbouring Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks. The Thracians occupied parts of eastern Macedonia while the Illyrians were making their threats from beyond northwestern Macedonia. Thebes, the mightiest military power at that time, often interfered in Macedonia's affairs while the Greek colonies in Chalcidice posed obstacles to Macedonia's economic prosperity and were often a threat to Macedonia's security.

From what Diodorus Siculus tells us, while the Thebans held him hostage between 368 and 365 BC, Philip showed extraordinary interest in studying their military techniques and weapons. Philip was especially interested in understanding the fighting style of the Theban elite Sacred Band, which would become important to him later in his career while reforming his own military.

After Philip was released from Thebes, at his brother's (Perdiccas III) request, he immediately began to implement his reforms and reorganize the Macedonian military. 

Unfortunately, before Philip was finished he lost his brother. While fighting the Illyrians in northwestern Macedonia, Perdiccas III was mortally wounded and died in battle. Worse yet, during the same battle, the Macedonians suffered a demoralizing defeat losing about 4,000 soldiers, which constituted most of the Macedonian army.

Victorious, the Illyrians moved in and occupied northwestern Macedonia. Perched on the mountains of Lyncus they became a threat to the very existence of the Macedonian kingdom.

Appointed by the Macedonian army, after his brother's death, Philip ascended to the Macedonian throne in the most difficult times. His kingdom was virtually on the brink of collapse and his neighbours, hovering like vultures, were poised to put an end to his existence.

Besides the usual threats from outside, Macedonia was further weakened by internal strife. There were pretenders from inside who wanted to usurp the Macedonian throne for themselves. Some of them were encouraged and supported by foreign powers.


Despite tremendous pressure, the 21-year-old king was not discouraged and soon demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler but also as a skilful diplomat.

Soon after taking control of his kingdom he bribed the Thracian king with gifts and convinced him to execute the first Macedonian pretender who, at the time, was hiding in the Thracian court. The second pretender, supported by Athens, he defeated in battle. Careful not to upset the Athenians, he appeased them by signing a treaty ceding Amphipolis to them.

In a little more than a year he removed all internal threats and secured his kingdom by firmly establishing himself on the throne. 

Determined to free northwestern Macedonia, in 358 BC Philip put his improved army to the test and fought the Illyrians face to face in a fierce battle. Setting aside all fears from the previous battle, the mighty Macedonian army faced the legendary Illyrians and won an overwhelming victory. The Illyrians fled in panic leaving 7,000 dead behind, almost three-quarters of their entire army.

&quot;Without delay he (Philip) convened an assembly, raised the war-spirit of his men by suitable words, and led them into the territory held by the Illyrians, his army numbering not less than 10,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. Bardylis (the Illyrian chief) had not yet mustered the huge forces he had intended to lead into lower Macedonia. He therefore offered peace on the basis of the status quo. Philip replied that peace was acceptable only if Bardylis would evacuate his troops from all the Macedonian cities. This Bardylis was not prepared to do. Confident in the marvelous record and the numerous victories of his elite Illyrian troops, numbering 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, he advanced to engage in the open plain of Lyncus. The battle-cries of 20,000 voiced resounded from the hills.

Whether there was a preliminary cavalry engagement or not, Bardylis realized that he was outclassed in cavalry. In order to protect the flank and rear of his spearmen-phalanx from attacks by the enemy cavalry, he made his infantry form a hollow rectangle, of which the front facing the enemy was held by his best men and the other sides by less skilled troops, all facing outwards. The disadvantage of this formation was its immobility. The initiative lay now with Philip, who saw at once the merit of an attack on the enemy's leftmost front and left-hand side. He marched his phalanx forward at an oblique angle to the enemy's front, his right being advanced and his left retarded, and he massed his cavalry on his right. The king and the Royal Guardsmen were the leading infantrymen of the Macedonian right. As they approached the stationary Illyrians, they charged the enemy's left front with their massed pikes lowered (pikes never before seen by the Illyrians), smashed the corner of the square completely and let the cavalry in to attack the disrupted formation in flank and rear. The Illyrians broke and fled. The pursuit by the cavalry over the plain caused huge casualties: 7,000 out of 10,500. Bardylis sent envoys to sue for peace. Philip buried his dead on the battlefield in accordance with Macedonian custom, and made terms for peace, which included not only the recovery of all Macedonian cities but also the cession of territory up to the north-east shore of Lake Lychnitis. The peace with Bardylis was cemented by the marriage of Philip to an Illyrian princess, Audata&quot;. (Page 62, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle That Was Macedonia).

Northwestern Macedonia was now free, all the Upper Macedonia cantons, including Lyncestia, the birthplace of Philip's mother, were now firmly under Macedonian control and loyal to their liberator Philip II.

Philip was aware that with a small army of 10,000 he could not defend his kingdom, not even against the defeated Illyrian chief who had even more reserve troops at his disposal. To secure his kingdom and create a pool of new recruits, Philip convinced the chiefs of the smaller kingdoms to join him. To those who did he offered honourable positions in his court. 

With his western frontier secure, Philip moved on to the east to secure the Struma basin north of Chalcidice. His presence there alarmed the Greek colonies, especially Amphipolis, and sent them in panic complaining to Athens. But Athens, having problems of her own, was powerless to act and allowed Philip to conduct his operations unabated.

After unsuccessfully trying to secure an alliance by peaceful means, Philip amassed a larger army and attacked Amphipolis. By using his improved siege-train he was able to quickly break through the city's heavily fortified barriers. &quot;In 357, after breaking through the walls with his siege engines (Diod. 16.8.2), he took Amphipolis, thereby accomplishing in a few weeks what the Athenians failed to achieve in more than sixty years&quot;. (Page 213, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

As promised before the siege and true to his word, Philip after occupying her, gave Amphipolis independence under the supervision of Macedonian overseers.

During the same year (357 BC), Philip, in spite of Athenian opposition, acquired the city of Potidaea in Chalcidice. Turning northward Philip also conquered Pydna, a Greek colony on the Macedonian coast.

A couple of years later, Philip acquired the city of Methone, a long time Athenian base located near Pydna. Unfortunately, this particular victory was bittersweet as Philip, during the siege, lost his sight in one eye to an arrow. In the same year, the Macedonian army advanced eastward into Thracian territory and took the town of Crenides (located near modern day Drama) which its residents later renamed Philippi. 

Crenides was not just an ordinary outpost; it was also the processing headquarters for the hinterland and mountain gold mines, which Philip added to his Macedonian possessions.

Some of the revenues derived from gold mining were reinvested to drain the nearby marshlands making the region around Philppi a showcase for new development.

The Macedonian eastern frontier extending to the River Mesta was now secure.

Before I continue with Philip's exploits to the south, I want to digress for a moment and talk about Philip's many marriages.

The Macedonian tradition of securing alliances by marriage was practiced long before Philip's time. It was probably invented during the Stone Age to strengthen family ties.

According to Borza, the best source to explain Philip's complicated marriages is the biographer Satyrus. I doubt however, if Satyrus ever understood the true meaning of this tradition.

I also want to make it clear that ancient behaviour towards marriages has nothing to do with our modern perception and values of marriage.

Here is what Borza has to say:

&quot;He married Audata the Illyrian and had from her a daughter, Cynna. And then he married Phila, the sister of Derdas and Machatas. The, he wanted to appropriate the Thessalian people as well, on grounds of kinship, he fathered children by two Thessalian women, one from whom was Nikesipolis of Pherae, who bore him Thessalonike, and the other, Philinna of Larisa, by whom he fathered Arrhidaeus. Then he acquired the kingdom of Molossians as well, by marrying Olympias. From her he had Alexander and Cleopatra. And then, when he conquered Thrace, Cothelas, the King of the Thracians, came over to him bringing his daughter Meda and many gifts. Having married her too, he brought her into his household besides Olympias. Then, in addition to all these, he married Cleopatra, the sister of Hippostratus and niece of Attalus, having fallen in love with her. And when he brought her into his household beside Olympias, he threw his whole life into confusion. For immediately, during the actual wedding celebration, Attalus said, 'Now surely there will be born for us legitimate kings and not bastards.' Now Alexander, when he heard this, threw the cup, which he was holding in his hands, at Attalus; thereupon he too threw his goblet at Alexander. After this Olympias fled to the Molossians and Alexander to the Illyrians. And Cleopatra bore Philip the daughter named Europa.&quot; (Page 206-207, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

The following quote is a small part taken from the book &quot;The Daughter of Neoptolemus&quot; describing Olympias's wedding to Philip, masterfully conceptualized and dramatized by Michael A. Dimitry.


&quot;Guests were arriving from not only Epirus, but also Macedonia, lliyria, Paeonia, Thessaly, Athens, and Sparta. Polyxena and Sophia had nearly gone insane with preparations since Polyxena had resigned herself to being a priestess and thus had not prepared much of a trousseau. Troas, her elder sister, did as little as possible to help and merely went through the public actions which were required of a sister at this time. 

Because Arybbas also did as little as he could get away with since he liked neither Polyxena nor Philip, the Macedonians who had arrived began holding their own celebrations. Some of these customs seemed strange to Polyxena, but sweet in their intent. For Polyxena had been curious as to why Philip would go to such elaborate extremes since this was his fourth marriage, not his first. Sophia then explained that it was because Philip wanted his bride to know how special she was to him and that she would not be just another mistress. 'Philip,' Sophia said at each opportunity, 'loves you which is why he is paying attention to every custom and superstition no matter how silly. He wants to insure that your marriage is not cursed as the others but fruitful.'

Sophia was right. Besides, all were enjoying themselves.

The night before the wedding, for example, there was a lot of commotion in the hall outside of Polyxena's chamber. Sophia opened the door and welcomed a small band of dancers who apparently had arrived to entertain the bride. Sophia, little Alexander Amaxis, who had remained close to his sister's side since her return from Dodona, and the other servants began to laugh. When Polyxena looked more closely at the dancers, she realized why; they were men dressed as women! One elderly male/female played the flute as the others twirled and gyrated like maenads in a frenzy. When they had at last finished their dance, Sophia served them honey-cakes and wine before sending them on their way. 

When the Macedonians had gone, Sophia explained, 'It is an ancient custom. The purpose of the visit is to distract the bride's family so that the groom's side can steal something from the house. Perhaps this represents the groom stealing the bride from the father's house since the superstition decreed that if the raiding party were successful at stealing the object, the marriage would be successful too. If they fail, so does the marriage.' 

Everyone immediately looked around and with relief discovered that a small vase which had allegedly been passed down from Achilles by means of his son Neoptolemus through generations of Molossians was missing. 

'The marriage will be a success!' Sophia shouted and she along with the other women present offered repeated toasts to the bride. 

But the evening's festivities soon faded and Polyxena, left alone in her bed and rooms, stripped of her belongings which had been packed for her journey, could not rest. Something inside her would not let her rest and the short time she did sleep a nightmare tormented her. When Sophia and Troas arrived in the morning to help Polyxena get ready for the day's long awaited event, the bride was unwilling. 

'I cannot marry Philip,' she announced. 

Troas rolled her eyes but Sophia replied, 'Of course you can. Everything is ready. You have nothing to fear.' 

'No!' Polyxena snapped back crying into her pillow. 

Sophia ran over and grabbed Polyxena by the shoulders to turn her around. 'What is it? What is wrong?''

'She's a stupid, selfish girl,' interrupted Troas who had walked to the end of the bed. 'She only went through with the preparations to make fools of her uncle and me as well as our ancestors. Why, I've often said...'

But Sophia's stare stopped Troas's words in her throat. Sophia turned to face Polyxena again and began to wipe the tears off her young face. 

'I've had a dream,' Polyxena began, 'a warning. I will not offend the gods.' 

'What dream?' asked Sophia. 'Share it with us.'

'Yes, share it with us,' mocked Troas.

Looking deep into Sophia's warm eyes, Polyxena began, 'I was lying here, trying to rest when there was a loud clap of thunder and a flash of light.' 

'Too much wine,' Troas added.

'Will you shut up?' Sophia snapped back.

'I had very little wine last night. No, it was Him. The Oak-god I am to serve. He appeared in his youthful form as Dionysus, god of epiphanies, but in the same instant, he disappeared. There was silence for a moment, then another crash of thunder. Just then a lightning bolt struck my womb. There was a blinding flash and flames exploded in every direction. I was in the flames and yet not harmed by them. I felt the whole world burning because of me until it finally burned no more.'

Polyxena, Sophia, and Troas were all silent. 

'Don't you see?' Polyxena begged Sophia. If I marry Philip, I am ruined. Many will suffer.' 

'Especially Philip,' Troas quipped. 'You are a curse to your family, you will be a curse to your husband's, but you will marry and you will leave Passaron for good. You have no choice.' 

Polyxena began to cry. Sophia stood up and rushing over to Troas, grabbed her by the arm and pulled her out of the room. 

'Who's the queen here?' Troas protested as a timid warning. 'Who is the slave?' 

'I am a servant, but I am no more a slave than you are truly a queen,' Sophia shouted back as she slammed the door shut. 

Polyxena heard Sophia approach the bed again and felt her friend's arms go around her to offer her comfort. 'Ignore your sister,' Sophia said. 'She wants you out of Passaron because you and your brother are a threat to her rule. You'll avenge yourself someday.' 

'But what of my dream?' Polyxena asked. 

'It may well be from the gods, but it is not the kind of warning you believe. Dreams like lightning are sent by the gods and both have meaning. You said the bolt struck you in the womb and there lies its significance; you will become pregnant and your child, like its ancestor Achilles, will have a short but glorious life.' 

'How do you know this?' 

'Trust me. Now let's get you ready for your wedding. It's normal to have cold feet, but we can't let it keep you from going to your future husband.' 

Polyxena climbed out of bed and gradually followed Sophia through the motions of the day. 

First, after breakfast, Polyxena with Sophia and the other women of the palace, went to the household altar with her childhood possessions. One by one, Polyxena dropped her toys, clothing, and other belongings of youth into the fire and watched them burn. Last, she placed a doll that her father Neoptolemus had given her into the flames. 

'You are now no longer to be known as the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' the women said. 'You are now the wife of Philip of Macedonia.' 

After spending the rest of the afternoon greeting well-wishers in her chamber, it was time to get dressed. Sophia managed to get everyone else out of Polyxena's quarters and Polyxena, feeling the anticipation of seeing Philip overwhelm her, was grateful for Sophia's help. After bathing, Sophia brought out the wedding dress and veil that she had made herself for Polyxena out of a shiny, soft purple cloth that the bride had never seen before. As she put it on, Polyxena couldn't help but stop repeatedly to admire the beauty of the gold embroidery on it. Finally, Sophia attached the soft veil to Polyxena's hair. 

'We can't forget this,' Sophia said suddenly as she rushed to open a nearby package. 'This is from your future husband.' 

Polyxena watched as Sophia slowly pulled a crown made of gold beaten into the form of an oak-leaf garland from the package. Its leaves were so thin that Polyxena could see the light shining through them as Sophia placed it on her head. 

'Now do you believe you will live as Philip's queen?' Sophia asked. 

Polyxena smiled weakly.

'Now there is one more gift...' Sophia said as she pulled a plain, gold-chain necklace from her pocket. 'This was a gift from my mother to me. It was to be passed down again to my daughter on her wedding day. I am giving it to you because you are like my own flesh and blood.' 

Sophia began to cry and Polyxena joined her in an embrace of tears. After a few minutes, Sophia stepped back, and said, 'Well, it must be nearly time. I'd better go check if everything is ready.' 

Polyxena watched Sophia leave the room. She stood there alone in her nearly empty room. A melancholy sadness began to overcome her. What would happen when she left Passaron? What would life in Pella be like? Would Philip keep his promise not to make her just another mistress? And if he did keep his word, how could she possibly know how to be a good wife and 'queen' in a more sophisticated society like that in Macedonia? 

And what about the dream? Was she betraying the god for the weak mortal need of love? Would she be punished again? Would Sophia's prediction come true? Or Troas's? 

But, no. There is no turning back now. Polyxena knew that the treaty had already been signed and she, whether for love or alliance, was a part of the agreement. She would have to marry Philip. She would have to live in his house according to his customs and traditions. 'I am no longer the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' Polyxena told the room, 'I am the wife of Philip of Macedonia.' Still, she was glad that Sophia would be going to Pella with her. 

A knock at the door interrupted her thoughts. She opened it to find Arybbas standing there. Without saying a word, he hooked his arm under hers and led her down the hall and down the stairs into the banquet hall where the wedding was taking place. 

As she descended the steps with her uncle, for the first time in her life, Polyxena felt like a princess. She looked out over the hall with its garlands, ribbons, flowers, and other elaborate decorations and couldn't help but feel proud. She was a Molossian princess, a descendant of Achilles, the greatest warrior who had ever lived, a daughter of one of the most noble kings of Epirus, and now, the wife of the new leader of the Macedonians. When Polyxena came into view, all the guests stood up in honor of the bride. Loud cheers and applause broke out and rang through the hall as she took her seat next to Philip. 

Briefly as she approached her couch and turned to lie upon it, her eyes met Philip's. In the two years which she had not seen him, he had become even handsomer. His dark piercing eyes seemed a bit more recessed and he had been hardened by his recent wars and troubles at home. He had even grown a beard which made him look more dignified and serious. As she sat next to him she could feel the same excitement radiating from him as she had felt at Samothrace what seemed like an eternity ago. She wanted to touch him or to look at him as she had then but resisted so as not to disgrace her family in public at seeming anxious for this union for a lower reason. 

But the ceremony itself seemed to be taking place in a fog. Polyxena barely remembered the symbolic yoking of the couple with its ritual blessing by the priest, the cutting and sharing of the bread by she and her husband, the dancing, the food, the wine, or the endless jokes and toasts. As soon as each of these events occurred, it became a hazy memory due to her love for Philip. At last Philip stood up to end the evening. Offering his wish that this marriage would provide a fruitful union of their two nations as well as of their two families, Philip thanked everyone for coming to help him celebrate one of the happiest occasions of his life. Polyxena forgot to raise her glass to the toast when, at it conclusion, Philip turned toward her and winked. After Philip and his groomsman had departed to bring the wedding coach to the front of the palace, Arybbas again took his niece by the arm and led her gently through the crowd to the front doors of the palace. The procession was interrupted briefly by the crying of little Amaxis. Polyxena wanted to run to him, to hold him one more time before leaving, but she knew she could not. They had said their goodbyes earlier and she had promised to send for him as soon as she could. 

Polyxena thought briefly, as she walked by him, of her silly childhood wish to marry her Uncle Leonidas but as they reached the outside and Arybbas gave her hand to Philip, she forgot the past. 

Philip then led Polyxena down the stairs to the street and helped Polyxena into the coach. Philip then climbed in and as the couple waved goodbye to the crowd, Philip introduced Polyxena to his groomsman, Antipater. Without taking his eyes from her, Philip explained how Antipater had been a loyal page to Philip's father, Amyntas and later a general to Philip and his three brothers who preceded him as leader of the Macedonians. Antipater, Polyxena was told, was about fifteen years older that Philip and had been like a father to him since his own father's death. Antipater seemed to enjoy the role and had fulfilled it during the wedding by giving Philip his final shave before the celebration and had even sat in the place of honor that evening holding a tray for collecting gifts from well-wishers. 'Antipater even cried!' Philip exclaimed to Polyxena. All the while, however, she knew why he rattled on so about Antipater. Each had a number of questions for the other that they were asking with their eyes and the answer to the most important one was reciprocated over and over again: Yes, I still love you. 

The night was warm and there was a gentle breeze as the coach progressed through the streets to the guest-house Polyxena and Philip would consummate their marriage in. Molossians, Macedonians, and others lined the route to throw garlands and flowers in their path. 

Finally, as they reached the house and stopped in front of its doors, Antipater handed Polyxena down to Philip according to tradition, and Philip carried his new bride across the threshold to begin their new life together. After two lonely years, thought Polyxena, Philip had fulfilled his promise to take as his wife the Daughter of Neoptolemus.&quot; (Pages 42-50, Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus). If you wish to obtain the book, click on http://www.michaeladimitri.com/.

From the union of Philip and Polyxena (nicknamed Olympias by Philip), in 356 BC, was born Alexander who in a few short years would become king Alexander III.


Before I continue with Philip's story, I want to take you to Dura-Europos, to a time before the arrival of the Romans, to a place where only Macedonian soldiers ventured and dared to leave their mark. Unbelievable as it may sound, that mark buried for centuries and long forgotten has recently surfaced and speaks to us not in ancient Greek but in ancient Macedonian, the very same language that the modern Macedonians speak. The same language that the modern Greeks have tried so hard to extinguish. The very language that the modern Greeks claim does not exist.

How is it possible that Alexander's army spoke the same Macedonian language spoken today, when according to &quot;mainstream history&quot; the modern Macedonian language is the language of the Slavs, a people who did not arrive in the Balkans until after the 6th century AD?

You may believe what you like but you can't deny the evidence, which in spite of all denials, points to one truth which is that the modern Macedonians did not come from anywhere but rather have always been where they are today.

It is well documented that the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language, an unknown language that was NOT Greek.

We now know that the language of the ancient Macedonians is the same language the modern Macedonians speak today.

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[ XXXXV

The Spoof

This graffiti which appears clearly near the head of a soldier in a votary representation at Dura-Europos is a mocking spoof of the reverence shown in the solemn scene found on the north wall of the anticum in the temple of the Palmyrian gods.

Division and Alphabetization:

KON ON NI KOS TRATOJ

KON ON NI KOST RATOJ

Translation:

&quot;The horse, it did not waste its portion; the horse, it did not become bone.&quot;

Loose Translation:

&quot;The horse ate every morsel; therefore, the horse did not become skin and bones.&quot;

Explanation:

KON (KONJ) - &quot;horse&quot; -dialectal form of the literal KONJ - still very much in current use

ON - &quot;it&quot; - Since the reference is to KON which is masc., ON has to agree in gender.

NI - &quot;not, did not&quot; - still the same dialectally and literally

KOS - &quot;portion, share, piece&quot;

TRATOJ - &quot;waste, squander&quot; - very archaic - past tense, third prs., sing. form from TRATITI - &quot;to waste, to squander&quot;

KOST - &quot;bone&quot; - still exactly the same now - By underlining OST, the inscriber of the graffiti indicates that the second time KOST comes around it is not to be split up.

RATOJ - &quot;became&quot; - very dialectal third prs., sing., past tense form from RATATI - &quot;to become&quot;]

(Pages 77-78, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms)

It is most curious to be able to find evidence of Slav heritage in the ancient Macedonians, especially since we have all been brainwashed for so long to believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. 

Fortunately at last, there is &quot;evidence&quot; that proves that the ancient Macedonians were not only &quot;non-Greek&quot; but had a &quot;Slav&quot; heritage, which was passed on to the modern Macedonians of today. The so-called &quot;unknown&quot; language the ancient Macedonians spoke has now been identified and has many elements of the same language the modern Macedonians speak today!

Strange as this may sound it is &quot;natural&quot; and makes &quot;perfect sense&quot; that Macedonians live where they always lived, speak the same (but evolving) language they always spoke and share in the same traditions that the ancients practiced and enjoyed.

In spite of all evidence, ironically modern Greeks today still insist that the ancient Macedonians were 100% Greek and that the modern Macedonians are not at all (0%) related to them. What is even more ironic is that while denying the modern Macedonians their heritage, modern Greeks, proven to be of mixed races, are officially still claiming to be homogeneous and pure descendants of the ancient Greeks. Worse yet the Pontic Turks, forcibly relocated from Asia Minor to Macedonia in the early 1920's, are now claiming to be more Macedonian than the Macedonians they displaced. Bizarre as this may sound, the new generations of the transplanted people now fully Hellenized and poisoned by Greek propaganda are themselves claiming to be &quot;pure Hellenes&quot; and direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

And now back to Philip's story.

Early in his career Philip realized that in order to defend against ongoing aggression he needed a full time army. He built his army by making the military a way of life for the ordinary Macedonian. Soldiering became a professional occupation that paid well enough to make a living, year-round. Unlike before when soldiering was a part-time job, something that men would do during their free time, Philip's soldiers could be counted on at all times. The new Macedonian soldier was given the opportunity to develop team skills, unity, cohesion and trust in his peers, the kind of qualities a part time soldier would lack.

The Macedonian soldiers were not the only ones to benefit from Philip's reforms. A full time army required arms, shelter, food and clothing. To support it, a whole new industry had to be developed employing a variety of people and skills.

I also want to point out that we must not forger the general contribution of the Macedonian population who not only supplied their king with soldiers but also provided the labour to cultivate his lands and feed his army, build his roads, weapons, siege engines and ships. Philip would have been powerless without the support and loyalty of the Macedonian people.

With his army reorganized, full of confidence, and equipped with modern weapons, Philip turned his attention south. He first went to Thessaly where he won an easy victory and by 352 BC, was in firm control of a region extending as far south as the pass of Thermopylae. As part of the peace deal with the Thessalians, Philip married Nicesipolis, a local woman of prominence. Nicesipolis bore Philip a daughter whom he named Thessalonika to commemorate his victory over Thessaly.

With Thessaly on his side Philip was now staring down at the northern gate of Greece, which at the time, was well guarded by powerful Athenian, Spartan and Achaean forces.

With his southern frontier secured, Philip returned to Macedonia to take care of business closer to home. In 348 BC, he sent his Macedonian army to the Chalcidice peninsula and cleared out some of the Greek encroachments, starting with the city-state of Olynthus. Olynthus was the grand city of the northern Greeks, a symbol of Greek power that stood in Macedonia's way. Philip sacked Olynthus and sold its population into slavery, a practice which at that time was expected of Greeks but not of Macedonians. Like Methone before, Olynthus and some 31 other Chalcidician cities were cleared of intrusions and their lands were redistributed to the Macedonians. One of the cities sacked was Stageira, the birthplace of Aristotle.

When Philip was finished, he ended foreign encroachment and reclaimed the entire Chalcidice peninsula for his Macedonians.

Up until 348 BC, even though Philip controlled virtually everything north of the Lamian Gulf, he was never a real threat to the powerful Greeks in the south. He may have annexed Greek colonies, cut off access to some of the Greek markets but was never a threat to the Greek way of life or existence.

In 348 BC, however, things started to change. It began with Philip's intervention, on Thessaly's behalf, to free Delphi from rebel elements. Delphi was a religious center whose neutrality was guarded by the Amphictyonic League, an ancient and mainly religious association of central Greeks. When a rebellious splinter faction of the Amphictyonic League broke away and threatened the center's neutrality, Philip was called in to sort things out.

Philip was more than willing to oblige his Thessalian allies but at the same time he had to be cautious not to upset the Athenians and Thebans who opposed each other but also had vested interests in Delphi. At this stage, an Athenian-Theban alliance would have been catastrophic for Macedonia and had to be avoided at all costs.

Being already allied with Thebes, Philip considered a diplomatic move with Athens by offering the Athenians joint participation in removing the rebels. Unfortunately, the Athenians in Athens, being suspicious of Philip's motives, declined and among themselves proposed to take countermeasures to stop Philip from intervening altogether, even by force if necessary. Fortunately, before any damage was done, wisdom prevailed and the Athenians decided to talk to Philip before attacking him. Being a master of diplomacy, the wily Philip convinced his elder Athenians that he meant no harm and only wished to see this matter solved peacefully. To appease the Athenians he went a step further and personally offered guarantees of Athenian hegemony over several regions near Attica, something the Athenians had desired for a long time.

Philip's latest proposal was a success and gained full Athenian acceptance. It even gained support from Demosthenes, Philip's staunchest critic.

Unfortunately, what was viewed as fair by Athens was obviously viewed as unfair by Thebes and problems began to arise.

To get himself out of this, Philip turned to the Amphictyonic Council and asked the council members to disbar the rebel group by vote and replace it with the Macedonian king.

In a stroke of genius Philip evaded an impending war with Athens, ended the rebellion at Delphi, saved the Amphictyony, averted a war with Thebes, made an alliance with Athens and made himself a voting member of the Amphictyonic League. This indeed was a diplomatic victory, worthy of the Macedonian king

. 

Philip's antagonists unfortunately, viewed what was good for Macedonia with suspicion. This included the great Athenian orator, Demosthenes.

Demosthenes in 351 BC delivered his first Philippic, a series of speeches warning the Greeks about the Macedonian threat to their liberty. His second Philippic was delivered in 344 BC, his third in 341 BC and his three Olynthiacs in 349 BC, all directed to arouse Greece against Philip.

Demosthenes's most famous oration was the third Philippic which speaks of Philip as being &quot;not only not Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave&quot; (Third Philippic, 31). Words which echo the fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as &quot;dangerous neighbors&quot; but never as kinsmen.

Despite Demoshenes's castigation, peace held out, at least for now, and having an equal seat in the council of Greek power, Philip was free to return to Macedonia.

Most of 345 BC, Philip spent leading his army against the Illyrians, Dardanians, and the Thracians and generally quelling rebellions. In 344 BC the Thessalians rebelled but were put down swiftly. In 342 BC, Philip marched into Epirus and replaced King Arybbas with his young protégé and brother-in-law Alexander (Amaxis).

Sensing growing discontentment in the Athenians, Philip estimated that it would be a matter of time before war would break out between Macedonia and Athens, especially since Athens amended the Macedonian-Athenian peace agreement hoping it would be unacceptable to Philip.

Determined to attract Greek states to his side, Philip continued to make alliances with the smaller cities. He was determined to attract the cities that were hostile to the more powerful states in hopes of dividing and weakening the Greeks.

By 340 BC, a point of no return was reached with Athens when Philip could no longer accommodate Athenian demands to sustain the peace treaty, especially after Athens sponsored anti-Macedonian uprisings in the northern Aegean.

In retaliation for this latest Athenian treachery, in 340 BC while campaigning against internal rebellions in the east, Philip captured the Athenian grain fleet. This was the last straw for Athens and under the personal leadership of Demosthenes the Athenians persuaded the Thebans to jointly declare war on Macedonia. The weaker states, having little choice in the matter, also joined the declaration. What Philip tried to avoid at all costs was now unavoidable. 

Before Philip could accommodate the Greeks to the south, he had some unfinished business to take care of in the north. He quickly assembled a large army and marched deep into Thracian territory and by 339 BC, conquered most of Thrace. Unfortunately, he was unable to subdue the eastern coastal cities of Byzantium and Perinthus, which withstood even his most severe sieges. It was certain that neither city would have survived had it not been for the assistance received from the Greeks and Persians. Ironically, even though Persia, for more than a century, had been the most hated nation in Greece, still the Greeks sided with the Persians against the Macedonians.

Responding to a Scythian challenge Philip abandoned the eastern city sieges and, in the spring of 339 BC, led his Macedonians beyond Thrace. There, near the Danube River, he clashed with the Scythians and won a stunning victory crowned only by the death of Areas, the Scythian king.

Unfortunately, on his return trip home Philip's convoy was attacked and his booty was lost to Thracian Triballians. During the skirmish, Philip suffered a severe leg injury, which left him lame for life. After returning home he spent several months recovering.

While Philip was recovering, the Greeks to the south were making alliances and amassing a great army to invade Macedonia.

On hearing this, Philip decided it was time to meet the Greek aggression head on and end this treachery once and for all.

On August 2nd, 338 BC, in the shallow Cephisus River valley near the village of Chaeronea on the road to Thebes, the two opposing armies met face to face.

On the north side stood Philip's Macedonians with 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest Macedonian army ever assembled. Among Philip's commanding generals was his 18 year-old son, Alexander, in charge of the cavalry.

On the south side, stood the united Athenians, Thebans, and the Achaeans who assembled 35,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest army ever assembled since the Persian invasion.

Closely matched, the armies clashed and while the battle ensued the Macedonian right flank fell back and began to retreat. Seeing the Macedonians weakening, the Greek general gave orders to push on and drive the Macedonians back to Macedonia. As the Macedonians retreated, the Greek flanks broke rank and began the pursuit. Not realizing it was a trick, the Greeks found themselves surrounded and slaughtered by Alexander's cavalry.

When it was over, the majority of the Greek army, including the elite Theban Sacred Band lay dead in the fields of Chaeronea.


Philip erected a statue of a lion to commemorate the sacrifice of the Theban Sacred Band who upheld their tradition and fought to the last man.

Ancient Greek and Roman historians consider the battle of Chaeronea as the end of Greek liberty, history and civilization.

Victorious, soon after the battle, Philip proceeded to secure his newest conquests by strategically placing Macedonian garrisons in Thebes, Chalcis, Ambracia, Corinth and the Peloponnesus. He then summoned the representatives of all Greek states to a grand peace conference at Corinth where he made peace with each one of them. Sparta was the only one that abstained. Being no threat to him, Philip decided to leave Sparta alone.

Philip organized the Greek City States into an alliance known as the &quot;League of Corinth&quot;. It was an alliance among the Greeks and an alliance between the Greeks and the king of Macedonia. The league formed a separate alliance with Macedonia, but Macedonia itself was not a member of the Greek league. This was an alliance that treated all nations great and small as equals. Conversely, the lesser states looked up to Macedonia, as a great power, to guarantee their rights and existence among the greater states.

Living in peace with his neighbours is what Philip had envisioned ten years earlier. It could have been achieved through diplomacy. Even at this stage I believe Philip wanted to secure his kingdom by peaceful means and only resorted to war when all other means were exhausted. If there is any blame to be placed, it should be placed on the Athenians for their suspicions and mistrust.

Having secured peace with the Greeks, Philip was now looking at neutralizing the next major threat, Persia. The idea of subduing Persia appealed to some but not all Greeks. Those who favoured the idea, especially those who belonged to the League of Corinth, elected Philip as the commander-in-chief of the Asian expeditionary force. Those who opposed the idea, especially the Greek military and its commanders who were now out of work, made their way to Persia to swell the ranks of the Persian mercenary and fight for pay against the Macedonians.

According to the Roman historian Curtius, by the time the Macedonian army set foot in Asia, a force of 50,000 Greeks had joined the Persian king's army and lay in wait to face the Macedonians.

Philip, being more or less satisfied with the conclusion of Greek affairs, returned home to prepare for the Asian campaign. 

It has been said that if Philip ever made a mistake, it was in &quot;marrying for love&quot;, a rare luxury for any monarch let alone one that had been married not once but six times before. The woman of his desire was Cleopatra, a Macedonian girl of nobility.

Blinded by his love for young Cleopatra, Philip neglected to see that his marriage to her would lead to his break up with Olympias and the estrangement of his son Alexander. Olympias was a proud woman and very protective of her son. Philip's marriage to a younger woman and a Macedonian at that, made her feel both unwanted and an outsider in her own home. To her, Philip's latest marriage was a dishonour to her reputation as a wife and a threat to her son's legitimacy as heir to the Macedonian throne.

Not knowing what else to do, Olympias and Alexander left for Epirus. Immediately after taking his mother home, Alexander left Epirus and went to the Illyrians. From there he negotiated his way back to Pella where his father forgave him for his misdeeds.


Unfortunately for Olympias, Philip's marriage to Cleopatra lasted longer than expected and she bore him a child. 

During the following spring (336 BC), in preparation for the Persian offensive, Philip decided to send ahead an advance force. Commanded by generals Attalus and Parmenio, 10,000 Macedonian soldiers were prepared and sent across to Asia Minor to pave the way for the next spring's offensive.

While the soldiers were making their way across the Hellespont, the Macedonians in Aegae were preparing for a grand celebration. Philip's daughter Cleopatra was about to be wed to Prince Alexander (Amaxis) of Epirus. It was indeed going to be a lavish festival with much entertainment and games. Philip had invited various guests from all over his kingdom to partake in the activities and witness the marriage of his daughter. Also among the invited was Olympias. Being the sister of the groom, Olympias was obliged to attend. At first, she was apprehensive, but after being assured that Philip would welcome her, she accepted the invitation. True to his word, Philip was courteous and made up with her the same day she arrived.

It has been said that after the first day's activities, Philip visited with Olympias and among other things discussed Olympias's concern about Alexander's chances for the throne. Philip promised her that she had nothing to fear and reassured her that Alexander was his first choice to replace him, when the time came.

The first day's activities concluded without incident, but disaster struck on the second day. During a procession in the theater at Aegae while standing between his son Alexander and his new son-in-law Alexander, a member of the royal guard named Pausanias, struck and killed Philip with a dagger thrust. Pausanias ran to escape, towards some waiting horses, but tripped and fell down. His pursuers caught up to him and speared him to death.

The &quot;Greatest of the Kings of Europe&quot; who liberated Macedonia from foreign occupation, brought her back from the edge of extinction and made her into a world power, now lay dead in his own palace, killed by his own body guard. 

Philip II King of Macedonia from 360 BC to 336 BC died a senseless death and was succeeded by his son Alexander.

Many historians have laboured looking for reasons to explain why Philip was murdered. Was it a foreign plot? A conspiracy premeditated by his son Alexander? Was it an act of rage by a demented soldier? Or was it Olympias's revenge for embarrassing her by marrying Cleopatra? I guess we will never know for sure.

Philip's plans for Persia now lay in the hands of his successor. He did whatever he could to make Macedonia great but even he couldn't have imagined how great she would become.

To be continued...

And now I will leave you with this:

Modern Greece has once again shown that &quot;the more things change, the more they remain the same&quot;.

Greece in July 2003 sent a letter of protest to the United States of America, protesting the use of the word &quot;Macedonia&quot;. The United States and the Republic of Macedonia recently signed an agreement where the Republic of Macedonia is to provide U.S. citizens immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court under Article 98. 

Yet again, Greece has shown her true feelings for her neighbour Macedonia and contempt for the Macedonian people. 

What is most disturbing about this is not that the Greeks are upset, but why they are upset?

Why are the Greeks so upset over such a minor and unimportant issue that doesn't even concern them?

It is obvious why the word &quot;Macedonia&quot; is of vital importance to the Macedonians. It identifies their place of origin and defines who they are! Without &quot;Macedonia&quot; the Macedonians have no home, no history and no place to call their own. Without Macedonia they might as well be extinct.

What's not so obvious is why the name &quot;Macedonia&quot; is so important to the Greeks? The Greeks already have their own country and a name, with which they identify and defines who they are!

So why are the Greeks so eager to take &quot;Macedonia&quot; and push the Macedonians into extinction?

The name &quot;Macedonia&quot; is important to the Greeks for two significant reasons:

1. By claiming the name &quot;Macedonia&quot; exclusively for themselves, Greeks falsely believe that they have the right to the Macedonian territory they forcibly occupied in 1912-1913.
2. 
3. By claiming that &quot;Macedonia is Greek&quot; on historical grounds, i.e. ancient Macedonia belonged to the ancient Greeks; modern Greeks falsely believe they can lay claim to Macedonia's ancient heritage. 
4. 
In reality, it is well known that Greece never existed as a sovereign state prior to 1829 AD. The so-called ancient &quot;City-States&quot; were a patchwork of states with different governments, languages and cultures and were never consolidated as a single state. Also, the modern Greeks are not the same people as the ancient Greeks. Despite Greek denials, modern Greece is a multinational state made up of various nationalities, just like any other Balkan State. 

As for Macedonia, any reputable historian who can't be threatened or bought off by the Greeks, will tell you that ancient Macedonia was a single state governed by a central monarchy and was never considered to be Greek, not even by the ancient Greeks themselves. Furthermore, Macedonia &quot;conquered&quot; the Greeks in 338 BC, not the other way around. Ancient Macedonia was never Greek and neither was modern Macedonia (not until 1912-1913 when she was forcibly invaded and partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria).

Ancient Greece, on the other hand, was a Macedonian province from 338 BC until Rome invaded Macedonia some two and a half centuries later. 

If the Greeks have reached a stage of desperation to challenge the USA over the &quot;name issue&quot;, imagine what they are capable of doing to lesser nations or people who get in their way!

There is enough room for all of us to live peacefully in the Balkans and it will take brave leadership to make that happen. Until it does, however, the Macedonian people will continue to be victims of Greek aggression, arrogance, stupidity and greed.

References:

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press 1999. 

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2000.

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Alexandra Publishing, 1993.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Nickolas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia, London: Sidwig and Jackson, 1991.

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. McFarland

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>eetfk8siodcdlfguzwpaizr365rlfcp</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - The Greatest of the Great Conquerors</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2063</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11078</id>
      <parentid>4975</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:25Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="56828" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 6 - Alexander III - The Greatest of the Great Conquerors

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Alexander, son of Philip II and Polyxena (Olympias) was born in Pella on July 22nd, 356 BC. Alexander's father Philip was the son of the Macedonian king Amyntas III and of Eurydice, an Illyrian princess. His mother Polyxena, or Olympias as she became known in Macedonia, was the daughter of the Molossian king Neoptolemus.

Alexander was born into a dynamic world where violence was a way of life. He enjoyed war stories told around the palace and no doubt relished in his father's victories. Philip was very fond of his son and spent a great deal of time giving him affection and telling him stories. 

Alexander's earliest education was entrusted to Leonidas, a relative of Olympias. But as Leonidas found out, Alexander was no ordinary student and his defiance could not be influenced by the usual methods. So in 343 BC, when Alexander was thirteen, Philip summoned Aristotle to tutor him. Aristotle, at the time, was not the famous man we know today but simply a teacher with a good reputation. Philip chose him on the recommendation of others.

Aristotle was born in Stagira (a city in Chalcidice, conquered by Philip) and was the son of Nicomachus (once physician to Amyntas III). At age 40 (or more), Aristotle left his newly opened school in Mylitine, Lesbos and went to Pella where he was given residence in the quiet little village of Mieza. There, near the sanctuary of the Nymphs, away from the hustle and bustle and constant disruptions of Pella, Aristotle spent the next three years, educating Alexander along with a few other children. One of those children was Hephastion, whom Alexander befriended for life.

Aristotle, in addition to teaching Alexander of life's wonders, inspired in him a passionate love for culture and intellect that profoundly affected his life and the way he viewed the world. But it was Homer's books that inspired Alexander the most. The Iliad, the best book ever written, and his two heroes Heracles and Achilles where the driving forces that championed Alexander's desires for conquest and seeking the unknown.

In addition to teaching him how to be king, Aristotle also inspired in Alexander a keen interest in the natural sciences. 

In 340 BC at age sixteen, while his father Philip campaigned against Byzantium, Alexander was made regent of Pella. It was then that Alexander got a taste of what it was like to be in command, especially to command a battle and put down a rebellion. It was an insignificant rebellion instigated by the Thracian Maidoi but none-the-less it was a joy for the young prince to command. After defeating the enemy, Alexander took the town, resettled it with Macedonians and renamed it Alexandropolis after himself. This would be the first in a line of many cities to be named after the young conqueror.

Two years later in 338 BC, at age eighteen, Alexander had gained his father's confidence to be given command of the Macedonian cavalry during the most important battle of Philip's career. This was a pivotal battle that not only thrashed the allied Greeks but also ushered in a new age of warfare. Eighteen years old, Alexander was part of it in every respect.

Unfortunately, on that dreaded day in 337 BC when Philip decided to marry Cleopatra, the niece of general Attalus, Alexander's pleasant relation with his father came to an abrupt end. Some say that at the marriage feast Alexander exchanged bitter words with Attalus and then caused a scene with his own father. Be it as it may, Alexander's feelings were badly hurt.

Feeling let down by his own father, Alexander, along with his mother, left Macedonia for Epirus. After taking his mother home Alexander left and went to live with the Illyrians, with a Macedonian client king. There, through the work of a mediator, he reconciled his differences with his father and soon after returned home to Pella.

Even though his father forgave him, Alexander still felt insecure and his insecurity surfaced when Philip offered the marriage of the daughter of a Carian ruler to his illegitimate son Arrhidaeus, instead of to Alexander. The Carian ruler happened to be a vassal to the Great King of Persia. Philip felt it was unsuitable for his son Alexander, heir to the Macedonian throne, to marry the daughter of a Persian vassal.

Alexander, feeling insecure, unfortunately did not believe his father and listened to some bad advice given to him by his friends. Ignoring his father, Alexander secretly offered himself as the son-in-law to the Carian ruler. When Philip found out, one would expect him to be furious but he wasn't. He consoled his son and explained to him his real motives behind the marriage, then pardoned him for his misdeeds.

As for Alexander's advisors Nearchus, Harpalus and Ptolemy, they did not get off that easily. For their misdeeds and bad advice to the prince, Philip had them exiled from the Pelan court. 

The next year in mid-summer 336 BC, Alexander's life was changed forever as tragedy struck and his father was assassinated. The incident took place in the theater of Aegae at the worst possible time for Alexander's sister Cleopatra. Expecting to be away on the Asian campaign, Philip took the opportunity to marry off his daughter Cleopatra to his protégé Alexander, king of Molossia. No one expected that during the procession, the crazed bodyguard Pausanius would lunge at Philip and stab him to death right in the middle of Cleopatra's wedding.

Fortunately for Alexander, Philip and Olympias had resolved their differences and Olympias was back in the Macedonian court at Philip's side when it happened so Alexander had his mother's support when he needed it the most.

Philip was forty-six years old, at the height of his power and fortune, when his life was taken. There were many rumors as to why he was assassinated but none were proven since his killer was also slain before he was interrogated. It was now up to Alexander to set things right.

When a king or head of state is assassinated, the state and its foreign relations are shaken to the very foundation. Macedonia, after Philip's death, was no exception. The question on everyone's mind, especially his enemies, was who would succeed him?

In Philip's case a group of Macedonian soldiers and ex-soldiers loyal to the king, mostly from the near vicinity, were quickly assembled in Aegae. Without hesitation they chose Alexander as Philip's successor, the new king to lead them. The following day, one by one, his soldiers took an oath of loyalty as was required by Macedonian custom.

Alexander chose his own bodyguards and was given his personal Royal Infantry Guard. His first task as king was to investigate his father's murder.

The fact that there were horses involved for Pausanius's getaway suggests that Philip's murder was premeditated and accomplices were involved. But who would have had the audacity to murder a powerful king and at his daughter's wedding at that? That, we will never know for sure! What is important, however, is to examine how Alexander used this tragedy to secure his own position in the Macedonian kingdom and rid himself of some undesirable elements.

For killing Pausanius before he could be interrogated, Alexander placed blame on the bodyguards and had them executed. For Pausanius's act as a traitor, his three sons were also executed. Many of the people present in the theater that day were suspects and found guilty of conspiring to murder both father and son. Of those found guilty, Alexander pardoned few while most he condemned to death. Later that same year new evidence came to light and general Attalus became a suspect. It was Alexander's belief that Attalus had something to do with Demosthenes's secret communication conspiring to prevent Alexander from becoming heir to the Macedonian throne. Alexander dispatched an officer to Asia to arrest Attalus or kill him if he resisted. As I mentioned earlier, Attalus along with Parmenio were leading an expeditionary force into Asia. As expected, Attalus resisted and was killed.

After his death an assembly of soldiers tried and found him guilty of treason and, in accordance with Macedonian custom, his relations were condemned to death. Among his relatives were his niece Cleopatra and Philip's newborn infant. 

Over the course of the winter, Amyntas, son of Perdiccas III, was also found guilty and condemned to death. In fact, before contemplating crossing into Asia Alexander had killed all the male members of his family who could potentially threaten his position.

The news of Philip's murder attracted the attention of the whole world, especially the Greeks who rejoiced in knowing that he was gone. Alexander was quick to let them know that he expected from them the same loyalty as they had for his father. He reminded the Greeks that the treaty of the League of Corinth was perpetual and gave him a legal claim to be Hegemon, same as his father. But Alexander's words did not phase the Greeks in the least, for in Athens they were dancing in the streets with joy. Demosthenes, intoxicated with the prospect of liberty, appeared in council dressed in white with a wreath on his head making offerings to the gods for the joyful news. The call to freedom from Athens spread like wildfire to the rest of the Greeks. The Aetolians recalled all those exiled by Philip, the Ambraciots expelled the Macedonian garrison, the Thebans took up arms to liberate Cadmeia and there were signs of rebellions in Peloponnese, Argos, Elis and Arcadia.

When news was received that Alexander was to take Philip's place, Demosthenes became enraged, immediately sending a secret communication begging Parmenio and Attalus to intervene.

Fortunately, Attalus and Parmenio were loyal to their new king and allowed Alexander to be seated on the throne without interruption. So in the end, like his father before him, Alexander became Demosthenes's mortal foe and worst nightmare.

Failing to enlist help from Macedonians inside Alexander's circle, Demosthenes entered into strange relations with the Persian King and continued to work against Macedonia. 

The revolts after Philip's death were not exclusive to the Greeks. Reports were also coming in from the north with claims that were disturbances and rebellions there too.

On hearing this Alexander moved quickly, put a strong force together and with lightning speed descended upon his enemies. The Greeks were first on his agenda to subdue as he force- marched his army in a surprise visit to Thessaly. Upon seeing Alexander, the Thessalians not only submitted but they showed an eager willingness to recognize him as their Hegemon. They even offered to help him punish Athens and the other Greeks for their misdeeds. 

After subduing Thessaly, Alexander pushed southward overrunning all who stood in his way, including Thermopylae. After quelling Thermopylae, he summoned a meeting with the Amphictyonic Council who, without hesitation, also gave him recognition as Hegemon. He then quietly slipped out, marched to Boeotia and set up camp near Cadmeia. His sudden appearance in Thebes frightened the wits out of the Thebans and sent shock waves of chilling terror to Athens, especially after delivering an ultimatum demanding to be recognized as Hegemon or prepare for war. The Athenians, expecting the worst, were prepared for war but were relieved by the alternative. Through their ambassadors they asked for pardon for not having his hegemony recognized sooner.

At the conclusion of his campaign, Alexander summoned all members of the League of Corinth for a meeting. Here he asked the Greeks to give him recognition as Hegemon of the League in accordance with the agreement made with Philip. The Spartans, whose response was, &quot;It was their custom to follow themselves and not others who wish to lead them.&quot; did not attend.

When his business with the Greeks was finished, Alexander turned his attention to the troublemakers in the north. First on his list were the Thracian Triballian tribe, living between the Balkans and the Danube, who Philip fought but did not subjugate. This was Alexander's first campaign carried out without the tactical brilliance of general Parmenio or the trusted help of friend and advisor general Antipater. The success of this particular campaign has to be attributed singularly to Alexander's own genius.

Before setting off to meet the Triballians, Alexander sent his war ships from Byzantium via the Black Sea into the Danube and ordered them to sail upriver and hold their position at a pre-designated location.

In the spring of 335 BC, Alexander marched his army northward until he found the Thracians. The Thracians had occupied the Shipka Pass and had secured their position atop a hill behind a fort made of wagons. Perched on top of this hill they waited until Alexander's army attempted the climb. Before they reached the top the Thracians released a barrage of wagons hoping to run the Macedonians down. Alexander, however, anticipated their plan and ordered his men at the top to form columns with alleys for the wagons to hurtle down and the men further down the hill to lie down in close formation with their shields over their heads.

As the wagons hurtled downhill, they were guided into the alleys by the formation and as they gained momentum, the wagons rode over a roof of shields without doing any damage to the men. With superb discipline exercised, not a single man was lost.

Alexander stormed the Shipka Pass and descended upon the northern plains in pursuit of the Triballian king who sought refuge on an island in the Danube. The Triballian army, which withdrew southwards, suffered an annihilating defeat.

Three days later, when Alexander reached the Danube, he found his fleet waiting. He ordered his ships to pursue the Triballian king but the banks of the island were so steep that they couldn't land.

Although frustrated, Alexander was not about to give up and came up with a new plan, which at the time may have seemed irrational to his officers but they gave him their support anyway. Alexander's plan was to &quot;frighten the king into submission&quot;. He figured that by a surprising demonstration of force he would break the enemy's inclination to resist him. The idea was to cross the Danube undetected and force the Getae, who lived on the opposite bank, into flight and by this demonstration, startle the king to surrender. An irrational plan indeed!

Having earned the loyalty and trust of his Macedonians, they did as he ordered and made silent preparations to cross the river. They collected as many local fishing boats as they could find, filled their canvas tents with hay and under the cloak of darkness put as many troops as possible across the river. Before dawn 1,500 cavalry and 4,000 infantry were on the opposite side of the bank. Before they could be seen the troops hid in the cornfields, which masked their approach. Then, like wild animals, the cavalry burst out and charged the Getae who were encamped in front of their town. Completely surprised, the Getae, far superior in numbers, rushed back into town, grabbed their wives and children and ran north to safety in the steppes. The town was taken and not a single man was lost.

Alexander's bluff not only worked with the Triballian king who made his submission to Alexander but, when word spread, neighbouring tribes send their envoys to pay Alexander homage. Even the Celts, who had ventured eastward from the Adriatic, asked Alexander for his friendship.

When his northern campaign was over, Alexander was preparing to return home when he received news of an Illyrian revolt.

Alexander marched his army at great speed to western Macedonia and, just beyond his frontier, found a very large Dardanian army assembled and waiting. A battle ensued and the Illyrians were driven back into a fortified town. Alexander set camp for the night intending to besiege the town the next day. Unfortunately, by morning another enemy army had arrived. A large Taulantian army had joined the Dardanians and cut off Alexander's retreat and supply line. The Macedonian army of some 25,000 men and 5,000 horses were quickly running out of supplies. Alexander had to do something and soon, but what? He was completely surrounded. Leave it to Alexander to come up with another uncanny plan. He ordered his men to put on a show. Ignoring the enemy, he ordered his phalanx into formation to quietly march back and forth as he motioned their maneuvers with his arm. The show attracted onlookers around his camp who not only were surprised but mesmerized by this action.

When the time was right, Alexander motioned and the soldiers, in unison, slapped their shields hard with their javelins. The sudden thundering roar, after the mesmerizing silence, startled the enemy causing some of the horses to bolt in fright. At lightening speed Alexander's best cavalry, supported by his archers, bolted through the pass, making an opening for the army to escape through. The army, with catapult, archers and cavalry support, then punched a hole right through the middle of the enemy forces and landed on home territory in the meadows around Lake Little Prespa. Not a single man was lost.

Three days later in a surprise attack at night Alexander led an assault force through the pass and inflicted a decisive defeat on his enemy. As the enemy bolted, the Macedonian cavalry pursued, chasing them for over one hundred kilometers, instilling fear and causing them severe damage. Both kings submitted to Alexander's will and instead of being punished for their misdeeds they were made client-kings with thrones of their own.

No sooner were the Illyrian revolts put down than Alexander received news of a dangerous uprising in Greece requiring his immediate intervention. It appears that the Thebans were in revolt and had killed Macedonian officers stationed in a local garrison.

Alexander quickly assembled his army and set out on a fast paced march, living off the land as he traversed south through the mountainous terrain. After crossing the Pass of Thermopylae he headed for Thebes. Alexander arrived just in time to prevent his garrison from being attacked so no serious damage was done. But to his surprise, it was not just Thebes that was causing trouble. Athens too had become involved when she entered into an alliance with Thebes and sent arms and her citizen army to support the Theban rebellion. Encouraged by Demosthenes and supported by Persian gold, other Greeks also joined the rebellion.

The whole thing was started by rumors, no doubt spread by Demoshenes himself, claiming that Alexander had been killed and his army defeated in Illyria. 

But when Alexander arrived alive and well with an intact Macedonian army a chill must have run down their spines. Being the rightful Hegemon of the Greek League, Alexander asserted his rights and demanded that the rebels disband. In the presence of Alexander, some of the Greek armies obeyed and turned away. Some, like Athens, remained stationary and made no attempt to engage him. The Thebans decided to break away and fight, hoping that an engagement would draw others into the war. They relied mostly on their own forces and the strong fortifications of their city to defend them.

After hearing rumors of his supposed death, Alexander endeavoured to give the rebels a chance to end the impasse peacefully and gave them three days to surrender. Unfortunately, instead of submitting peacefully their cavalry charged his outposts.

The next day Alexander marched his army all around the city and stopped in front of the south gate. Angered by the reply of the previous day, Alexander ordered an attack. In no time the Theban defenses were breached and the Macedonian and League armies penetrated the city. The Thebans fought fiercely but were no match for the well trained, battle experienced Macedonian army. The battle turned tragically when League soldiers turned on the general population massacring everyone in sight.

After sacking it, Alexander left the final fate of Thebes to the League to decide. Those in the League who for many generations suffered under the supremacy of Thebes finally found an outlet to vent their anger. Without hesitation they found Thebes guilty of treason for their current misdeeds as well as those in the past. In a resolution backed by the entire League Alexander ordered the city to be leveled to the ground. Women and children were sold into slavery.

Alexander allowed the resolution to pass so that an example could be made to remind the rest that this kind of behavior would no longer be tolerated. As for the Athenians, the real instigators of the rebellions, Alexander left them unpunished. Alexander was careful not to drive them further into the Persian King's arms. But, as fate would have it, those who were unhappy with the League's resolution left for Persia anyway.

After restoring peace in Greece, Alexander and his army returned to Macedonia. By the time he arrived it was already October (335 BC) and still much preparation was needed before he could depart for the Asian spring offensive. Alexander also needed time to secure the route to Asia and strengthen Macedonia's defenses. Being mistrustful of the Greeks, Alexander in his absence left Antipater, a competent soldier, a man of strong character and a trustworthy friend, in charge as regent of Macedonia. He gave Antipater special powers to represent him as deputy-Hegemon of the League of Corinth. To keep the peace, Antipater was given 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry from Alexander's best Macedonian troops. 

During the winter of 335 BC, Alexander convened a meeting with his officers and advisors and discussed his plans and general strategy regarding the Asian campaign. In addition to his own troops, who formed the core of his army, it was decided that Alexander would appeal to the Greek League to supply him with infantry, cavalry and a fleet of ships and sailors. The League approved Alexander's request and supplied him with approximately 160 war ships and 29,000 crewmen, 7,000 infantry and 2,400 cavalry. Some believe that Alexander only took these men so that he could hold them hostage to prevent the Greeks from attacking Macedonia while he was campaigning in Asia. If we take into consideration that Alexander was always suspicious and never trusted the Greeks, and the fact that he relied solely on the Macedonian soldiers to do his fighting, then I would agree that the League forces were redundant and with no other purpose. By solving one problem Alexander created another. The Greek soldiers taken as hostages could possibly, in a moment of weakness, be a danger to him. Alexander trusted his Macedonians with his life and he knew that they would never intentionally let him down, however, there was always the possibility that they could be overwhelmed in battle. If that were to happen, Alexander was certain the Greeks would turn on him. So after crossing into Asia, Alexander separated his forces. He took an all Macedonian infantry and a mixed Macedonian Thessalian cavalry force and placed the League forces in Parmenio's command.

Even though Antipater was a trusted friend, Alexander was always cautious and well aware that in his prolonged absence anything could happen. To counterbalance Antipater's power, Alexander appointed his mother Olympias to be in charge of religious, ceremonial and financial matters in Pella.

Alexander selected and took with him the best and most battle hardened troops in his army consisting of 12,000 infantrymen and 2,700 cavalrymen. Philip himself had trained and campaigned with most of these men in all hazards of war.

While Alexander was preparing his Asian force, Parmenio's vanguard in Asia was struggling to regain control of the Hellespond. In 336 BC Parmenio had won control of the Dardanelles bridgehead but lost it again in 335 BC when he was driven back by Greek mercenaries commanded by general Memnon. The Greeks had taken control of an area near the crossing, killed off and expelled the Persian juntas, and had taken over the local cities. It didn't take long, however, before the pro-Persian factions rebelled. Parmenio sought his chance and again took control of the crossing. The Macedonians now controlled the waters of the Hellespond and held them until Alexander arrived.

In early spring of 334 BC, with the help of some 160 ships, the main body of the Macedonian expedition force was ferried across the strait. While the army was helped across, Alexander took a diversion to explore the various sacred sites of the Iliad. While visiting the Ilium he dedicated his armour to Athena and in exchange took back an old, sacred shield supposedly dating back to the Trojan War.

Soon after rejoining his army, Alexander set out to find the enemy. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander separated his forces and took with him only Macedonians and some Thessalians, leaving the Greeks behind with Parmenio. In all 13,000 infantry and 5,100 cavalry set off in search of the Persian army. Another reason for not taking the Greeks was that Alexander had no money for provisions. When he crossed the Hellespond he was almost broke. Some say he only had 70 talents in cash and that was hardly enough to feed his army for more than a couple of weeks. But that did not stop Alexander because he had confidence in his Macedonians to give him victories and then his enemies would be obliged to feed the army.

Besides his military, Alexander also enlisted the services of historians, philosophers, poets, engineers, surveyors, doctors, botanists and natural scientists to accompany him on his Asian expedition. His official historian was Callisthenes of Olynthus, nephew and pupil of Aristotle. The surveyors were there to measure distances traveled by the army as well as make notes of peculiarities in the terrain traversed. The engineers were engaged in building bridges, rafts, ladders, siege engines and equipment to scale steep slopes and cliffs. The botanists and natural scientists were there to investigate the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of the newly discovered lands. Right from the start the Asian expedition was not just a military campaign but a great research and discovery mission.

As luck would have it, on the third day of his search, Alexander's scouts spotted the Persian army holding its position on the far bank of the river Granicus. As Alexander made his advance, he noticed a much superior cavalry force holding its position on the level ground. Beyond the steep riverbank he could see a large, Greek mercenary infantry force holding the ridge behind the level ground. He estimated the enemy to be about 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry.

Alexander immediately formulated his battle plans and took the offensive. The Macedonian infantry phalanx took the center while the cavalry formed the wings with the archers posted on the extreme right. Alexander's battle line now matched the three-kilometer wide enemy line. According to Peter Green, Alexander badly needed a victory in order to secure booty to pay off his loans and to finance future campaigns. At the moment, Alexander was badly in debt.

Among the Persian commanders was general Memnon. Memnon was well aware of Alexander's financial predicament and wanted to starve him out. During an earlier meeting with the Persians, Memnon opposed a direct confrontation and proposed to deprive Alexander of all provisions. This would have required burning all the crops in the vicinity and withdrawing the Persian army. Having no provisions to sustain him, Alexander would have had to turn back and return to Macedonia. When he did, Memnon proposed to go after him by means of the huge Persian fleet. The Persians, however, due to their army's numerical superiority felt confident that a battle with Alexander would give them victory. 

After surveying the situation, Alexander noticed that the best Persian cavalry stood atop the steep, eight-foot riverbank. From that position a cavalry charge would have been difficult to execute. In spite of Parmenio's advice to retire for the evening and attack the next morning, Alexander exploited the situation and ordered a surprise attack.

The battle of Granicus started with a blare of trumpets and with the terrifying battle cry of Alexander and his Macedonians. His men quickly took their positions as Alexander's horsemen rushed across the swollen river and swooped up the steep bank violently engaging the Persian cavalry. His infantry phalanx, which by now was used to forming a battle line on the fly, maneuvered into an oblique battle-array and positioned itself to follow suit. As the army frontlines clashed, Alexander and his companions rode back and forth behind the lines looking for weaknesses and to confuse the enemy. Moments after the engagement started, most of the Persian cavalry was pinned down by the Macedonian phalanx as both armies desperately tried to push forward. The Persians were expecting Alexander to attack at the extreme left where the terrain was easiest to navigate. Memnon's most experienced mercenaries were placed there in thick columns in close proximity and ordered to lay in wait. But instead of doing what was expected Alexander took a defensive stand and attacked the position with a light force of infantry and some cavalry, with just enough men to hold the mercenaries back.

As the battle raged on Alexander himself became engaged and fought several Persian nobles, among them the son in law of Darius the Great King. While Alexander was dealing a deathblow to the King's son in law he nearly became a casualty himself. The world would not have been the same had it not been for Cleitus who came to his rescue.

As the phalanx succeeded in pushing back the Persian cavalry, Alexander's horsemen charged the center and punched a whole right through the enemy formation. The enemy took flight and the Macedonian cavalry went in pursuit leaving many dead in their wake.

No sooner had the Macedonians moved in for the kill than they were confronted from the rear by the Greek mercenaries who had lain in wait throughout the entire battle. Alexander turned his phalanx around and ordered a frontal attack while his cavalry took on the flanks. In a matter of minutes the elite Greek mercenary force was annihilated leaving only 2,000 survivors out of a force of 20,000. By sacrificing themselves, the Greek mercenaries saved the Persian cavalry. 

Before the evening was over, in a few short hours on a bright day in May 334 BC, the Macedonians won a great victory.

The day after the battle all the dead, including the Persians, were buried with honour. Special attention and care was given to the wounded, each receiving a visit from Alexander himself. 

Compared to the enemy Macedonian losses were insignificant, totaling about a couple hundred. 

Soon after the battle of Granicus, Alexander organized an administration to manage his lands &quot;won by his spear&quot;. Instead of incorporating these lands as part of a Greater Macedonian kingdom, Alexander did the unexpected and appointed a Macedonian &quot;satrap&quot;. By that I mean Alexander left the old Persian government and way of governing intact. He only replaced the top Persian official (satrap) with a Macedonian. His only demands were that the Persians now pay him what was owed to the Great King. In addition to taking taxes, Alexander also took possession of the Great King's crown lands.

Alexander's idea of replacing the Great King with himself instead of incorporating the conquered lands into a &quot;Greater Macedonia&quot; had its merits. After seeing that no harm had come to their neighbours, other parts of Asia Minor began to surrender peacefully. When Alexander reached Sardis, the Lydian city, the people surrendered without a fight entrusting Alexander with the city's treasures, satrapy and citadel. In return, Alexander freed the Lydians from Persian rule and gave them back their old culture, laws and way of life. He also replaced the Persian satrap with a Macedonian. Here again Alexander demonstrated his respect for other cultures choosing to liberate instead of enslave.

After looking at the vastness of Asia, Alexander quickly realized that he could never hold a world that size with a spear. This foresight, along with the Macedonian values instilled in him (to respect people of all classes and cultures), Alexander became a liberator and a champion of the oppressed nations. His conquests became a mission of liberation not enslavement. He did NOT do this to spread Greek culture, as many authors claim, he did it to spread Macedonian values for the glory of Macedonia and the Macedonian people.

The Greeks are credited with being the fathers of democracy but in reality they were not democratic at all. Athens, the most democratic of all Greek states, was ruled by a small faction of wealthy men who employed slave labour to toil for them and amass their wealth. Athenian women had no rights and neither did the majority of the Athenian population. Ironically Athens is credited as being the cradle of democracy. In case you were wondering, The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as &quot;government by all the people, direct or representative; State having this; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views&quot;. (Page 193, The Oxford Dictionary of Current English). Ironically our modern concept of democracy is nothing like the &quot;brand&quot; of democracy the ancient Greeks practiced. Modern democracy is more like the practices of the ancient Macedonians. Even though ancient Macedonia was a monarchy, in practice, it was more closely linked to the common man than the best Greek democracy could ever dream of being. Through Alexander's exploits we find that the Macedonians not only tolerated other cultures but also took great care to preserve them. The Greeks, on the other hand, loathed other cultures. The Macedonians saw the world as many states with various cultures, customs and languages. All we ever hear from the Greeks is that the world was populated by &quot;Greeks and barbarians&quot;. Even though the Greeks called other cultures barbarian, the worst case of barbarism was demonstrated by the Greeks themselves in the way they treated one another.

This modern infatuation with the ancient Greek culture is nothing more than a lingering side effect of 19th century British and German &quot;supremacist&quot; romance with &quot;a white intellectual male dominated society&quot;, run by a small minority of men in robes.

It is time to reveal the ancient Greeks for who they truly were and give the ancient Macedonians the credit they deserve.

The ancient Macedonians, as I mentioned earlier, were a tolerant people when it came to respecting other peoples' cultures, customs and languages but there was one thing they would not tolerate and that was Greek arrogance.

Here is another Dura-Europos inscription as translated by Anthony Ambrozic -- (pages 78-80, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms):

XXXXVI

PLUS CA CHANGE ...

Inscription found on a separated block of stone dug up within the grounds of the temple of Artemis.

Division and alphabetization:

GOT ATHENOI: LA LEJ KOJ PID JE NOS D' JE TOJ, DA NI POJ GINA I KOS.

Translation:

&quot;To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is a span's length, so that then the cock does not perish.&quot;

Looser Translation:

&quot;To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is so keen as if it were a span's length, so that you do not end up losing your cock.&quot;

Explanation:

GOT - &quot;whosoever, whoever, all&quot; - GOD is an all-encompassing combinational form which in SC. joins with KO and TKO - &quot;who&quot; and STO - &quot;what&quot; to become &quot;whosoever&quot; and &quot;whatsoever.&quot; - It seems that the Venetic does not join in this combinational discrimination between objects and persons.

ATHENOI - &quot;Athenians&quot; in Greek

LA - &quot;make sure that&quot; among others, depending on context and idiom - This is an archaism of the current LE.

LEJ - &quot;see, see to&quot; - second prs., sing., pres., imp. of GLEDATI - &quot;to see, to watch, to see to&quot; - The guttural G is abandoned for easier speech without any damage to recognizability of LEJ in rapid vernacular.

KOJ D' JE - &quot;so that it is&quot; - This idiom is a dialectal archaism of the current literal KO 

DA JE, having the same meaning.

PID - &quot;span: (measure of length) - PID is Cz. for the gsl. PED

JE - &quot;is&quot;

NOS - &quot;nose&quot;

TOJ - &quot;your, yours&quot;

DA - &quot;that, so that&quot;

NI - &quot;no, not, is not&quot; 

POJ - &quot;then, later, after&quot; - This very dialectal form is somewhere between PO - &quot;after&quot; and PO-TEM - literally, &quot;after this, after that&quot; but invariably meaning &quot;then.&quot;

GINA - &quot;perishes, dies, disappears&quot; - third prs., sing., pres. of GINITI - &quot;to perish, to die, to disappear&quot; - This is very dialectal form of the current literal GINE.

I - &quot;and, also&quot;

KOS - &quot;piece, portion, cock&quot; (depending on context) - see passage VIII supra
 
 
Words of wisdom for the Athenians, perhaps?

Again I want to remind the reader that this inscription was found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian Desert founded by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire. The script was written using Greek and Latin letters but the language is Slav or, as Ambrozic calls it, Venetic. The script predates the Roman invasion of that region and could only have been written by Macedonian soldiers stationed at a nearby garrison.

What is most curious is that the words are very similar (some are exactly the same) to those of the modern Macedonian language and NOT AT ALL like those of the ancient or modern Greek languages.

Some of Alexander's Macedonians resisted change and managed to preserve their language for many generations, as demonstrated by the Dura-Europos inscriptions. Alexander, however, encouraged change and believed that in order to win over the hearts of the conquered people one had to become one of them or at least act like them. He believed that, that was only possible with a clear understanding of language and custom. So in time, as Alexander moved deeper into Asia, to some he became a liberator, to some a ruler and yet to others a god.

If Alexander is to be judged for his deeds let it be for all his deeds and not just for his conquests and military genius. Alexander was a seasoned politician with a vision of uniting all the world's nations together as equals in a democratic system (in the modern sense). Besides his political qualities Alexander also had a great interest in culture and the natural sciences. Wherever he went he built cities, libraries, cultural centers, museums and many other wonders. He listened to poetry and comedy and took part in debates. He met many people with varying interests and the people whose accomplishments he admired most, he sent to Macedonia for the Macedonians to enjoy. He had his natural scientists study and document the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of this new world. Techniques and knowledge learned then still apply today. He adorned all the gardens of Macedonia, including those in Pella, with plants bearing the best fruits and flowers that Asia had to offer. Wherever he went, he taught the local people culture, artistic skills and natural medicine. As Michael Wood found out, &quot;In the footsteps of Alexander the Great&quot;, these gifts that Alexander gave the Asian people are still remembered to this day.

As he proceeded to free the Asian people from Persian dominion, Alexander was greeted with enthusiasm and celebrated as a liberator.

With the victory of Granicus under his belt, Alexander turned southward encountering little or no resistance until he reached Miletus and Halicarnassus where Greek mercenaries were found in large numbers. The Persian commander in Miletus was ready to surrender his city but convinced that the Persian fleet was on its way he resisted. Before the Persian fleet has a chance to enter the bay, Alexander's navy intervened and closed off the mouth of the harbour. Without the help of the Persian fleet, the city defenses were no match for Alexander's siege engines. Alexander stormed the city but did not harm its population.

In an unexpected turn of events, after the battle of Miletus, Alexander disbanded his fleet. Even though his ships were of help to him during the battle, Alexander decide to disband them anyway, retaining only twenty Athenian ships as hostages. At that time there was no obvious reason given but, as we later learned, he did it to save them. He did not have the naval strength to take on the powerful Persian fleet and win, so why waste his ships? Also, he did not trust the Greek navies behind him for they too, in a moment of weakness, could have turned on him and cut off his retreat and supply lines. As for destroying the powerful Persian fleet, Alexander had a different plan.

At the city of Halicarnassus, the capital of Caria, Alexander met with his old adversary Memnon, who at the time was supreme commander of the Asian coast and of the Persian fleet. With a division of Persians ships guarding the waters, the fortified city gave Alexander much resistance but it could not hold out indefinitely and fell to his superior siege-craft. When it was over Alexander appointed an old woman, a princess named Ada of the Carian dynastic house, to the satrapy. Ada met Alexander earlier when he entered Caria. She offered him her city of Alinda and a proposal to adopt him as her son. Alexander was so impressed that he accepted her adoption proposal and gave her back her city. After that Alexander was known in Caria as the son of the ruler. Caria was liberated and free of foreign dominion and her satrapy granted to a native woman. Here for the first time Alexander separated civil from military responsibilities. Ada was given charge of civic functions while a Macedonian officer was responsible for the military.

During the winter of 334 BC, before heading south, Alexander sent his newly wed soldiers home on leave to visit their families and wives. Parmenio, who earlier was given command of the League troops was dispatched to occupy Phrygia. Alexander, with the Macedonian army, spent late fall securing the western coast of Asia Minor before heading for Gordius.

Alexander's plan, as I mentioned earlier, was to paralyze the enemy fleet by occupying all the ports of the western Asia Minor seaboard. 

Alexander's coastal trek was mostly trouble free except when he passed through Pisidia. There he encountered stiff resistance and severe fighting from the mountain men whom he subdued. After his victory, Alexander went to Gordium, the Phrygian capital, to spend the winter.

While Alexander was making his way to Gordium, Memnon, his old adversary, was convincing his Persian lords to allow him to resurrect the old idea of bringing the war to Europe. Using the Persian fleet he began to invade the Aegean islands one by one starting with Chios then Lesbos, hoping to get Alexander turned around. News of this brought excitement to the Greeks who had hoped that Memnon's intervention would turn the tide of the war in their favour. Unfortunately, their enthusiasm was cut short when suddenly Memnon fell ill and died. I can't say that Alexander was not relieved.

Next spring, the soldiers on leave and some reinforcements arrived from Macedonia and joined Alexander at Gordium as he prepared for departure.

In April 333 BC, Alexander came across the famous Gordian Knot which many tried but failed to untie. Legend has it that he who untied the knot would become King of Asia. Alexander tried his luck but found the tangle too complicated and impossible to untie. But Alexander was not about to give up so he did the next best thing; he drew his sword and hacked it to pieces. The end result was the same, the knot was removed and the yoke-pole of King Gordius's chariot was now bare. That night thunder and lightning followed which was interpreted as a good sign and that the gods were pleased.

With his army ready to march, Alexander passed by Ancyra before turning south to continue to occupy more Persian ports. His intention was to quickly march south through Cappadocia and occupy the passes of the Taurus mountain range on the southern coast of Cilicia. Having no time to conquer all of Cappadocia, he appointed a native satrap, instead of a Macedonian.

When Alexander arrived in Cilicia he took the Persian garrison by surprise when his men climbed up the strongholds in the night. Surprised by the sudden appearance of Macedonians in their midst, the guards ran off and left the pass unguarded. The pass was taken without a fight.

Alexander then marched down the mountain to seize the city of Tarsus but at the mere sight of the approaching Macedonian cavalry, its defenders also ran off. 

His victory at Tarsus was bittersweet as Alexander contracted an illness from swimming in icy cold waters. He would have died had he not been so physically fit. His recovery unfortunately was long and arduous. 

As soon as he was well enough, Alexander and his troops were on the move. To recover lost time, he divided his army and sent Parmenio east to secure the Cilicia to Syria pass. Alexander, meanwhile, went west to secure the western coastline as well as reinforce his supply line. On his way back he took time off near Tarsus to rest and celebrate his eventual victory at Halicarnassus. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander conquered the city of Halicarnassus but not all the citadels. After he left, a couple of citadels were still intact so he left that job to his officers to finish.

Soon after departing Tarsus, Alexander got word from Parmenio that the Great King Darius, with a large army, was encamped on the plains of Northern Syria, about two days journey from the pass that Parmenio was now holding.

After finding out what Alexander did to his army at Granicus, the Great King was furious with him and wanted to squash him like a bug. Who was this insolent man who dared challenge the Great King and prance in his backyard?

After finding out that Alexander was in Cilicia in the fall of 333 BC with plans to head south, the Great King amassed a great army and prepared a trap. Expecting Alexander to come after him, Darius picked a suitable place with battle advantage and lay in wait. Because of his numerical superiority, Darius was convinced he could crush Alexander's little army in battle. 

When Alexander didn't show up as expected, the Great King became anxious. Thinking Alexander was afraid to face him, Darius decided it was time to pursue him instead. Alexander did not show up because he had fallen ill. But now that he learned Darius was out there, he mustered his forces and went after him. Unfortunately, as Alexander moved south quickly through the Cilician Gates along the Syrian coast, Darius moved north towards Cilicia on the opposite side of the same mountain range. 

Unbeknownst to Alexander, Darius had broken camp. Alexander left his sick and wounded at Issus and continued to travel south, hugging the coastline. Camped overnight and weathering a storm, Alexander expected to do battle the next day, but to his surprise he learned that Darius had already broken camp and was now after him.

Without any knowledge of each other's positions the two armies passed one another over the mountain range of Amanus. Darius was first to learn of this from Alexander's wounded at Issus.

It has been said that Darius was so frustrated that he took his anger out on Alexander's sick and wounded by ordering his soldiers to cut off their hands so that could they never fight again.

By cutting off his retreat and supply lines, Darius was now resolved to follow Alexander into the plains of Syria and trample him and his little army to death with his cavalry. Unfortunately for Darius, Alexander had different ideas. On finding out that Darius was behind him and pursuing him, Alexander expediently turned his army around. Determined to meet Darius on his (Alexander's) terms, Alexander ordered a battle plan for the next day. After allowing his troops to have a quick meal, he mobilized the entire army and marched through the night until he arrived at the battlefield of his choice. The battle was going to take place not in the broad open plain of Syria, but in the narrow plain of Pinarus, encircled by the mountains and sea.

Hidden from view, Alexander's army spent the rest of the night laying in wait. At the crack of dawn, Alexander ordered their descent to the plain, infantry first in long narrow columns followed by the cavalry. In the face of a large enemy, Alexander formed the battle lines with ease as if performing a routine exercise. The Macedonian troops displayed great discipline and courage as they took their positions, knowing that they were about to face the largest army they have ever seen. 

With only about 16,000 Macedonian infantry and 5,600 cavalry troops, Alexander was facing a huge Persian cavalry force of 450,000, a Greek mercenary infantry force of 30,000, a light infantry force of 20,000 and 60,000 Persians armed as hoplites.

The Persian battle line (this time) had the Greek mercenaries placed front and center, while right and left of them stood the hoplites with the bulk of the cavalry stationed to the right of the Greek mercenaries. The remaining troops stood behind the lines in column formations. Darius, sitting on his magnificent chariot, stood in the center behind the Greek mercenaries.

Before the battle started, Alexander secretly rearranged his cavalry formation moving some of it behind and to the left of the frontline. Alexander was in command of the right wing while Parmenio was in command of the left wing with strict orders not to break contact with the sea.

Alexander charged first in an oblique formation, the right wing cavalry followed closely by the phalanx. As (bad) luck would have it, soon after the charge, Alexander received a leg wound. At the same time the phalanx had become dislocated and had broken line while attempting to climb the steep bank of the river. While Alexander seemed to have regained his composure, the Greek mercenaries sought the opportunity and entered the gap in the open phalanx formation. The Greeks fought like demons displaying their hatred for the Macedonians. But soon after overwhelming the enemy's left wing Alexander turned inward and attacked the center. The moment Darius saw Alexander coming for him, he turned his chariot around and fled. Choosing not to pursue him, Alexander first turned on the Greek mercenaries and then on the numerically superior cavalry which had engaged Parmenio in a fierce battle across the Pinarus River.

Darius's flight left his army in disarray and confusion, running in all directions. As soon as the Persians began fleeing the Macedonians gave chase. Alexander, hoping to catch up to Darius, went after him. Anticipating a chase, Darius gave up his chariot for a horse and was nowhere to be found. The pursuit inflicted catastrophic losses on the Persian army especially since it had to exit through a narrow pass. The pursuit finally ended when darkness fell.

When it was over, only 8,000 of the Greek mercenary force was left intact. It is unclear how many Persians died but according to Ptolemy, who was there at the time, the pursuit at the narrow pass alone yielded a ravine full of enemy corpses.

So before the year 333 BC was over the Great King's army was beaten and the Great King himself became a fugitive, leaving his royal family and great wealth to Alexander.

After the long pursuit, Alexander returned to the Pinarus and took a stroll through Darius's camp to find Darius's mother, wife and three children weeping for him. They presumed he was dead and were worried about their own fate. Here too Alexander showed compassion by not harming the royal family and treating them with utmost respect. He informed them that Darius was still alive.

Alexander's victory at Issus was welcome news in Macedonia and a crushing disappointment for Persia and her Greek allies. I can just imagine the thoughts that went through the minds of the various Greek members of the Corinthian League at the 332 BC, Isthmian Games when it was suggested that a golden wreath be sent to Alexander to congratulate him on his victory.

The worst disappointment, however, goes to the Persian admirals in the Aegean who by now were fed up with the poor performance of the so called &quot;superior Greek fighting skills&quot; and opted out of their strange partnerships.

After his victory at Issues, Alexander became confident that he could win over all of Asia but there was still the matter of the Persian fleet in the Aegean and the Spartans were starting to make noise.

To be continued.

And now I will leave you with this:

This is for my tireless neo-Greek, brainwashed Internet critics who incessantly hurl vitriolic e-mail messages at me for bringing the truth out in the open, never failing to end their comments with a knife twist.

I would like once again to remind you that Macedonia was NEVER Greek and neither was Philip or Alexander. You will see that for yourselves should you choose to peel off &quot;the veil of deception&quot; that has been placed before your eyes by your Greek propagandists. 

The word &quot;Greek&quot; is a Roman invention concocted during the Roman era to represent the coastal people of the peninsula south of Mount Olympus. This was done centuries after Philip and Alexander were long dead and gone. The Romans knew the Macedonians well, called them by their name and respected them as Macedonians.

I would also like to remind you that modern Greece too is a concoction, of the 19th century kind, forged in 1929 AD by Western greed and nationalistic zeal. So, other than your artificially imposed and somewhat &quot;bastardized&quot; common language there is nothing common between you and the ancient people south of Olympus. If you are still not convinced take a good look at how Greeks are made. In 1829 the raw material were Albanians, Vlachs, Peloponnesian Slavs and Turks. In 1912 the raw material was beaten down Macedonians. In 1922 the raw material was Pontic Christian Turks. Since then and up to this day the raw materials have been Macedonians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Russians or anyone who would willingly change their name and accept being called Greek. Even the Roma (Gypsies), against their will, have been Christianized and Hellenized and added to the Greek fold.

So you tell me &quot;WHAT IS GREEK&quot;? It's time for an overhaul.

As for me, I too am guilty of propagating the &quot;Greek fallacy&quot; by erroneously using the word &quot;Greek&quot; in my articles.

One more thing: there is a solution to the Macedonian-Greek name dispute but it will require a compromise on both sides. If the Republic of Macedonia is expected to accept the reference FYROM then Greece must also accept to be called FOPOT (Former Ottoman Province of Turkey). Fair is fair. If, as the Greeks claim, the modern Macedonians have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians then we the Macedonians claim (with proof) that the modern Greeks have even less to do with the ancient people south of Olympus.

References:

R. E. Allen, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna.

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus, 1993, Alexandra Publishing.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., A Historical Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Nickolas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia, Sidwig and Jackson, London 1991.

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. McFarland

Michael Wood, In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great, A Journey from Greece to Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>1vmuf8foeohykfj9bd9efw0u05mpyrw</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - Lord of Asia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2064</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11079</id>
      <parentid>7913</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:29Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="54684" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 7 - [[Alexander the Great|Alexander III]] - Lord of Asia

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

The victory at Issus ushered in a new era for Macedonia. Alexander's thinking was no longer &quot;if&quot; but &quot;when&quot; was he going to become the new master and lord of Asia. He was tempted to go after Darius immediately to make it happen but it was too risky, especially with the Persian fleet still intact at his rear and in control of the Aegean waters.

Alexander possessed almost no ships and no navy to speak of, let alone a powerful one to subdue the Persian fleet. He wanted to win his battles so he always chose the terms of engagement. His thinking was that if he couldn't engage his enemy and win in the water then he would have to bring the fight to shore where he had the advantage. The only way to do that was by cutting off the Persian navy from its ports. His plan, therefore, was to eventually occupy all cities around the eastern Mediterranean coast to starve the Persian fleet of its supplies.

Soon after the battle of Issus, Alexander marched his Macedonians south in an effort to secure the coastline by occupying the various port cities. In the meantime Parmenio was dispatched to Damascus to seize the city and recover Darius's treasure, which had been sent there along with the Persian baggage train before the battle of Issus.

Parmenio seized the city with ease (some say by treachery) and took possession of the treasury. He also captured many Greek traitors including Greek ambassadors to Persia who had previously conspired against Macedonia.

With Darius's treasury in his possession, Alexander secured the finances he needed to pay his debts and continue with his campaign. In comparison to Alexander, Darius was a very rich man, rich enough to carry 2,600 talents of coins, 500 pounds of silver, 4,500 pounds of gold and 3,400 pounds of precious stones. This however was not all of Darius's money. Compared to his total wealth this was only pocket change, which he carried with him during his travels.

Alexander's journey into Syria took him to many port cities. One by one they all opened their gates to him, that is until he reached the Phoenician city of Tyre. Tyre was an independent city and the most powerful naval and commercial port in the region. Most of the sailors in the Persian fleet were either from Cyprus or Tyre. Being independent (not under Persian rule) the citizens of Tyre wished to remain neutral (neither under Persian nor Macedonian rule). This however was not an option for Alexander. He needed to control all ports, especially Tyre if he were to close off the Persian fleet. Being unable to negotiate a peaceful surrender Alexander declared war on Tyre and around January 332 BC began the siege.

Tyre stood on an island about a kilometer offshore. The city was fortified on all sides by high stone walls and defended by the powerful Tyrian fleet. At the time both Alexander and the Tyrians felt confident that they could outlast each other and neither was willing to relent. The Tyrians, trusting their city to be impregnable, found the very idea that Alexander would think of attempting a siege absurd. How could he seize an island when he didn't even have a fleet? Alexander, on the other hand, could not afford to allow the powerful Phoenician city to exist free behind his lines, especially since he was planning to venture deeper into Asia. He had no choice but to seize it by force. When the siege began, no one had any idea of the enormity of the task.

While Alexander's military strength lay on land, the city he wanted to besiege lay in water. The only way he could turn the situation to his advantage was by building a bridge and linking the island to the shore. His army could then rush in with its siege engines, knock down the walls and seize the city.

While the army drafted labour from the local vicinity and neighbouring towns to build the bridge, Alexander's craftsmen and engineers began the construction of the colossal siege towers. Building the bridge proved a lot more difficult than expected. Even though the water was shallow, the bottom was all mud and stakes had to be driven deep down, supported by stone before the sixty-meter wide road could be constructed. As the building of the causeway progressed, every stone found in the vicinity was carried and deposited into the water.

The Tyrians taunted and mocked the workers telling them that Alexander was wasting his time. But as the road began to materialize and approach the island the Tyrians panicked. Physical attacks and countermeasures replaced mocking and taunting. Initially Tyrian commandos were attacking Alexander's supply lines on land hoping to slow down the building effort. Then the fleet began its raids by sea, sending ships with archers, slingers and catapults to attack the workers. Alexander in the meantime took every precaution possible to protect his men and maintain his schedule.

When it become obvious that Alexander was not going to give up and his chances of actually besieging Tyre improved, many of the local cities, including Sidon a former enemy of Tyre, offered him assistance including ships. Alexander quickly assembled a strong enough sea force to bottle the Tyrian fleet in its own harbour and to repel Tyrian raids at the causeway.

There was one major incident that could have turned the tide on Alexander but his confidence in his army's abilities and his unwavering persistence paid off. The Tyrians put together a large floating craft, set it on fire and by using the wind managed to burn most of the causeway. Alexander was away at the time on an expedition to find more lumber. When he returned he was shocked to find that his road had been destroyed. Instead of giving up, Alexander built a new causeway north of the old one.

As the artificial harbour approached the island shore the Tyrians became desperate. They tried everything to stop it including pouring boiling sand on the soldiers. But, in spite of their gallant effort, nothing worked and the Macedonians eventually besieged the city.


Tyre fell in August 332 BC. It was a grueling seven-month effort on both sides but in the end the most determined won. The Tyrians, on several occasions, were given a chance to surrender. Unfortunately wisdom gave way to stubbornness and they fought bravely to the end. When it was over, about six to eight thousand were killed and about thirty thousand were taken prisoners and sold into slavery. The Tyrian leaders along with about two thousand of their fighting men were executed. The city itself was spared and resettled, continuing to function as an important naval and commercial port under Macedonian rule.

I want to mention at this point that Tyre was the Sister City to Carthage. Carthage is located on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea south of Rome and played a key role in Rome's development as a super power. Had Alexander sacked Carthage as he intended to, it would have been a different world today.

After his gallant struggle and long delay in Tyre, Alexander resumed his trek southward through Palestine, heading for Egypt. His voyage, expectedly, was interrupted as he ran into resistance at the city of Gaza. Gaza was well fortified and defended by Persian soldiers supplemented by a strong force of Arab mercenaries. Unable to break through the city's fortification by conventional means, Alexander employed his siege engines and within two months reduced Gaza's fortification to rubble. During the course of the siege Alexander received a wound to his shoulder, which put him out of action for a couple of weeks. Being physically fit, however, he recovered quickly and joined the final assault on the city. After breaking through the fortification a vicious struggle ensued spilling into the streets where Alexander was again wounded, this time in the leg. When the battle was over, ten thousand were killed and the civilian population was rounded up and sold into slavery. Gaza too was resettled with people from the local region, converted into a fortress and placed under Macedonian control.

From Gaza, Alexander's army marched along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and then turned south into Egypt where huge crowds greeted him as a liberator.

Having conquered all the port cities around the eastern Mediterranean coast, the threat from the Persian fleet was finally removed.


Before penetrating the interior of Asia, Alexander planned to occupy Egypt by force but it fell without a fight. The Egyptian people hailed Alexander as a liberator, giving him the citadel of Memphis along with its treasury amounting to 800 talents. Egypt was a strategic location for Alexander's Asian campaign and it was now secure.


Something else happened to Alexander in Egypt, something unexpected. Having defeated the Persian King who ruled in place of the Pharaoh of Egypt, in the eyes of the Egyptian priests, Alexander now became Egypt's new ruler but not a Pharaoh. For the priests, unfortunately, it was impossible to accept a foreigner as a true Pharaoh. If Alexander were to continue on his campaign deep into Asia he had to pacify Egypt and gain its loyalty. Egypt was a large, rich country with a huge population capable of supplying his army with all the necessities for the entire campaign. He had to do whatever was necessary to secure it, which meant that Alexander had to become Egypt's undisputed ruler. The only way to do that was by becoming an Egyptian Pharaoh. Unfortunately, a foreigner could only become a Pharaoh by divine intervention. Accepting this challenge Alexander took a trip to Siwa to visit the religious order. When he arrived at the temple of the oracle, the high priest greeted him as the &quot;son of Zeus-Ammon and master of all lands&quot;. Why the priest greeted him this way is unknown, perhaps an error in translation? Alexander was delighted with the pronouncement and humbly accepted his proclamation as the &quot;Son of God&quot;.

After returning to Memphis during the winter of 332-331BC, Alexander took a small division from his army and went down the Nile River. Just before reaching the Mediterranean coast he saw a perfect strip of land upon which to lay the foundation of a great city, which would bear his name, Alexandria of Egypt. Alexandria, in time, would bring about change in intellectual and economic life as never before experienced and for the next one thousand years would become the center of civilization

.

With the founding of Alexandria, a port city facing the Mediterranean, Alexander transformed his military efforts into business opportunities not just for the Macedonians but for the entire known world. Alexandria was to become the leading multinational, multicultural, commercial trade centre of the world.

The closing of the entire Eastern Mediterranean coast forced the Persian navy to move on and opened the way for the Macedonian fleet to dominate the waters.

After returning to Memphis, Alexander met the reinforcements sent to him by Antipater and ordered the army to prepare to march. Before leaving, however, he sent a scientific expedition up the Nile River on a discovery mission and also appointed a couple of native satraps and Macedonian overseers to govern Egypt. Alexander did not want to entrust the governing of such a large country to a single person.

In early spring of 331BC Alexander left Memphis and headed for Phoenicia. He stopped at Tyre for a while and made some changes to the government there before proceeding north towards Damascus.

The Great King Darius, in the meantime, having received Alexander's answer to his peace offer began to amass a great army. Darius offered Alexander the marriage of his daughter, 10,000 talents and the lands east of the Euphrates in exchange for peace. Parmenio and his older officers encouraged Alexander to accept the offer but Alexander declined wanting it all: Darius's lands, money and his crown. Having no alternative the Great King began preparations for another battle.

The Persian Empire was vast and Darius had no problem raising an army. Besides the Persians there were many other races that offered assistance. The Indians even sent him fifteen elephants. Besides raising a great army Darius was also careful to find open space for his choice of battleground, the kind that would give him an advantage over Alexander. This time Darius was determined to get things his way and made sure everything was done correctly.

While Darius was raising an army, Alexander was marching northward preparing to cross the Euphrates River. As expected during war, his advance force, which was sent to build a bridge over the mighty river, faced opposition from the satrap of Syria and Mesopotamia. But the moment Alexander arrived with his army the Satrap fled and the bridge was built with relative ease. Then as Alexander advanced towards the Tigris River the local spies led him to believe that Darius was on the other side waiting to prevent his passage. Assuming the reports were accurate, Alexander force-marched his army to catch up but Darius was nowhere to be found. Alexander's army crossed the Tigris on September 20th, 331 BC and marched on in a southeasterly direction until it reached the village of Guagamela. There he found Darius's army clearing and leveling the land to give his chariots advantage over the Macedonian phalanx.

In battle formation, Darius stood on his chariot at the center. By his sides stood the mounted guard and Persian infantry. To the right and to the left stood the Greek mercenaries. At both wings stood a combined force of cavalry and infantry. In front of the wings stood the allied cavalries and front and center stood fifteen elephants. In front of the battle line stood 200 Scythian chariots ready to roll along the cleared, smoothed out ground.

Alexander was initially planning to deploy the usual oblique formation with the offensive right wing commanded by himself and the defensive left wing commanded by Parmenio. Due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of his opponent, however, Alexander decided to add a second battle line capable of fighting a second front behind him, in case he was surrounded. In other words, if Alexander's forces were to be surrounded their formation would take the shape of a flexible square and push the enemy outwards on all four fronts.

Expecting to be immediately attacked, Darius ordered his battle line to form and waited. After sizing up the situation, Alexander decided not to attack and camped his troops about four kilometers away from Darius's camp. That evening Alexander ordered his men to rest for the night. Darius's men, expecting an attack at any time, stood ready all night.

The morning after, October 1st, 331 BC, Alexander, with a well-rested army, approached from the north but found his right wing too short to match the opponent's. To compensate he continued to stretch his line but his opponent continued to match his moves. Darius, however, feared that if he moved too far off the cleared ground he would compromise the mobility of his chariots and ordered the attack. The chariots rushed to outflank Alexander but Alexander's men were prepared. The archers struck first and took out most of the charioteers while Alexander's front line quickly formed into columns, allowing the rushing chariots to pass. Trapped by columns of men and unable to maneuver, the horses were overpowered by Alexander's grooms, effectively disabling the chariots. Now, as the two lines of battle were drawing close, Alexander noticed a gap in the Persian left and sought the opportunity to take the offensive. Leading his companions he swerved and rushed into the gap and began to roll towards the center. The phalanx also pushed hard towards the center squeezing the battle towards Darius. Frightened by this sudden fierce attack, Darius turned his chariot around and fled. His guards formed a protective circle around him and they too fled. In his absence, his troops in the center and left wings followed suit. It was Issus all over again. Darius left the battlefield before the battle was decided.

The rapid movement of the phalanx in the center of Alexander's formation caused a gap in the Macedonian line, which could have been exploited by the enemy. But instead of closing in on the line, the undisciplined Persians and their allies rushed in to plunder Alexander's camp. The moment the enemy disengaged, Alexander's second front line went into effect and chased the looters back.

In the meantime, Parmenio was having trouble and had sent for Alexander to help him. By now Alexander's companions had broken through the enemy lines and were just about to pursue Darius. As much as he wanted to catch him, Alexander could not leave the battle unattended. Disappointed as he was, he turned his companions around and made his way towards Parmenio, only to run into the fleeing looters. A bloody cavalry engagement ensued as the trapped enemy soldiers now desperately fought for their lives. By the time Alexander reached Parmenio, the battle was over. Parmenio had overwhelmed his attackers and was now free. Unfortunately, so was Darius. This was the second time Alexander was robbed of his chance at gaining a total victory, complete with the capture of Darius.

Even before the battle of Guagamela was over Alexander acted quickly and sent an advanced force to Susa to take possession of the treasury before it was looted.

With the battle won, Alexander went in search of Darius and rode through the night. Unable to find him, the next day he returned to Guagamela (Arbela) to harvest the fruits of his victory and bury his dead.

It is estimated that enemy losses were between fifty and sixty thousand while Macedonian losses were estimated at less than one thousand.

When the dust settled, Alexander's victory was celebrated with the burial of the fallen soldiers, with gift giving ceremonies and with Alexander's acclamation as King of Asia.

Confident that the Persian threat was over, to ease the tension back home, Alexander loosened his tight grip on the Greek cities by giving them autonomy. With the Persians defeated, Alexander no longer feared a Greek-Persian alliance but he could not completely discount the Spartan threats in the potentially explosive Peloponnesos.

Soon after his victory, Alexander left Arbela and continued to journey southwards to Babylon expecting to run into resistance from the surviving Persian army. To his surprise, however, the same Persian satrap who fiercely fought Parmenio in Guagamela now came out with his sons to peacefully greet Alexander and surrender the city. What was more surprising was that not only the city leaders but also the entire general population came out on mass to greet their new King. They decorated the streets with wreaths and flowers to welcome the Macedonians. Like the Egyptians, the Babylonians too saw Alexander not as a conqueror but as a liberator. Alexander was more than happy to accept sovereignty over Babylon when the Babylonians offered it to him. He even took a step further and made the great city into a separate kingdom with its own religion, traditions and civil government. As in Egypt, Alexander appointed a native satrap as the head of the civil government while military, financial and taxation responsibilities remained in the hands of the Macedonians.

The Babylon story unfortunately was not entirely a happy one. According to Michael Wood there are newly discovered Babylonian texts, which tell us that not everyone in Babylon was happy with Alexander and his plundering of their world.

After spending about a month in Babylon, on November 25th, 331 BC, Alexander set off for Susa. On his way there he received word that his advance force, previously sent to secure the city and take possession of the treasures, had successfully completed its mission.

Like Babylon, Susa surrendered without a fight with the great treasure depot of the Persian King intact. In spite of spending great sums of money to finance his campaigns, Darius still had enough treasure left to purchase a small country or as Michael Wood puts it, equivalent to the national income of the fifth century Athenian empire for 150 years. It is estimated that apart from the precious stones, 40,000 silver talents and 9,000 gold daries (coins) were also discovered and fell into Alexander's hands. Alexander was a happy man indeed.

Alexander arrived in Susa on December 15th, 331 BC, and was greeted by the governor and a delegation of important people bearing rich gifts including a dozen Indian elephants.

Some of the money received was sent to Macedonia to finance Antipater's campaign against the Spartans. In the spring of 331 BC, the Spartans formed a Peloponnesian coalition and were preparing to fight Macedonia. Antipater unfortunately had his hands full putting down Thracian uprisings and was unable to immediately respond to this Spartan provocation. The Spartans took this as a sign of weakness and began to attack cities loyal to Macedonia. Antipater stepped up the pace finishing the northern campaign before quickly marching south. When he arrived he found the Spartans and their allies besieging the city of Megalopolis in Arcadia, which had remained loyal to Macedonia and would not surrender. There was a great battle and Antipater won a decisive victory. The mighty Spartans were vanquished and begged for peace. Antipater took most of the nobles as hostages and referred their fate to the League as Alexander had previously done with the Thebans. Unfortunately, the League of Corinth, seeing this as another blow to their freedom, did not have the stomach to pass judgement and left the fate of the captured undecided. It was now up to Alexander to determine their punishment.

When they arrived in Asia, Alexander held a trial where it was decided that the troublemakers would be executed and the rest freed. Sparta, however, was forced to join the League of Corinth.

With the defeat of Sparta, the legacy, culture and way of life of the ancient Greeks ended forever. From then forward, Macedonia ruled over Greece for centuries until the Roman wars.

After collecting his treasure, Alexander appointed a Persian satrap in charge of civil duties and two Macedonian commanders in charge of the troops and citadels. While still in Susa, he also received several thousand fresh Macedonian troops for his next campaign.

After a bit of rest and relaxation, Alexander was on the move again, this time headed for Parsa (Persepolis) but first he had to cross the land of the Uxii. While the people of the plains submitted without a fight, the highlanders, bound by old traditions, demanded tribute as payment for passage through their lands. Everyone had to pay, including the Persian King as many had done before him. Alexander unfortunately was not the sort who would easily yield to bandits and marauders. Instead of paying tribute he unleashed his army upon them. He sent a strong detachment behind their lines to cut off their retreat while his main army attacked from below. After a short battle the Uxians were overpowered and fled, only to be annihilated by the Macedonians waiting at their rear. It was now Alexander's turn to impose a penalty demanding annual tributes of 100 horses, 500 draught animals and 30,000 sheep.

At this point Alexander decided to split his army in two. Parmenio went with the allied forces to Parsa via the main southern road while Alexander with the second force took a shortcut to the Persian Gates through the treacherous mountains. After five days of forced march, Alexander arrived at the pass only to run into serious resistance. In anticipation, the Persians had built a wall across the pass. A sizable force was waiting for the Macedonians to arrive. Upon contact, Alexander initiated a direct siege but was unable to penetrate the barriers. The Persians had artillery and archers mounted above the wall. From there they rolled great boulders and rained arrows and javelins down upon the Macedonians below. Alexander suffered heavy casualties and had to retreat. Discouraged by the heavy losses, Alexander's officers were about to give up the siege claiming that it would be easier to go around than lose more men attempting the impossible. &quot;Impossible? It is not impossible.&quot; Alexander exclaimed. &quot;It is so simple that even that old shepherd over there can show you how it is done. Bring me the old man here and I will prove it to you.&quot; When the old man arrived, Alexander had him questioned about the local terrain. Being a shepherd all his life the old man was familiar with the local landscape, especially the passes that led through the treacherous terrain. With relative ease the old shepherd was able to lead Alexander's army behind the Persian position.

Alexander left a strong cavalry force and two battalions of the phalanx at the entrance to the gorge. To deceive the enemy about his numbers, Alexander ordered his men to burn the normal number of campfires at night. Then when the signal was given, they were to assault the wall. Alexander in the meantime took a commando force and assault troops through the long and winding twenty-kilometer path and after a day and two nights travel, reached his destination. He gave the signal to attack at dawn and after a bloody clash the Persian force was totally annihilated.

Victorious, Alexander resumed his journey towards Parsa only to be bogged down by heavy snowdrifts, ravines and watercourses.

Part way he received incentive to get moving again when a messenger arrived with news that Parsa was ready to surrender. If, however, Alexander didn't hurry to get there in good time the inhabitants would plunder its treasures.

Alexander acted at once ordering the infantry to follow as best as it could while the cavalry dashed all night at breakneck speeds until it reached the Araxes River at dawn. There was no bridge so his engineers hurriedly built one from timbers and stones in record time, allowing the cavalry to cross and ride on. Alexander arrived in time to marvel at the splendor of Persian culture and to secure his treasure. His gaze at the city's magnificence reinforced the reality that Persian rule was over. Alexander was now the new lord and master of Asia as he planted his feet in Parsa and sat himself at the throne of Xerxes.

Soon after taking control of the city, Alexander ordered his troops to burn down Xerxes's building as a symbolic act to show that he had now accomplished what he had set out to do. It was an act that he would later regret.

While in Parsa, Alexander received news of the final Macedonian victory over the Spartan coalition. Alexander must have been ecstatic at the knowledge that the once feared and mighty Spartans had folded not before him but before Antipater, a mere general. There was nothing that could stand in Alexander's way now. His army proved itself invincible against any foe and amply demonstrated its cunning and might in all kinds of battles and under all conceivable circumstances.

With the Spartan threat out of the way, the last bastion of Greek resistance was over and Alexander no longer needed to hold the Greek armies hostage. With much fanfare, gift giving and bonus pay he dismissed the entire League troops from their duty. The Thessalian cavalry, which proved itself worthy in battle, he rewarded handsomely and sent home. Those who preferred to stay in Alexander's commission were accepted as paid mercenaries, not as allied soldiers. With the fall of Sparta the so-called &quot;alliance&quot; also ended and Alexander's campaigns from here on forward were waged by Macedonians only.

And now I would like to take you on a short diversion to a different time, to a different place where a later generation of Macedonians proudly displayed their mark.

This is another inscription of Dura-Europos as translated by Anthony Ambrozic.

NOTE: the letter &quot;Š&quot; is pronounced as &quot;SH&quot;

[

XXXXIX

The Beggar's Magnanimity

This graffiti appears in the temple of Artemis, at the entrance to the odeon, on the east side of the door, at the foot of the stairway leading to the upper tier.

Division and Alphabetization:

AB DADOŠ MEM JE ON BARGAŠ.

AB DAŠ JE MENI KOS

SJOTER ROJ MAŠ.

Translation:

&quot;If you add to him, he is a rich man. If you also give to me only a portion, you shall tomorrow have paradise.&quot;

Looser Translation:

&quot;If you add to what he already has, he will be a rich man. If you also give to me but a portion, you shall tomorrow have paradise.

Explanation:

AB -&quot;will it?, would it?, were it to: - This is a very dialectal, shorter form of the literal ALI BI or a more colloquial A K'.

DADOŠ -&quot;you add&quot; - second prs. sing. pres. of DODATI - &quot;to add&quot; - DADOŠ still very much resonates in the current literal DODAŠ. In English, one does not add to a person but rather to his possessions or wealth. As a result, the initial translation seems strained.

MEM - &quot;to him, him&quot; - This is a disused, archaic, dialectal form of NJEM' or the literal NJEMU.

JE - &quot;is&quot;

ON - &quot;he&quot;

BARGAŠ - &quot;rich man&quot; - Today's usage is BOGATAŠ. - BARG for BOG is a vernacular variation, but very archaic.

AB - see supra

DAŠ - &quot;you give&quot; - second prs. sing. of DATI - &quot;to give&quot;

JE - &quot;and, also&quot; - JE here is a shortened JER which corresponds to the current literal TER which is slowly being undercut into erosive archaity, especially in speech.

MENI - &quot;me, to me&quot; - This is still the current literal usage.

KOS - &quot;share, portion, piece&quot;

SJOTER - &quot;tomorrow&quot; - This disused form still carries its antique sparkle whether one seeks its DNA in the Sln. JUTRI or the SC. SUTRA,

ROJ - &quot;paradise&quot; - RAJ is the current usage.

MAŠ - &quot;you have&quot; - second prs., sing. of IMETI - &quot;to have&quot; - The literal form would be IMAŠ, but MAŠ is the colloquial equivalent.

Please note the upper extension of the letter C. Another example of the Venetic mode of communication by any means whatsoever! The C is here meant to have the added Š value and not merely the S sound of an ordinary C. Giving the C a forehead was an imaginative way this could be accomplished before the age of diacritics.] (Pages 83-85, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

A reminder to the reader that these inscriptions were made by the descendents of Alexander's soldiers centuries after Alexander's time and the words are similar to (and some are the same as) the words of the modern Macedonian language of today.

And now back to Alexander's story.

Alexander and his army took a long deserved rest during the winter months before setting out to occupy Ecbatana, the last of the Persian capitals.

The treasures Alexander found in Parsa were even greater than those found in Susa. It is estimated that he collected 120,000 Persian talents from Parsa alone and another 6,000 talents from Pasargadae, a nearby town that also surrendered without a fight.

In May 330 BC, after about four months of rest, Alexander left Parsa and headed northwards. It seemed unusual that Alexander would remain still for this long but Peter Green believes that he was waiting for the Persian New Year festival to commence so that he could participate in it. That unfortunately did not happen and Alexander left for Ecbatana to again look for Darius. Darius, in the meantime, hoped that Alexander would be so intoxicated by the overwhelming treasures and the decadent life in Parsa that he would retire in the luxurious quarters of the western palaces and forget about pursuing him. Just to be on the safe side, however, Darius began to amass a new army in case Alexander dared to attack. Darius would then quickly escape into Bactria destroying the countryside and leaving nothing behind.

When Alexander found out that Darius was in Ecbatana he went after him. Anticipating Alexander's move Darius quickly sent his baggage train and harem to the Caspian Gates while he prepared a trap for Alexander in Ecbatana. Counting on the assistance of his allies, the Scythians and Cadusians to provide him with massive reinforcements, Darius challenged Alexander to a battle. When Alexander heard of Darius's challenge, he instructed his baggage train to follow behind while he force-marched his Macedonians in pursuit. But before reaching Ecbatana, Alexander learned that Darius had not received the reinforcements he expected and had resolved to flee. When Alexander arrived at Ecbatana he was a week too late. His 500-kilometer break neck march was for nothing. Darius had cleared the city treasury of its 7,000 talents and had slipped away eastwards with 6,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry troops.

This was a great disappointment for Alexander, which made him even more determined to hunt Darius down.

Before leaving on his journey deep into Asia, Alexander built a treasury house at the citadel of Ecbana to safeguard the 180,000 or so talents that he had amassed from Susa and Parsa. Parmenio was put in charge of guarding it. After dismissing the allied forces, his loyal Macedonian general Parmenio, having no army to command, was reduced in rank to military area commander. He was then placed in charge of guarding Alexander's treasury house at Ecbana and securing his communication lines to the rear. Parmenio was seventy years old when Alexander diplomatically coaxed him into retiring from the front lines.

With his treasury secured and Parmenio in charge of local affairs in Persia proper, Alexander was free to pursue Darius in present day Iran, by way of the Caspian Gates.

It is a shame that such great effort was expended in the pursuit of a single man in such a reckless manner during July in the heat of the desert.

Alexander force-marched his army northward and covered 320 kilometers in eleven days, moving relentlessly in an attempt to overtake the Persians before they crossed the Caspian Gates. When they reached Rhagae, about eighty kilometers from the Caspian Gates, Alexander discovered that Darius had already passed through. Alexander at that point decided to stop the pursuit and allowed his army rest for five days before continuing on through the Gates.

When they crossed the Gates, Alexander was informed that Darius had been deposed by his own satraps and was now their prisoner. Alexander quickly deployed his fastest cavalry on an all night pursuit and in the morning when they reached Darius's camp they discovered that Darius had been arrested and taken away.

Alexander continued his search and when his Macedonians finally caught up to him they found Darius in chains and weakened from stab wounds. After a wild all night chase, the next day Alexander's men discovered Darius mortally stabbed by javelins. Darius's own satraps murdered him to prevent him from falling into Alexander's hands, alive. Darius was around fifty years old when he met his tragic end in July of 330 BC.

After learning of the agonizing circumstances under which Darius had died, Alexander took his body back to Parsa and gave him a kingly burial in one of the Archaemenid royal cemeteries. Alexander, to the surprise of his Macedonians and especially the Greeks, did something unusual by declaring his desire to avenge the murdered Darius. He declared that the rebels who had murdered their royal master would be punished severely while those faithful to him would be held in high honour.

With the death of Darius, the impression was that the war was over. A rumour was started around the camp that the crusade might be over and everyone would soon be allowed to go home. After all, the allied forces had been dismissed and Darius was dead, what other purpose would there be to go on? This was obvious to everyone of course except to Alexander who now wanted to avenge Darius's death by going after his murderers. It was obvious that Alexander had motives different from his Macedonians. Alexander was not out to avenge anyone but rather to continue the conquests that would satisfy his own desires. His loyal soldiers, unfortunately, were becoming weary and wondered when, if ever, they would be able to go home to enjoy their hard-earned earnings in peace?

Alexander convened a meeting of his officers and soldiers and put an end to the rumours about going home and then ordered the army to prepare to move again. Even though Alexander got his way (again), this time unfortunately a rift began to develop between his own desires and those of his men. Alexander was well aware of the problems he was about to face and began to look at non-Macedonians as possible candidates for his civil as well as military administration. To lessen their loneliness, he even encouraged his men to take wives from the captive women and bring them along on the campaign. As he was moving away from Macedonia, Alexander knew all too well that receiving new recruits and maintaining a long distance communication link with home would become more and more difficult, especially since he was planning to make &quot;conquering&quot; a way of life.

After a few days rest the army was on the move again and headed east towards Hyrcania. On his way through Iraq, Alexander encountered wild tribes that had never before been conquered and fierce battles broke out. After subduing some he made them pay tributes of horses and livestock. Some, especially the very skilled horsemen and archers he drafted into his service.

While crossing Iran, Alexander found a new enemy with different fighting skills that offered him no great battles. It was an enemy in small numbers that hid during the day and attacked at night. It appeared in the rear and hit at several places simultaneously and quickly disappeared. When Alexander went in pursuit, it entrenched itself in inaccessible terrain or dispersed itself and vanished into the woodlands. Alexander, in response to these terror attacks, reorganized his army into small mixed units that could fight many independent battles simultaneously or come together as one large unit if necessary. Alexander also, for the first time, employed riding archers and javelin throwers who could attack on the move. With the new fighting methods and the conscription of foreigners into his military, Alexander's army was no longer the same army as when he had started out.

After spending two weeks of summer in Hyrcania, Alexander moved eastward to the northern side of Areia. There he received news that Bessus, one of Darius's satraps who was also a suspect in Darius's murder, had been recognized in the province of Bactria as King of Asia. Alexander was about to set out for Bactra, the capital city of Bactria, in pursuit of Bessus when he received news that the satrap of Areia was in support of Bessus's recognition and himself was planning an insurrection in Areia. Without losing any time, Alexander, with part of his army in a fast paced two days march, showed up unexpectedly in Artacoana, the capital of Areia. His presence brought great fear among the rebels and the insurrection collapsed.

Unfortunately, during the forced march Alexander lost Nicator, Parmenio's son and commander of his Guards Brigade. Nicator fell ill and died on his way to Artacaona. Alexander was too much in a hurry to honour him as a fallen soldier so he left that task to Philotus, Nicator's brother. Alexander was determined to put down Bessus as soon as possible and after arriving in Artacoana, went on the move again. He had learned that Bessus was raising a large army recruiting from Bactria and from the wild nomadic tribes from beyond the Oxus.

Alexander was now entering uncharted territory and did not know what to expect. To avoid further trouble he founded a Macedonian settlement, which he named Alexandria -of-the- Areians, the first of many military garrisons positioned at strategic points throughout the eastern provinces.

For some reason Alexander abandoned his haste to reach Bactra by direct route and decided to travel south, perhaps to tame the rest of the provinces before heading north for the Hindu Kush. He secured these regions too by founding several new Macedonian settlements such as Alexandria-in-Arachosia, present-day Kandahar and Alexandria-at-the-Caucasus. To build his cities, Alexander's army laboured all through the winter without rest.

In the spring of 329 BC, after a short rest, Alexander led his army over the snowy Hindu Kush. Despite the opposition Bessus offered him Alexander emerged victorious and entered Bactria. Bessus fled and disappeared in Sogdiana. Alexander occupied Bactria including the capital Bactra and then advanced northward across the Oxus River. It has been said that there was no wood to build a bridge so it took the army five days to cross the Oxus River. They swam across the river using inflated leather skins, which had been sewn together from their tent coverings.

No sooner had Alexander entered Sogdiana than Bessus fell out of favour with his supporters for not putting up a fight and gradually even his own troops deserted him. Bessus's fall from grace did not mean that the rebellion was over. In time a new and much more dangerous antagonist would take his place and carry on the national resistance.

After capturing Bessus, Alexander continued his trek northward past Maracanda until he came upon the Jaxartes River where he reached the extreme northeast limit of the Persian Empire. Beyond there, in the broad steppes, lived nomads who were always a danger to the empire. To defend against attack and keep watch on the river, Alexander founded a frontier Macedonian settlement and named it Alexandria-Eschate or Khojend.

While Alexander was occupied with the preparations for the founding of his new city, the Persian rebellion was festering until it erupted into a violent revolt in a number of localities. Alexander did not waste time before unleashing his army and crushing the insurrection with much bloodshed. All the towns that participated were destroyed and their inhabitants were executed. But instead of crushing their spirits, Alexander's actions inflamed the rebels and soon afterwards even more uprisings took place and on a greater scale. At one point the rebels managed to defeat the Macedonian expeditionary force and besiege Maracanda. Their action however, angered Alexander to a point where he himself took a contingent of light troops and force-marched 300 kilometers in three days in pursuit of the rebels until they were subdued and severely punished. When he was finished, he headed south into Bactra where he spent the winter of 329-328 BC resting.

During the following spring, Alexander split his army in two and left Craterus behind in Bactria to protect the city while he moved north into Sogdiana to put down more rebellions. While Alexander was rounding up rebels, he instructed Hephaestion to plan out several cities in Sogdiana. A new city named Alexandria-the-furthermost emerged which was later populated by Macedonian immigrants.

Victorious over the rebels, Alexander gave command of Sogdina to Coenus while he and his army moved on to Nautaca to spend the winter.

Of all the rebellions that erupted between 329 and 327 BC, only one remained undefeated. The rebels here were perched high upon an inaccessible rocky citadel in the mountains of Sogdiana.

In the spring of 327 BC, Alexander marched his army from the wintering grounds of Nautaca to the high fortress of Sogdiana and summoned the rebels to surrender. Unfortunately, the only answer he received was laughter and ridicule. They said that the only way they would surrender was if Alexander's soldiers suddenly developed wings.

Alexander turned to his men and asked for volunteers, offering high rewards to those who would scale the highest peak. As it turned out, among the Macedonian soldiers were mountain climbers and some 300 of the bravest and bold volunteered. They undertook the climb in the dark of night using ropes and iron tent pegs for spikes, which they drove into the icy cold rock. Thirty of them fell to their death during the climb but the rest made it to the top. Then early the next morning, in the dawn of first light, the rebels saw, to their astonishment, these Macedonian supermen high above them and immediately capitulated, surrendering their fortress. Among the rebels captured was the Bactrian prince, Oxyartes, who had with him his beautiful daughter Roxane. In the judgement of Alexander's companions, Roxane was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen, second only to Stateira, the wife of Darius. Alexander fell passionately in love with her and soon afterwards made her his wife.

Soon after this campaign was over, Alexander marched eastwards towards Paraetacene to put down another citadel of resistance. Here too Alexander found the fortress perched high on a steep rock surrounded by deep ravines and very rough terrain. It seemed that the more impregnable the fortress looked the more Alexander was determined to penetrate it. He loved challenges and so did his Macedonians because they too seemed eager to do the impossible.

With a bit of Macedonian ingenuity, a lot of determination and with whatever nature had to offer, the Macedonian engineers constructed long ladders from the surrounding tall pine trees descending into the ravines. From the bottom they raised a causeway over the ravine to the citadel walls. They then built a penthouse above the causeway to protect the soldiers from falling artillery and began to bombard the citadel walls. It did not take too long before the shaken rebels offered to surrender.

This being the last bastion of resistance, Alexander had put down all resistance in the Far East and was free to return to Bactra. Alexander was hesitant to leave Sogdia unresolved before continuing on his trek to India. Here he met a fighting people with great determination much like his own. He needed to pacify them but not by just defeating them in battle. He needed to show them that he had earned their respect but not just by employing them into his services. He needed to make them partners the old fashioned way, by marrying one of their kind, the way Philip would have done.

Before returning to Bactra Alexander married Roxane at the top of the citadel in the castle he had just conquered. His marriage to Roxane was a symbol of reconciliation with his former enemies and was meant to have great political importance. The marriage ceremony was conducted according to Iranian customs, which was meant to flatter the Iranian national pride. Unfortunately, what was good for the Persians and non-Macedonians was certainly viewed with contempt by some Macedonians, so we are told.

A great deal of this information comes to us from Greek sources and personally I believe it is biased. There may have been differences of opinion between Alexander and his officers but not to the extent emphasized. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander showed interest in foreign cultures because he knew that he could benefit from their diversity. Alexander also knew that he could not rule a vast empire such as this by spear alone. He needed to elevate the feeling of belonging among all people. What better example than for Alexander himself to show everyone that even a king was not beneath participating in other peoples' customs. There was bound to be some friction between his more conservative officers and himself but I don't believe it was mutinous. Philotas may have had good reason to despise Alexander's fraternization with the enemy. His brother died for Alexander and yet Alexander was too busy to give him a proper burial. There were also those who were tired of fighting a war without end and who were bound to complain. What good is wealth if one can't enjoy it?

History should judge the Macedonians not by what other people, especially the Greeks, have said but by what the Macedonians did. Despite the negative comments from ancient authors, there is one overriding truth that can't be denied. The Macedonian army remained loyal to Alexander to the end. No army can remain intact or win battles the way the Macedonians did if there is dissension between its leaders. Alexander was unquestionably loyal to the Macedonians and the Macedonians were in turn unquestionably loyal to Alexander, the rest is nothing but rumours. Outside of these rumours, no ancient author has left any record of a real mutiny or conspiracy that may have allegedly taken place within the Macedonian army. There is not a single record of one Macedonian raising arms against another Macedonian. By this I am referring to Philotas's trial and Parmenio's execution. There are claims that Philotas was aware of a conspiracy to murder Alexander and Parmenio may have been part of the same conspiracy. It seems to me that in their preoccupation with their tabloid style denigration of Alexander, the ancient authors &quot;simply forgot&quot; to mention his more important accomplishments. They simply forgot to mention Alexander's desire to unite all cultures of the world as equals, which has been a Macedonian quality passed on from generation to generation and has survived in the hearts of many Macedonian revolutionaries.

Those who had contempt for Alexander have left us with the impression that Alexander and his officers were disgusting drunkards and petty, suspicious little men spying and exacting revenge on one other. Is this the making of a great army? Are we to believe that Alexander and his officers who, at all odds, won every single battle they fought and made possible out of the impossible because they were a bunch of drunk paranoid megalomaniacs?

It is truly a shame that we know practically nothing of Alexander's vision of a future world. His desire to create a truly democratic and pluralistic society has been clouded and coloured by the dwelling of those too small to see beyond themselves and their own prejudices.

Alexander's vision, be it out of necessity or by design, was so far ahead of its time that we today are grasping to comprehend it. Alexander may have conquered the world by force but there is no doubt that he had desires to turn it into a modern &quot;United Nations&quot;.

To be continued.

And now I leave you with this:

Prior to the partition of Macedonia in 1912-1913, or lets say prior to the formation of the Greek State and the institutionalization of educational systems in the Balkans NO ONE in Macedonia spoke Greek. Conversely, in every corner, in every remote village, in every isolated place in Macedonia, everyone spoke Macedonian. Outside of some Latin speaking Vlahs, there was no other language spoken by the common Macedonians. From traditions and folklore passed on from generation to generation and from people that were not educated or polluted by propaganda, we learn that Macedonians have always lived where they live today, in Macedonia and have spoken the same Macedonian language they speak today. There is no record of Slav invasions or of mass Slav migrations. In fact, the only memory that the word &quot;Slav&quot; conjures up in the minds of these wonderful record keepers is of Christianity and of religious celebration. Da slava is to celebrate. Pravoslavi is the old name for the Christian Orthodox of today. There was no Christian Orthodox prior to the 19th century there was only Pravoslavi.

The Modern Greek language was introduced in Macedonia through the Greek Church and by inviting young Macedonians to be educated in Greek schools. But instead of receiving an education, their heads were filled with Greek propaganda and became the first Greek agents to spawn Hellenism in Macedonia.

As to whether the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek or Macedonian, the answer to this question becomes obvious when you separate the nobles from the commoners. While the nobles spoke the international language of commerce, the common folk including the soldiers in Alexander's army spoke Macedonian, a root language of today's modern Macedonian.

The educated Macedonians spoke and wrote in koine while the common Macedonians spoke Macedonian and wrote Macedonian words using Greek, Latin and Venetic script as demonstrated by the Dura-Europos inscriptions.

If the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek as the modern Greeks claim, then wouldn't there be some remnants of the ancient Greek language still being spoken in some remote parts of Macedonia? Yes there would be! But in fact there is NONE.

There are some of you who, dispute the evidence presented by the Dura-Europos inscriptions, offer your own counter arguments such as &quot;if there was a Macedonian language spoken by Alexander's soldiers in Dura-Europos, how come then there are no inscriptions found inside the boundaries of modern Greece?&quot; The answer to this question is unfortunately obvious. Any artifacts or inscriptions found in the Greek occupied territory that do not aid the Greek cause or agree with Greek policies towards Macedonia are simply hidden from the public or destroyed. If you don't believe me ask yourselves this question. After 1400 years of Slav culture why is there not a single inscription or artifact found in Greece that bears the Macedonian language? The Greeks admit to the existence of the brothers Kiril and Methodi and yet have removed everything that is representative of them. They have destroyed all books and have erased all inscriptions including those from the gravestones in Macedonian cemeteries in order to eradicate everything that is Macedonian. That being said, then why should I trust the Greeks to tell the truth about discoveries of ancient inscriptions that bear the Macedonian language, when they lie about the existence of more modern Macedonian inscriptions that I clearly know exist?

References:

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus, 1993, Alexandra Publishing.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., A Historical Biography, 1991, University of California Press.

Michael Wood, In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great, A Journey from Greece to Asia, University of California, 1997.


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>66coust6625h1c02tseuge3lfyk7jml</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Alexander III - To the Ends of the Earth, the Trek to India</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2065</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11080</id>
      <parentid>4977</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:34Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="53146" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 8 - Alexander III - To the Ends of the Earth, the Trek to India

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

By 328 BC, Alexander had conquered the entire Persian Empire, at least the empire that belonged to Darius III. The ancient authors gave no account as to why Alexander wanted to go beyond the Persian realm but as soon as he completed his conquests of eastern Iran, Alexander began preparations to invade India. I believe Alexander acted not so much on his desire for conquest but on his overwhelming curiosity to see what was beyond the eastern realm of the then known world. No doubt, while dealing with the mountain Indians of Eastern Iran, he had heard stories about India that did not fit with his previous knowledge of that part of the world.

Before leaving Bactra, Alexander parted with tradition and appointed Amyntas, a Macedonian, instead of a foreign satrap to secure the important satrapy of Bactria. Amyntas was left well armed with 10,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry, more soldiers than what Alexander had started with seven years before.

In the spring of 327 BC, while his army stood at the Hindu Kush contemplating the sight of the eastern edge of the world, Alexander meticulously planned the next step of his campaign.

For the Indians, Alexander's approach through the Hindu Kush was a reminder of the long ago Aryan invasion. Nomadic Aryans invaded India around 1500 BC, destroyed the Indus valley civilization and exterminated the Indus inhabitants, thus ending the most brilliant civilization of the ancient world.

On his journey to India, Alexander brought with him his young queen Roxane, who a year later bore him a son. Unfortunately the child died soon after birth.


In early summer 327 BC, Alexander divided his army into two. The main column, commanded by Hephaestion and Perdiccas, went down the Kabul River and over the Khyber Pass to build bridges and prepare for the invasion. Alexander, meanwhile, with his lightly armed units took a different path along the Kunar Valley in east Afganistan and from there he crossed into northwestern Pakistan.

Along his journey Alexander encountered stiff opposition, which required severe fighting. The fearless Indian tribes along the mountainous terrain had numerous warriors and presented difficulties for Alexander's advance. The fighting was so severe that during the first contact both Alexander and Ptolemy were wounded.

After crossing the Swat River, Alexander encountered more formidable tribes and the fighting became even more intense. The Indians fought bravely but eventually relented. After losing Massaga, their chief fortress, the Indians left for Aornos (Pir-Sar), another fortress.

Situated at the bend of the Indus River, this 1,500-meter high fortress was impossible to scale. Sensing the limits of his army's capability, Alexander, for the time being, decided not to pursue the enemy any further. He turned his army around and marched southward down the Indus River.

Later, using different strategies, Alexander attempted to besiege the Aornos fortress several times without success. Alexander could not enter Punjab with Aornos intact. He had to break its resistance. If conventional means did not work then he had to invent new methods of attack. Of all the new methods attempted, the most successful proved to be the flooding of the ravines surrounding the fortress.

As soon as the water rose high enough in the ravine to bridge the army's position with the rock, Alexander's siege-engines moved in for the kill. The resistance soon broke and the army was able to rush in and subdue their opponents. Alexander was the first to reach the top, completing the conquest of Aornos. This was one of the most brilliant feats of strategy and tactics in his career.

With Aornos out of the way Alexander was now free to pursue his journey to Punjab. The downing of Aornos gave birth to the legend of the Macedonian supermen. The Indians regarded the fortress impregnable and believed that the god Heracles once tried to conquer it without success.

In March 326 BC, Alexander turned southward on a journey to catch up with Hephaestion and Perdiccas. When he reached them he gave his army a month of well-deserved rest. After crossing the Indus River, over the pontoon bridge previously built by Hephaestion's engineers, Alexander entered into the land of his ally Ambhi. Alexander, trusting no one, marched into Taxila battle ready but none materialized. Ambhi welcomed Alexander with many gifts and received him as his guest in the capital Taxila.

In Taxila the Macedonians, for the first time, encountered many wonders, strange manners and customs. To the scientists' delight they also discovered flora they had never seen before. It was here too that Alexander met those &quot;naked philosophers&quot; (Buddhist monks) and came in contact with the doctrine of Buddha.

For the next three days the Macedonians were treated royally with lavish gifts. Not to be outdone, Alexander reinstated Ambi as rajah of Taxila and showered him with gifts of his own, which included thirty horses and no less than 1,000 talents. This generosity was motivated by Alexander's wish to have Ambi on his side, as he was receiving intelligence reports of large concentrations of enemy troops ahead. In spite of making him rajah, Ambi was still a vassal king. A Macedonian military governor, with a strong garrison at his disposal actually governed Taxila.

Alexander invested a great deal of time and considerable effort negotiating peaceful terms with the other two Indian rajahs in that region but it seemed that peace was not possible before war. Porus, one of the rajahs negotiating with Alexander, made his terms very clear. If Alexander wanted his kingdom, he had to earn it in battle.

Porus's army was already amassing at the banks on the other side of the Jhelum River as more reinforcements began to arrive. Alexander could not afford to waste much time so he ordered his engineers to build a bridge. Since there were no building materials available in the vicinity, Alexander sent Coenus to dismantle the pontoon bridge from the Indus River, cut it into small sections and transport it over land on oxcarts. While Coenus was looking after the bridge, Alexander reinforced his army by adding elephants and Indian recruits to his infantry.

As he was getting ready to meet Porus Alexander did not count on a monsoon. Perhaps unaware of the Indian climate in June, Alexander led his army during continuous, steaming, torrential rain. The skies had opened up and pounded the unknowing Macedonians for over two months without a break.

Alexander traveled over the Salt Range covering about 180 kilometers in a little over two days before reaching the Jhelum River. A great achievement under monsoon conditions.

Unfortunately, the Jhelum was so swollen from the monsoon rains that it was impossible to cross. Besides, even if crossing was possible, Porus was waiting on the other side with archers, chariots and elephants. To a casual observer it would have appeared that the opposing armies had reached a stalemate. Neither could act without severe consequences.

To reinforce the idea that he was going to wait for more favourable conditions before attacking, Alexander ordered continuous supplies to be delivered to his camp in full view of his enemy. While doing that he sent surveyors up and down the river in search of a good place to cross. In the meantime, the troops were kept on full alert with activities suggesting the possibility of an imminent attack.

When nothing happened for a long time, the enemy tired of Alexander's antics and began to ignore the distracting maneuvers. As luck would have it, the surveyors did find a good place to cross. It was on a large wooded island where the channels at both sides were narrow. The spot was located about 25 kilometers upstream from camp and was ideal since there was a ravine on the near side of the bank, a good place to hide troops.

To ensure a successful crossing, Alexander had to thoroughly confuse the enemy about his real intentions so he ordered his troops to light fires over a wide area every night. At the same time Ptolemy would take a large cavalry force and run up and down the riverbank making as much noise as possible while making false attempts to cross.

Initially, all these demonstrations were taken seriously and every move and maneuver was counteracted with opposing forces on the other side. After some time, however, when it became obvious that these were only tricks to agitate the opposing troops and lower their morale, Porus began to relax his vigilance. Porus must have thought that Alexander's real aim was to break his army's morale and attack him when he was at his weakest. Unfortunately for Porus, Alexander was much cleverer than that.

Alexander had to make his move in less that two days because the other rajah, Abisares of Kashmir, was about 80 kilometers to the north and coming his way.

Even though Porus was at ease with Alexander's exercises, his patrols kept constant watch. Any attempt at crossing, even undetected, would be overwhelmed by Porus's forces as soon as it was spotted. To maximize his chances, Alexander divided his army and directed simultaneous but separate attacks at different points on the river. Not knowing where the attack was going to come from, Porus too had to divide his forces in order to counter the Macedonians. In the meantime, the pontoon bridge was assembled in secrecy and ready to be deployed.

In the dark of night, Alexander, with a force of 10,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, slipped away up the banks to make the 25-kilometer trek to attempt the crossing at dawn. The baggage train and a large part of the army remained at the base camp. Alexander had given orders to openly start making preparations for an attack at the crack of dawn. He even had one of his men, an Alexander look alike, come out of his royal tent wearing the royal cloak, barking out orders.

A second group, consisting of three battalions of the phalanx, the mercenary cavalry and infantry, was dispatched from the main camp to the halfway point between the main camp and Alexander's crossing, with orders to wait and cross only after Alexander was engaged in battle.

Craterus, in command of the forces at the main camp, was also given orders to wait and not cross until Porus had moved from his current position in pursuit of Alexander.

This was indeed a brilliant plan and certainly posed a dilemma for Porus. What was Porus to do? Porus did what any skilled commander would have done. He dispatched a strong force to stop Alexander from crossing. Alexander, however, anticipating his move countered it by depending on his best Macedonian troops to make the crossing at lightning speed and put up a great fight on the other side; a move that to this day remains unparalleled.

Alexander did receive some help from his gods who provided him with deafening thunderclaps and torrential rain, which masked the noise of the embarkation.

Even though the crossing was made successfully, all was not well. It seemed that Alexander's surveyors had made an error. The bank Alexander landed on was not the expected shore, but another elongated island. It was a long and arduous struggle to get across the fast flowing torrents of the mighty Jhelum River. Exhausted and drenched in mud the Macedonians finally made it across. Porus still did not know where the main attack was going to take place. This exhausting and pointless exercise of Alexander's he suspected was another deception to lure his forces away from the main attack. After some hesitation, however, and to be on the safe side, Porus eventually did dispatch his son with 2,000 cavalry and 120 chariots, but by then it was too late. Most of Alexander's assault force had made it across and easily subdued the Indians.

After a brief clash the Indians fled leaving behind about four hundred dead, including Porus's son. While pursuing the fleeing Indians Alexander was joined by the second group of his army, which by now had also made it across. Alexander again divided up his forces and took command of the cavalry which ran ahead at galloping speed while the foot soldiers followed behind at a fast marching pace.

When Porus received news that his son was dead and that Alexander had crossed the river, he decided it was time to face him and marched his forces upstream to do battle. Only a small force, consisting mostly of elephants, was left behind to hold back Craterus.

It is estimated that Porus had at his disposal approximately 2,000 cavalry, 20,000 infantry, 130 elephants and 180 chariots. Porus chose a level, sandy plain for the battleground and positioned his infantry in a wide central front reinforced with elephants about 30 meters apart. At the wings he positioned his chariots and cavalry along with a flanking body of infantry.

Alexander's cavalry arrived first but stayed back and would not engage the enemy until the infantry arrived. Alexander had about 11,000 Macedonian infantrymen and 6,000 cavalrymen. While waiting, Alexander kept his forces out of sight and carried out detailed reconnaissance of Porus's dispositions. A frontal attack using his cavalry would be difficult, pitting horse against elephant. The phalanx might do the trick but not while Porus's cavalry was still active. The cavalry would have to be disabled first so that there was no chance that it would outflank the phalanx.

To knock out the Indian cavalry Alexander decided to attack Porus's left wing. The idea was to keep two cavalry divisions hidden from the enemy while carrying out the attack with his entire visible cavalry, which numbered a little less that the enemy's total mounted force. A force that size was sure to overwhelm Porus's left wing and he would have to draw reinforcements from his right wing. The commander of the hidden divisions was given specific orders to circle around Porus's right wing and stay out of sight until the left wing was engaged. If Porus transferred troops from the right wing to feed the engagement, he was to charge across behind the enemy lines and attack from the rear. Otherwise he would engage the enemy normally. The phalanx was ordered to delay engagement until there was evidence that the enemy was thrown into confusion.

The mounted archers attacked first and almost immediately disabled the chariots. Alexander's cavalry charged next and, as expected, Porus committed his right wing to deliver a striking blow. The two hidden divisions, under the command of Coenus and Demetrius, broke cover and engaged the Indians from the rear. Instead of striking a blow at Alexander, Porus's cavalry received a blow and the Indians fell back to the protection of the elephants.

With the enemy cavalry put out of action, the Macedonian phalanx and heavy infantry advanced on Porus's center. But attacking angry elephants was not an easy task. Each elephant had to be encircled, its driver picked off by the archers and while the elephant fought back it had to be speared and slashed until it was brought down. The infantrymen had to resort to slashing the elephant's trunk with swords and chop at its feet with axes before the animal could be brought down. Many of those doing the hacking and chopping did not fare well either since the elephants fought back smashing, impaling, stamping and crushing their tormentors to a bloody pulp.

As Porus's battle line was pressed back, the elephants squeezed together and began to trample their own troops causing further casualties. As Alexander drew his cavalry ring tighter around Porus's army, he ordered his phalanx to lock shields and move in for the kill. By now Craterus had crossed the river and was in pursuit of those who had broken through Alexander's ring. The Macedonians had just had a traumatic experience and were in no mood for forgiveness as the battle soon turned into a massacre.

The elephants became frantic and trampled more Indians than enemies. The Indians, including Porus, fought and resisted to the bitter end. Wounded by a javelin, Porus saw no point in resisting any further and rode off on his elephant. Alexander pursued him and with diplomacy convinced him to surrender. Alexander showed great admiration for Porus and gave him the respect a king deserved. This was the last great battle the Macedonians would fight and considering that it took place under monsoon conditions, something the Macedonians had never before experienced, this may have been the most difficult battle of their entire campaign.

When it was all over, Alexander appointed Porus king of his own dominions and later extended his kingdom to the Hyphasis. Porus in turn remained loyal to Alexander until he died. To secure his position in Punjab, Alexander commissioned two new cities, Necaea and Bucephala, to be built on the Jhelum. Necaea was built where Alexander crossed the mighty Jhelum River in honour of his success. Bucephala was built where the battle took place and was dedicated to Alexander's horse Bucephalus, which was said to have died of old age.

After a month long, well-deserved rest Alexander summoned his army and headed eastward. He crossed the Chenab River which was three kilometers wide due to excessive rain. By the Chenab he founded another city which of course he named Alexandria (Sohadra). Somewhere east of the Chenab, near a city called Sangala, the Macedonians ran into stiff resistance and a horrific battle ensued where 17,000 Indians were slaughtered and 70,000 more were taken captive.

Alexander continued his eastern journey traveling below the high mountain ranges and making his way through water drenched fields in stifling heat and dripping monsoon skies. Long lines of dirty, tattered Indian refugees followed as the Macedonian army snaked its way across the countryside. After crossing the Ravi and the Beas Rivers into modern Punjab, the army camped for a short rest only to be frustrated by Alexander's future campaign plans.

It must have been some time ago that Alexander had realized that his original assumption about the geography of this region was in error. He also must have found out from the Indians that the Indus River did not empty into the Nile, as he had earlier informed his troops. Why he kept this information a secret from his troops is unknown.

Alexander waited for an opportune time to inform his troops that his maps were in error and that they were nowhere near the end of the world. In fact he informed his troops that they had to march twelve more days in the desert and cross another great river, the Ganges, before they might reach the end of the world. This information was not well received by his troops.

It appears that Alexander wanted to continue his campaign eastward and venture towards the Ganges but his giant plan was met with refusal. His army was getting tired to the point of exhaustion and would no longer follow him. They had traveled 18,000 kilometers in eight and a half years and they were tired. The sweltering weather and continuous torrential rain, which they had endured for seventy days, did not help the situation. Alexander found the predicament he was in hard to accept. Even after making many speeches and doing much sulking, his men would not relent and stood their ground. Alexander was powerless to act. After spending three days in his tent contemplating his predicament, he came to the realization that his men were right, it was time to turn back.

To commemorate his great advances and honour the gods who gave him to his victories, Alexander ordered the construction of twelve tower altars on the east side of the Beas River, one for each Macedonian god. He had his army construct the towers from square stones, which stood seventeen meters square and twenty-five meters high.

With a heavy heart Alexander turned his army around and sometime in mid September 326 BC started his march back towards his newly founded city near the Jhelum River. The next major task he would undertake would be to build a fleet of ships that would carry his army down the Indus River and into the ocean to the south.

Approximately 800 vessels were constructed to transport horses, grain, men and cargo. About 80 thirty-oar warships were built for defense. Alexander did not intend to command the fleet so he appointed Nearchus, his intimate friend from youth, as admiral.

In November 326 BC Alexander divided his army into two columns, boarded the ships and began his voyage down the Jhelum River. A blast of trumpets gave the signal to start rowing as each column took its position at opposite banks. Craterus commanded the column on the right and Hephaestion commanded the one on the left.

There was a great commotion as the pilots called out rowing commands and the oars splashed in unison, attracting onlookers who came to see the spectacle and serenade the soldiers on their voyage. Unfortunately, all was not well and before the fleet reached the Chenab, Alexander received information that a couple of tribes, the largest and most warlike, were preparing to do battle with him down river. Alexander, at the time, was not certain where the battle was going to take place so he hastened his pace down the Jhelum in hopes of passing the junction of turbulent waters where the Jhelum met the Chenab.

As it turned out, there was no sign of the enemy at the river junction but the turbulence did cause a great deal of damage and many ships were in need of repair. While repairs were made the army set camp near the banks, giving Alexander time to formulate a battle plan. The enemy territory was located between the Chenab and Ravi Rivers and a waterless desert protected their settlements. The most logical and efficient method to reach them was by water up the Chenab River. Alexander expected that the enemy too would think along the same lines so his plan included a bit of a surprise.

After his repairs were completed Alexander divided his army into three columns. He took the first column by land through the desert into the heart of enemy territory. The second column, commanded by Hephaestion, was sent up the Chenab River. The third column, commanded by Craterus, was ordered to hold the territory near the mouth of the Ravi River.

Alexander's land column encountered much resistance and a bloody battle ensued when he stormed and took several towns. Many attempted to escape but were intercepted by Hephaestion and Craterus. During the storming of one of the towns Alexander was wounded. While climbing a castle wall he fell victim to an enemy arrow which penetrated his chest. Believing him to be slain, his troops vented their fury on the enemy who fought back with equal ferocity.

Alexander was laid on his sacred shield and carried out on a stretcher to his ship. News of his alleged demise traveled like wildfire bringing grief to his troops. But Alexander was not dead and quickly regained consciousness after the arrow was extracted. In spite of all assurances, however, his men were not convinced until he himself rose to his feet, walked out of his tent and mounted a horse so that everyone could see him from the distance. Seeing their king alive brought joy to the troops whose shouts echoed throughout the land. His soldiers, from all sides, came to gaze upon him, shake his hand and show their affection. But most surprising of all was his enemy's reaction. Alexander's sudden rise from the dead spread terror and panic among the enemy ranks, causing mass surrenders. Even the enemy tribal kings voluntarily and humbly submitted themselves to Alexander's will.

After Alexander recovered from his wound, the fleet resumed its course down river until it reached the Indus where Alexander founded another city, which he named Alexandria (at the confluence).

By now it was February 325 BC and Alexander had reached the halfway point of his river voyage.

The second part of the voyage was just as turbulent as the first and even more fighting was needed before the region was conquered. Fortunately, Alexander had developed a reputation as a fierce fighter and many tribes were reluctant to fight him and acquiesced. There were others further south, however, who were influenced by the Brahmins and fought back fiercely.

After achieving victory, Alexander severely punished the Brahmins by having some of them hung for inciting riots and influencing the population to take up arms against him.

It was July 325 BC, when Alexander arrived at the Indus delta and camped for a rest at the city of Patala. Here Alexander reflected on the journey that took him from Kashmir through the entire Punjab down to the Indian Ocean. India was a great, rich and fruitful country and now she belonged to Macedonia.

While Alexander was busy conquering new land, his scientists and explorers were busy examining the country's exotic plants and animals, studying the Indian political and religious systems and cataloging the mineral wealth of this vast territory. Besides learning about India, much knowledge was imparted the other way. Being more advanced in metallurgy, the Macedonians taught the Indians how to smelt their silver and gold. The Macedonians also shared their knowledge of medicine and art, especially sculpting. Having been mislead before by geography, Alexander was determined to correct that problem as well.

During his rest at Patala Alexander and his advisors busied themselves looking for a sea passage from the Indus into the Tigris and the Euphrates. Alexander sent expeditions to explore the western and eastern branches of the Indus River delta in hopes of finding a safe passage.

It was during these expeditions that the Macedonians experienced, for the first time, the sudden and frightening ebb tide of the ocean.

After determining that the eastern branch of the Indus delta was easiest to navigate, Alexander dug wells and set up grain depots for his fleet all along the coast before returning to Patala.

By now it was nearing the end of August 325 BC and Alexander was anxious to get going. While admiral Nearchus and the fleet were ordered to wait until the end of the monsoon season, Alexander left Patala to make preparations for provisioning the fleet along the way.

On his way, Alexander ran into resistance again and had to subdue more tribes before turning westward. After appointing a Macedonian satrap to keep the region secure, Alexander left Hephaestion behind with orders to build another Alexandria city. At the coast before turning westward, Alexander left Leonnatus behind with orders to wait for the fleet and to build a second Alexandria city.

To further secure a supply line for his fleet, Alexander and his army turned westward into the Gedrosian Desert. This may have been one of the most difficult journeys Alexander and his army had ever encountered. There were no enemies to speak of only the scorching sun. Provisions, especially water, were in short supply and the army suffered immensely. Discipline, however, did not break down because the officers and Alexander himself suffered along with the men. Alexander even refused to drink water if there was not enough for everyone. His soldiers respected that and would not let him down. They traveled by night because it was too hot during the day and many perished from exhaustion, dehydration and starvation. They resorted to slaughtering their animals, including their horses, to survive. The desert was completely barren and dry and the local population subsisted strictly on seafood, consisting mostly of mussels.

It took Alexander sixty days to cross the desert before reaching Pura, the capital of Gedrosia. He marched on foot with his soldiers and shared with them his provisions as well as his courage and perseverance. He showed great respect for his men and treated them not like common soldiers but as comrades. This is the kind of man Alexander was. He always came through for his men, even in the worst of circumstances, which exemplified his true character as a person and his feelings for his Macedonians.

It is unknown how many of Alexander's people the desert took, but according to ancient sources (Arrian) a great many were lost. Even at times such as these, Alexander's scientists paused to observe and note the desert plant life.

Pura was like heaven for the survivors who, with plenty of food and drink, quickly recovered from their ordeal.

By the conquest of Gedrosia, Alexander's full subjection of Asia was complete.

It was now the beginning of December 325 BC, and Alexander was on the move again headed westward to Carmania where he had made prior arrangements to meet with Craterus. Before its departure the army was split and Craterus was sent via a different route to Carmania where he was expected to rendezvous with the main army. Craterus took the north road via the Bolan Pass and turned westward past Kandahar (Alexandria in Arachosia) where he did some fighting, before turning to Carmania. Here the field armies were again recombined and supplied with animals and provisions by the local satrap. Before leaving, Alexander held a festival of thanksgiving for his successes in India and for his passage through the deserts of Gedrosia. Here too, Alexander received news that the fleet had to depart a month earlier than expected due to the change in mood of the Indian population which had started to become hostile after Alexander's departure. According to reports, the sea voyage seemed to have had more success than the land trek with no crew losses except for some suffering due to bad food and water. With the exception of one minor skirmish, the sailors faced no armed resistance.

Like Alexander, Admiral Nearchus never bypassed an opportunity to have the scientists study the local flora and fauna, as well as record the customs of the native Indian coast dwellers. It was here too that the Macedonians saw whales for the first time. The sea voyage unfortunately was no pleasure cruise and the prolonged exposure to the hazards of the sea and lack of proper diet took its toll on the men. When they finally landed on shore and met their comrades, they were weakened, scruffy and unrecognizable. Nearchus and a few others came ahead of the fleet to report their arrival. When Alexander met them, even before a single word was exchanged, he was gripped by despair and devastated at the sight of their condition. Thinking that they were the only survivors of the fleet he wept uncontrollably. When finally Alexander gained his composure and Nearchus informed him that the fleet was safe, Alexander wept even more with joy and held a festival with offerings of thanks for its safe return.

Soon afterwards, Nearchus joined the fleet for its final voyage to Susa. Hephastion was sent by the south road to Persia to acquire provisions while Alexander, with the light troops, took the north road on a direct course to Pasargadae.

It was January 324 BC and this would be Alexander's second visit to Pasargadae. More than five years had elapsed since he had last visited this city but to Alexander it seemed like an eternity. The last time he entered Pasargadae he was a mere Macedonian general but this time he was a Great King who had outdone not just mere mortals but legendary gods. Unfortunately his accomplishments alone could not keep the peace in his empire. His prolonged absence gave the impression that he was either dead or not going to return. Thinking along the same line many of his Persian satraps, in his absence, became rebellious attacking Macedonian garrisons, plundering Macedonian temples and generally mistreating Alexander's subjects.

Alexander was now back and needed to make an example of those who had turned against him. By stern punishment he hoped to warn all others that such behavior would not be tolerated.

In one instance he executed a satrap along with his followers for usurping the title of Great King. In another, he tortured the priests in charge of a tomb that was plundered. At Persepolis Alexander had a man hanged for usurping the satrapy of a previously appointed satrap who had since died. Peucestas, a Macedonian who was comfortable with Persian customs and had learned to speak the Persian language, replaced the hanged Persian satrap.


According to Arrian, upon his return to Persepolis Alexander was saddened to tears after he gazed at the destruction he had caused the last time he was there. He was stricken with grief as he realized the symbolic value of the age-old buildings and temples that he had torched, now lost forever. He had done this for the sake of the Greeks to take vengeance for the crimes of Xerxes. Seeing the rubble and charred remains of what was once a great civilization and realizing that he had done this made him feel great remorse. The Greeks were now but a distant thought for which he cared not at all. In the last years he spent in Asia Alexander had come to the realization that here too many rich civilizations existed far beyond what he had previously imagined. The Greek idea that Asia was populated with uncultured and unworthy barbarians was only a narrow Greek concept that reflected more on the Greeks than on the Asians. The effects of his conquests did not change Alexander's character as many have claimed. What had changed was Alexander's perception of the new worlds, which he came to understand and respect.

About February 324 BC, Alexander left Persepolis and went to Susa where he was reunited with Nearchus and the fleet. Here too he had to deal with unruly satraps. Alexander had appointed Harpalus, his boyhood friend, as treasurer of Ecbatana in 330 BC. Harpalus escaped with much of Alexander's treasure and squandered it away on his own extravagant lifestyle.

During his stay in Susa, which lasted the spring and summer of 324 BC, Alexander encouraged the idea of mixed marriages. To show that he was sincere he married Stateira, Darius's daughter. He convinced some of his officers and soldiers to marry foreigners and rewarded them with gifts and dowries.

During this time Alexander also amnestied all exiles (about 20,000) in his empire, except those who were criminals, and allowed them to return to their homes. This order was begrudgingly obeyed by the Greek states. Athens especially disliked it since the majority of the 20,000 were political exiles and displaced persons from that region.

During the summer of 324 BC, Alexander left Susa for Ecbatana. He sent the bulk of his army ahead with Hephaestion on a march to the Tigris River while he and his light armed units sailed down the Eulaeus River to the Persian Gulf. After observing the scenery and satisfying his longing to sail, Alexander went up the Tigris and joined Hephaestion at Opis. Just before reaching Opis near Babylon, Alexander decided to reveal his future plans for his army's reorganization. One of his objectives, which became a bone of contention with the Macedonians, called for the retirement of the old Macedonian veterans who Alexander believed could no longer fight because of old age or debilitating wounds. His army did not take the news well, especially the idea of losing its respected veterans, and Alexander had a mutiny on his hands. Alexander's intentions may have been noble but his men did not see it that way. To some it appeared that Alexander was phasing out the conservative Macedonians only to replace them with foreigners. For some time now Alexander had been building his army with foreign recruits, mostly from Persia. The Macedonians had fought them in the past and were not happy having them among their ranks. To the conservative Macedonians it appeared that Alexander wanted to make the Persians partners and equals and that did not sit well with them.

During the mutiny harsh words were exchanged. Alexander was infuriated to the point of rounding up thirteen of the ringleaders and executing them immediately. He then dismissed the entire Macedonian army and stormed away shutting himself in his royal castle for three days, entertaining only Persians and refusing to speak to any Macedonian. On the third day some Macedonians requested an audience with him. After pleading for his time they were granted permission to see him. It was an emotional reconciliation as Alexander greeted his comrades speechless and in tears. When it was over, Alexander threw a great festival in honour of this reconciliation. As it turned out, it was not reconciliation between himself and his troops but, in the interest of the empire, it was reconciliation between the Macedonians and Persians.

At the great festival, Alexander had his Macedonians sit next to him and next to them sat the Persians and other nationalities from the empire. It was said that in all about 9,000 people of various nationalities attended. Religious ceremonies were conducted in both the Macedonian and Persian traditions without incident. This reinforces the idea that even then, as today, many cultures could live together in peace and harmony.

Alexander knew that without peace and harmony between the various people he had little or no hope of holding on to such a vast empire for any reasonable length of time. Peace and harmony however, could only be achieved through freedom and the equality of all races. This feast was a great moment for Alexander, not only because he attempted to bring reconciliation between the races but more importantly because he gave birth to multiculturalism, a concept that was well ahead of its time.

Following the festival, Alexander went ahead with his original plans and dismissed about 10,000 of his veteran soldiers. Each man, in addition to his due pay, also received an extra talent. The task of leading the veterans back to Macedonia, was given to Craterus. Upon arriving in Macedonia he was also instructed to replace Antipater. Antipater in turn was to be given orders to lead fresh troops back to Alexander.

Alexander felt that Antipater and Olympias could use a break away from each other and he himself could also use a break from their incessant complaining and bickering.

When the great festival was over, Alexander left Opis and resumed his trip to Ecbatana. After spending a few months there, he went to Babylon where he began to unfold his grand plans for the future.

From a commercial aspect Alexander revealed, via the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, a connection between the Indus, the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers. This connection, in the future, could be exploited for trade for the benefit of the empire. Alexander was also curious as to what was on the opposite side of the Persian Gulf, in Arabia. To find out he began to organize an exploratory expedition. He was also interested in finding a quick route through Arabia to Egypt. Another curiosity of Alexander's, that had its roots back at school in Pella, was whether the Caspian Sea was an island sea or the gulf of another sea. Now that he had the means he wanted that verified as well and began to organize another discovery expedition. Yet another plan in the works was the building of 1,000 warships to be constructed in Phoenicia, Syria, Cicilia and Cyprus for future campaigns against the Carthaginians and other coastal people of the western Mediterranean. Carthage, at that time, was the most important naval and commercial power in the west. Had Alexander lived long enough to carry out his campaigns against her, the world would be a different place today.

Alexander's campaign plans against the west were based on intelligence information he had obtained beforehand about the strength of the various states and their political ties to one another. Besides military plans, Alexander had made plans for scientific exploration, constructing geographical maps, plotting ocean routes between Alexandria and Susa and developing trade routes between the various regions of his empire. Planning for world conquest was never too far from his mind but that plan Alexander only shared with his most trusted companions like Hephaestion. Unfortunately he was no longer alive. Not too long ago, while at Ecbasana during a festival, he had contracted a fatal fever and died. It was a terrible loss for Alexander and for the Macedonians. Alexander took the loss with great difficulty and mourned him for days without food or drink. Hephaestion's corpse was taken to Babylon where a great monument was erected in his honour. Also, to preserve his memory, he was never replaced as second in command next to the king. That position, forever remained vacant.

As I mentioned earlier, Alexander left Ecbatana and went to Babylon. On his way, in the middle of the winter on Mt. Zagros, he ran into resistance from a warlike tribe known as the Cossaeans who preferred to fight for their independence rather than give it up. It took Alexander forty days to subdue them and they too became part of his empire.

When it was over, he marched to Babylon and on his way he was met by Libyans, Ethiopians, Carthaginians, Lucanians, Etruscans, Romans, Iberians, Celts, dignitaries and ambassadors from all over the world. It seemed that the entire world was impressed with Alexander's achievements and wanted his friendship. Little did they know of Alexander's plans for world conquest, especially the Carthaginians who had already suffered the loss of their sister city Tyre. I still can't help but wonder what the world would have been like today had Alexander lived long enough to conquer the west.

After arriving in Babylon, Alexander's first priority was to prepare an expedition to explore Arabia. For the time being his interests in Arabia were to explore the region and gain information. He had no intention of invading the mainland. He only wanted the coastline and islands, which offered good harbours for his trading ships. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander's greatest ambition was to establish a connection by sea between Alexandria and Babylon. He was so certain his dream would become reality that he ordered the excavation of a huge harbour at Babylon. It was large enough to hold over 1,000 ships, which included his entire Asian navy and all the merchant ships in the region.

After initiating that project, Alexander became involved in the building of canals to regulate the flow of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Alexander wanted the region to prosper so he made arrangements to settle the north coast of the Persian Gulf. To promote trade on the Gulf between the mouths of the Tigris and the Euphrates he founded Alexandria Charax, a town suited by its geographical position to become a great harbour for Babylon.

While stationed at Babylon, Alexander received new recruits from various regions of his Asian Empire as well as cavalry reinforcements from Macedonia. Here for the first time Alexander started to reorganize his army to include mixed nationalities among his ranks, entrusting command positions to Macedonians. Unfortunately, Alexander's attempts to reorganize his army, along with his many other plans would not come to fruition. It has been said that on June 2, 323 BC, after participating in several festivities that lasted through the night, Alexander began to show symptoms of a fever. Some say that he may have contracted malaria, which is common during the hot summer months in the marshy areas of Babylon. Alexander was physically fit but his personal involvement in so many activities and the stress he subjected himself to during the planning and preparation of the various expeditions had weakened his strength to resist the disease. Alexander himself believed that he would recover because on June 3rd he ordered his generals to make plans to set sail on June 7th.

On the evening of June 3rd, Alexander was taken to the royal gardens on the west bank of the Euphrates for some fresh air and a speedy recovery. The next day he was feeling better and sent word for his generals to come and meet with him on June 5th. That night unfortunately his fever came back and did not leave him. On June 7th when the fleet was ready to move he ordered it to stand by, hoping that he would soon be well and able to join it. Instead of getting better he became sicker as the day progressed and by the next day he was so ill he could hardly speak.

On June 9th he called for his generals to assemble overnight in the court. The other officers waited outside in front of the gates. The next day his condition worsened and he was moved back into the palace. When his generals came to him he could recognize them but was so weak he was not able to speak a word to them. During the night and the next day his fever worsened and he was no longer able to see visitors. His troops, fearing the worst, demanded an audience with their king but the officers would not allow it. However, by threats they forced the doors open and filed past his bed in a long procession only to witness his weakened condition. Alexander with difficulty could only nod slightly and greet his companions in arms with his eyes as they filed past him in silence and deep emotion.

During the evening of June 13th, 323 BC, Alexander passed away. He was not yet thirty-three when his life was snatched away, not in a glorious battle by the enemy's sword, but by malaria, a mere microscopic parasite, a terrible way for the greatest conqueror of conquerors to die.

No one expected Alexander would die, let alone this quickly. With Hephaestion dead, there was no single leader who could step in and take charge of the empire. The leaders of the army at Babylon were suddenly faced with difficult problems. The only one who now had any authority to act was Perdiccas to whom the dying Alexander had handed his signet ring. Once more the assembly of the Macedonian army was summoned to the forefront to do its duty and elect a new king. Unfortunately, new problems arose as old traditions clashed with new ones. The wishes of the infantry, in whom the old Macedonian spirit was entrenched, could not reconcile its differences with the wishes of the more modern cavalry which was loyal to Alexander's modern ideas. Arguments came to blows before an uneasy compromise was reached where Arrhidaeus, the candidate of the infantry, was to conjointly rule with the cavalry's choice, the unborn son of Alexander and Roxane. These were indeed unfortunate choices since Arrhidaeus, Philip II's son was epileptic and dimwitted, and Alexander's child had not yet been born. Additionally, it was decided that each general was to assume responsibility for designated satrapies in accordance with the decisions reached in Babylon. Ptolemy of Lagus went to Egypt, Lysimachus went to Thrace, Antigonus went to Greater Phrygia, and Perdiccas remained in Babylon. There was one more issue placed before the assembly and that was what to do about Alexander's latest plans. Not surprisingly, the assembly unanimously decided to cancel them.

The news of Alexander's death traveled like wildfire throughout the empire but hardly caused a stir in Asia. In Greece, on the other hand, it was welcome news causing an explosion of emotions that resulted in the dissolution of the Corinthian League. Athens was the first to rise and summon the Greeks to fight against Macedonia. A new League, headed by Athens, was formed and rose up against Macedonia in what was called the &quot;Lamian War&quot;. The Greeks could not contain their hatred for Macedonia and unleashed their fury with all their might. Unfortunately, the entire Greek might was not strong enough to overwhelm Antipater's Macedonians. Victorious, Antipater stripped Athens of her position as a power at sea and restored Samos to the Samians. He then forced a change of constitution on the Athenians, stripping them of their democratic powers. Additionally, a Macedonian garrison was installed on Athenian soil to remind the Athenians of who was in control. Antipater made peace with the rest of the insurgent states individually and dissolved their newly formed League.

Unlike Greece, with the exception of a few minor disturbances, caused mostly by disgruntled Greeks, Asia remained peaceful for a relatively long period. Unfortunately without Alexander's persuasive politics, peace slowly gave way to conflict. Even though our ancient sources fail to reveal the real motive for the conflict, I suspect it was greed for wealth and the desire to rule.

Initially it was the more ambitious satraps in Asia who fought each other for a bigger piece of their empire. Later it involved Alexander's generals who each ruled a piece of his empire but were not content with what they had and wanted more. The most powerful of these successors were Antigonus and his son Demetrius who gradually acquired most of Asia. Against them were a coalition of Ptolemy of Egypt, Seleucus of Babylon, Lysimachus of Thrace and Cassander, son of Antipater, of Macedonia.

About six years after Alexander's death, in 317 BC, a chain of events took place in Macedonia that would forever change its course in history. It began when Olympias murdered King Philip Arrhidaeus, which gave Cassander reason to vanquish her. Without Olympias's protection Cassander murdered the unhappy Roxane and young Alexander. With Alexander's family dead and no king to rule, the fate of the empire remained in the hands of his generals who were now fighting each other.

And now here is the last inscription of Dura-Europos as translated by Anthony Ambrozic.

NOTE: the letter &quot;Š&quot; is pronounced as &quot;SH&quot;

[ XXXXVII

The Cynic

Inscription on a small pedestal to the left of the entrance to the atticum of the temple of Artemis, ornamented by projecting mouldings at the upper end.

Division and Alphabetization:

GOT JE I CINIC JE ŠELE

I KOJ ŠELE I KOJ D' JEST

RAT JE GOT GYNAIKOS

Translation:

&quot;Whoever is also a cynic is yet to be, and whosoever is yet to be and whoever already is both like to be on top of a woman.&quot;

Explanation:

GOT - &quot;whoever, whosoever&quot; - see GOD in passage XXXXVI supra

JE - &quot;is&quot;

I - &quot;and, also&quot;

CINIK - &quot;cynic&quot;

JE - &quot;is&quot;

ŠELE - &quot;only then, not before&quot;

I - &quot;and, also&quot;

KOJ -&quot;who is&quot; - KOJ is a dialectal contraction of KOJE

ŠELE - see ŠELE supra

I - &quot;and, also&quot;

KOJ - &quot;who, whoever&quot; - This KOJ is a dialectal version of the current SC. KOJI.

D' - &quot;that, so that&quot; - Here the dialectal D' (for the literal DA) serves as an emphasis to JEST.

JEST - &quot;is, exists&quot; - an archaic dialectal third prs., sing., pres. of BITI - &quot;to be&quot; - With D' serving to emphasize an existence that already is, JEST offers a reality counterpoint to the cynic's embryonic ŠELE.

RAT JE - &quot;likes&quot; - This is an idiom composed of the adv. RAD and JE to show a preference. We have seen the Venetic preference of utilizing a harder T for a softer D in several instances, the latest having been in GOT for GOD at the beginning of this and last passage.

GOJ - &quot;on, on top of&quot; - As in passage XVIII (GOJREJ), GOJ is the Venetic form for the gsl. GOR - &quot;on, on top of, above.&quot;

GYNAIKOS - &quot;woman&quot; in Greek.

] (Pages 80-81, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this ...

It appears that the Greeks are finding the Dura-Europos inscriptions difficult to explain and continue to insist that the Ancient Macedonian language was Greek. In spite of physical evidence to the contrary, they insist that the Ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect.

Past Greek governments and institutions have invested considerable resources and effort in archeological and linguistic research and have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that identifies that elusive &quot;Greek dialect&quot; which the Ancient Macedonians allegedly spoke. How is it that Macedonia rose to power, conquered the entire known world, produced brilliant generals like Philip II and Alexander III and yet did not manage to leave a single trace of its language for us to find?

It is time for the Greeks to either produce physical evidence of this illusive dialect or confess that there is no such &quot;Greek dialect&quot; and that the Ancient Macedonian language is the root of the Modern Macedonian language like the Dura-Europos inscriptions have revealed.

References:

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus, 1993, Alexandra Publishing.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., A Historical Biography, 1991, University of California Press.

Michael Wood, In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great, A Journey from Greece to Asia, University of California, 1997. 

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>5ib3cr1bvp5cgc6utoin8c5as59aidh</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - The Aftermath of Alexander's Empire</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2066</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11081</id>
      <parentid>4978</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:39Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="54150" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 9 - The Aftermath of Alexander's Empire

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Alexander's sudden death at Babylon in June 323 BC came as an unexpected surprise and threw the empire into upheaval. Alexander had made himself irreplaceable but had never considered the idea of appointing a qualified successor should the tragically unexpected ever happen. After all, he was a soldier and soldiers do get killed. If Alexander had a weakness, this was it. There are those who say that it was Alexander himself who brought this tragedy upon his empire. Had he appointed a successor, his empire may have survived to endure the Roman onslaught. Better yet, had he not ventured into Asia he could have followed in his father's footsteps and made Macedonia even greater. By allowing the empire to be split, however, Alexander's successors weakened Macedonia enough to fall prey to the Romans. 

The stage was set for the Great Macedonian Empire to decline when the army failed to appoint a single strong leader. It was apparent from the start that Arrhidaeus, Philip II's epileptic and dimwitted son and Alexander III's unborn child were not chosen for their leadership skills but rather for their non-interference. Who then was truly going to rule the empire? Obviously Alexander had surrounded himself with men who were more interested in their own careers than the fate of the empire. For the next fifty years or so, the most powerful and influential military leaders fought each other for control of the empire. After fifty years of struggle and strife they partitioned the empire into three pieces. In the end, the Antigonids took Macedonia and Greece, the Ptolemies took Egypt and the Seleucids took Asia. Many died senselessly before the conflicts reached equilibrium and the partitioned lands assumed a sense of normalcy (see Arrian). There was one positive result even though the empire was partitioned and ruled by different dynasties. For centuries Macedonians ruled the empire and traveled freely throughout their world, which stretched from the Adriatic to the Punjab and from Tadzhikistan to Libya. They maintained contact with each other and with their homeland as many traveled back and forth to seek employment and visit family and friends.

On their way back to Macedonia, Craterus and the discharged veterans received news of Alexander's death and the army's order for Antipater to remain general of Europe. Craterus in the meantime was to assume the position of protector of the kingdom of Arrhidaeus. Roxane did give birth to a baby boy who was named Alexander IV and both he and Arrhidaeus were summoned to Asia in the care of Perdiccas.

According to Diodorus, the most influential players remaining in Babylon after Alexander's death were Perdiccas, the most senior cavalry officer, bearer of Alexander's ring and guardian of the two kings, Meleager, the most senior phalanx leader, Ptolemy, Leonnatus, Lysimachus and Peucestas, all of whom held relatively important positions in the empire. Less important at the time but who later rose to the ranks of important players were Seleucus, commander of the crack guards' regiment, Eumenes, Alexander's secretary and only foreigner among the leading Macedonians, Antipater's son Cassander and Antigonus the one-eyed, the influential satrap of Phrygia. Absent were Craterus and Antipater, who as I mentioned earlier were still in Macedonia.

The struggle for control of the empire began right after Alexander's death and lasted for more than fifty years. During the first few years or so Perdiccas was the first to make a serious attempt at gaining control of the empire. By offering a compromise settlement to the others he hoped to gain power for himself. Unfortunately he made too many diplomatic errors and his scheming landed him in hot water. He was assassinated by his own men the day before he was planning to attack Ptolemy at the Nile Delta.

Before I continue with Perdiccas's story, I want to mention that Leonnatus had also met his demise. In the spring of 322 BC, while Antipater and Craterus were busy putting down the Greek rebellions, Leonnatus brought his army across the Hellespont hoping to lay claim to Macedonia through marriage. Alexander's sister Cleopatra had written him with an offer of marriage. Unfortunately, Leonnatus was killed in battle and did not achieve his ambitions.

Perdiccas's decline began back in the palace of Babylon when he attempted to assert his own authority above the others by announcing a purification of the army after Alexander's death. This was in response to Meleager who was attempting to assert Arrhidaeus's authority over Perdiccas by force. A squabble broke out and Meleager's supporters were rounded up and executed, on Perdiccas's orders. Meleager was spared at the time only to be murdered later, no doubt by Perdiccas's assassins. It was also at Perdiccas's insistence that Antipater was left in charge of Europe and Craterus was given the administrative role of guardian of the kings. Perdiccas was well aware of Craterus's popularity with the infantry and wanted him as far away from it as possible. Perdiccas was also secretly plotting to overthrow Antipater through intrigues and by attempts to marry into power. When all this was revealed, Antipater as well as Craterus, Lysimachus and Antigonus lined up against him. 

His problems did not end there. Macedonian custom decreed that to be king one had to bury the predecessor and Alexander was not yet buried. In fact, Perdiccas no longer had possession of Alexander's body. To curb Perdiccas's chances of becoming king, Ptolemy had bribed the commander of the funeral cortege to hide the body. It is still unknown where Alexander was buried. His body was neither taken home to the royal tombs at Aigai nor was it conveyed to the Siwah oasis. According to Peter Green, Ptolemy took the body first to Memphis for a pharaoh's burial and then to Alexandria where it was put on permanent display in a gold coffin.

In the spring of 320 BC Perdiccas left Asia for Egypt to attack Ptolemy. However, Ptolemy was ready for him and sabotaged his chances at a victory. A few days after Perdiccas's death, word came that Eumenes fought a great battle against Craterus near the border of Cappadocia and won an overwhelming victory, which unfortunately left Craterus dead. Before leaving for Egypt, Perdiccas had appointed Eumenes in charge of Asia and now that Perdiccas was dead, Eumenes made a bid for Perdiccas's portion of the empire. The army, however, did not agree with Eumenes's actions and, during an assembly in Egypt, formally condemned Eumenes and his supporters to death. It was now a matter of time before they were hunted down and executed. 

The power vacuum left by the loss of Craterus and Perdiccas created some concern for Alexander's successors who in 320 BC again assembled the army, this time in Syria. After some deliberation the assembly decided to appoint Antipater guardian of the kings with full powers and gave Antigonus command of the troops in Asia with a specific assignment to hunt down Eumenes.

For the next twenty or so years, it was Antigonus who dominated the Asian front. He made a great effort to bring as much of the whole empire as possible under his control but he too unfortunately paid for his ventures with his life. 

Before his appointment, Antigonus had shown himself to be very ambitious and Antipater did not trust him with all that power in his hands. Antipater's son Cassander, however, was comfortable with the choice and convinced his father to allow the appointment. To safeguard Antigonus's loyalty Antipater married off his daughter Phila, Craterus's widow, to Antigonus's son Demetrius. As a further safeguard, Cassander attached himself to Antigonus's staff as cavalry commander and remained in Asia. Antipater returned to Macedonia to resume his former duties and to bring the two kings back to their homeland.

It took Antigonus about five years to catch up to Eumenes. It was not Antigonus who caused the death of Eumenes but his own soldiers who let him down in battle. Here is what Peter Green has to say. &quot;He was destroyed in the end only by repeated betrayals (the price of reliance on over-independent and quasi-mercenary commanders), and by the fundamental greed-cum-xenophobia of Macedonian troops, who at heart resented being led by a smooth Greek intellectual, especially one who failed to bring them loot as well as victories. They may on one occasion have greeted him in Macedonian, as a kind of backhanded compliment, but they let him down badly during their first campaign against Antigonus in Cappadocia.&quot; (Page 17, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

Being humiliated by his defeat, Eumenes and about six hundred of his followers fled to the fortress of Nora in the northern Taurus range. Antigonus at once took over both of Eumenes's satrapy and his army and laid siege to Nora. Antigonus did not stop with Eumenes but continued to pursue his allies with much success. It was during these campaigns that Antigonus began to seriously consider taking over the entire empire.

Late in 319 BC Antipater, who was in his seventies, died of old age. His death gave Antigonus encouragement to pursue his dream but, unfortunately, like Perdiccas before him he began to make diplomatic blunders.

During his last hours of life, Antipater passed on his authority to a loyal Macedonian officer named Polyperchon who was a good soldier but had very little experience in diplomatic matters. The new appointee's first mistake was to bring back Alexander III's mother Olympias from Epirus and appoint her royal guardian of young Alexander. The first to react to this appointment with outrage was Antipater's son Cassander who had expected the appointment himself and did not agree with the present arrangement. Cassander immediately formed a coalition with Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonus of Asia and Lysimachus of Thrace against Polyperchon.

The alliance with Cassander had possibilities for Antigonus but first he had to conclude the siege of Nora. Not being able to seize the impregnable fortress by force, Antigonus turned to diplomacy and offered Eumenes an alliance. Being anxious to get out of his current predicament, Eumenes agreed to the terms of the alliance and swore allegiance to Antigonus. In early summer of 318 BC the siege was lifted. A few months later Eumenes received an offer of alliance from Polyperchon and Olympias, who at the time were enemies of Antigonus and Cassander. Eumenes accepted their offer and switched sides. Antigonus made a counter offer but it was rejected. Not too long afterwards war broke out in Asia between Antigonus and Eumenes which lasted two years. Then in the fall of 316 BC, during the battle of Paraetacene, Eumenes was again betrayed by his men which resulted in his capture by Antigonus, who in turn had him executed.

In Macedonia, meanwhile, Polyperchon made attempts to gain the support of the Greek city- states against Cassander but without much success. Olympias, on the other hand, made matters worse for Polyperchon by invading Macedonia from Epirus. Bent on seeing her grandson on the throne, Olympias, in early 317 BC, invaded Macedonia with a small force. She was provoked by Philip Arrhidaeus's wife Eurydice who had openly declared her support of Cassander as regent of Macedonia. With the threat of invasion, Eurydice came out, in full armour, at the head of her troops to meet Olympias at the Macedonian-Epirot frontier. However, seeing Alexander's mother she backed off and laid down her arms. Olympias unfortunately was not the forgiving type and got back at her by executing her husband Philip Arrhidaeus. Without her husband's support Eurydice could not bear the pain of being a widow and in the fall of 317 BC she committed suicide.

Olympias's revenge did not stop with the murder of Philip Arrhidaeus. Believing that her son Alexander III was poisoned by the cupbearer, Iolaus (Antipater's son), she had his corpse exhumed from the grave and his ashes scattered. She also executed hundreds of supporters of Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydice. Fortunately, her killing spree was short lived. After making amends with Athens, Cassander invaded Macedonia and had the Macedonian army pronounce a death sentence on Olympias, which drove her back to Pydna. Starved of support she surrendered in the spring of 315 BC and was executed by stoning. Young Alexander was now left in Cassander's custody, which itself may just as well have been a death sentence. Cassander in time began to act as king of Macedonia and had no intention of stepping down for anyone. He made his intentions clear by giving Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydice a royal burial at Aigai and by marrying Philip II's daughter Salonica.

As I mentioned earlier, Antigonus's pursuit of Eumenes allowed him to exercise his influence over the vastness of Asia. With Eumenes out of the way, Antigonus was now in charge of all the lands from Asia Minor to the uplands of Iran. He exercised his powers like an independent monarch, appointing satraps at his own discretion and even taking money from the empire's treasuries to shore up support and hire mercenaries for his army. He used bribery and favouritism to dispose of his enemies and those who did not agree with his policies. He even ordered an audit of Seleucus's accounting hoping to find indiscretions so he could get rid of him. Seleucus at the time was satrap of Babylonia and sensing that his life was in danger, fled to Egypt leaving Antigonus in control of almost all of Alexander's Asian empire. 

Antigonus's actions, however, did not go unnoticed and in fact created great alarm in his rivals. His pursuit of Alexander's old officers was enough cause for concern which prompted not only Seleucus, who lost his lucrative position, but also for Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus to serve him an ultimatum. While making his rounds raiding treasuries and collecting tributes in Syria, the envoys sent by Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus met up with Antigonus. They served notice, ordering Antigonus to restore Seleucus to his former satrapy in Babylon and to surrender Syria to Ptolemy, Hellespontine Phrygia to Lysimachus and Lycia and Cappadocia to Cassander. Of course these were outrageous demands which Antigonus flatly rejected. But they were serious enough that if ignored would lead to war which Antigonus felt confident he could win. Antigonus had one weakness in not having a fleet but that could easily be remedied in the future because he had the money to build one.

Antigonus built shipyards at various port cities including Tripolis, Byblos and Sidon. He also secured alliances with Cyprus and sent troops to guard the Hellespont against a possible crossing by Cassander. He even tried to buy help from Polyperchon in the Peloponnisos encouraging him to start a war with Cassander. To rally their support, Antigonus even made a pitch to his troops accusing Cassander of the murder of Olympias, of marrying Salonica by force and of trying to make a bid for the Macedonian throne. In his propaganda communiqué, in a bid to gain more support, Antigonus offered the Greeks a number of concessions including freedom, autonomy and the removal of the Macedonian garrisons. The actual communiqué that was handed down to the Greeks by Polyperchon, however, was revised and the words &quot;freedom&quot; and &quot;autonomy&quot; were removed.

In 311 BC, war did break out and Antigonus found himself fighting on two fronts, one in Syria and the other at the Hellespont. A war also broke out in Susa, which involved Antigonus's son Demetrius and his army on one side against Ptolemy's superior forces reinforced with elephants, on the other. In battle Demetrius was no match for Ptolemy and was easily defeated. Ptolemy's victory opened the door for Seleucus to regain his satrapy. With borrowed troops (from Ptolemy), Seleucus marched in and recaptured Babylon, Media and Susiana, thus restoring himself to his former glory.

The conflict with Ptolemy drew Antigonus to Syria but in view of Ptolemy's victory Antigonus decided now was not the right time to pursue matters further. Antigonus's withdrawal signaled an end to the aggressions. Terms of a peace agreement were renegotiated and each of the players was reconfirmed. Cassander was to remain general of Europe until young Alexander came of age, Lycimachus was to remain in Thrace, Ptolemy in Egypt and Antigonus was to be first in rank in Asia. Seleucus and Polyperchon were not present at the peace talks and therefore were not included in any of the agreements. So, technically, Antigonus was still at war with Seleucus. Of all the promises made to the Greeks, event though a great deal of discussion took place about them, nothing concrete materialized. 

In 311 BC, after the conclusion of the peace treaty, Alexander's empire still remained intact but was now controlled by Ptolemy, Antigonus, Lycimachus, Seleucus and Cassander, all of them Macedonians.

As it turned out, however, the 311 BC peace agreement was nothing more than a temporary truce, a break in a never-ending struggle for power. Antigonus, Lycimachus and Seleucus each still possessed ambitions to unite Alexander's empire but under their own rule. 

No sooner were the details of the peace agreement worked out than each of the protagonists went back to work preparing for the next round of conflict. Ptolemy's wish was to recover the satrapy of Syria and Phoenicia. Demetrius busied himself rebuilding his base of power and Antigonus could not wait to deal with Seleucus.

By 310 BC a new round of conflict was about to erupt, propagated by Ptolemy's accusations of Antigonus's infringements on the freedom of the Cilicians. Not to be outdone, rumours were coming out of Macedonia that young Alexander and his mother Roxane were dead, executed by Cassander. It is unknown whether Cassander carried out the executions immediately or later but their deaths were confirmed in 306 BC.

While this was going on Antigonus and Polyperchon were scheming and revealed that Alexander III had an illegitimate son named Heracles born to a woman named Barsine. Heracles at the time was sixteen years old. Armed with this new information, Polyperchon was ready to march on Macedonia and claim the throne for Heracles. When confronted by Cassander, however, all Polyperchon wanted was to be confirmed general of Peloponnisos. Cassander was more than willing to oblige him in return for the murder of Heracles. After that nothing more was heard of Polyperchon until his death in 302 BC.

With Heracles out of the way, the only remaining living descendant of the Argead line was Alexander III's sister Cleopatra, who at the time was living in Sardis looking for a husband. Unfortunately she too was murdered around 309 BC, no doubt by Antigonus's henchmen, which brought the Argead line of Philip II and Alexander III to an end.

Having lost his chances at making gains in Macedonia, Antigonus turned his attention to Seleucus. Around 309 BC, he sent general Nicanor to attack Seleucus at his home base but instead of obtaining a victory Nicanor met with defeat and soon afterwards Antigonus agreed to sign a non-aggression pact with Seleucus. The struggle between Antigonus and Ptolemy over control of the Mediterranean waters continued until around 308 BC when Ptolemy invaded a small region of coastal Peloponnisos. Demetrius, in 307 BC, was dispatched by Antigonus to free Athens from Cassander. Conflict between Antigonus and Ptolemy broke out in Cyprus and the victorious Demetrius was once again dispatched and in 306 BC pushed Ptolemy back to Egypt. 

To celebrate his victory in Cyprus, Antigonus took the title of king for himself and for his son Demetrius. Antigonus was the first of Alexander's old marshals to declare himself king and establish the idea of forming a new dynasty. By 305/304 BC, both Ptolemy and Seleucus followed suit and they too proclaimed the title king and began their own dynasties. Not to be outdone Lysimachus and Cassander followed suit. 

With Demetrius delivering victory after victory, Antigonus was growing stronger and bolder. In 302 BC, he refused Cassander's peace offer and dispatched Demetrius to finish him off. Facing a call for an unconditional surrender or an all out war, Cassander turned to the other Macedonian marshals Ptolemy, Seleucus and Lysimachus and asked for assistance. By now just about everyone had had enough of Antigonus and welcomed the idea of forming a coalition against him. They developed a plan together and put it into action. 

They needed to draw both Antigonus and Demetrius out to Asia Minor. Ptolemy struck first with a diversionary invasion of Syria. This prompted Antigonus to abandon his campaign in Europe and quickly dispatch Demetrius to Syria. But soon after Demetrius arrived in Asia he and his father were drawn into a battle in Phrygia. Lysimachus, Seleucus and Cassander were waiting for them at Ipsus. Sensing a victory, Demetrius charged with his cavalry and broke through the enemy battle lines. 

His immediate success gave him confidence to pursue his fleeing opponents beyond the battleground. Seleucus then sought the chance to plug up the gap with his Indian elephants, virtually cutting off Demetrius's chances of returning to the battle. Antigonus fought vigorously but, without Demetrius, was no match for his opponents. To make matters worse, Antigonus himself was mortally wounded and died while the battle raged on. 

Without Antigonus or Demetrius to lead, Antigonus's army was easily defeated. Demetrius, with about 9,000 of his troops, managed to escape and flee to Ephesus but the humiliating defeat left him without much of an army. Demetrius did not lose everything however. He had his father's navy and was still in control of Cyprus and some scattered coastal cities nearby. The victorious allies, on the other hand, now possessed the vastness of Asia and all its wealth. 

In 301 BC, at the dawn of the 2nd century, after twenty years of struggling to rebuild Alexander's empire another great Macedonian marshal came to pass. Antigonus was dead and his share of the empire went to his surviving colleagues who showed no hesitation in carving it up for themselves. Lysimachus, with the exception of parts of Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia, took most of Asia Minor up to the Taurus Mountains. Ptolemy's diversionary invasion won him all of Syria and Phoenicia. Seleucus received the eastern portion of Asia but was not quite satisfied and also asked for Coele-Syria. Ptolemy who was in control of it at the time refused to give it up. Cassander made no claims in Asia but expected to be given full concessions in Europe. 

Before I continue with the main story, I would like to take a small diversion and talk a little bit about one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

It has been said that the so-called Colossus of Rhodes, which stood at the entrance of the harbour, was a statue of Helios built by the people of Rhodes.
The story begins with Antigonus's desire to control and dominate the sea-lanes in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean waters. In order to achieve this, Antigonus had to take control of all ports including the neutral and fiercely independent port of Rhodes Island. The traders of Rhodes, who at the time were allowed to do business throughout the Mediterranean waters, were exceptionally wealthy and even though they were neutral had leanings towards Ptolemy because most of their business was done in places under his control. 

Knowing the situation that they would be in, at first, the Rhodians refused to surrender. But the threat of war caused them to reconsider and they did surrender without a fight. Unfortunately, Antigonus did not trust them and wanted one hundred of their noblest citizens as hostages. The Rhodians refused to part with their noblest citizens and thus rescinded the offer to surrender. Antigonus immediately dispatched Demetrius with a strong force of four hundred ships and great siege engines and began the siege. A compromise was reached after a year of fighting with no result. The hostages were surrendered and in return the Rhodians received autonomy and were allowed possession of their own revenues. 

The agreement forced the Rhodians to ally themselves with Antigonus except in campaigns against Ptolemy. In gratitude for Ptolemy's unwavering military and economic support during the siege, the Rhodians established the cult of Ptolemy the Saviour. To commemorate their struggles during the siege they commissioned a giant 105 foot high statue of Helios which took 12 years to complete and which later was recognized as one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.

What is remarkable is that with the exception of some minor battles between Seleucus and the Indians, in the twenty years after Alexander's death, no power rose to challenge the Macedonians. 

The battle of Ipsus was a turning point for the Macedonian protagonists who by their rivalry had pushed away any real chance of reuniting the empire. What was even worse is that with each new generation assuming power, the chances of reuniting the empire became more remote. In the next twenty-five years the protagonists would be facing different challenges but their rivalries would be a constant. The old guard would pass on but the empire would still remain in Macedonian hands.

Demetrius may have been down but he was not out. In the next fourteen years or so between 301 BC, and 286 BC, he tried to restore his power but without success. He still possessed the strongest fleet in the Aegean and held Cyprus, Tyre and Sidon. After establishing himself in Corinth around 295 BC he managed to take Athens. His gains, however, did not go unnoticed. If Demetrius were to take Greece and Macedonia then he could use them to invade Asia. None of his rivals was prepared to accept that so while Demetrius was busy playing politics in Athens, they lost no time in taking his few possessions. Lysimachus took the Ionian ports, Seleucus took Cilicia and Ptolemy took Cyprus. 

In Macedonia meanwhile, Cassander died in 298/297 BC, and was succeeded by his eldest son Philip IV who also died soon afterwards. Cassander had two younger sons named Antipater and Alexander who under Salonica's (their mother and Philip II's daughter) guidance became rivals. Salonica favoured her younger son Alexander and insisted that her sons equally divide up their father's empire so that each could have his own place to rule. Antipater, however, insisted that, according to Macedonian law, being the oldest male he had priority over all others and it was his right alone to rule his father's empire. 

His disagreements with his mother caused him to resent her so much that he had her murdered. He then appealed to Lysimachus for assistance against his brother. The younger Alexander, on the other hand, did not take well to the situation and decided to oppose his brother by forming alliances with their two closest neighbours Demetrius and Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus was a new player in the Macedonian games, installed by Ptolemy as the king of Epirus. Before his installation as king, young Pyrrhus was a hostage of Ptolemy's given to him by Demetrius. Ptolemy took a liking to Pyrrhus and made him his protégé. After Cassander's death, Ptolemy supplied Pyrrhus with an army and restored him to the Epiriot throne. 

While Demetrius was busy in Athens, Pyrrhus quickly acted on Alexander's appeal and began to acquire lands on his western frontiers. Demetrius, who at the time was fighting battles in the Peloponnisos, abandoned his immediate plans and began to move northward. Demetrius came to Alexander's aid too late. Pyrrhus had already done the job and convinced Alexander to inform Demetrius that his services were no longer required. Demetrius did not take Alexander's high and mighty attitude lightly so the moment he got his chance he had him murdered.

Demetrius lost no time and had his supporters in the Macedonian army proclaim him king of Macedonia. Then in 293 BC, he turned southwards, conquered Thessaly and established a new port city, today's modern Volos which he named Demetrias. Around 292/291 BC he made some gains in Greece and destroyed Thebes twice. By 291 BC he again came into contact with Pyrrhus and a new round of conflict was about to erupt.

All the while Demetrius was campaigning, Pyrrhus was not sitting idle. Sensing Demetrius's growing strength Pyrrhus decided to bolster his own defenses by forming alliances. In 290 BC he allied himself with the Aetolians, seized the Phocis and banned Demetrius and his allies from the Pythian games at Delphi. This brought him in direct conflict with the Athenians. It seemed that war was inevitable, only a matter of time. Pyrrhus was not the only threat for Demetrius. Ptolemy, Seleucus and Lysimachus were also not content with Demetrius's gains and wanted him out of the way.

Lysimachus and Pyrrhus, in the spring of 288 BC, were first to strike from the east and the west catching Demetrius off guard. Even though Demetrius possessed the strongest fleet and had in excess of 100,000 soldiers, his support quickly crumbled and by mid-summer of the same year he lost everything. When it was over, Macedonia went to Pyrrhus while the region around the Strumitsa Valley, including Amphipolis, went to Lysimachus. Demetrius himself escaped and went into hiding at Cassandra in the Chalcidic Peninsula.

Once again Demetrius was down but not out. While in hiding he continued to campaign for support and he got it. It was not too long before he whipped up enough support to build an army and invade the Peloponnisos. His appearance at the gates of Greece prompted the Athenians to act but they were no match for Demetrius's formidable army so they called Pyrrhus for help. When Pyrrhus arrived, along with Ptolemy's powerful fleet, neither Pyrrhus nor Demetrius wanted war so a settlement was reached. By mid 287 BC, a peace agreement was signed removing Demetrius from Athens but allowing him to keep the fortress of Corinth, Chalcis and a few other regions around Attica. 

With the loss of Athens, Demetrius for the moment lost his appetite for conquests in Greece and left for Asia Minor, leaving his son Antigonus Gonatas in charge. Demetrius unfortunately could not sit still and started causing trouble for Lysimachus, which again landed him into hot water. By the spring of 286 BC, Demetrius built an army and was attacking cities in Asia Minor and taking them by force. After capturing Sardis he got Lysimachus's attention. Lysimachus then sent his son Agathocles in pursuit of Demetrius. In the meantime, Lysimachus invaded Demetrius's rear, cut him off from his fleet and blocked his communication lines. 

Demetrius was literally trapped but instead of turning back he decided to go deeper into Asia past the Taurus Range and into the hands of Seleucus. Unable to take on Seleucus, Demetrius, in the spring of 285 BC, surrendered and was taken to Apamea on the Orontes and left there to live in luxury. Unfortunately a luxurious life in confinement did not agree with Demetrius and by late summer 283 BC, at age fifty-four he died of drunkenness and boredom.

Without his father Demetrius, Antigonus Gonatas was not a threat to anyone and for the time being kept to himself. Unfortunately, that was not the case with Lysimachus who, in the power vacuum left by Demetrius, sought the opportunity to enlarge his own domain but at the expense of Pyrrhus. In 285 BC, Lysimachus proceeded to seize both western Macedonia and Thessaly. Pyrrhus, the weaker of the two rivals, retreated to Epirus. 

With Pyrrhus out of the way, Cassander's son Antipater had great expectations of being restored to his father's throne. That unfortunately did not happen. Lysimachus, who now was in control of Macedonia, convinced his loyal supporters in the Macedonian army to proclaim him king instead. As the new king of Macedonia Lysimachus's first act was to execute young Antipater for protesting his claim. Antipater's death literally ended Cassander's rule.

Having very few assets, Antigonus Gonatas could not pay his father's navy for services rendered and most of it, along with his western port cities, went to Ptolemy. With Pyrrhus and Antigonus Gonatus down, the clear winners of this bout, at least for the moment, were Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Seleucus.

Ptolemy was a clever man who knew that too much ambition was dangerous and managed to stay out of trouble and gained just as much from sitting on the sidelines as the others did from being in the center of focus. Ptolemy was getting old and unlike his rivals prepared an heir to take his place when he was gone. Two years before his death, in 285 BC, Ptolemy appointed Ptolemy II as his co-ruler and successor. Unfortunately his appointment did not go well with another son, from a different wife, named Ptolemy Keraunos. 

Immediately after Ptolemy II's appointment, Keraunos took his grievance to Seleucus. Seleucus recommended he wait until Ptolemy died before taking any action but unfortunately that was not what Keraunos wanted so he left Seleucus and went to Lysimachus for help. Lysimachus did offer him help but again it was not what Keraunos expected. In fact, after Ptolemy's death in 283 BC, Lysimachus changed his mind and instead of helping Keraunos he attempted to gain an alliance with his rival, Ptolemy II by offering him one of his daughters in marriage. Even though he was disappointed by Lysimachus's move, having no other options for the moment, Keraunos decided to stay with him as one of his lieutenants and carry on his agitation from there.

Lysimachus was now over eighty years old and it was a matter of time before he died but he had yet to select an heir. So before things could be settled, Seleucus, in 282 BC, decided to attack him and strip him of his domain. The attack was not only successful, but it encouraged some of Lysimachus's governors to switch alliances voluntarily. By 281 BC, most of Anatolia was surrendering to Seleucus. Lysimachus retaliated with a counter attack giving everything he had, gambling that he would win a decisive victory in a single battle. A great battle was fought at Curapedion. Like his old rival Antigonus before him, Lysimachus lost everything including his life. Keraunos was captured but was not harmed and Seleucus continued to ignore his pleas for assistance to regain the Egyptian throne.

Victorious, Seleucus set out for Europe so he could lay claim to his homeland, Macedonia. But on his way, during a heated argument with Ptolemy Keraunos, he was stabbed to death. Raging with anger Keraunos instantly killed the old Seleucus.

With Seleucus's demise so ended the line of all of Alexander the III's marshals. Unfortunately their legacy and rivalry continued to live on in their offspring.

From the cheerful reception Ptolemy Keraunos received in Macedonia, it would have appeared that either Lysimachus was missed or Seleucus was not popular at all.

Soon after his arrival, Lysimachus's veteran soldiers acclaimed Keraunos king of Macedonia. Afterwards he married Lysimachus wife and adopted his children as his own. One of the sons, young Ptolemy, refused to go along with the marriage and fled to Illyria, with good reason. Soon after his mother's wedding to Keraunos, his siblings were murdered. His mother barely escaped her demise and went into hiding in Samothrace.

Not being satisfied with Macedonia alone, Keraunos attacked Antigonus Gonatas and with the exception of Demetrias (port of Volos) he also took all of Gonatas's possessions. But as luck would have it, being the miserable man he was, Keraunos was attacked by the Gauls. When Lysimachus was defeated, his frontier defenses were broken and left undefended. This gave the Gauls an opportunity to invade and sack Macedonia, killing Keraunos in the process. It has been said that the Gauls cutoff Keraunos's head, impaled it on a stake and carried it wherever they went.

The Gauls continued to plunder Macedonia, especially the countryside, until there was no more to plunder. Then they moved on to the south and eventually invaded Asia Minor. With Keraunos out of the way, Cassander's young nephew Antipater reappeared for a brief time in an attempt to retake the Macedonian throne but without success.

In an attempt to fill the power vacuum in Macedonia two new rivals appeared. The first was Seleucus's son and successor Antiochus I who wanted the Macedonian crown. Opposing him was Antigonus Gonatas who also was claiming Macedonia for himself. Personal rivalries soon broke out and escalated into a full-scale war.

While Seleucus and Antigonus were fighting each other, a new champion rose to the task and occupied Macedonia, deposing young Antipater in the process. He was a mere general who fought the Gauls and won but did not really want Macedonia for himself.

Antigonus finally reached his turning point when he defeated the Gauls in a single decisive battle. While on patrol, his forces by accident ran into a vast column of over eighteen thousand Gauls marching through Thrace towards the coastal city of Chersonese. By a clever move, Antigonus outmaneuvered, trapped and massacred the Gauls, winning a bloody but decisive victory. This gave him the recognition he needed to reassert himself in the power game and won the Macedonian throne he so desired. It didn't take him too long to drive young Antipater and the other rivals out. But before he could sit contentedly on the Macedonian throne he had yet to face Pyrrhus.

By 276 BC, the old rivalries of who was going to replace Alexander III as supreme ruler of the whole Macedonian empire no longer mattered and the Antigonids, Seleucids and Ptolemies had reached a balance of power.

While Antigonus was basking in his glory in Macedonia, Pyrrhus had some matters to attend to in Italy but by late 275 BC, he was back again. It took him a good part of the winter to prepare and by early spring he invaded Macedonia. His reasons for the invasion were personal and a matter of necessity. Pyrrhus wanted to pay back Antigonus for refusing him assistance during his war with Rome. His campaigns in Italy had reduced Pyrrhus to a pauper and he needed loot to pay his soldiers and what better place to get it than from his old rival Antigonus. Most importantly however, Pyrrhus wanted Macedonia for himself.

Antigonus Gonatas's forces were attacked and defeated. Antigonus himself fled with some of his cavalry to Salonika. The rest of his army surrendered to Pyrrhus. Like his father before him, Antigonus was down but not out. He still had some coastal cities and a powerful fleet in his possession. And most importantly he was still a king.

Pyrrhus managed to recover Macedonia and Thessaly but was not popular with the Macedonian people, especially since he allied himself with the Gauls and let them plunder the Royal tombs at Aigai. When Pyrrhus completely lost his popularity with the Macedonian people he left Macedonia to do some campaigning in Greece. While he was away his son Ptolemaeus was left in charge of Macedonia.

While campaigning in Greece Pyrrhus was too busy fighting to notice Antigonus's return. With Macedonia firmly in his hands, Antigonus, during the summer of 272 BC, dispatched his fleet to Greece and went in pursuit of Pyrrhus. When the opposing armies met a battle ensued and Pyrrhus himself was knocked unconscious. While lying down an enemy soldier recognized him, lopped his head off and took it to Antigonus.

Soon after Pyrrhus's death, the battle was over and there was no further resistance from Pyrrhus's allies. With Pyrrhus out of the way, Antigonus had an opportunity to retake all of Greece and bring it under his control but like Ptolemy before him, he exercised caution and did not allow his ambitions to get hold of him. 

From here on, with some minor clashes at the frontiers, Alexander's empire was to be ruled by three dynasties, the Antigonids, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Fifty years after his death, Alexander's empire remained intact and was still ruled by Macedonians.

By 268 BC, things were stirring up again as Ptolemy II incited the Athenians into ejecting the Macedonians and declaring war on Antigonus. Antigonus was planning to bolster his naval power in the Aegean, which would have become a direct threat to Ptolemy's naval trade. Ptolemy had no intention of helping the Greeks but their desire to free themselves from Macedonian rule was so great that many of the city-states, including Sparta, ignored the risks and began preparations for war. 

The situation escalated and Antigonus decided to take action. He met the Spartan army outside Corinth where a battle ensued and the Spartans lost. To quell the situation completely Antigonus put Athens, the main instigator, under siege. Ptolemy's promise of naval assistance never materialized and Athens was left to starve into surrender. After its surrender, Athens lost its autonomy and Macedonians were once again put in control of its affairs.

With the Greeks put down, Antigonus, in 261 BC, attacked Ptolemy's navy in the Aegean and scored a major victory. To reinforce his positions, Antigonus also placed strategic defensive posts along the Attic coastline.

In Asia meanwhile, Antiochus I of the Seleucid Dynasty was having problems of his own. Unable, sometimes unwilling to hold his empire together Antiochus I began to lose some of his frontiers to secession. He had lost Cappadocia, Pontus and Bithynia and the satrapies of Bactria and Sogdiana were about to go independent. Then as things began to slide, in 261BC, at the age sixty-four Antiochus I died and was succeeded by his son Antiochus II. Antiochus II quickly formed a welcomed alliance with Antigonus Gonatas. Together they were now able to check Ptolemy and keep him at bay. Unfortunately this alliance gave Antigonus and Antiochus an advantage over Prolemy and prompted them to take action in recovering some of their lost possessions. 

While Antigonus continued to build his naval power, Antiochus began his own campaigns against Ptolemy, prompting the so-called second Syrian war. Sensing that he was about to lose ground, Ptolemy II, in 253 BC, made his peace with Antiochus II. To seal the dynastic alliance, Antiochus married Ptolemy's daughter Berenice Syra who in the process brought him a vast dowry. Unfortunately Antiochus was already married to Laodice whom he had to repudiate with a sizable payoff, to which she refused consent.

While playing good politics with Antiochus, Ptolemy II was playing bad politics with Antigonus by backing a revolt against him in Corinth. In 253/252 BC, Antigonus's nephew Alexander, the governor of Corinth, revolted against Antigonus and proclaimed himself king. 
As it turned out, however, before any of these matters could be fully settled both Ptolemy and Antiochus died. Ptolemy II died in January 246 BC, and Antiochus II died in August of the same year. 

While Ptolemy II was replaced by his son Ptolemy III, Antiochus did not leave an heir. It has been said that Antiochus died prematurely, probably from poison. His ex-wife, Liodice, who at the time of his death was visiting the palace, may have poisoned him. In any event, after Antiochus's death hostilities broke out between his new wife Berenice, who had just born him a son, and his ex-wife Liodice, who claimed that on his deathbed Antiochus had appointed her son Seleucus as his heir. Berenice, feeling the pressure from Liodice, made an appeal for help to her brother Ptolemy III in Alexandria who quickly came to her aid only to find her and her child dead. 

As a result of the assassinations, hostilities broke out between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and escalated to a full scale war, termed the Third Syrian War which lasted until about 241 BC, with Seleucus II as victor. His victory however did not save his empire, especially from his own brother who, encouraged by his mother Liodice, wanted co-regency. When Seleucus II refused him, the young Antiochus Hierax set himself up as an independent sovereign. With all the rebellions and dynastic rivalries going on, the future of the Seleucid empire did not look very bright.

Also in 241 BC, there was a turn of events in Europe where Antigonus Gonatas had to make amends with the Achaean League which year after year was gaining strength. His rebellious nephew Alexander died in 246 BC and by 245 BC Antigonus recovered his losses in Corinth.
Satisfied with his accomplishments in one lifetime, Antigonus Gonatas died early in 239 BC, at age eighty. His tough and ambitious son Demetrius II, another Macedonian, succeeded him.

Before I continue with the main story, I want to take a small diversion here and explore development in the west, with Rome in particular.

As I mentioned earlier, had Alexander lived longer he would have attacked Carthage and the Cartagean-Roman conflict and Punic Wars would have not taken place. Carthage was sister-city to Tyre and helped Tyre defend herself against Alexander's prolonged siege. Tyre's prolonged resistance cost Alexander, men, resources, money and time. Alexander was not the forgiving type and would have made Carthage pay dearly for her meddling in his affairs. Unfortunately, Alexander died, his plans were abandoned and none of his successors had the foresight to see the impending dangers lurking in the west.

During and after Alexander's time there was very little interaction between the Macedonian rulers and those of the west. There were Greek cities along the coastline, Sicily in particular but for the most part, they were left alone to fend for themselves.
The first major encroachment by Rome on the east was in Sicily during the first Punic War which started in 264 BC and ended in 241 BC. After that Rome occupied Sicily and in 212 BC made it a Roman province, an ideal staging ground for carrying out campaigns against the Great Commercial Empire of Carthage.

Sicily, at the time, was a region full of barbaric states where violence, mass executions, torture, rapes, pillaging and enslavement, with the Romans as the worst offenders, were commonplace. Before the Roman encroachment, Sicily served as a barrier or a neutral zone between the major powers and both east and west tended to interfere in its affairs. Sicily was also the staging ground for much of the piracy taking place in the Mediterranean waters. 

The city of Syracuse played an important role during these times because it was a place where the exiled, deposed and tyrants usually ended up after being evicted from their own homelands. For those with power and influence, rule was an easy grasp and the Sicilians had their share of good times and bad, but mostly bad. After the Romans made Sicily their province, life for the ordinary Sicilian took a turn for the worse. Romans cared not for the Sicilians or for human values for that matter. They only cared for profit and pillaged Sicily to no end. But this was only the beginning. The Romans were just acquiring a small taste for what was about to come.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the power players from the Macedonian world to venture westward and make a significant impact on Rome was Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus was summoned to Italy in 280 BC, by a plea for help from the Tarentines who had problems of their own with the Romans. Pyrrhus answered their call and was even given assistance by the other Macedonian rulers who were happy to see him go and stay out of their affairs. Pyrrhus, using the elephants given to him by the Macedonian rulers, scored a number of victories in Sicily but caused a chain of events to occur that would have repercussions in the future. 

His presence and series of victories caused much concern for Carthage to a point were she was willing to set her differences with Rome aside and formed a temporary alliance with her against Pyrrhus. To prevent him from carrying out campaigns in Africa, Pyrrhus's fleet was attacked and sunk by the Carthegians. Then after crossing into Italy, Pyrrhus spent the winter in Taras, with plans for a north offensive in the fall, which never materialized. During the summer of 275 BC he was attacked and beaten by the Romans who by now had learned how to deal with elephants. During the same year the Romans invaded and took Taras, which brought them yet another step closer to Macedonia. With Pyrrhus beaten and out of the way there was no formidable force outside of Carthage to stand against Rome in the west or to challenge her at her home base.

After Alexander's death and the conclusion of the Lamian Wars, most of what we refer to today as Greek city-states lost the privileges granted to them by Philip II and Alexander III. For the fifty or so years after Alexander's death, they were ruled by Macedonians and were used as pawns in a power struggle for dominance. During the later years, however, some of the states organized themselves into leagues but unfortunately they were never able to hold alliances for too long. This was partly due to the characteristic politics they played internally and mainly due to outside influence from the rich and powerful Macedonian rulers. The Ptolemies never hesitated to supply Athens with grain just to stir trouble for the Antigonids. Almost every conflict was initiated in the name of restoring the rights of the Greeks and ended with more rights lost than gained.

While the southern Greeks were unsuccessfully attempting to shore up alliances among themselves, Antigonus Gonatas's son and successor Demetrius II was busily shoring up his own alliances. In 239 BC, to shore up support against the Illyrians on his western frontiers, he married an Epiriot princess named Phthia. In 238 BC Phthia bore Demetrius a son whom he appropriately named Philip who in the future would become Philip V of Macedonia. Right about this time the Greek leagues were beginning to gain ground in the development of their alliances and with strength came anti-Macedonian sentiment. 

Determined to intervene, Demetrius, due to internal conflicts, lost his support from Epirus and was unable to do it alone. If that was not enough, the Leagues were now threatening his former allies with severe punishments should they intervene. Determined to turn the tide, Demetrius sought help from the Illyrians who were eager to assist only to help themselves. Paid by Demetrius, the Illyrians first invaded Epirus then the Adriatic coast and looted everything in their path. They managed to invade some of the League's territories and looted them as well. By 229 BC, they crossed over and invaded the Italian coastline and by now had attracted Rome's attention. 

In the Peloponnisos in the meantime, the Illyrians started to form alliances with some of the Greek Leagues and were considering invading all of Greece. In the meantime complaints were being generated from both sides of the Adriatic. Italian traders feeling the pinch from the constant raids took their complaints to Rome. Rome in turn sent envoys to investigate with recommendations to make a move. They attacked violently with devastating speed and crushing numerical superiority. The Illyrians, whose true aim in all this was to make profit and not war, quickly collapsed and in 228 BC consented to a treaty. Demetrius's messy problems were solved without him having to lift a finger but his inaction allowed Rome to gain a foothold in Illyrian affairs. Even though Rome, at the time, had no ambitions of expanding her sphere of influence east of Italy she did demonstrate her military might and will to fight. 

To be continued...

And now I will leave you with this:

As a mere observation, I want to comment that in my research for the last few articles I have never run into or seen a single reference where an author has written &quot;the Athenians and Greeks&quot;. It has always been &quot;the Athenians and OTHER Greeks&quot;. Conversely, there are many references where authors have written &quot;the Macedonians and Greeks&quot; but rarely (I have not found one yet) where an author made reference to &quot;the Macedonians and OTHER Greeks&quot;. Why is that? I believe that in spite of all the modern Greek propaganda no historian in all earnest can say that the ancient Macedonians were ever Greek.

After reading this article or any other unbiased source for that matter, one cannot help but reach the inescapable conclusion that the so-called Hellenistic period refers to the Macedonians and only to the Macedonians. The so-called Greeks or Hellenes were no more that an enslaved people, ruthlessly ruled and politically manipulated by Macedonians. Since the Macedonians were the true masters of the Hellenistic period isn't it more appropriate and accurate to call it the Macedonistic period?

How can Macedonia be Greek when obviously it was the Macedonians who conquered and enslaved the Greeks? Is this not a fact? Isn't it more accurate then to say Greece belongs to Macedonia?

References:

Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus, 1993, Alexandra Publishing.

Michael A. Dimitri, The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia, 1992.

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks, Writers Showcase, New York.

M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, London, Cambridge University Press, 1981

F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Fontana History of the Ancient World, Fontana Press, 1992.

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age, University of California Press, Berkley Los Angeles, 1990.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>pzelg0ryx5jq61dkdqz7dxlqz56gfh3</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Prelude to War with Rome</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2067</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11082</id>
      <parentid>4979</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:44Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="50549" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 10 - Prelude to War with Rome

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Macedonia's decline began with Demetrius's death in 229 BC. Demetrius lost his life during a valiant battle defending Macedonia against Dardanian invasions. After his death, his kingdom was left to his nine year-old son Philip. Philip unfortunately was too young to rule so guardianship was awarded to Demetrius's cousin Antogonus Doson who agreed to look after the kingdom until Philip came of age.

Antigonus Doson, sometimes referred to as Antigonus III, did his best to maintain peace and stability in keeping Philip's kingdom intact.

After Demetrius's death, while Macedonia was preoccupied with domestic affairs, Athens took the opportunity to liberate the port of Piraeus, removing the Macedonian garrison stationed there. Athens did this not by battle but by bribery. After that, Athens declared her neutrality and prudently refused to join any alliances. Sparta on the other hand, under the leadership of Cleomenes III who was unable to sit still, initiated a number of social reforms. Sparta's northern neighbours, the Achaean League, however, feared that a reformed Sparta would pose a threat to the League's dominance and took action against it. Unable to negotiate a suitable settlement, the Leagues turned to Antigonus for help. To entice him to intervene, the League offered him Acrocorinth, a strategically valuable place. Antigonus graciously accepted and with twenty thousand troops confronted Cleomenes. The mere sight of the Macedonian army marching down the Peloponnisos must have given Cleomenes's allies cold feet because they quickly withdrew leaving Cleomenes on his own.

As it turned out, Cleomenes's soldiers were mostly hired mercenaries paid for with Ptolemy's money. Ptolemy, as usual, was the instigator of these intrigues never missing an opportunity to expand his own influence. When Antigonus found this out he quickly gave Ptolemy what he wanted, territorial concessions in Asia Minor, and in exchange Ptolemy removed his support for Cleomenes. Without Ptolemy's financial support, Cleomenes lost his influence and decided to stake everything on the outcome of a single battle. In 222 BC, in Sellacia about 120 kilometers north of Sparta, Cleomenes engaged the Macedonians and lost. From there he fled to Egypt. Antigonus, meanwhile, triumphantly walked on Spartan soil as the first foreign conqueror to do so in a long time.

Victorious, Antigonus reconstituted the Hellenic League of Philip II with himself as hegemon and placed Macedonian garrisons in Acrocorinth and Orchomenos. He also left a senior Macedonian officer in charge of Peloponnesian affairs. Sparta's bid for freedom was not only lost but Sparta herself was now forced into a new confederacy with her former enemies the Achaeans, Thessalians, Epiriotes, Acarnanians, Boeotians, Phocians and worst of all, she came under Macedonian control.

Geographically, the new alliance literally encircled Aetolia, which was now an enemy of the entire confederation. The Aetolian league was not at all pleased with the new circumstances and retaliated by waging war on confederation allies.

Antigonus meanwhile, hardly given any time to enjoy his victory, had to return home to deal with another barbarian invasion. While in battle, unfortunately, he received a fatal wound from which he later died. Antigonus Doson, barely in his forties, died in the early summer of 221 BC, but not before he made arrangements to place his young nephew Philip V on the Macedonian throne.

Macedonia was not the only kingdom to have established a young king on the throne in 221 BC. Antiochus III of Asia and Ptolemy IV of Egypt were also crowned the same year.

In Asia, as I mentioned earlier, Seleucus II, coaxed by his mother Laodice, ceded Asia Minor to his brother Antiochus Hierax, something he soon came to regret. Unfortunately, neither brother was happy with the outcome and it did not take long before conflict broke out between them lasting from 239 to 236 BC.

Preoccupied with this brotherly struggle, Seleucus neglected his eastern satrapies and almost lost them. Antiochus, backed by Ptolemy III, was able to maintain pressure on his brother until Seleucus realized that this fratricidal struggle was unproductive, to say the least. In 236 BC, Seleucus made peace with Antiochus and gave him all of Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains. Unfortunately, Antiochus was not happy with his gains and with the help of the Galatians conspired to extort money from the surrounding city-states in Asia Minor. He even conspired to overthrow Attalus I of Pergamon.

Attalus was the son of Eumenes of Pergamon and had previous encounters with the Galatians. In fact he had won a great victory against them in 237 BC after which he proclaimed himself king. Having had experience in dealing with Galatians, Attalus was not afraid of them and went in pursuit of Antiochus chasing him through Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and beyond. During his four year pursuit from 231 to 228 BC, Attalus beat Antiochus in three major battles and took over his territories in Asia Minor. Driven out of his own domain, Antiochus, with the help of his aunt Stratonice, made a move to overthrow his brother, Seleucus. While Stratonice organized an insurrection in Antioch, Antiochus made a move against Babylonia. While this was happening Seleucus was campaigning in Parthia, which he had to abandon in order to deal with his brother. When Seleucus caught up with him he drove him out of Asia. Antiochus at this point fled to Egypt where Ptolemy imprisoned him. Soon afterwards, however, he escaped to Thrace where he was murdered by the Galatians in 227 BC.

After driving Antiochus out of Asia, Seleucus captured and executed Stratonice and was about to turn on Attalus. Before he had the chance he died from an accidental fall from his horse. In 226 BC, Seleucus II was succeeded by his first son Seleucus III Soter who held the throne for the next three years before he was murdered by his own officers while campaigning against Attalus. Upon his death, his cousin Achaeus was nominated governor of Asia Minor. He in turn in 223 BC, had Seleucus III's younger brother Antiochus III, proclaimed king. As governor of Asia Minor, Achaeus went after Attalus and by 222 BC pushed him back to Pergamon, thus recovering all the lost Seleucid territories in Asia Minor.

In Egypt, as I mentioned earlier, Ptolemy III dropped his support for Sparta and made amends with Macedonia. But in Asia, he continued to harass the Seleucids and took from them parts of the eastern Mediterranean, Thrace and the Hellespond.

After his death in 221 BC, Ptolemy III was succeeded by Ptolemy IV Philopator.

In Europe, by forming the federation, Antigonus Doson had surrounded the Aetolians. Unhappy about their predicament, they began to fight back by carrying out raids against their neighbours, the Achaean League. By now Philip V was of age and succeeded Antigonus, assuming the title hegemon. As the new hegemon he felt it was his duty to appropriately respond to the Aetolian aggression so he declared war on them. To make matters worse, news of Cleomenes's death in 219 BC inspired a Royalist coup in Sparta and an unfriendly king was appointed to the throne. The anti-federation king quickly broke off relations with Macedonia and allied himself with the Aetolians. Philip responded conclusively with speed and energy.

In the campaigns that followed, reminiscent of Alexander III, Philip V with his well trained and disciplined Macedonian army consistently outmaneuvered and outfought his opponents.

In 217 BC, however, Philip was needed elsewhere and had to wind down his campaigns so an armistice was concluded on the basis of the status quo.

In Asia, soon after his crowning, the ambitious Antiochus III revealed a grand plan to recover lost Seleucid territories and restore his great grandfather's (Seleucus I Nicator) empire. His plan included the re-acquisition of Coele-Syria down to the Egyptian Gates, the recovery of the great eastern satrapies, recovery of the Asia Minor seaports, the Hellespond and eastern Thrace on the European side. He even mounted an expedition worthy of Alexander III, which took him to Bactria and India.

Claiming that Syria and Phoenicia once belonged to Seleucus I, Antiochus launched a major offensive against Syria thus initiating the Fourth Syrian War which lasted from 219 to 217 BC. In his effort to recapture his great grandfather's empire he repossessed his old capital Selucia, the port cities of Tyre and Ptolemais-Ake and opened the road from Palestine to Egypt. Unlike Alexander III however, the more cautious Antiochus did not go conquering Egypt and instead focussed his energies on consolidating his position in Galilee and Samaria. There he spent a great deal of time negotiating peace with Ptolemy who was secretly gathering a large army for a counter attack.

Prolemy's intentions became very clear in the summer of 217 BC, when he and his younger sister Arsione showed up prepared for battle with an army of fifty-five thousand soldiers. They took to the fields of Raphia in Palestine and came face to face with Antiochus and his army of sixty-eight thousand. This was not only the biggest battle since Ipsus, but it took shape in a similar manner. Antiochus, like Demetrius before him, struck the battle line with his cavalry at lightning speed, receiving a quick victory. Unable to resist the urge to pursue his opponent, Antiochus left the battlefield, allowing Ptolemy's commanders to regroup and launch a counter attack. Without Antiochus's leadership and in the absence of cavalry support, the Seleucid phalanx broke up and was defeated. Victorious, the Ptolemies saved Egypt and cut Antiochus's ambitions short. With the exception of giving back the naval base in Seleucia, Ptolemy was happy to settle for the status quo with Coele-Syria safely back in his hands. But all was not well in Egypt. The Egyptian troops had tasted victory and wanted more, not for Ptolemy but for themselves.

A shortage of silver in Egypt forced the Ptolemies to use bronze coins, which were not very popular with the foreign mercenaries. Without foreign mercenaries, the Ptolemies had no choice but to recruit locally from the less expensive native pool of soldiers. The concentration of Egyptians in the military unfortunately stimulated a strong nationalistic sentiment, which had negative consequences for the Ptolemies. At the onset the discontentment manifested itself as sporadic outbursts of guerilla campaigns but with time it grew into an outright rebellion. In a bloody coup against the central government the Egyptians managed to free Upper Egypt from Ptolemaic control. Without the resources of Upper Egypt, the Ptolemies were forced to raise more taxes in order to maintain their state's security, thus further aggravating the situation.

While Antiochus was busy fighting the Ptolemies in Syria, his uncle Achaeus, was busy re-conquering Asia Minor for himself. Then after Antiochus lost to Ptolemy at Raphia, Achaeus made a bold move and proclaimed himself king of Asia Minor. His army, however, did not agree with his proclamation and refused to support him. In 216 BC, Antiochus returned to Asia Minor, cornered his uncle in Sardis and in 213 BC caught him trying to escape. He had him mutilated and then crucified.

For the next seven years, from 212 BC to 205 BC, Antiochus turned his attention eastward in an attempt to recover the eastern satrapies. Having first conquered Armenia he turned his attention to Media Atropatene. He invaded Media and spent two years organizing his army and raising funds to pay for his campaign. Most of the money came from the treasures of the great temple of Ecbatana. In 209 BC Antiochus III, like Alexander III before him, marched with his army eastward conquering territory after territory. Parthia fell to him without a fight and after campaigning in Bactria for two years she too fell into his hands. He crossed the Hindu Kush and signed a treaty with the Indians, after which he began his journey back via Arachosia, Drangiana, and the Persian Gulf. He also sent an expedition to conquer the Gerrhaean Arabs and won tributes of money and spices. In 205 BC, Antiochus reached Seleucia on the Tigris. There he was welcomed as a champion who had regained most of his great grandfather's empire and had restored Seleucid imperial hopes. Yet still he was not happy as Coele-Syria, the Anatolian coastal cities and the Hellespondine regions were still beyond his grasp.

The loss of Upper Egypt to the native pharaohs not only deprived the Ptolemies of substantial resources, but also brought poverty and oppression to the region. Events turned from bad to worse after Ptolemy's death in 205 BC when the Egyptian priests began to revolt against his rule. Things were no better in Alexandria either. Ptolemy V Epiphanes was still a child when Ptolemy IV died and his regency was fought over with bloody consequences. While Ptolemy IV ruled the palace was dominated mostly by women, especially Ptolemy IV's wife and sister. Now that he was gone, they too made a pitch for the throne. Arsinoe, Ptolemy IV's sister was most eager to rule but soon ran into trouble with Ptolemy's ministers who themselves were interested in his throne. To keep her from taking control, Arsinoe was murdered by two of the most powerful ministers. They in turn were later killed by an Alexandrian lynch mob. The five year-old king, meanwhile, was passed from one ambitious advisor to another. To make matters worse, Antiochus III was eyeing Egypt and, in its weakness, was preparing to invade Coele-Syria in what was later to be called the Fifth Syrian War.

In Macedonia, meanwhile, young Philip V anxious to prove himself became entangled in all kinds of Balkan intrigues. He was involved with an Illyrian pirate called Demetrius of Pharos who, at the moment, was seeking refuge in his court. Demetrius was expelled from Sicily by the Romans in 219 BC for raiding and being a nuisance to the Rhodians and Romans in both the Aegean and Adriatic Seas. Demetrius, however, was welcomed in Philip's court because he contributed troops to Antigonus Doson's Sellacian campaign. Philip also valued his so-called &quot;sound advice&quot;.

When Rome was defeated by Hannibal in 217 BC, at Lake Trisamene, Demetrius convinced Philip to reinstall him on the Adriatic coast. Philip took his advice, moved into southern Illyria, drove out Scerdilaidas, his rival pirate and enabled Demetrius to recover his former place. Unfortunately, Scerdilaidas was not too happy about being pushed out and quickly appealed to Rome for help. Rome lost no time in sending a patrol to investigate. Anxious to avoid a showdown Philip retreated at once. He burned 120 of his own ships to avoid capture and fled with his army over the mountains. Although nothing came of this, suspicions were raised in Rome about Philip's real motives. After reaching its destination the Roman patrol remained in Illyria to safeguard against any future raids.

Another mistake young Philip made, again acting on the advice of Demetrius, was to sign a treaty with Hannibal the Carthaginian. Drafted by the Carthaginians, this treaty required Philip to become an ally of Carthage in the event of a war with Rome. In return, should Carthage win the war, she would ensure that the Romans would be forced to abandon their sphere of influence in Illyria. The only reason I believe Philip agreed to this was to humour his confidant, Demetrius. Philip at the time did not believe that Rome would risk going to war with a powerful Macedonia over a trivial document. Rome also, at the time, had no plans for any serious eastward interventions. What Philip failed to realize, however, is that his trivial actions would have serious consequences for Macedonia in the future. For the moment, however, Rome remained content and Philip continued to look for ways to gain influence in Illyria.

Still under Demetrius's influence, Philip began to look southward for adventure, always keeping one eye open for conquest. Unfortunately he continued to make mistakes. By inciting various factions in the Peloponnese to fight against one another he caused torment and senseless bloodshed. His bad influence, however, came to an abrupt end when Demetrius of Pharaos was killed in 215 BC during an unsuccessful assault on Ithome. Unfortunately, by now Philip's conquered subjects didn't see him as a reasonable ruler but as a somewhat wild, cruel and politically motivated adventurer. His ravaging of Messenia ended with Demetrius's death. For the next two years, 213 to 212 BC, Philip turned his attention to Illyria. He replaced the ships he lost during his last contact with the Romans and, being careful not to be detected, marched his army north into Scerdilaidas's territory. When the time was right he descended upon Lissos on the Adriatic and established his western base of power.

It is not known why Philip turned his attention westward at this time. His rationale may have been to put a barrier between himself and Rome or perhaps, as some believe, to gain control of the lucrative western maritime markets and trade routes in the Adriatic. In any event, his appearance in the Adriatic caused panic and hysteria in Rome. Fearing an invasion of Italy, Rome was determined to stop him and quickly sought allies among his enemies. As it turned out, the Aetolians were having problems with Philip and were also looking for allies among Philip's enemies. A Roman-Aetolian coalition not only distracted Philip from his western campaigns but also caused him to strengthen his alliance with the Achaean League. The Aetolians and Romans proved to be brutal in their habits and wreaked havoc in Illyria, Thrace, Thessaly and Acarnania. To make matters worse, Attalus of Pergamon joined the Roman-Aetolian coalition and in 209 BC was appointed general of the Aetolians.

Philip, with his disciplined Macedonian army, quickly retaliated and did well against the Aetolians on land but hesitated to challenge the Romans at sea. The Achaeans also had some success and were able to crush the Spartans at Mantinea. Before things could be settled however, both Philip and Attalus were recalled to their homeland to deal with yet another large Dardanian invasion.

After Philip left for home and was no longer a threat, the Romans lost interest in the Aetolians and abandoned them altogether. Without Rome's support, the Aetolians were no match for Philip and they quickly capitulated after his return. In 206 BC they broke their treaty with Rome and made peace with Philip, giving him back all that they had previously taken. The Romans unfortunately did not take this breakup well and were anxious for a renewed alliance. Their chance came when Rhodes and Chios started accusing the locals of disrupting international commerce with their petty wars. In the spring of 205 BC the Romans came back with thirty-five ships and eleven thousand troops. They landed in Epidamnus where Philip met them and offered them battle but the Romans refused to fight. Their real objective was to break up the Macedonian Aetolian treaty. They figured that with their massive support they could spur the Aetolians back into action, break off relations with Macedonia and wage war on Philip. When the Aetolians refused, the Romans reconsidered and negotiated separate peace agreements with the various parties involved. The result was the treaty of Phoenice which was concluded in the summer of 205 BC, thus ending the First Macedonian War.

On the surface it appeared that Macedonia was the biggest winner. Philip was allowed to keep his gains in inland Illyria. Even though the status of Lissos remained uncertain, Lissos was still under Macedonian control. Rome, on the other hand, appeared to be the loser because all she received were words of assurance that Macedonia would not interfere in Adriatic affairs. Beneath the surface however, Rome was the real winner because she managed to evade an active alliance between Macedonia and Carthage.

The conclusion of the First Macedonian War was a crossroad for both Macedonia and Rome. Philip's treaty with Rome left Philip content reassured that his problems with the Romans were over. He no longer had reason to fear the west. Similarly, Philip's word of non-interference in Roman affairs was good enough for the hysterical Roman Senators who now felt they could freely devote their full attention to dealing with Carthage. Had Philip paid heed to the growing menace west of him, he would have sided with Carthage just to maintain a balance of power. Unfortunately he allowed Rome to grow powerful. Instead of striking a crippling blow, while he still could, Philip closed his eyes and for the next five years left Rome to ravage Carthage unabated.

In Asia meanwhile, at about the same time as Philip was concluding his peace with the Romans, Antiochus III was moving towards the Hellespond by way of Asia Minor and the Aegean Sea. Philip by now must have known about Antiochus's exploits and his big ambitions to expand his great grandfather's empire and was probably anticipating an invasion. As it turned out, however, Antichus's preoccupation was not with Europe but with Coele-Syria. So, instead of attacking Philip, he made a secret pact with him to conquer and divide up Ptolemy's possessions. Surprisingly enough Philip went along with the plan and while Antiochus prepared to invade Coele-Syria, he went after Ptolemy's Aegean possessions.

Antiochus wasted no time and in 202 BC swept through Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, inflicting a crushing defeat on Ptolemy's forces. By the time he was done, he had reclaimed the port of Sidon and all coastal strongholds from Caria down to Cilicia. Then in 197 BC, he invaded the territories of Pergamon which sent Attalus running to the Romans. Egypt must have gone crying to the Romans as well, because around 199 BC Rome sent a stern warning to Philip asking him to inform Antiochus not to invade Egypt. Antiochus promptly complied since he had no intention of invading Egypt in the first place.

Here again the Macedonian monarchs underestimated Rome's importance and missed another important clue. Rome didn't care about Egypt or Ptolemy's survival. What she did care about was a healthy competition between Ptolemy and Antiochus. Put another way, Rome did not want one large consolidated Asian Empire under one ruler at her doorstep and was making sure it didn't happen.

I believe the shortsighted Macedonian monarchs preoccupied with their own petty squabbling missed the real threat lurking in the west. That eventually not only destroyed their homeland but also changed the course of history forever.

In 196 BC, blinded by his rash of victories, Antiochus crossed over the Hellespond from Asia into Europe and began to rebuild the abandoned city of Lysimachea. It was going to be a military base and a home for his son Seleucus. Unfortunately, his well-deserved reputation as a conqueror was too much for the hysterical Roman Senators. They issued him an ultimatum to stop his hostilities, relinquish the territory he had won in Asia Minor, refrain from further attacks on cities and above all keep out of Europe. Antiochus took very little notice of the ultimatum and continued his business as usual. When a Roman mission arrived in Lysimachea, delivering the Senate's earlier demands for a second time, Antiochus exclaimed that his presence in Asia Minor and Thrace was well justified because the territory was won by Seleucus I's defeat of Lysimachus in 281 BC. By rite of inheritance the territory belonged to him. Antiochus must have suspected that the ultimatum was a bluff and the Romans were in no mood to fight so he continued to rebuild Lysimachea which served as his outpost until at least 190 BC.

In 195 BC, Antiochus concluded his seven year war (Fifth Syrian War) with Egypt with a peace agreement that included his daughter's engagement to Ptolemy. Soon afterwards, in 194 BC, Ptolemy married (Antiochus's daughter) Cleopatra, sealing the deal.

In Macedonia meanwhile, after the treaty of Phoenice, Philip decided it was time to strengthen his navy and went to work building a powerful fleet. By 201 BC, his fleet was ready and operational. After his secret pact with Antiochus, Philip captured the island of Thasos, a strategic post for keeping an eye on the Bosporus and Black Sea trade routes. In 201 BC, he captured Ptolemy's naval base at Samos and added the large number of ships there to his own fleet. He later attacked and defeated the Rhodian fleet and invaded Ionia and Pergamon.

Unfortunately, the Macedonians were never good at fighting at sea but still it took the combination of Rhodes, Chios, Pergamon and Byzantium to stop the Macedonian navy. At a naval engagement near Chios, the Macedonian fleet suffered a crippling defeat, losing almost half the ships in the navy. What was most alarming about this battle was that more Macedonians were lost here than in any previous engagement on land or at sea.

Broken up by his defeat, Philip quickly withdrew to Miletus and later regrouped his forces in an enclave in Caria where he rested until 196 BC. Unfortunately his remaining fleet had to stay at sea and during the winter of 201-200 BC it was blockaded in Bargylia by the Rhodians and the Pergamenes who quickly ran to Rome to denounce Philips actions.

During the spring of 200 BC the Macedonian fleet broke free from the blockage and was back in Europe in good time to become involved in yet another war, this time between Athens and Acarnania. Being allies with the Acarnanians, Philip sent an expeditionary force to attack Athens and a squadron to capture four Athenian triremes at the port of Piraeus. The triremes however were just as easily lost as they were captured. Unbeknownst to the Macedonians, Rhodian and Pergamene squadrons were pursuing them across the Aegean and suddenly appeared from their base in Aigina, recovering the stolen ships. The Athenians were happy to have their ships back but, more importantly, were thrilled to have such friends who would come to their aid, risking the wrath of Philip. But as it turned out it was all done for political gains not for friendship. The Athenians, behind Macedonia's back, were entertaining a Roman delegation, which at the time happened to be visiting their fair city. When seventy year-old Attalus found out he couldn't wait to invite himself. Besides the prestige of being with the delegation the Athenians bestowed great honours on the old man. Athenian excitement reached its peak when Rome, Rhodes and Pergamon all pledged their support for Athens, against Macedonia.

This indeed was a moment of glory for Athens that was jubilantly celebrated with a declaration of war on Macedonia. It was an impulsive move, which unfortunately backfired. At the sight of the Macedonian army Athens lost her new friends. They had better things to do than fight for her, and left her alone to absorb the full might of the Macedonian army. Philip's reaction to the Athenian move was prompt, vigorous and characteristic of a Macedonian king, to say the least. The Macedonians did not tolerate insubordination especially from Athens. Philip dispatched general Nicanor with orders to decimate Attica, including the Academy in Athens where the Roman mission was staying. Even though no Romans were killed in the attack, in retrospect, this was a mistake. News of the savage attacks quickly reached the Roman Senate persuading the optimists that Philip's contemptuous behaviour could not be tolerated and something had to be done. The Romans felt that they had no choice but to deliver an ultimatum ordering Philip to stop his aggressions against Attica and to settle his differences with Attalus by arbitration.

Philip knew that Rome, so soon after the war with Hannibal, was in no shape to take on Macedonia. He was not in the least perturbed by the prospect of war and completely ignored the ultimatum. He ordered more attacks on Attica and also attacked the cities around the Hellespond hoping to disrupt the Athenian Black Sea grain route.

The Romans dispatched a second ultimatum, which repeated the first and added two more clauses. This time he was required to compensate Rhodes for losses as well as refrain from attacking Egypt and Egyptian possessions. My guess is that the Romans found out about the secret pact between Philip and Antiochus.

Who were these Romans anyway and how did they dare dictate terms to a superpower? Philip stood his ground and refused to be intimidated. It should have been obvious to him by now that Rome was not going to go away. In fact, after her victory in Carthage, Rome was getting bolder by the day. Philip's response to the ultimatum was very simple, if there was going to be war then the Macedonians would fight. Still unperturbed, Philip continued with his attacks until he was satisfied and then returned to Macedonia. His arrogance had finally caught up with him. His non-compliance with Roman demands and his continual harassment of his neighbours not only robbed him of his dignity as a good statesman, but also convinced the Roman Senate that he was dangerous and should be dealt with as soon as possible.

In spite of their weakened condition, due to the Roman-Carthagian Punic Wars, the Romans actually accepted Philip's war challenge. It was fall, 200 BC, when news reached Macedonia that the Roman army had already landed at Apollonia and a Roman fleet was wintering in Corcyra.

What was worse than having Rome at Macedonia's gates was the state of Philip's affairs with his neighbours. His recent rash of unwarranted attacks on his Aegean neighbours had left him with very few allies. In fact he now had more enemies eager to defect to Rome than he had allies. The Achaean League, which at the time was preoccupied fighting a war with Sparta, figured it had a better chance of winning with Rome than with Macedonia on its side. In 199 BC, the Aetolians also made their choice and joined Rome because they believed Rome would win if a war broke out. Athens too made her choice and cast her Macedonian shackles in favour of Rome. Also, as Livy puts it, &quot;the priests, whenever they prayed for Athens and her allies, were also bidden to curse and execrate Philip, his children and kingdom, his sea and land forces, and the entire race and name of the Macedonians&quot;. (Page 309, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

None of these actions mattered to Philip. He was confident that he could meet any challenge and win just as his ancestors had done for centuries before.

For the next two years Philip continued his business as usual and crushed the Dardanian invasion, blockaded the Romans in Illyria, and showed no mercy to the troublesome Aetolians. Unfortunately, with all his efforts, Philip could not turn the tide as he was about to meet the Romans head on. It started with the arrival of the young Roman consul, Flamininus, who was sent by the Roman Senate to meet with Philip and deliver Rome's conditions for peace. Philip agreed to a meeting, which took place at the Aoos River in Illyria, but disagreed with the Roman terms. According to Roman demands, Macedonia was to evacuate and remove all its garrisons from the cities in Thessaly, Euboea and Corinth and give the cities autonomy. In other words, Macedonia was expected to surrender all the strong positions at her doorstep. Philip was insulted by the offer and quickly stormed out of the meeting. Flamininus lost no time and began his invasion, driving the Macedonians back into Thessaly. By late summer 198 BC, the Roman legions had reached the Gulf of Coring and a battle with Philip seemed imminent. Roman presence in the region convinced all but a few Achaean League members to abandon Macedonia and ally themselves with Rome. Philip weighed the situation carefully and, in November of 198 BC, returned to the negotiating table with a counter offer which would virtually restrict him to Macedonia only. The offer was neither accepted nor rejected as the Romans kept stalling for time. It was an election year and Flamininus had to leave for Rome. Philip was told to send an embassy there and negotiations resumed. Unfortunately things did not go well. The main points of contention were Philip's insistence on retaining control of the city of Demetrias, Chalcis and Corinth, better known as the shackles of his southerly neighbours. Once Flamininus was re-elected the negotiations came to an abrupt end and the legions were on the move again. Philip, now desperate, turned to the Spartans for assistance. He offered them Argos, one of the Achaean allies who remained loyal to Macedonia, and the marriage of Philip's daughter to the Spartan king's son. The treasonous Spartans unfortunately were not trustworthy. They took Philip's offer and then stabbed him in the back by making a separate deal with Flamininus. What was worse, there was now an armistice between Sparta and the Achaean league and the Spartans were obliged to provide Flamininus with troops to fight against Macedonia. All the while the Romans and their allies were gaining strength, Macedonia's army was being reduced to about twenty-five thousand remaining troops. Philip realized that with time his strength was eroding and he had to act quickly. Like many of his predecessors he decided to stake everything on a single battle.

In June 197 BC, at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly, the unbeaten Macedonian army came face to face with the Roman legions. With a massed charge the Macedonian phalanx gave the Romans a terrifying battle that they would never forget. During the first charge the Macedonians were successful and won the first round. It was a horrific spectacle for the battle hardened Romans who for the first time had made serious contact with the Macedonian phalanx. During the second charge, unfortunately, the phalanx overreached the Roman battle line and lost formation. The Romans quickly took advantage by outflanking the phalanx and cut it to pieces. Each individual Roman soldier was equipped with tools to fight in formation and in single-handed combat, something the Macedonians had never experienced before. Unable to regroup, the phalanx fell back and was destroyed. Without the phalanx, the Romans made short work of the rest of the Macedonian army. The Romans were not only more disciplined than Philip had anticipated, but they were also fast learners and able to quickly adapt to their opponent's fighting techniques. Even though the armies were equally disciplined, the Romans proved to be more flexible, giving them the advantage they needed to win.

Victorious, Rome took control of the region, restricting Philip to Macedonia. The terms of the agreement were far stiffer than those proposed earlier. Now Philip was required to evacuate all previously held regions in Asia and Europe, with the exception of Macedonia. In addition, Macedonia was required to pay Rome a one thousand talent war indemnity. It was a hard pill to swallow for Philip but what other choice did he have?

Before I continue with the main story, I would like to take a little diversion and examine what other contributions, besides conquests, the Macedonians bestowed upon the world. Again I want to emphasize that even though Alexander's empire was split into three kingdoms, the Antogonids, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, it was still ruled by Macedonians and was very much under Macedonian control. In spite of Alexander's attempts to integrate his Macedonian soldiers into the cultures he conquered, they resisted and after Alexander's death, they cast off their foreign robes and divorced their foreign wives thus abandoning Alexander's concept of &quot;fusion between races in a universal empire&quot;. For a Macedonian, especially for a Macedonian soldier, there was no greater honour than being Macedonian. So why would they want to be any less?

With regard to spreading the Hellenic language and culture, I am in complete agreement with Peter Green when he says, &quot;Hellenization, the diffusion of Greek language and culture that has been defined, ever since Droysen's Geschichte der Diadochen (1836), as the essence of Hellenistic civilization, is a phenomenon calling for careful scrutiny. Its civilizing, even its missionary aspects have been greatly exaggerated, not least by those anxious to find some moral justification for imperialism.&quot; (Page 312, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age).

It has never been the mission of any empire, ancient or modern, to spread its language and culture to the conquered. The cold truth is that empires seek conquest for profit and land so that they can better themselves, not those they conquer. The Macedonian imperialists were no different. Their propaganda may have claimed many things but, as history has shown, what they did was indeed very different from what they said.

The greatest contribution the Macedonians made to the world, especially to Europe, was the opening of Asia and Africa to European trade. The Macedonians made sure trade routes were created wherever they went and afterwards guaranteed their safety. Trade routes were not confined to the sea-lanes alone. Much trade was done over land and stretched from Europe to as far as the Hindu Kush. The area of trade, connected by a large grid of trade routes, was a huge rectangle that stretched from the Hellespond east to the Hindu Kush, south to the bottom of the Persian Gulf, west through Arabia to the Nile Valley and north back to the Hellespond. Trade was heavily concentrated on the Aegean side of Asia Minor and down the Nile valley. The western part of Asia Minor was the hub of economic activities both on shore and at sea.

Second to trade, the Macedonians during this period contributed a wealth of information to natural sciences, navigation, geography, biology, botany, astronomy, history and literature. It has been said that the city of Alexandria in Egypt in her glory days possessed the greatest collection of books and knowledge ever assembled in a single library. Built by Ptolemy Soter, the magnificent library of Alexandria was in possession of nearly half a million scrolls. Most of these scrolls were written in koine and were self-serving. There was very little for or about the common Egyptian, which is a contradiction to Droysen's claims regarding the Diadochoi's mission to disseminate the so-called &quot;Hellenic Culture&quot; to foreigners.

If anything was disseminated or shared between cultures it was technical skills. The most striking example of effective adaptation of skill was in the evolutionary techniques of warfare. Both Macedonians and foreigners learned from each other and quickly adapted to each other's fighting styles and techniques. Alexander learned about mounted archers from the nomads, a technique he adapted and employed against guerrilla attacks.

Exchange of skills was not limited to warfare. One example of effectively passing on knowledge from one culture to another was in the field of medicine. There are many examples where Macedonians taught other cultures to prepare and apply medicines to cure various illnesses.

With regard to their language, the Macedonians did spread the international koine or lingua franca, but solely for commercial, administrative and religious purposes, leaving the common men out. Back then anyone important, particularly a businessperson had to learn koine in order to interact and communicate at an international level, especially in Egypt where the Ptolemies insisted on using koine. These were exceptions, however, since the majority of the conquered populations were excluded.

It has been said that Macedonians employed local slaves, as domestics, who were taken along with them to foreign lands. While living in isolation these slaves often became accustomed to the language and culture of their masters, the Macedonians, and passed them on to their descendants. One example of this is the Jews of Alexandria in Egypt. It is believed that the first Jews to arrive in Alexandria were prisoners of war brought there by Ptolemy I. Their prolonged isolation from their own communities and the continual contact with a large Macedonian population influenced them to learn to speak the language of the Macedonians.

The cities the Macedonians built in foreign lands served multiple purposes. The port cities were gateways to maritime commerce and support centers for the Macedonian military. Other cities, such as the many Alexandrias that Alexander III commissioned and built during his conquests were there to support military needs. As I mentioned earlier, whenever Alexander encountered a hostile people he built a city and populated it with Macedonian settlers to support the needs of the Macedonian military. In time, and through further conquest, a network of Macedonian cities were built and settled with Macedonians throughout Asia and Egypt. These settlers came directly from Macedonia and brought with them their native Macedonian language, customs, skills and culture. The settlements served as military colonies and were concentrated around Lydia and Phrygia. Some were large cities serving the trade sector while others were garrison outposts spread throughout the empire serving the needs of the Macedonian troops.

Unlike any other cities, the new Macedonian cities were built on axial-grid patterns and were far larger and cosmopolitan then any previously built cities. Pergamon, Antioch, Seleucia-on-Tigris and certainly Alexandria of Egypt were vast cities and major focal points for international trade and cultural development. They were far greater than Athens ever was even at the height of her glory. That being said, one wonders why modern Europe has bestowed such great honours on Athens and almost none on Alexandria? After all Alexandria was the most important city of the so-called &quot;Hellenistic period&quot;. Poised between Africa and Europe, Alexandria was the meeting place of all races and creeds. Still flourishing to this day, she has endured two and a half millennia of violence and survived. She is a tribute to the greatness of her builders, the Macedonians.

While on the subject of ancient Macedonian cities, I want to mention that Alexandria did not stand alone in magnificence. There were dozens of magnificent cities built after Alexander's conquests but only a few stood out. One of those few was Antioch. Antioch was built on the fertile coastal plain linking southern Anatolia with Palestine, on the left bank of the Orontes River under the towering peak of Mount Silpios. It was a site where Alexander III had previously passed by and drank water from the plentiful, cool springs. But it was Seleucus in 300 BC, who chose it for its access to the inland caravan routes, its cool breezes off the sea and for its rich surrounding lands that offered wine, grains, vegetables and oil. Like Alexandria, Antioch was an ethnically mixed city, a community of many races including retired soldiers. Antioch gained its importance when it became the capital of the Seleucid empire under Antiochus I's rule. The Ptolemy's annexed Antioch, for a brief period, but it was during Antiochus IV's rule that the city was re-developed and expanded. From 175 BC onwards its luxury began to rival that of Alexandria.

The ancient Macedonians of this period, especially those living in the Diaspora, were cosmopolitan people and freely traveled throughout their world from city to city to fight for their king, seek work or make their fortunes in trade. It was not beneath them to exchange ideas and to pass on to other cultures, their skills, customs and knowledge. Macedonian scientists, architects, engineers, artists, craftsmen and physicians traveled with the Macedonian armies wherever they went and no doubt left their mark.

With regard to education, in those days, there were no public institutions to serve the needs of the masses. Education was strictly a private affair, managed by professional tutors and only available to those who could afford it. Theater and games were also privately owned and restricted to club members only and were rarely attended by foreigners. Even the uneducated Macedonian settlers and soldiers kept to themselves and rarely socialized with those of other cultures. The Dura-Europos inscriptions, mentioned before, are good examples of such behaviour. Even after nearly three centuries of living in the Diaspora, the Macedonians of Dura-Europos still spoke their native Macedonian language and practiced their Macedonian customs.

If there was any Macedonian language and culture dissemination in the post-Alexandrian era it was to the Macedonian Diaspora of Asia and Egypt. As I mentioned earlier, Macedonians often traveled between Europe, Asia and Egypt. With them they brought news, gossip, art, music, inventions, etc., which only appealed and made sense to other Macedonians.

It has been said that a great many Macedonian settlers from Asia Minor to India, who were initially brought there to serve the military, in time, became rich land owners and built Macedonian style estates and villas, decorating them with all kinds of Macedonian art. Many of these landowners and their families remained there and practiced their customs and culture for years after the Macedonian empires collapsed. An example of this is the ancient settlement of Ai Khanum in northern Afghanistan. There, French excavator Paul Bernard and his team found a so-called &quot;Hellenistic type&quot; mausoleum and a villa decorated with a beautiful fountain that has carved gargoyles and water spouts in the form of lion and dolphin heads. The art and architecture is identical to that found in Macedonia. History cites many examples where ancient Macedonian cultures had survived for centuries after Macedonia proper had succumbed to Roman rule.

In terms of literature, the Macedonians were more interested in learning from the conquered than in teaching them. Being uninterested in learning the languages of the conquered, the Macedonian elite often commissioned translations of their works. Ptolemy Soter commissioned Egyptian priest Manetho to write the history of Egypt in koine. Similarly, Seleucus Nicator commissioned priest Berassos to write a digest of Babylonian wisdom, again in koine.

In terms of government, a monarch who, in theory, was a triumphant warrior, honoured truth and was accessible to his subjects, ruled the Macedonians of Macedonia proper. This was true for Macedonia but not necessarily true for Asia and Egypt, the lands won by the spear and held down by the right of conquest. The Asian and Egyptian dynasties were ruled by autocratic monarchies supported by centralized bureaucracies. There was no national power base or local ethnic support. Both Asian and Egyptian dynasties employed paid armies to maintain the status quo. Both dynasties imported Macedonians from Macedonia to administer their bureaucracies. Furthermore, the Macedonian elite maintained its rule by force and bureaucracy over a native labour force. The crown owned all lands and everything in Asia and Egypt was done in support of the king.

The difference between Macedonia proper and the other two Macedonian empires was that Macedonia proper had a national power base and Macedonians ruled Macedonians.

To be continued in part 11...

And now I leave you with this:

To my foolhardy Greek friends, if I can call you that, who incessantly send me proclamations that &quot;Macedonia is Greek&quot;, to you I dedicate articles 9 and 10.

First of all, let me assure you that there is no such thing as &quot;ancient Greeks&quot;. There are ancient Athenians, Aetolians, Spartans, etc, etc. but there was NEVER a time in pre-19th century history when they ever came together to become anything beyond &quot;city states&quot;. They existed as individual city states with their own languages, cultures, etc, etc. but NEVER as a single unit of anything.

The ancient Macedonians, on the other hand, had a state with well-defined borders within which were cities which all identified with a single Macedonia.

Secondly, the ancient city states were nowhere near as culturally developed as the Macedonian cities inside Macedonia, Asia and Egypt. Athens was a village, a small village at that, in comparison to Pella, Alexandria of Egypt, Antoich, Pergamon, etc,etc.

As for the ancient Macedonians being Greek? First, for a Macedonian, especially for a Macedonian soldier, there was no greater honour than being Macedonian. So, why would they want to be any less? As for being Greek, the word &quot;Greek&quot; was not invented until the Roman times, so how could they be Greek?

Lastly, just because modern Greece decided to associate itself with the non-existent so called &quot;ancient Greece&quot; that does not mean that modern Greeks have the right to claim the ancient Macedonian heritage. Just because some modern Greek said koine was a Greek language it doesn't make it so. More than fifty percent of the words in the koine language are similar to those of today's Macedonian language. How do you explain that? So my foolhardy Greek friends GIVE IT UP, Macedonia has always belonged to and will always belong to the Macedonians. What you were taught to believe, by your modern Greek progenitors, was only a 19th century myth, the dream of a few mad men, a dream that has turned into a nightmare for all of us.

References:

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks, Writers Showcase, New York.

M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, London, Cambridge University Press, 1981

F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Fontana History of the Ancient World, Fontana Press, 1992.

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age, University of California Press, Berkley Los Angeles, 1990.

Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, Macdonald Phoebus Ltd, 1981.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>dvuzc3wf5p5jw1rzdcojzi5ij4hiyhj</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - War with Rome the Decline of the Macedonian Empires</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2068</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11083</id>
      <parentid>4980</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:49Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="53208" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 11 – War with Rome the Decline of the Macedonian Empires

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

After the second Macedonian-Roman war, Philip V’s influence and movements in Europe were restricted to Macedonia proper. Rome, still fearing Macedonia’s wrath, made Philip an ally ignoring Aetolian demands for his removal from the Macedonian throne. Control of strategic military points such as Demetrias, Acrocorinth and Chalcis (the Fetters) was taken over by Roman garrisons. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues, expecting to be liberated, exchanged one tyrant for another and now found themselves under Roman control. Before they were complaining about the Macedonians taking their freedom, now they were complaining about the Romans, who not only took their freedom, but also robbed them of their material possessions.

Soon after Philip’s defeat world attention was beginning to focus on Antiochus III who, at the time, was aggressively campaigning in Asia Minor. First to react to Antiochus’s activities was Eumenes II, king of Pergamon. Eumenes was Attalus I’s son and successor to the kingdom of Pergamon. Eumenes had much to complain about since his kingdom had suffered the most at the hands of the ambitious Antiochus.

Fed up with Antiochus’s aggression, Eumenes turned his attention to Rome and found many Roman ears willing to listen to his complaints. Antiochus, on the other hand, made attempts to appease Eumenes by offering him the marriage of his daughter, but Eumenes refused.

Eumenes was hard at work portraying Antiochus as an ambitious imperialist, dangerous not only to his kingdom but also to Rome. He even encouraged and coached other cities in Asia Minor to also go to Rome and complain. His unrelenting complaining finally paid off in 196 BC when Flamininus, through an envoy, sent word to Antiochus to leave the autonomous cities in Asia Minor alone, stay out of Europe and return Ptolemy’s towns, taken by force.

Like Philip V, Antiochus III was not afraid of Roman threats and told Flamininus that Rome had no authority to speak for the cities in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Antiochus reiterated his claim to Asia Minor by right of prior conquest and possession. He told the Romans that he was simply recovering his ancestral domains. As for Ptolemy’s towns, Antiochus made reference to a forthcoming treaty with Ptolemy V.

Being unable to persuade Antiochus by any other means, Rome offered to act as arbitrator between him and the complainants. That offer was also snubbed and the Romans broke off the talks and left. 

By the winter of 195 BC, the Roman Senators were getting nervous again. They learned that the exiled Hannibal of Carthage had found asylum with the Seleucids at Ephesus and was urging Antiochus to invade Italy. The Senators feared that Antiochus was planning to invade Europe. To safeguard against such an invasion Scipio Africanus, a leading Roman, along with a group of Senators recommended to the Senate that it approve the re-enforcement of the garrisons in Aetolia and Achaea. The Senate, however, voted against the request and in 194 BC evacuated the entire Roman force, including the garrison at Acrocoring.

The fact that Flamininus did not organize any sort of federal defense league among the Aetolians, Achaeans and Spartans and did not arrange for any Roman liaison to oversee the transition suggests that Antiochus was given an easy target for invasion. Was this cleverly done to divert his attention away from Italy? It would appear so. Even Philip was encouraged to go after the Aetolians to recover some of the lands he had lost earlier, perhaps to bait Antiochus?

It has been said that to adorn his triumph, when he left for Rome Flamininus took with him many pieces of art and treasures that he had looted from the Aetolians. He also took one of Philip’s sons, Demetrius, as his hostage.

The Aetolians, unhappy with the Roman experience, celebrated the Roman evacuation. Fully aware, however, that the Romans would soon return they went in search of new allies. The most obvious ones besides the Spartans were the Macedonians, Philip and Antiochus. Philip flatly refused the Aetolian offer, remembering that not too long ago they were calling for his removal from the throne. The Spartans, on the other hand, were quick to accept and immediately launched an attack on the newly autonomous cities in Laconia. No sooner had the aggressions begun than the Romans intervened and drove the Spartans back. Sparta itself was spared, as the Romans needed the Spartans to keep the balance of power in the Peloponnese.

After the Spartan debacle the Aetolians turned to Antiochus. Antiochus unfortunately had mixed feelings about getting involved in someone else’s mess. On one hand he was encouraged by Hannibal to attack Italy and on the other he was openly invited to invade the Peloponnese. Facing a dilemma, Antiochus decided to secure his position with Rome first. In 193 BC he made another attempt at negotiations with Flamininus in Rome. Flamininus, acting on behalf of the Senate, made Antiochus an offer he could not refuse. In exchange for abandoning his claims in Thrace and allowing Rome to act as diplomatic arbiter in Europe, Rome was prepared to give Antiochus a free hand in Asia Minor. He was however warned that, should he refuse the offer, Rome would continue to pursue alliances in Asia.

Antiochus’s heart was set on recovering all of his ancestral claims and decided to hold out for Thrace, thus breaking off the negotiations. Antiochus did not want to antagonize the Romans so he took his time deciding what to do.

During the fall of 192 BC, Antiochus accepted the Aetolian invitation and prepared to invade the Peloponnese. He crossed the Aegean Sea and landed in the port of Demetrias (present day Volos). In the meantime, the Aetolians attacked and began to loot Sparta, which immediately drew in the Achaean league. The Achaeans drove the Aetolians out of Sparta and encouraged the Spartans to join their league, which they did. As the Achaeans grew in strength, they drew in more and more Aetolian allies. By the fall if 191 BC almost everyone had defected from the Aetolians and the Peloponnese was in Achaean hands.

By the time Antiochus was ready to make his move, the Aetolians had no allies to support him. It was now too late for him to turn back so, with no more than ten thousand men and only six elephants at his disposal, he invaded Chalcis. To strengthen his position he married a Chalcidian bride and re-named her Euboea to impress the Euboeans.

Antiochus’s actions were viewed with suspicion not only in Rome but in Macedonia as well. His presence in Europe was a threat to both Macedonia and Rome so a combined Macedonian-Roman force was assembled and dispatched to drive him out. The armies met at Thermopylae and Antiochus’s forces were defeated. The Romans, however, were not content with just driving him out of the Peloponnese. They wanted him out of the Hellespont as well.

After forgiving the Aetolians their deeds, the Romans went off in pursuit of Antiochus. This was the first time ever that a Roman force crossed into Asia, a sign of things to come.

Before venturing into Asia, the Romans shored up alliances with Rhodes and Pergamon and set up a naval base in Tenos.

Displeased with its shift in loyalties, Antiochus, with his Galatian mercenaries, attacked and besieged Pergamon. The threat of a combined Roman-Rhodian navy at his doorstep, however, was cause enough to re-consider and he decided to pursue a peaceful settlement instead. A peaceful settlement would have been just fine for the Romans and the Rhodians but, unfortunately, the Pergamenes wanted revenge. Eumenes insisted on exacting his revenge.

With help from the Achaeans, the siege of Pergamon was lifted and the Roman-Rhodian fleet attacked and destroyed Antiochus’s naval bases. Antiochus, determined to maintain influence in the waters, rebuilt his fleet and was ready for action again. He even inducted Hannibal in his navy and gave him command of one of his squadrons, but was again beaten.

If losing at sea was not enough, Antiochus was now facing threats on land. News came that Roman legions were crossing the Hellespont and invading Asia Minor. Lucius Scipio and his brother Scipio Africanus led the Roman legions. The Scipios were aided by Philip who allowed them passage through Macedonia in exchange for canceling his war indemnity and returning his son Demetrius, who was earlier taken to Rome as hostage.

Antiochus had a formidable army of seventy-five thousand while the Roman force numbered no more than thirty thousand. The Seleucid soldiers, however, were not Macedonians and Antiochus was well aware of the fighting potential of the Roman legions. So instead of offering battle, Antiochus invited the Scipios to negotiate peace. To avoid war, he offered to pay Rome a partial war indemnity and return most of the towns he occupied in Europe and Asia Minor. The Scipios, however, rejected his offer and made him a counter offer demanding that he completely evacuate Asia Minor to the Taurus Range and pay full indemnity for the campaign. Of course this enraged Antiochus who politely turned down the Roman offer and, like Philip before him, decided it was better to fight than surrender.

In late 190 BC, at Magnesia-by-Sipylos, near the confluence of the Phrygios and Hermos Rivers, Antiochus, like many of his Macedonian predecessors, staked everything on a single battle. A massive cavalry charge was led by his right wing smashing the enemy line to pieces. Unfortunately, the cavalry failed to disengage their pursuit in time to return to the battleground. The phalanx fought hard and stood its ground but, in spite of all efforts, without cavalry support at its flanks, it broke up and the Romans hacked it to pieces. It has been said that this was the bloodiest slaughter since the Roman defeat at Cannae. Antiochus III, the greatest conqueror since Alexander the Great, was unable to stop the Romans. The battle of Magnesia not only brought Rome victory and new alliances but it also opened up new opportunities for Roman conquest in the east. Soon after the battle was over, the Scipios marched eastward into Sardis and occupied it without a fight

Antiochus’s penalty for losing to the Romans was a war indemnity of fifteen thousand talents, the highest fine ever recorded. Antiochus was expected to pay five hundred talents immediately then twenty-five hundred after the treaty ratification. After that he was required to pay twelve annual installments of a thousand talents each. Additionally, he was required to supply Rome with large quantities of wheat and pay off his four hundred silver talent debt to Eumenes. If that was not enough, the Seleucids were required to renounce all claims to Thrace and evacuate Asia Minor to the Taurus Range. Antiochus was literally barred from Europe and Asia Minor but was allowed to keep Cilicia, Phoenicia and Coele-Syria. The territories of Asia Minor taken from the Seleucids were awarded to Rome’s allies the Rhodesians and the Pergamene. Lycia and much of Caria were given to Rhodes while most of western Asia Minor, including Lydia and Hellespontine Phrygia, was given to Pergamon. The rest of the cities were made autonomous. The Romans made it clear, however, that these were gifts and could be revoked at their discretion at any time.

To make sure that he did not forfeit his commitments, Antiochus was required to provide the Romans with hostages, including his son the future Antiochus IV. There was also a request to surrender Hannibal but he was aware of the Roman plan and fled before he could be captured.

To ensure that he wouldn’t wage war again, Antiochus’s army, navy and elephants were disbanded, leaving only ten vessels at his disposal. Additionally, Antiochus was banned from either recruiting or campaigning in Roman controlled territories.

After they were finished with the Seleucids the Romans, with the assistance of the Pergamenes, turned their attention to the Galatians. In 189 BC, Scipio was replaced by Gnaeus Vulso who, together with Eumenes’s brother Attalus, conducted a successful and profitable campaign against the Galatians of Asia Minor. When the campaign was over, the Romans evacuated Asia leaving Pergamon and Rhodes in charge of keeping the peace. A treaty was negotiated with the assistance of the Roman Senate and was ratified at Apamea in 188 BC. The treaty literally removed Seleucid control from Asia Minor but left the rest of the Seleucid Empire intact.

The terms of the treaty left the Seleucids short of cash and with many obligations. Antiochus, however, never lost hope and felt confident that he would eventually regain his lost territories if only he could stay ahead of his financial obligations. To rebuild his fortune and pay off his indemnity, he went off campaigning in the east. Before he left he appointed his son, the future Seleucus IV, co-regent. Unfortunately, as luck would have it, in midsummer 187 BC Antiochus was killed. Soon after his death, Seleucus IV inherited the Seleucid Empire along with all responsibility for observing the terms of the treaty of Apamea.

Antiochus’s death brought an end to Seleucid ambitions of recovering the ancestral empire. This was a relief for the Romans who no longer needed to fear a westward Seleucid expansion. Antiochus’s death was also a relief for Eumenes and his Rhodian partners who had suffered badly at his hands. Most relieved were the Ptolemies of Egypt who no longer feared losing their empire.

With Antiochus out of the way, Roman attention was now turned to Macedonia. The trouble started when Philip refused to evacuate some Thracian and Thessalian towns which the Romans had promised to Eumenes. Unable to push Philip out by himself, Eumenes complained to the Romans. Rome dispatched Quintus Metellus with a Senatorial commission ordering Philip to evacuate the towns. Stubbornly, Philip refused and not only retained the existing towns but also occupied two neutral towns close to Pergamon. As the complaints continued to pile against him, Philip decided it was time to do something. He sent his younger son Demetrius, who earlier had been a Roman hostage, back to Rome to lobby on his behalf. Demetrius was very popular in Rome and had made friends with important people. With their help he was hoping to change Rome’s impression of Macedonia. Unfortunately, Eumenes’s ambassador was also a good diplomat with equally important Roman friends and became an obstacle for Demetrius.

In the spring of 183 BC, another Senatorial commission was sent and Philip was evicted from the neutral towns. But Roman treachery did not end there. Soon afterwards, Demetrius was sent home decorated with diplomatic laurels and promises to the Macedonian throne. It was a ploy to create trouble for Philip and it worked like a charm sending Perseus, Demetrius’s half brother and heir to the Macedonian throne, into a jealous fit. Rivalry between the two brothers continued for some time until Perseus produced a Roman letter, perhaps a forgery, proving that Demetrius had treasonable aspirations to the throne. Having no other choice, Philip was forced to exercise judgment against his own son and enforce the full extent of the law. Demetrius was executed in 180 BC. No sooner had the deed been done than Philip discovered that Perseus’s testimony was a fabrication. Being unable to accept the tragedy, Philip died of remorse. Philip V died in 179 BC and was succeeded by his eldest son Perseus.

Perseus was not a popular king, especially with the Romans, who had discovered that he was responsible for Demetrius’s execution. Perseus, well aware of his weak popularity outside Macedonia, tried to improve his position by making alliances with his neighbours. He first tried to convince the Roman Senate to ratify him as king with all the privileges granted to his father. He then married Seleucus IV’s sister Laodice while he married off his own half-sister to Prusias II of Bithynia.

His attempt at forming mass alliances with his neighbours, unfortunately, did not bolster his popularity as expected. In fact they did the opposite, raising the suspicions of his enemy Eumenes who kept a vigilant eye on him, reporting his every move to the Romans, interpreting it as an anti Roman act.

During his first years as king, Perseus strengthened his northern frontiers in an attempt to stop tribal invasions, amnestied exiles, wrote off taxes and cancelled debts. Although these acts were a considerable cause for public enthusiasm inside Macedonia, they caused Perseus problems outside. Among other things, Perseus was blamed for Aetolia’s troubles with the pro-Roman landowners. This alone was cause to send yet another Roman embassy to investigate him. The embassy arrived in 173 BC but instead of investigating him, it completely ignored his explanations and reported back that he was preparing for war. Dissatisfied with the report, Perseus sent his own Macedonian envoys to Rome to plead his case but once again his attempts were thwarted. To strengthen the validity of its report, the Roman embassy called on Eumenes to testify before a Senate committee hearing. Eumenes arrived in Rome in 172 BC convincing the Senate, with his rhetoric, that indeed Perseus was preparing for war.

The Senatorial audience was predisposed to believe Eumenes, even though he was known to exaggerate. The Macedonian plea was rejected and the Senatorial commission made its recommendation to go to war.

Eumenes and certainly some of his Roman supporters went to a lot of trouble, even committing perjury, to convince the Senate to go to war with Macedonia. Perseus may not have been a saint but some of the charges against him were ridiculous at best. In one instance he was accused of conspiring to poison the Roman Senate. In another, Eumenes was nearly killed by a rockslide and that too was blamed on Perseus as an attempted murder. Outrageous charges such as these speak more of the character of the Romans who believed Eumenes, than of Perseus and the Macedonians. It would seem that the Senators would believe someone because they knew him and couldn’t care less if he was telling the truth or not. This was indeed Roman justice.

The Senate decided to trust Eumenes who purposely and falsely placed Macedonia in peril. No single person ever worked so hard as Eumenes to start a war between Macedonia and Rome. Why? Some say that he feared an alliance being formed between the Seleucids and the Antigonids. Such an alliance would have been a threat to his ambitions of expanding Pergamon.

Perseus, from the outset, tried very hard to stay out of trouble but the Romans were determined to deal with him one way or another. In 171 BC a new Senate was elected and a conditional war was declared on Macedonia. A strong Roman expedition was put together and dispatched to Macedonia. The Romans had high expectations that, in the face of a strong Roman force, Perseus would capitulate. Perseus, however, did not wish for war and made it abundantly clear through the three embassies he sent to Rome. Perseus was prepared to make concessions but there were limits to the terms he would accept. The Senate, unfortunately, was unwilling to compromise and continued to push further and further.

By mid 171 BC, after a failed attempt to negotiate a settlement, it became clear that Perseus had no intention of giving in. It was then that the Romans unleashed their expeditionary force.

It was clear from the start that Rome underestimated Macedonia’s military strength. But after they crossed the Adriatic it was too late and would have been humiliating for them to turn back. 

After the catastrophic battle at Cynoscephalae, Philip had rebuilt his military and replenished his losses but Perseus was still unwilling to go to war. From 171 to 168 BC he remained on the defensive and committed only to minor engagements, all the while hoping that a peaceful settlement could be reached.

The four year war (Third Macedonian War) came to a climax on June 22nd, 168 BC when the Romans marched on mass northward and met the Macedonian army at Pydna in southern Macedonia.

In the style of his predecessors, Perseus struck first by unleashing the full might of the Macedonian phalanx. This was not the usual phalanx. It was reinforced with spears all round like a hedgehog, especially at the flanks. “Aemilius Paullus, a veteran commander, declared afterwards that this advance was the most terrifying thing he had ever witnessed.” (Page 430, Peter Green, Alexander to Actium The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age).

The Macedonians did their best and fought bravely to the last soldier but the disciplined Roman military machine and its fighting style, once again, proved to be superior and the battle was lost. It was the end of Macedonia and Macedonian independence. Perseus was taken to Rome as a prisoner of war, or as Peter Green puts it, “to adorn Paullus’s treasure rich triumph”. The Macedonian monarchy was abolished and Macedonia was demilitarized and partitioned into cantons so that she would never again be able to fight back. As further insurance of her passivity, Macedonian leaders were rounded up and taken to Rome.

The real horror of the Macedonian defeat was not Pydna but what the Roman army did afterwards. Before leaving Macedonia, the Roman army was unleashed on the civilian population and allowed to loot, pillage and rape uncontrollably. It has been said that an unimaginable amount of treasure, including gold, jewels and art, was carried off to Rome. A large segment of the population was taken into slavery. Severe restrictions were placed on trading commodities including lumber, and most of the state taxes were now diverted to Rome. According to Livy, Macedonia was divided into four regions, each with its own Roman council, and was forced to pay half the tribute to Rome. This would have otherwise been paid to the Macedonian king. If that was not enough, Paullus lent the Aetolians five hundred soldiers so that they too could exact their own brand of revenge on the Macedonians. What happened next is a tragedy of great proportion that not even the old authors dare describe. The Romans indeed proved themselves to be ruthless and the “true barbarians” that they were, but this was only the beginning.

Athens participated in the anti-Macedonian campaign by supplying the Romans with grain and by fighting side by side with the Romans at Pydna. To the end, the Athenians remained anti-Macedonian

With Macedonia subdued, the Romans turned their attention to Asia. After Antiochus III’s death, the Ptolemies restored law and order in Egypt and managed to stabilize Coele-Syria. Unfortunately, after a long struggle to put down the last of the insurgents in the Nile Delta, in 181 BC Ptolemy V died at age twenty-eight. He left Cleopatra I, Antiochus’s daughter, as regent for their young son but she too died prematurely in 176 BC, leaving Ptolemy VI Philometor in the guardianship of strangers.

In Asia meanwhile, Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC by one of his ministers and was succeeded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Unlike Seleucus IV, Antiochus was interested in stabilizing his kingdom and wanted the rich, fertile region of Coele-Syria back. Another confrontation broke out (the Sixth Syrian war) and lasted from 171 to 168 BC. Ptolemy VI was no more than sixteen years old when war broke out and was still under the advice of strangers who urged him to fight on. While Rome was busy fighting Macedonia, Antiochus attacked Ptolemy’s Egyptian expeditionary forces and captured virtually all of Egypt except for Alexandria. After this catastrophic defeat Ptolemy replaced his advisors and decided it was time to negotiate with his uncle. During the negotiations some of Antiochus’s troops invaded Alexandria and began to loot the temples. These events sparked an uprising and the Alexandrians decided it was time for Ptolemy VI to go. After his ousting they proclaimed his younger brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes joint ruler with his sister Cleopatra II. Upset about the whole incident, Antiochus attempted to besiege Alexandria but was unsuccessful and withdrew in 169 BC leaving the two rivals to fight it out on their own. Instead of fighting the siblings patched up their differences and joined forces against him. By 168 BC Antiochus was back, this time with his fleet. He attacked and defeated Cyprus, a Ptolemaic stronghold.

Antiochus’s illusions of grandeur were shattered when an official order from Rome arrived ordering him to leave Egypt and evacuate Cyprus. The Roman envoy Popillius Laenas met him in Alexandria and read him the dispatch. When Antiochus asked for time to consider the order Laenas pushed him for an immediate answer, yes or no. The Macedonian king swallowed his pride, bowed to the arrogant Roman and answered yes. He then surrendered his new possessions and left for home.

Humiliated as he was, Antiochus set his own pride aside and sent an envoy to Rome proclaiming that peace with the Roman people was preferable to any victory over Egypt. In the meantime Antiochus, in spite of the Roman ban, began to rebuild his military. He added a corps of elephants to his already growing army of fifty thousand soldiers. When a Roman commission showed up at his doorstep to investigate his activities, he made sure they were all well looked after and personally reassured them that the army was being prepared for an eastern campaign. Antiochus went out of his way to ease all Roman fears and it seemed to have worked. The restrictions on his military buildup were ignored and Antiochus was allowed to function unabated

For years the eastern satrapies were left unattended and things were beginning to slide. There was also a Jewish revolt building up in Jerusalem which required attention.

In 165 BC, Antiochus was ready for his eastern campaign but first he had to deal with the Jews in Jerusalem. In his absence, he left his nine-year old son and heir designate, the future Antiochus V, in the guardianship of his chief minister Lysias.

Unfortunately, before Antiochus was able to complete his eastern campaign, he fell ill and died. He died in his early forties in Persia, in 164 BC, while on route to Jerusalem. 

On his deathbed Antiochus rescinded the decree of persecution against the Jews and dispatched Philip, one of his trusted military commanders, with orders to replace Lysias as chief minister and take over the guardianship of his son. Lysias well aware of his predicament, instead of bringing victory, made peace with the Jews (with Senatorial approval), granting them the first step towards independence.

Lysias did not want to give up his position as chief minister and did everything he could to avoid being removed. He even helped Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus IV, lay claim to the Seleucid throne. Demetrius at the time was a hostage of Rome. Demetrius was twenty-four years old when he found out his uncle had died and went straight to the Senate to lay claim to the throne. Unfortunately, he was turned down and his claim rejected.

In the meantime a Roman commission, under the leadership of Gnaeus Octavius, was sent to Antioch to check on Seleucid military resources and Seleucid compliance with the treaty of Apamea. The commission arrived in 163 BC and found a large concentration of troops, a large fleet and numerous royal war elephants. What was most amazing is that the arrogant Romans took it upon themselves, without permission from the Senate or the Macedonian king, to burn the fleet and kill the elephants. At this horrific sight, an observer became so upset that he assassinated Octavius.

Frustrated with official channels, Demetrius escaped from Rome and went straight for Antioch where he was welcomed as the legitimate heir to the throne. Opposition quickly evaporated and Lysias and the young Antiochus V, as well as other pretenders, were rounded up and executed.

The news of Demetrius’s arrival in Antioch was cause for the Romans to dispatch yet another embassy. Tiberius Gracchus was dispatched to observe and report on Demetrius’s activities. When the Romans arrived, Demetrius received them well and gave them full cooperation. He even gave them Octavius’s murderer along with a gold crown to show respect. In return he received an excellent report. His crown was accepted and the murderer released, agreeing that his actions were well justified. When the report was filed with the Senate, Demetrius was recognized as king on condition that he maintain his good conduct.

In 161 BC Rome concluded a treaty with the Jews effectively recognizing Judea as an independent state. Demetrius unfortunately was not happy with the Roman resolution and reversed it by crushing the Jewish rebellion. The Romans did not react to the Macedonian king’s actions because they never agreed to guaranty the Judean independence. So much for treaties with super powers!

From here on forward things went downhill for Demetrius. First he was in trouble with the Cappadocian dynasty for interfering in their internal affairs. He then violently crushed an uprising in Antioch, which made him very unpopular with his own people. He got into worse trouble in 160 BC with Attalus II, after Eumenes’s death, when Attalus produced a pretender to the Seleucid throne, named Balas. Balas, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus IV, was certainly an imposter but was backed by Attalus II of Pergamon (Eumenes’s successor) who, like Eumenes, was very popular with the Romans. Balas was sent to Rome and with Attalus’s help was validated as a Seleucid king. Upon his return, in 152 BC, Balas landed at the city of Ptolemais-Ake where he challenged Demetrius and, after gaining local support, defeated him in battle. Demetrius died fighting and the imposter Balas usurped his crown in 151 BC.

It was one thing to have a Macedonian on the Seleucid throne but another to knowingly allow an imposter to usurp it, especially since Coele-Syria was at stake. The Ptolemies were definitely not content with the situation and something had to be done. War was out of the question so Ptolemy VI came up with a devious plan. While offering Balas peace by marriage to his daughter Cleopatra Thea, Ptolemy offered Demetrius’s son, Demetrius II who had escaped Balas’s massacre, assistance to return and re-claim his father’s throne. With Ptolemy’s help, young Demetrius raised an army of mercenaries and returned to Syria. Ptolemy, under the pretense of coming to his son-in-law’s aid, swept into Palestine and was pressing for Antioch before his plans were discovered. Being unable to stop Ptolemy, Balas made an attempt to assassinate him. After his failure, Balas fled Antioch and was killed later while fighting in northern Syria. Cleopatra in the meantime had her marriage declared void.

The people of Antioch, having transferred their allegiance from Balas to young Demetrius, acclaimed Ptolemy as their new Seleucid monarch. Like his predecessors before him Ptolemy had enough sense not to tempt fate and gratefully declined, allowing Demetrius II to take his rightful place. But all was not lost, by offering Demetrius the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra, Ptolemy was able to gain a foothold in Coele-Syria. Unfortunately, not too long afterwards Ptolemy VI Philometor was wounded in battle and died. The way was now open for his rival brother, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, to make a comeback. 

I want to backtrack a bit at this point to Egypt 169 BC. As I mentioned earlier, the rival siblings Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, along with their sister Cleopatra II, had patched up their differences but not for long. After the Romans ordered Antiochus out of Egypt and the danger of an invasion diminished, rivalries between the siblings resurfaced. Being unable to take sides Cleopatra II resigned her position. During all this the Ptolemies were also facing discontentment from the Egyptians and minor revolts were erupting everywhere. Being unable to break the impasse the brothers finally decided, with Roman approval, to split Egypt into two kingdoms. In May 163 BC the older Ptolemy Philometor took Egypt and gave his younger brother Ptolemy Euergetes the western province of Cyrenaica. Even though the arrangement was agreed upon by both, Euergetes was reduced to a crown prince and was not completely satisfied with his share. The rivalries continued until Philometor’s death in 145 BC. Still in Cyrene, Euergetes sought the chance to recover the entire kingdom after his brother’s death. He arrived in Alexandria and drummed up support for a coup but was unsuccessful. Cleopatra II, Philometor’s widow, along with her sixteen-year old son, Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator, opposed him.

Unable to gain control by force, Euergetes offered to marry Cleopatra and jointly rule Egypt. Cleopatra agreed and a wedding ensued.

During the wedding celebrations Euergetes had the young Ptolemy assassinated. With Ptolemy VII’s elimination there were no other legitimate claimants to the throne but Euergetes.

Euergetes proved himself a terrible ruler. A year after becoming king he had himself enthroned as Pharaoh at Memphis. When he came back to Alexandria, he celebrated his return by purging and expelling, on mass, all those who opposed him during Ptolemy VII’s brief reign. Among those expelled were many teachers, scholars, artists and intellectuals, including the chief librarian and the geographer. In spite of his brutal ways, however, Euergetes managed to survive many years and ruled Egypt with an iron fist until 116 BC. 

Back in Macedonia meanwhile, Roman rule was harsh and much tension developed between the Macedonians and their new masters. The economic situation was particularly distressful and at times unbearable. Relief however did arrive in the form of a pretender named Andriscus. Andriscus claimed to be Philip VI, son of Perseus by Laodice, Seleucus IV’s daughter who was also Demetrius I’s sister. In 153 BC, with Demetrius I’s help, Andriscus went to Rome to plead his case for the Macedonians but the Senate was not interested in a hearing. Frustrated, Andriscus returned and sought help from the Macedonian people who gave him what he needed including royal robes, a diadem, recognition and troops. He received recognition from Byzantium and troops from various Thracian chieftains.

Given the circumstances in Macedonia, rule by a pretender was preferable to being divided and ruled by Romans. When he was ready Andriscus advanced on Macedonia from Thrace and, after two battles in 149 BC, took control of Macedonia. Unfortunately, Macedonia’s freedom was short lived. Two Roman legions, under the leadership of Quintus Macedonicus, were dispatched and ironically ended Andriscus’s career at Pydna in 148 BC.

After this unsuccessful revolt, Macedonia lost her independence entirely and became a Roman province.

Macedonia’s total demise and the witness of Roman brutality brought fear into the hearts of the leaders of the Achaean League. Roman atrocities in Macedonia turned the Achaeans from Roman allies to Roman enemies. In 146 BC, in a desperate last ditch effort, the Achaeans engaged the Romans and lost. Roman reprisal was decisive and brutal, involving looting, burning, raping and taking civilians into slavery. Corinth was reduced to rubble and remained a heap of ruins until 44 BC when it was again rebuilt by Caesar. 

Back in Egypt, the Alexandrians were fed up with Ptolemy VIII Euergetes’s misrule and in 132 BC riots broke out. The people of Alexandria, backed by Cleopatra II who was sympathetic to their plight, wanted Euergetes out. Daily violence escalated and reached a peak when the mobs, in frustration, set fire to the royal palace. In panic Euergetes and his family, wife Cleopatra III and children, fled to Cyprus leaving Cleopatra II as sole sovereign. According to Macedonian law, Cleopatra, as a woman, could not rule alone. The only possible male she would agree to replace Euergetes with was her twelve-year old son Ptolemy Memphitis, who at the time was not in Alexandria. In any case Cleopatra had Ptolemy acclaimed co-ruler in absentia, which unfortunately was a mistake. The moment Euergetes found out he searched for the boy and had him executed.

In 130 BC, Euergetes snuck back into Egypt and hid in Memphis where he made preparations to restore himself. He rallied the support of Cleopatra II’s opponents and revolted against her. While blockaded in Alexandria, Cleopatra II sought the assistance of her Seleucid son-in-law Demetrius II Nicator. She offered him the Egyptian throne in exchange for his assistance to overthrow her brother Euergetes. Demetrius accepted but found Euergetes a tougher opponent than expected. While fighting Euergetes, Demetrius was recalled to Syria to deal with more personal matters. Cleopatra, foreseeing her own demise, also decided to leave Alexandria and joined him. Leaderless, the Alexandrians fought back and held out for another year, but unrelenting Euergetes continued to press on until he was back in power in 126 BC.

Upon his return to Syria, Demetrius was attacked by a rebellious mob led by his wife Cleopatra Thea, Cleopatra II’s daughter. Cleopatra Thea, like her mother, was sympathetic to the plight of her people and rallied behind them in ousting Demetrius. Demetrius, like Euergetes, was not a well liked ruler and the Antiochenes had had enough of him.

The trouble started when Euergetes, to pay Demetrius back for his meddling in Egypt, sent a pretender named Zabinas to challenge him for his throne. Zabinas claimed to be the son of pretender Balas, mentioned earlier. Unlike Demetrius, Zabinas was a kind and generous person, well liked by the Antiochenes.

Zabinas challenged Demetrius to a battle and scored a major victory against him. Demetrius fled to Ptolemais-Ake but found that there too he was unwelcome. His wife refused to even give him shelter for the night. From there Demetrius fled to Tyre where he was captured and tortured until he died in 126 BC.

In Demetrius’s absence, Cleopatra II reconciled her differences with her brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes and by 124 BC was back in Alexandria. After exacting his revenge on Demetrius, Euergetes dropped his support for Zabinas and placed it behind his niece Cleopatra Thea.

Thea’s eldest son who ruled as Seleucus V for a brief time was murdered, probably by Thea. In his absence, Thea made her sixteen-year old son, Antiochus VIII Grypos, her co-regent. A year or so later Grypos married one of Euergetes’s daughters, named Cleopatra Tryphaena, and kept the Seleucid-Ptolemaic alliance strong.

Zabinas, without Euergetes’s support, resorted to raising funds by robbing temples. This unfortunately caused him to fall out of favour with his supporters and with the law. In 123 BC, after being pursued by Antiochus VIII, Zabinas was captured and executed.

Antiochus VIII, on the other hand, did not turn out to be as amenable as his mother would have liked so in 121 BC she attempted to poison him. Aware of her plans, however, Antiochus forced her to drink the poison. After her death Antiochus became sole ruler of Syria, at least until 114 BC.

In Egypt, meanwhile, Euergetes’s misrule continued to cause unrest. Faced with a dilemma in 118 BC he was forced to make long overdue concessions. Amnesties were decried, taxes written off, official abuses were condemned and punitive penalties were cancelled. Unfortunately, by this time the Egyptian bureaucracy was so corrupt that without effectively enforcing the law none of the concessions were worth the papyrus they were written on. As a result the status quo was maintained until Euergetes’s death in 116 BC.

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes died at age sixty-five and left his wealth and power to his young wife Cleopatra III. The choice of which of her sons was to rule was also left up to her. Cleopatra III had two sons and three daughters. Her oldest son Ptolemy IX Philometor was born in 142 BC and, at the time of Euergetes’s death, was governor of Cyprus. Her younger son born in 139 BC was named Ptolemy X Alexander and her daughters were Cleopatra IV, Cleopatra Tryphaena, mentioned earlier, and Cleopatra Selene. There was also a bastard son by Euergetes’s mistress named Ptolemy Apion who at the time was governor of Cyrenaica.

Cleopatra was not very fond of her older son. Perhaps she could not manipulate him as easily as she would have wanted and preferred to co-rule with her younger son Alexander. The Alexandrians, however, preferred the company of Philometor and would not support her choice.

Stubbornly, Cleopatra ignored her subjects and attempted the appointment anyway. In a fury of opposition she recanted and settled for Philometor.

Philometor was brought to Alexandria and Alexander was sent to Cyprus to replace him. Discontent in her position as co-ruler with Philometor, Cleopatra continued to cause friction and in 115 BC launched a full campaign of attrition against him. She broke Philometor’s marriage to his sister Cleopatra IV and forced him to marry Selene, his other sister. She then attempted to oust him from his throne but was unsuccessful. Her daughter Cleopatra IV, after her break up with Philometor, fled to Cyprus and after raising an army challenged Alexander for his position. It was a ploy to convince him to marry her but he was not interested. Unsuccessful, she fled to Syria and after offering her army as dowry to Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, son of Antiochus Sidetes and Cleopatra Thea, he accepted and married her. Not content with just being a princess, Cleopatra IV pushed her husband into challenging his cousin Antiochus VIII Grypos, mentioned earlier, for the Seleucid throne. Family rivalries broke out and escalated into a full scale war.

The Seleucid conflict attracted the Ptolemies and pitted mother against son. Philometor sent six thousand soldiers to help Cyzicenus, which infuriated Cleopatra III. Unfortunately, this little tiff between siblings ended in disaster. In 112 BC Cleopatra IV was captured and executed by her sister Tryphaena. A year later Tryphaena was captured and made a sacrificial offering to her sister’s vengeful ghost. In the end Grypos won and took back his kingdom while Cyzicenus was driven out and left with only a couple of coastal cities in his possession.

In Egypt meanwhile, in 107 BC, Cleopatra III tried again to oust her son from his throne. This time she succeeded. She convinced her supporters in Alexandria that Philometor was attempting to murder her and that she was in mortal danger. The Alexandrians whipped up a mob and stormed the palace to rescue her. Philometor fled in panic leaving his second wife Cleopatra Selene with her two young sons in the palace.

Philometor’s departure was good news for Ptolemy X Alexander who promptly returned from Cyprus and took his place as king. Ptolemy IX Philometor, meanwhile, fled to Syria and from there re-established himself in Cyprus.

By 103 BC, the Ptolemaic empire was split into three independent principalities. Cleopatra and Alexander ruled Egypt, Philometor ruled Cyprus and Ptolemy Apion ruled Cyrenaica. Rivalries between mother and son continued and spilled over into Syria where Cleopatra III continued to support Grypos, while Philometor gave his support to Cyzicenus.

Cleopatra III’s intrigues abroad did not seem to satisfy her appetite for excitement so she turned against her son Alexander at home and had him ousted.

Pleading with his mother for his return, in 101 BC, under the pretense of reconciliation, Alexander stormed the palace and assassinated her. With Cleopatra III’s death so ended the sibling rivalries between Alexander and Philometor. They made peace and strengthened their alliance through Alexander’s marriage to Cleopatra Berenice, Philometor’s daughter.

Ptolemy Apion, on the other hand, being unwelcome by Cleopatra III, remained an outsider and on his deathbed in 96 BC bequeathed Cyrenaica to Rome.

Also in 196 BC during a coup instigated by his rival Antiochus Cyzicenus, Antiochus VIII Grypos was assassinated by one of his generals

.

In 95 BC Cyzicenus was defeated in battle and killed by Grypos’s eldest son, Seleucus VI Epiphanes. Cyzicenus’s reign was passed on to his son Antiochus the Pious.

Between 96 and 80 BC the Ptolemaic dynasty experienced great changes. In the spring of 87 BC Ptolemy X Alexander was driven out of Egypt for selling Alexander the Great’s gold coffin. He later was killed during a naval battle near Cyprus. Before he died, however, he also willed his kingdom to Rome.

Ptolemy X Alexander’s death opened the way for his older brother Ptolemy IX Philometor to return. Upon his return, however, he found himself unwelcome. With assistance from his daughter Berenice (Ptolemy X’s wife) he was able to restore himself as co-ruler to Berenice. 

Besides Philometor there were three other claimants to the Ptolemaic throne but at the time of Alexander’s death they were hostages of the Parthians. Mithridates VI of Pontus had captured them in Cos in 88 BC. They were sent there by their grandmother Cleopatra III for their own safety. One of them, Alexander’s son, escaped and surrendered to the Roman proconsul Sulla.

In Asia, meanwhile, an Armenian attack on Syria in 83 BC forced the Seleucids to flee Antioch. In their absence, the Antiochenes offered the Seleucid throne to Tigranes of Armenia. Cleopatra Selene resisted the Armenian takeover and fought back from Ptolemais-Ake.

In 69 BC, Mithridates was attacked and defeated by the Romans and Seleucid rule was briefly restored. Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (son of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus X Eusebes) was made a Roman client king.

From 83 BC onward Seleucid rule in Asia was never fully restored. Remnants of the former empire existed as kingdoms under various client kings until the entire region fell to Rome.

In 81 BC Ptolemy IX Philometor died at age sixty-two leaving no male heirs to replace him. He had two sons but both died very young. He did however have a daughter named Cleopatra Berenice who, for a while, ruled on her own.

With no available male to replace Philometor, the Romans resolved the problem by installing a puppet king. Ptolemy XI Alexander II, Alexander’s son who had earlier surrendered to Sulla, by the will of his father who had earlier bequeathed Egypt to Rome, was now given the rule of Egypt. The new Ptolemy was not allowed to wear a crown and was forced to marry Cleopatra Berenice as part and parcel of his installment.

Unhappy with his chosen bride, a few weeks after his marriage, young Ptolemy murdered his middle-aged wife and in turn was lynched by the Macedonian Alexandrian mobs loyal to Berenice.

After Ptolemy XI’s death, the only live heirs to the Ptolemaic throne were two of Philometor’s illegitimate sons (prisoners of the Parthians) living in Syria. The Romans, not yet ready to annex Egypt, asked the Parthians to have the boys released. Upon their arrival, the younger boy was made governor of Cyprus while the older boy was taken to Alexandria and given the title king. Although history referred to the older boy as Ptolemy XII Auletes, to his Alexandrian subjects he was always known as the Bastard or the Flute Player.

Ptolemy XII was a ruthless ruler. The only contribution he made worthy of mention was siring his famous daughter, Cleopatra VII. 

Ptolemy XII ruled undisturbed for thirty years until 59 BC when he was thrown out by the Alexandrians for allowing Rome to annex Cyprus and for willingly being a Roman puppet. In his absence, his eldest daughter Berenice IV was proclaimed co-regent with her mother. Ptolemy XII also had two infant sons but they were too young to rule.

When the queen mother died in 57 BC, Berenice IV married Seleucus Kybiosaktes believed to be a descendent from the Seleucid dynasty. When it was revealed that usurpation of the Ptolemaic throne was the motive behind Kybiosaktes marrying Berenice, she had him strangled. She then married Archelaus, a non-Macedonian, who may have had Roman roots. Archelaus’s rule lasted until 55 BC. He was defeated by the exiled Ptolemy XII, with Pompey’s blessing, in an attempt to reclaim his throne.

During his return to the palace, Ptolemy XII was accompanied by a young Roman cavalry commander named Mark Anthony who found himself attracted to his fourteen year old daughter Cleopatra. Cleopatra, however, paid no attention. Being a princess and a future heir to the Ptolemaic throne she had her sights set high and Anthony was not yet there.

Still having no interest in annexing Egypt, the Romans allowed Ptolemy XII to rule until he died of old age in 51 BC. Upon his death, his kingdom was left in the joint care of his eighteen year old daughter Cleopatra VII and her twelve year old brother Ptolemy XIII.

To be continued…

And now I leave you with this:

“For almost 170 years in continuation, in an organized and systematic manner, Greece has been convincing the world that Macedonians do not exist as a separate people and that the ancient Macedonian culture is ‘Greek’. Lacking other relevant information, the international community not only accepted the Greek ‘truths’ to a large extent, but also validated the same.” (Page 42, Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today’s Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One – Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney – 2004.)

“It is important to recognize that it is not easy to destroy over night all that Greek propaganda and nationalistically coloured historiography have achieved on the international level over the past 170 years, a nearly two century head start on Macedonians in presenting their historical truth..

Despite all these problems, the truth is on the Macedonian side, and slowly but surely it is coming to light. Soon the truth about the links between present day and ancient Macedonians will reach the interested parties in the international community. The fact that a significant number of international experts still consider ancient Macedonians &quot;Greek&quot; should not be discouraging. First of all, there are a number of historians in the United States, led by Professor Eugene Borza, who is considered one of the most knowledgeable scientists on the subject of ancient Macedonia, who clearly state that ancient Macedonians were not Greek. Historians with similar positions have also appeared in other countries. These historians provide solid arguments against the Greek nationalist position in relation to ancient Macedonia, and the truth has already been accepted and included in a number of respected encyclopedias in which the ancient Macedonians are described as a separate people. The pro-Greek historians are slowly leaving the world stage, and in their place a new generation of historians is coming up, unburdened by the prejudices and no longer captive to the ideas of their predecessors. Macedonian historians have a responsibility not to remain silent out of fear of the ridicule of opponents. They should present their arguments as widely as possible in order to make them available to the new generation of non-partisan international historians, who can be expected to transform the character of our understanding of the nature of the ancient Macedonians.” (Page 44, Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today’s Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One – Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney – 2004.)

References:

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today’s Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One – Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney – 2004.

M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, London, Cambridge University Press, 1981

F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Fontana History of the Ancient World, Fontana Press, 1992.

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age, University of California Press, Berkley Los Angeles, 1990.

Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, Macdonald Phoebus Ltd, 1981.

F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1970.

George Woodcock, The Greeks in India, Faber and Faber Ltd, 1996.


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>0i84gh6m59lngzw7lqr5mw8d0jkum2d</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Cleopatra VII the Last of the Great Macedonian Monarchs</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2069</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11084</id>
      <parentid>4981</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:54Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="45217" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 12 - Cleopatra VII the Last of the
Great Macedonian Monarchs

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Cleopatra VII, one of five siblings, was born in 69 BC. After her father Ptolemy XII Auletes died in 51 BC, she, along with her twelve-year old brother Ptolemy XIII, became co-regent of Egypt. By the time of her rule, the Ptolemais had lost Cyprus, Coele-Syria and Cyrenaica. All that was left now was an impoverished Egypt, economically strapped and choked by its own bureaucracy. Her ancestors had left her a world suffering from famine and anarchy and crumbling all around. Cleopatra, however, was not discouraged and had dreams of great glories, the kind that would rival those of Alexander the Great. 

This is the story of Cleopatra, the last of the Macedonian monarchs, not the Hollywood or Shakespearean version. Roman propaganda may have tarnished her reputation, Shakespeare may have brought her into the limelight and Hollywood may have made her world renowned but Cleopatra VII earned her own place in fame with her brilliance, wit and determination. As Plutarch puts it, &quot;To know her was to be touched with an irresistible charm. Her form, coupled with the persuasiveness of her conversation, and her delightful style of behaviour - all these produced a blend of magic. Her delightful manner of speaking was such as to win the heart. Her voice was like a lyre...&quot; (Pages 13-14, Ernle Bradford, Cleopatra, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London 1971).

The real Cleopatra was neither a raving beauty nor a voluptuary, as Hollywood would have us believe. She was passionate but never promiscuous and had the looks of a rather ordinary woman with a characteristic long Macedonian nose. She was good looking but not pretty. What she lacked in beauty, however, she more than made up for in intelligence, wit and charm.

Cleopatra was brilliant, strong-willed, quick-witted, and fluent in nine languages. She was also a mathematician and a shrewd businesswoman. She fought for her country and people and they in turn rose for her when all was lost. She had a charismatic personality, was a born leader and a very ambitious monarch. These traits, under better circumstances, would have placed her in the ranks equal to Alexander the Great. It has been said that Rome feared only two people, Hannibal and Cleopatra. She spoke Egyptian and was treated by her subjects like a living legend even after she passed on. For them she was the New Isis.

&quot;Cleopatra was a queen. She was, as her handmaiden Charmion reminded the Romans who broke into the mausoleum where she lay dead 'the descendant of so many kings'. The whole of her life was devoted to her country, Egypt, and to attempt to preserve its national sovereignty under the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty to which she belonged. She was the seventh Egyptian queen of her name, but it is doubtful if she had any Egyptian blood in her veins. She was a Macedonian...&quot; (Page 11, Ernle Bradford, Cleopatra, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London 1971).

Cleopatra's reign could not have come at a worse time. Between 51 and 49 BC Egypt was suffering from drought and famine and civil war broke out in Italy. To make matters worse, in late summer of 51 BC, Cleopatra pushed out her young brother as co-ruler and decided to rule alone. Unfortunately, some powerful court officials in Alexandria did not agree with her actions and ousted her in favour of her brother. Deprived of her Egyptian supporters, Cleopatra went among the Arab tribes east of Pelusium and set about raising an army. At about the same time, 48 BC, Pompey was defeated by Caesar at Pharsalus and set course for Alexandria. Pompey was an ally and Senate appointed guardian of young Ptolemy XIII, relying on Egypt for support. With his defeat, however, he was no longer held in high esteem and young Ptolemy's advisors were already warming up to Caesar. The moment Pompey set foot on the Alexandrian shore (September 28, 48 BC), Ptolemy's advisors had him murdered, his head pickled and presented to Caesar. Even though Caesar was glad to see Pompey dead, he was appalled at the sight and the circumstances of his death.

Victorious, Caesar arrived in Alexandria on October 2, 48 BC with approximately three thousand legionaries and about eight hundred cavalry. He was accompanied by twelve lectors carrying the fasces, perhaps an indication of things to come. Ptolemy's guardians may have been eager to welcome Roman dominance but the Macedonians were not and instantly began to riot. Ptolemy XIII was not there at the time was away at Pelusium defending his frontiers against Cleopatra. In his absence Caesar installed himself in the royal palace and began giving orders as if it was his own place. His victories against Pompey must have made him overconfident and coupled with his arrogance, made him careless

Faced with exorbitant demands for financial assistance, which they were not prepared to meet, Ptolemy's guardians recalled Ptolemy and his army to the court. Desperate not be left out of the talks Cleopatra had herself smuggled past the hostile lines, rolled up inside a carpet. She was delivered directly to Caesar at night by a Sicilian merchant. The following morning both Ptolemy and Cleopatra were summoned to attend a hearing before Caesar. By morning Caesar was very much captivated by Cleopatra's charm, which was her plan all along. Ptolemy, on the other hand, was quick to grasp the situation and reacted by running out of the palace screaming that he had been betrayed by his sister. Backed by his advisor guardians, Ptolemy called out to the Alexandrian mobs informing them that Caesar was planning to make Cleopatra sole ruler of Egypt and a puppet to Rome, words that were sure to inflame the situation. Before the mobs had a chance to react Caesar's guards brought Ptolemy back and Caesar himself went out and made a conciliatory speech to the crowds. When the unpleasantness was over, Caesar provisionally recognized both Ptolemy and Cleopatra as co-regents of Egypt. Additionally, he recognized Ptolemy XIV and sister Arsinoe joint co-rulers of Cyprus, even though Rome had annexed Cyprus ten years or so before. But all was not what it seemed.

No sooner had Caesar taken control of the situation than he reneged on most of his commitments. He even held Arsinoe in the palace under house arrest and would not allow her to depart for Cyprus. Meanwhile another high Roman official, Brutus from Rhodes (Caesar's future assassin) was vigorously exploiting Cyprus. Being considerably pressed by the situation, one of Ptolemy's guardians, Pothinus, decided to act. While Caesar enjoyed himself with lavish parties at the expense of the Alexandrians, Pothinus, in November 48 BC, summoned Ptolemy XIII's twenty thousand veterans from Pelusium and had Alexandria blockaded. War soon broke out (Alexandrian War) and Caesar found himself in an embarrassing and lethal situation. In one instance, having to flee and avoid capture he had to swim a moat leaving behind his purple general's cloak.

The war destroyed much of Alexandria including an important wing of the great Alexandrian library. Caesar fled and hid in the Pharos lighthouse and managed to secure access to the harbour. Arsinoe managed to escape from the palace and fled to general Achillas, one of Ptolemy XIII's guardians. The Macedonian army promptly proclaimed her queen, an act that greatly disappointed her sister Cleopatra VII. Fighting continued all through the winter until February 47 BC, when Caesar managed to extend his control to Pharos Island and recaptured the Heptastadion mole. This opened the way for re-enforcements, reportedly on their way, to enter. For his treasonous act, Caesar had Pothinus executed and Ptolemy XIII turned over to his opponents, hoping to stir up trouble in Arsinoe's camp.

On March 26th a mixed force of re-enforcements, led by Mithridates of Pergamon, arrived and rescued Caesar and his beleaguered legionaries. Ptolemy XIII fled in an attempt to escape but was captured and drowned in the Nile River. This opened the way for Cleopatra VII to return and take her rightful place as sole ruler of Egypt. To avoid complications she wisely chose to rule jointly with her eleven year-old brother, Ptolemy XIV. Arsinoe was captured, charged with high treason and placed under arrest.

After stabilizing Alexandria, Caesar did something unexpected. Instead of following the usual policy of making Egypt a province of Rome, he decided to make it his own kingdom. Perhaps he was thinking of starting his own dynasty when he sired a son with Cleopatra. This, however, could not have been strictly Caesar's idea. Caesar's plan, through his son, was to inherit the Ptolemaic throne and rule Egypt in the tradition of the Macedonians. Cleopatra's plan, however, was somewhat different. She wanted a son with Caesar so that, for the sake of his son, Caesar would safeguard Cleopatra's dynasty and protect Egypt from Rome. There was another added bonus, Cleopatra's son, being the son of Caesar, would have access to Rome and with Cleopatra's help might even have a chance at inheriting the Roman Empire. There is no doubt this was Cleopatra's plan all along.

No sooner was the business at the palace concluded than Caesar and Cleopatra took a well- deserved vacation up the Nile River. Their vacation was briefly interrupted by pressing business in Syria but Caesar was back in good time to witness the birth of his son. Ptolemy Caesar known as Caesarion was born on June 23, 47 BC. A year after his son's birth, Caesar decided it was time for him to return to Rome. He left Egypt in July of 46 BC alone and Cleopatra with Caesarion followed later. Caesar's arrival was well celebrated in Rome and he was showered with honours for his African successes. A month or so later, Cleopatra and her entourage arrived and Caesar set them up at one of his townhouses. By giving Cleopatra his personal quarters Caesar wanted to return the hospitality he received from her in Alexandria. But that was not how the Romans saw it. Caesar's compassion for these barbarians caused considerable offense among the conservative Republicans who looked down on them with disgust. The unpleasantness unfortunately turned to gossip when it was rumoured that Caesar was contemplating becoming a world emperor and a god, making Alexandria his second capital and Cleopatra his bigamous queen-goddess the New Isis.
In no time Rome was buzzing with gossip, private matters became public knowledge and all of it was filtering back to Cleopatra. Even Roman intellectuals could not help but make their chauvinistic feelings known. Her air of arrogance and marriage to her young brother was all disgusting and very un-Roman. To top it all, Caesar erected a golden statue of Cleopatra in the temple of Venus Genetrix and publicly claimed paternity to his son Caesarion. His actions were leading to one inescapable conclusion &quot;he was going to marry the wretch&quot;. Despite Roman laws against bigamy and marriages to foreigners, Caesar was actually going to marry Cleopatra. This, the Republicans found alarming but the Ides of March set their concerns to rest. In March of 44 BC Caesar was assassinated.

There are those who believe that Caesar, despite Roman disapproval, would have married Cleopatra if he had not been murdered. He would have made her empress of Rome and the Mediterranean world and would have established a Julian-Ptolemaic dynasty. Alexandria, not Rome, would have become the capital of the empire.

The Romans may have despised Cleopatra but there is no doubt that Cleopatra made a lasting impression on Caesar, who sired a son by her. He also adopted Egyptian irrigation schemes, the Egyptian solar calendar and even fashioned the Roman public libraries after the Alexandrian model. It was Cleopatra, among other things, who introduced the famous Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes to Caesar and it was Sosigenes who reformed the Roman calendar which was to last until the sixteenth century when it was again reformed by Pope Gregory.

Two weeks after Caesar's death his will was read and there was nothing in it for Caesarion or Cleopatra. Fearing for her life, Cleopatra left Rome in haste and returned to Alexandria.
During Cleopatra's absence, life in Egypt had deteriorated even further. Public works projects were abandoned and the Nile canals were in need of repair. Famine and plagues were rampant due to poor harvests and neglect and social unrest was on the rise.

Upon her arrival in Alexandria, Cleopatra had her brother Ptolemy XIV assassinated and replaced him with her four year old son Caesarion as her new co-regent. She had Caesarion recognized by Caesar's former lieutenant Dolabella. For his services Cleopatra gave Dolabella Caesar's four legions, which were stationed in Egypt. No doubt she was anxious to get rid of them and this gave her the chance to do it. Dolabella, on the other hand, was grateful to her for giving him advantage over his opponents in the Roman Civil war that raged on between the Caesarians and the Republicans. Unfortunately, Dolabella's legions were taken over by Cassius, his opponent, before they had a chance to reach him. Unable to accept his failure, Dolabella committed suicide in 43 BC.
While the Roman Civil war raged on, both sides where calling on Cleopatra for assistance but she kept pleading impoverishment through famine and plague. Clearly she was in favour of the Caesarians but would not commit for fear of choosing the losing side. After the two battles at Philippi in 42 BC, with the death of Brutus and Cassius, it became clear who would be the winners. Antony, Octavian and Lepidus were the men who came out triumphant and Cleopatra would now have to deal with them. Soon after the battle, Octavian became very ill and had to leave for Italy. After Octavian, it was clear that there was only one choice for Cleopatra and that would be Antony. All was not well with Antony and in 44 BC, during a brief period of supreme power, Antony had given Arsinoe, Cleopatra's ambitious sister, rule of Cyprus. In 43 BC Cleopatra had taken it back. Obviously, Antony had given Arsinoe control of Cyprus to keep the balance of power in the region but now it was uncertain how Antony would react to Cleopatra's move.

While awaiting Antony's fate, Cleopatra received news that Caesar's divinization was pronounced in Rome. On January 1st, 42 BC Caesar was officially made god and Octavian was proclaimed &quot;Son of Divine Julius&quot;. In Cleopatra's estimation, this was good news for her son Caesarion as well.

In 41 BC Antony finally summoned Cleopatra to meet him at Tarsus. By now Cleopatra had spent considerable time learning everything there was about the man and was ready for him. Before she even met Antony, Cleopatra became familiar with his military skills, his popularity with the troops, his drinking habits, ambitions, love affairs and scores of other characteristics. She wanted to grab his attention and by putting on a splendid show she managed to do just that. The gilded poop (stern of a vessel), purple sails, silver oars, all objects of wealth and power of a blue-blooded queen made an immense impression on the man. Whatever hostilities he may have had for her evaporated and he was captivated by her elegance. Antony spent the winter of 41-40 BC in Alexandria living in luxury, content being with Cleopatra. Rumours unfortunately were circulating, most likely by Republican propagandists, that while living in her palace Cleopatra could get anything she wanted from Antony, including the execution of her sister Arsinoe. Arsinoe was indeed executed by Antony in 41 BC not because Cleopatra wished it so but because she was financing the Republican cause. After her fallout with Cleopatra, Arsinoe fled to Ephesus and turned her support to the Republicans. If rumors were true about Antony and Cleopatra then Antony would not have taken Cyprus away from her. Not long after she drove her sister out, Antony removed Cyprus from Cleopatra's control. The real story is more likely that both Antony and Cleopatra cultivated each other in pursuit of their own ends.

Antony left Alexandria in early spring of 40 BC and did not return until four years later. While Antony was away Cleopatra bore his twins, a boy and a girl. There was a turn of events for Antony at home and his popularity was declining. His relationship with his second wife was on the rocks, especially since she bore him a daughter not a son, which drove him to look eastward towards Alexandria. Cleopatra after all was a wealthy blue-blooded Ptolemaic queen who did bear him a son.

Feeling it was best to leave Rome for a while Antony took an assignment and went east. After the birth of his second daughter by Octavia, his mind was made up that he was going to pursue a relationship with Cleopatra. Octavia followed him part way on his journey but fell ill and was sent back. The way was now clear for him to pursue Cleopatra and the moment he reached Antioch he sent for her. He must have had an elaborate plan because from the moment he saw her he lavished her with gifts including Cyprus, Coele-Syria, the Cilician coast, Phoenicia, Judea and Arabia. These were vast regions rich with timber, spices and other natural resources ideal for ship building and supporting an empire. Unfortunately, the Romans took offense at Antony's actions, not only because they despised Cleopatra, but also because most of the provinces Antony disposed of were not even under his authority.
Antony was about to embark on a Parthian campaign and he needed ships and supplies. With his declining popularity in Rome he could not entirely rely on the Senate to support his effort so he turned to Cleopatra. By providing Cleopatra with lands rich in timber he gave Egypt the lumber it needed to build a large fleet. Before he left for his campaign Antony acknowledged his twin children and gave them official names. The boy was named Alexander Helios and the girl Cleopatra Selene. No sooner had Antony departed than Cleopatra gave birth to another of Antony's children. But all was not well, the Parthians turned out to be a tougher opponent than expected and in 36 BC Antony suffered a humiliating defeat. Upon receiving the bad news Cleopatra rushed to his rescue. She met his army in Syria bringing them food, clothing and much needed cash. After his humiliating defeat Antony was in no mood to face Rome and in the spring of 35 BC he went to Egypt. Things turned out for the worse when Octavia attempted to assist him and he turned her down. Octavia too made an attempt to come to Antony's rescue but he ordered her not to come any further. Being rejected in favour of Cleopatra not only angered Octavia but insulted her brother Octavian, who by now was growing very powerful in Rome. Antony made no effort to reconcile his differences with Octavia or her brother Octavian, who took every opportunity to criticize him. A showdown was inevitable.

Unable to stay still, Antony embarked on another, less dangerous but profitable campaign against the Armenians. Returning rich and triumphant, Antony was paraded through Alexandria as the New Dionysus while Cleopatra portrayed herself as the New Isis. Later during another elaborate ceremony in the great gymnasium of Alexandria, Antony, sitting on a throne with Cleopatra dressed as Isis, bestowed royal titles upon his children. To rule the new territories, Caesarion or Ptolemy XV Caesar was proclaimed King of Kings and made joint ruler of Egypt with his mother. Cleopatra was proclaimed Queen of Kings. Alexander Helios dressed in Macedonian royal robes was proclaimed Great King of the entire Seleucid Empire including Parthia. Antony's daughter Cleopatra Selene was installed as Queen of Cyrenaica and Crete and the youngest son Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the age of two dressed in Macedonian royal robes, was proclaimed King of Syria and Asia Minor.

It is unclear what the motive was for bestowing such titles but Antony's actions did provoke the Romans to react. First they did not approve of the unauthorized attack on the Armenians, second Antony had no right to give away Roman territories that were not under his control. When Antony sought Senatorial approval for the lands he donated to the Macedonian monarchs, he was turned down. Egypt, in spite of its poor economic condition, was a rich country with a large population and formidable natural resources that could support an empire. As ridiculous as it may sound, with Cleopatra's help, Antony could have contemplated resurrecting Alexander's Asian Empire. After all, was there not an oracle that foretold that true harmony between East and West could be achieved under Cleopatra and Antony's biracial New Order? There is an inscription as well as minted coins issued in 34 BC that provide evidence that indeed there were plans to amalgamate the Seleucid and Ptolemaic royal houses.

Whatever his real plans may have been is uncertain but in 32 BC Antony divorced Octavia, thus forcing Rome to recognize Cleopatra as his wife. At about the same time Antony minted new Roman coins with Cleopatra's head on them, inscribed with the words &quot;Queen Cleopatra the Younger Goddess&quot;. The new silver Dinarii coins soon became widespread and popular throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. These acts of Antony's unfortunately did not bode well with Rome and were in fact interpreted as anti-Roman. Octavian lost no time and declared war, not on Antony but on Cleopatra. Rome was convinced that Cleopatra was behind all this and somehow had bewitched Antony into doing her bidding. Cleopatra was misunderstood and undeservedly denigrated by Roman statesmen and poets alike. She was called every name in the book, even things that cannot be put in print. Antony too did not escape Roman taunts and accusations. The more serious charges included misuse of the Roman legions, acting without Senatorial authorization, giving away Roman territories that did not belong to him and so on. 

There are some who believe that such behaviour was indicative of xenophobia, more specifically, some Romans feared Cleopatra and the potential danger she posed for Rome. There were many who believed that Cleopatra would triumph and give birth to a new and universal empire and that is precisely why Octavian had to intervene before it was too late. 

On September 2nd, 31BC at Actium Octavian's ships, under Admiral Agrippa's leadership, engaged Antony's forces and defeated him. Determined to put an end to the Macedonian legacy, Octavian pushed for Alexandria. Humiliated by his defeat, less than a year later Antony took his own life. Cleopatra could not bear the humiliation of being captured and dragged through the streets of Rome like a slave so she too took her own life. She had her maid smuggle a poisonous asp in a basket of figs. Death by snakebite, in the Egyptian religion, was believed to confer immortality and for Cleopatra, in a way it did. Outside of Alexander the Great, also Macedonian may I add, no one has eclipsed the fascination of Cleopatra through the centuries to this day.

Caesarion was not so fortunate and died a horrible and indignant death at the hands of his butchers. Cleopatra's children by Antony, surprisingly, were spared and adopted by Antony's second wife Octavia.

By Octavian's declaration the Ptolemaic dynasty came to an end on August 29th, 30 BC. The Romans plundered Alexandria, like every other conquered Macedonian city before her, and all its riches were taken to Rome. Cleopatra's accumulated Ptolemaic wealth alone was enough to cause a glut in the Roman market which brought the Empire's interest rates from 12 to 4%.

After Actium, all Macedonian held lands and territories were annexed by Rome.
Macedonia, meanwhile, after the last rebellion in 142 BC continued to exist as part of the Roman domain until antiquity. During this five-century long period Macedonia's boundaries were changed several times. The northern frontier was most vulnerable and prone to invasions. At one point, after an attack against a barbarian tribe, the northern boundary was extended to the Danube. In 27 BC Augustus declared Macedonia a Senatorial province and had its territory significantly reduced. With time, in the decades that followed, Macedonia was partitioned into territories. After Diocletian's reforms Macedonia became part of the Diocese of Moisia and at the time of Constantine it became part of the Illyrian Prefecture. At the end of the 4th century AD Macedonia was split into two provinces, Macedonia Prima with Solun (Salonika) as its capital and Macedonia Salutoris. Later on during the 5th and 6th centuries another name appeared: Macedonia Secunda with Stobi as its capital. 

When Macedonia came under Roman rule the number of Italian colonists increased and a variety of barbarian tribes penetrated the region. As a Roman province, Macedonia was heavily exploited and the population was plundered by heavy taxes. The support of the Roman administration, garrisons and military campaigns fell upon the shoulders of the local population. Macedonia, in addition to being enslaved, was also obliged to provide large numbers of soldiers for the Roman auxiliary brigades.

Urban life in Macedonia, during Roman rule, existed under three distinct settings, the free cities, the colonies and the municipalities. Included among the free cities were Aegeae, Pella, Beroea, Philippi, Heraclea, Salonika, Heraclea Lyncaestis and Stobi. During the Roman period both Heraclea Lyncaestis and Stobi were important large centers situated on well-traveled roads.

Another important fact I want to mention here is that most major stormy events in the history of the Roman period had their echoes in Macedonia. The Roman civil wars, the struggle between Caesar and Pompey and the war between Brutus and Cassius all took place on Macedonian soil. Similarly, the 3rd and 4th century Roman Empire crisis, colonial relations with Christianity and barbarian penetrations, also had their roots in Macedonia. 

Before I conclude with the ancient Macedonian dynasties, I want to go back in time to the era of the Seleucid Empire and examine what happened to the far-east satrapies. As I mentioned earlier, after conquering new lands, Alexander III built cities and populated them with settlers brought from Macedonia. The purpose of each city, in the short term, was to provide economic support and sustain the local military effort. In the long term these cities would fuel all military demands including the provision of soldiers for the war effort. So what happened to the Macedonian settlers after the Macedonian empires collapsed? 

This is a vast subject that should be tackled on its own and will not be part of this study. I will, however, examine the conditions of the eastern Seleucid Empire after its breakaway from the Seleucid dynasty. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander III built a number of cities north of the Hindu Kush in Bactria and Sogdiana which after breaking away from the Seleucid dynasty, became the nucleus of a Macedonian civilization that lasted well into the Christian era. Contrary to popular belief that Alexander had very little impact on Indian life, there is evidence that suggests quite the opposite. For one, Alexander opened channels of communication between India and the rest of the Macedonian empires. For example, during a dig in the late 1930's the French archeologist Ghrshman while doing archeological research at Begram, the site of Alexandria of the Caucasus, discovered, among other things, imported Egyptian and Syrian objects. Included among them were glassware, bronze statuettes, bowls and other objects that could only have come from the western part of the Macedonian Empire. If the old generation of Macedonia felt confident on land and conquered by the spear, the new generation took to water and conquered by trade. The Ptolemies were masters of trade and continued to explore new markets until the Romans destroyed them. They sailed the Arabian Sea and explored the coasts of India as far as Bengal, and had traveled on to Burma, the Golden Chersonese of Malaya and beyond the Gulf of Tonkin and the southern coast of China. Even during and after Roman times, generations of the same merchants, under different flags or in the name of a different emperor, continued to trade with the Indians. According to Strabo who visited Egypt in 24 BC, when a shorter passage was found, about one hundred and twenty ships sailed from Alexandria to India each year. They came with their beautiful big ships agitating the white foam of the Indian waters, bringing with them gold, silver and copper and returned with pepper, fine textiles, perfumes, incense, jewelry, indigo and ebony ivory, tigers, monkeys, elephants, peacocks and spices of all kinds.

In time these Yavana (white European, predominantly Macedonian) traders were allowed to come and go freely. They intermingled with Indian high society bringing them not only goods made in the west but also art and culture. They were even allowed to settle and colonize parts of coastal India with trading posts that in time grew into very important trading centers.

There is also evidence that suggests that even Europe traded with India. Much of the gold that ended up in India came from the Roman coffers. During Nero's reign, the Roman economy was so disturbed by the drain of gold that the elder Pliny denounced the luxury of rich men's habits and the extravagance of Roman women that brought the empire into such financial peril. Not only did Europeans go to India to seek their fortunes, but Indians came to Europe to seek theirs. It is possible that many of these Indian traders, over time, became stranded and never returned to their ancestral lands. This could explain the presence of the Roma populations in the Balkans. 

It is widely believed that the Roma are migrants from India. &quot;To begin, Alexander opened a channel of communication between India and the Hellenistic kingdoms that was not to be closed again. Along the roads which his surveyors measured traders, artisans and ambassadors found their way from the West into India very soon after his last garrison left, and the contact they established never ceased. The great trade route to Pataliputra has remained open with very brief intervals from then until now.&quot; (Page 44, George Woodcock, The Greeks in India, Faber and Faber Ltd, 1996)

Besides introducing stone and metal working techniques to the Indians, the Macedonians taught them to mint coins and issue them as a fixed standard for trade. The use of coins stimulated trade through the passes of the Hindu Kush and brought great prosperity to the undisturbed Macedonian cities of Bactria. For many years these cities served as centers of influence both politically and culturally, clinging stubbornly to their Macedonian ways. A century later, as their populations grew, they built armies and began a southward migration over the Hindu Kush and down into the Punjab. In Alexander's name, they marched into the unconquered regions and invaded India. Their economic, political and military strength gave them confidence to break away from the Seleucids, who saw Bactria as another province to pillage, and form their own kingdom. Diodotus, the governor of Bactria, a former Macedonian soldier with no links to any of the Macedonian dynasties, assumed kingship. Diodotus and his son, Diodotus II, ruled over a large kingdom that not only included the ancient provinces of Bactria and Sogdiana but stretched from the Hindu Kush over the Oxus valley to Bokhara, Samarkand, west to Margiana and south of the Kara Kum desert to the frontiers of Parthia. Although sketchy in detail it has been said that this kingdom, with minor interruptions from the Seleucids, existed from about 260 BC to the middle of the first century BC when it was overrun by nomad migrations. The story of the Macedonian kingdom of Bactria has yet to be told. Outside of minted coins and various religious Buddhist texts very little excavation and archeological work has been done. 

Bactria's isolation from the rest of the Macedonian realm forced her to look eastward and develop trade with the eastern nations including China. Even though trade with China was done through middlemen, Macedonian made objects created from the natural nickel and copper alloy were found in the Chinese province of Yunnan. Nickel was unknown to Europeans until 1751 AD. The Macedonians of Bactria were using it in 200 BC.

Another famous personality worth mentioning here who may be worthy of further study in the future is Menander, the great king of India. Menander too was a professional soldier, not of royal stock, who rose to become a fair king. He is famous for his fair treatment of his subjects and for introducing bilingual coins. Menander's kingdom was separate from that of the Bactrian and lasted for many decades, even past his death. Even though Menander's kingdom was partitioned by his successors, it remained in Macedonian hands for a very long time afterwards. 

The last king to rule parts of India was Hermaeus whose reign lasted until about 40 BC, about 10 years past the Kushana and Parthian invasions. Hermaeus held out until 30 BC when he and his wife Calliope were both killed. After Hermaeus's death no king of his race ever ruled again south of the Hindu Kush. The Macedonian rulers of India may have ceased to exist but the Macedonian populations continued to live on. There is no evidence of any general or local massacre of the ordinary population after the nomad invasions to suggest otherwise. In fact there is evidence that suggests that even two hundred years after Hermaeus's death, the Macedonians and other European races in India remained numerous and formed communities that continued to issue coins in their language. It is estimated that Macedonian communities existed up until the year 200 AD, as self identifiable minorities in India. The process of dispersion was long and slow and the impressions made on the Indians were considerable. The reputation of these &quot;all-knowing Yavanas&quot; was undiminished for a long time. Besides their miraculous abilities to heal, the Yavanas were in great demand for their engineering expertise in war machine design and in stone, wood and metal works. Demand for the skilled Macedonian artisan was not restricted to the Indians alone, even the newcomer Parthians used them to build their commissioned works. Strange as it may sound, both the Kushana and Parthian kings used Macedonian as well as hybrid coins. Was this because they couldn't mint their own? Or was this because the Macedonian coins were more popular with the predominantly Macedonian merchant class? How far in time did the Macedonian cities, with their large merchant populations continue their traditional activities into the period of Parthian and Kushana dominion? At this point it is hard to estimate. Only through further archeological research can these questions be answered. 

The greatest recorded achievement of the old Macedonian masters was the magnificent pagoda, a 638 foot high multi-storied temple, celebrated throughout the Buddhist world. At that time, the pagoda was the tallest building in the world, from its five-storied stone base to the tip of its iron pillar, with its thirteen gilded circlets crowning the thirteen wooden tiers.

The Macedonian political power in Bactria was also extinguished at about the same time as that of India which coincided with the dramatic end of Macedonian rule in Asia and Africa. It is believed that the breakup of the strong Macedonian community in north-west India was largely due to its alliance with the ruling Parthian chieftains. After the Parthians were defeated in about 150 AD by the Andhra king, Gautamiputra, they were expelled, along with their allies. Having nowhere else to go, much of the population migrated to other parts of the country. Remnants of the military class became mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. Some of this information comes to us from an inscription found on the walls of the cave temples of Nasik to the north-east of Bombay. It is interesting to note that some of the Yavanas, Sakas and Parthians retreated into the mountains and deserts of Rajasthan. Four centuries later the Rajputs emerged from this same region and played a dramatic part in the history of India. The Rajputs are believed to be a hybrid people, the ancestors of the Yavanas and their barbarian allies.

Of the mercenaries and general population that ventured deep into India, traces can be found in the furthest points in southern India. Some, including women, were recruited by the Tamil rajas. Yavanas women served as bodyguards within the palaces while the men served outdoors as guards. I want to mention at this point that the Yavanas of India, most of whom were the descendents of Macedonian soldiers and settlers, in time adopted the Buddhist religion. Even Alexander himself was intrigued by the doctrines of Buddhism and often spent considerable time discussing its merits and virtues with the naked Buddhist philosophers. It was not too long after the Macedonian masters opened their first schools of sculpting in Taxila than statues of Buddha in Yavana (Macedonian) clothing began to appear. It is believed that the colossal statues of Buddha, in present day Afghanistan, were built by the ancient Macedonian sculptors.
According to Hardev Singh, even today one can find traces of the ancient Macedonian character in various remote places of India. Some still stubbornly cling on to old traditions and refuse to give them up. One can tell that they are not pure Indian from their mannerisms, their expressions, the way they drink their wine, sing their songs and lament their departed. Hardev believes that the first Macedonians that became permanent residents of India were men who started their own settlements and married local women. Because of the mixed marriages (mothers being non-Macedonian), the Macedonian language was quickly forgotten but the Macedonian rituals were performed by men and were passed on from generation to generation. Some of these rituals are very unusual and bear no resemblance to Indian traditions but are closely related to the Yavana of old. 

The first century BC brought profound change in the political structure of power from northern India to Egypt and it also brought the extinction of the centuries old Macedonian ruling dynasties. The end of Macedonian rule did not facilitate the end of Macedonian culture in these regions. Far from it, once established, the Macedonians continued to live on among the native populations permanently naturalizing their customs and culture. At least in India, a great deal of the original political and administrative structures established during ancient times were adopted by the Indians and some remain unchanged to this day. If I may also add, it was the early Macedonians right after Alexander's time who introduced the Indians to their present day calendar, including the division of the week into seven days, one named after the sun and one after the moon. The Macedonian civilization exercised immense prestige not only in Asia and India but in Rome as well. Rome herself was very much infatuated with Macedonian art, architecture, sculpture, etc. that in time she too developed a Macedonian culture. Despite popular beliefs to the contrary, the Macedonia language and culture were never extinguished during the Roman period. Latin may have been the official language of the Roman Empire but the Macedonian koine remained the international language of trade and commerce throughout the world. Even the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, where written not in Latin but in the Mediterranean koine language. After the split of the Roman Empire, the Eastern Empire did not revert to using the koine language, as some would have us believe, but simply ignored the Latin. 

To be continued...

And now I will leave you with this...

Recently I had the pleasure of viewing a pre-recorded live telecast from one of the major Greek television networks discussing Macedonian minority issues in Greece. 
I am going to be honest with you and admit that I could not watch more than ten minutes at a time without experiencing deep frustration and anger. After a few attempts at watching, &quot;I could take no more&quot; and gave up.
There is no place where I can begin to rationalize what I saw. The so called &quot;Macedonian Expert&quot; in the program insisted that there is no Macedonian minority in Greece and there is no such thing as a Macedonian language. She explained that the Macedonian nation was created by Tito as a plot to usurp Macedonia from Greece and the Macedonian language was a Bulgarian creation remnant of the 19th century Bulgarian Exarchate Church in Macedonia.

One has to be from a different planet and have total amnesia to believe the venomous drivel that came out this program. Why do Greeks waste their time putting such garbage on television? Who are they trying to fool? 

I don't want to ramble on but I do want to set the record straight!

Contrary to popular belief, it is the Greek nation that is a creation and not the Macedonian one. Let's examine the facts. 

1. Greece was created for the first time in 1829 by the Great Powers from remnant parts of the Ottoman Empire for the purpose of stopping Russia from gaining access to the Mediterranean waters. Macedonia on the other hand, since ancient times has been called Macedonia and has always had clearly defined borders.

2. When created, Greece was given an artificial character, a two thousand year old pagan culture and a dead and foreign language. Macedonia on the other hand has its own unique culture and has always used its natural language that goes back to prehistoric times. The so called &quot;non existent Macedonian language&quot; is the original and natural language spoken by the Macedonian people for many centuries.

In many ways, Greece is like the United States of America. The USA is a multinational, multiethnic modern country created where one never existed before. Americans speak the English language as well as their own ethnic languages (Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, etc., etc.). The Americans adopted an existing language, as the language of their country.
Similarly, Greece is a multinational, multiethnic modern country created with artificial boundaries encompassing various nationalities of people who speak various languages. Instead of adopting one of the existing languages however, Greece opted for artificially resurrecting an ancient dead language.

The difference between Greeks and Americans is that an American recognizes and will admit to his or her true ethnicity. No American would ever pretend that he or she is a descendant of the ancient Americans (except of course for the indigenous people). Greeks on the other hand, would not admit to their true ethnicity and insist that their country is homogeneous and that the entire population is Greek. In spite of mass importation of Asians and assimilation of many other nationalities, including Macedonians, the Greeks insist that they are descendents from the ancient Greeks. To this day Greece is importing people from various places, including the former Soviet Union, but its constitution recognizes only one nationality, the artificially created Greek! 

Isn't it time to put an end to this charade???? You are embarrassing yourselves!!!!

References:

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

E. E. Rice, Cleopatra, Sutton Publishing, UK 1999

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje.

Ernle Bradford, Cleopatra, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London 1971

M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, London, Cambridge University Press, 1981

F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World, Fontana History of the Ancient World, Fontana Press, 1992.

Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenic Age, University of California Press, Berkley Los Angeles, 1990.

Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, Macdonald Phoebus Ltd, 1981.

F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1970.

George Woodcock, The Greeks in India, Faber and Faber Ltd, 1996.

Parts of the information on the ancient Macedonians of India is based on an interview with Hardev Singh, who believes he is a descendant of the ancient Macedonians of India.


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>1ti4x6cbfq05z6rkavlu25hopbrc9pz</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - The Rise of Christianity a New Beginning</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2070</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11085</id>
      <parentid>4982</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:27:58Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="51792" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 13 - The Rise of Christianity a New Beginning

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Alexander's ventures into Asia and Africa created trade routes and shipping lanes and opened up a world of new wonders that not only tantalized the senses but also fascinated the mind.

The intellectual bridge connecting Europe, Asia and Africa gave birth to new sciences, astronomies and philosophies that are unparalleled to this day. Scientists in India were debating atomic theory even before any of the Athenians, credited with inventing the subject, were born. The astronomers in Babylon not only possessed astrological charts but they were also aware of the orbits and spherical shapes of our planets, including that of earth. The Egyptians were applying geometry in figuring out property lines after the Nile floods even before the Europeans had any notion of mathematics. After Alexander's conquests all this knowledge became the possession of the Macedonians who centralized it in the libraries of Alexandria, Antioch, Solun (Thessalonika) and later in Tsari Grad (Istanbul), Ohrid and Sveta Gora (Athos).

In exploring the vast reaches of Asia, India and Egypt, the Macedonians, among other things, discovered new gods and new faiths. After studying them they not only enriched their own knowledge of the divine but also brought about a spiritual revolution that, with time, spread throughout the entire world.

After exploring the many deities and their cults, the Macedonians began to believe that the variously named gods might be different aspects of a single divine force. The newly discovered deities were in many ways similar to their own Olympian gods. For example Astarte and Isis were very similar to Aphrodite and Jupiter, Ahura and Baal were similar to Zeus. The intermingling of the various cultures, especially in cosmopolitan centers like Alexandria, Antioch and Solun, opened the door for deep philosophical debates questioning the nature, origins and purpose of the various gods. Fueled by revolutionary ideas, sophisticated theological theories began to emerge leading to the concept of a single divine being, a God who lives in heaven. Obviously there was enough evidence in the universe to warrant the existence of such a being, otherwise how would the universe work? However, there were some problems. How does a Supreme Being living in heaven communicate with his subjects on earth? The evolutionary mind, hard at work, managed to solve that problem as well by proposing the existence of a second God or the Son of God, a concept to which most of the world subscribes to this day. The Son of God would be a living God who would descend from the heavens to earth to spread God's message among his people.

Here I have given a simplified explanation of a complex problem. My intention was to show that as a result of the Macedonian conquests, the world was exposed to new and revolutionary ideas, which not only enriched our knowledge of the world but also revolutionized our religious beliefs. Christianity was born as a direct result of Macedonian intervention. The old Macedonians in the new world knew far too much to remain static and cast their Olympian hypothesis aside for a new reality. The Macedonian world had matured and had come a long way from the Homeric days and the mythical gods. As the millennium turned, the time was right for a new beginning. The new world surged forward with much vigour, challenging old beliefs. Even the well established Jewish religion, which already prescribed to a single supreme being, came under attack. It was precisely the re-interpretation of the Jewish religion that sparked the Christian movement which not only splintered from its Jewish roots but grew larger and enveloped most of the world. Christianity was a new force that would dominate the world, born out of necessity due to the cruelty of Roman rule, which drove the subjugated to a life of despair. Women refused to bear children because they knew their future was hopeless. Life was painful and the world was full of evil. By the turn of the first millennium the familiar old gods were nothing more than instruments of cruelty designed to serve the rich and powerful and cast the poor into oblivion. No nation suffered more cruelty at the hands of the Romans than Macedonia. Was it jealousy of Macedonia's unsurpassed glory, or was it Rome's fear of her rebellious nature? 

As I mentioned earlier, after Perseus's defeat at Pydna in 168 BC, Macedonia was partitioned into four regions and became Roman territory. It was particularly during this period that Macedonia was robbed of its cultural treasures including the many monuments of art located in Solun, Pella and other culturally rich cities. Macedonia's treasures were transferred to Rome and paraded as trophies of Roman victories on Roman streets during triumph festivals. After 148 BC the four regions of Macedonia were united again but made into a Roman province with Solun as its capital. What is also interesting is that all city states and jurisdictions south of Macedonia, including Athens and Sparta, were also annexed and added to this large Roman province called Macedonia. This merger lasted for about one hundred and twenty years until 27 BC. In 27 BC Augustus separated the region to form the province of Macedonia and the province of Achaia. For one hundred and twenty years Solun, not Athens, was the capital or &quot;mother city&quot; of this vast province called Macedonia.

Solun was the most important city in Macedonia not only because of its prosperous economy due to its busy harbour and its close proximity to &quot;via Egnatia&quot; but also because of its great cultural and intellectual growth. Solun was an industrial city that profited immensely from its marine trade and from its close proximity to the military highway, via Egnatia, which facilitated much of the goods destined to Europe. Besides being of economic and intellectual importance, Solun, because of its surrounding wall, was also a great military fortress. The Macedonian King Cassander chose its location well and fortified the city for good reason. Solun was about the only city in Macedonia to withstand and repel the barbarian invasions of the 50s and 60s BC. Even Roman dissidents like the orator Cicero fled to Solun for safety during darker times. Solun had the elements of success and was destined to become a powerful city. During the Roman Civil War of 49 to 31 BC, Macedonia was turned into a battleground. At the time Solun backed the Imperial Army of Antony and Octavian turning the tide on the Republicans. After the Imperial victory at Philippi in 42 BC, the Macedonians of Solun erected a triumphant arch at the west gate of Vardar in honour of the victors. This show of loyalty not only saved Solun, but also allowed its citizens to earn their freedom and Solun to earn the status of a free city. A free city at the time enjoyed special privileges including the right to govern itself, hold free public meetings and to protect itself. This new found freedom allowed the city to grow and prosper, but more importantly, it attracted famous scholars, writers, philosophers, poets and teachers who made Solun their home and added to the city's intellectual wealth. By the turn of the new millennium, Solun was becoming an ethnically diverse cultural center that was beginning to rival Alexandria and Antioch.

When it came to philosophical debates about the nature of the gods, Solun was right up there with Alexandria and Antioch. Why was there such a preoccupation with the gods and why at this time?

There were two factors that influenced the creative thinking of the time. The first was the sophistication of an intellectually evolving society which, with the accumulation of knowledge, matured and grew out of its beliefs in the &quot;mythical gods&quot; of Homer. The second was the intellectual disgust in elevating mere humans, and cruel ones at that, to divinity. After Caesar was deified, deifications of emperors became common practice and even the cruelest men were made into gods. Worse were expectations that people of various races, cultures, religions and intellect would pay homage to these cruel men as if they were gods.

Was it not burden enough to live under their harsh rule, let alone pray to them for spiritual guidance? 

This callous Roman behaviour led many to question their faith in such false gods. In time it became increasingly less likely that an educated man would support the cult of his parents, let alone his grandparents.

I want to mention here that outside of some mystical cults, no major religion except for Judaism was allowed to practice in the Roman Empire.

During the first century BC Jewish rival sects, called Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes competed for the attention of the Jews. While the Sadducees adhered strictly to the law of the Old Testament, the Pharisees were progressive thinkers, who produced many intellectual leaders. There was very little knowledge of the Essenes, that is, until 1947 when a set of manuscripts was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea. The newly discovered scrolls, dating back to about 70 BC, were a record of some old pre Christian beliefs and practices that compared closely to those of the early Christians. Beliefs like the resurrection, rewards and punishments after death, etc., were already widely held before the birth of Jesus. So too was the notion of the coming of the Messiah to fulfill the destiny of God's chosen people.

The Jews were considered to be privileged citizens in the pre-Roman Macedonian kingdoms and were granted free practice of their faith. Later the Romans, for the sake of keeping the peace, followed suit and allowed the Jews to continue to freely practice their faith.

The Jews believed in monotheism, a single God, the kind of God that philosophers were debating about. The Jews, according to historic accounts, had been monotheists for at least two millennia. They were totally devoted and violently resisted change. Last we recall the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, in 168 BC, attempted to impose Macedonism on Jerusalem and provoked an armed revolt. With time the Macedonian culture and language did take hold and if not with the majority, many Jews accepted Macedonism. After the revolt, Jewish kings began to assume dual roles, those of king and high priest. Unfortunately, as client kings of foreign powers they were influenced more by politics and less by faith. Politics, especially during the Roman period, had more to do with interpreting the scriptures than faith. These differences of opinion over religious policies caused discontentment between the priesthood and regular rivalries broke out, fracturing Jewish society and leading it to irreconcilable disputes.

Rome refused to become entangled in Jewish affairs and entrusted Judea to the province of Syria, which at the time was ruled by a governor from Antioch. Local authority was entrusted to the Jewish client kings. These kings were hand picked by the Romans for their loyalty to Rome and for proving themselves sufficiently ruthless to their own people. One such &quot;King of the Jews&quot; was Herod who seized the Judean throne in 43 BC and was confirmed by Rome four years later. Herod himself was not a Jew and some believe he was a Macedonian or at least half Macedonian. Herod had a good relationship with Rome and in some ways this benefited the Jews. The peace that Herod brought during his rule allowed the Jews to prosper. The Jewish diaspora grew and established itself in all the great cities of the Roman Empire including Rome. Solun was no exception and a Jewish community sprang up there also.

The Macedonian adaptation of the Old Testament, composed in Alexandria and written in Koine, was widely used by the Jewish communities in the diaspora. The new composition unfortunately had an expansionist and missionary flavour which was quite alien to the original Testament and represented a departure from tradition

I want to mention at this point that the Jews believed that history was a reflection of Gods' activity and the Testament was a record of history. God guided man on his daily activities and therefore history was God's doing. 

Herod died in 4 BC and his kingdom was divided between his sons Archalaus, Herod Philip and Herod Antipus, as bequeathed in his will. The arrangement unfortunately was not successful and fell apart around 6 AD. Conflict between the various factions continued to escalate until 60 AD when a full-scale rebellion flared up. Roman intervention did stop the extreme violence but did not end the conflict which waged on well into the next century until the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground.

Human cruelty was not singularly a Roman trait but was a factor that preoccupied the minds of the new breed of philosophers. Many dreamt of a peaceful world free of evil and some tried to put their dreams into practice but none so successfully as Jesus of Nazareth.

Historically, little is known about Jesus the person. Most of the information about Jesus comes to us from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which were written in the Mediterranean Koine language after his death. The new faith's destiny, however, was preordained by the writings in the Old Testament, which foretold of the fall of empires through the agency of God, not man. One like the 'son of man' will come on the clouds of heaven, embodying the apocalyptic hope of the Jews, and accompanied by a resurrection of the dead. Simply put, this was the blueprint and code of instructions for shaping the future faith.

It is important to understand that before Jesus' time the Macedonians were not just part of the spiritual evolution but they were the cause of it. In other words, they were the catalyst that accelerated the whole spiritual process and brought it to a boil. &quot;Lightfoot finds in Alexander the Great the proof of the greatness of the step which Luke here records in Paul's work, and even says that 'each successive station at which he halted might have reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Macedonia as the pioneer of the Gospel!'&quot; (Page 199, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

After Jesus' death, the Jews were well established throughout the great cities of the Roman Empire and free, at least from the Romans, to pursue their faith. Through their services to the empire, many prospered and were granted Roman citizenship. It is estimated that by the time of Jesus about four and a half million Jews lived in the diaspora in contrast to one million living in their homeland.

I must emphasize here that before Christianity took hold a large proportion of the people in the diaspora attending Jewish synagogues were not Jewish by race. They were not full Jews in a religious sense nor were they expected to obey all of the Jewish laws. Most of them were God fearing people who accepted and worshipped the Jewish God and were tolerated and permitted to mingle with the Jews. These people, many of whom were Macedonian and communicated with the real Jews in the Koine language, were not expected to become full Jews but were tolerated and allowed to penetrate the Jewish social circles, a precursor to Christianity.

The Jews were admired for their stable family life, the relationships they sustained between children and parents and for the peculiar value they attached to human life. The Jews were also admired for something unusual for the time. During the Herodian period, mainly in the large cities in the diaspora, they developed elaborate welfare services for the indigent, poor, sick, widows, orphans, prisoners and the incurable.
All of these factors led to the development of the earliest Christian communities and were a principle reason for the spread of Christianity in the cities.

The combination of God-fearing people and the destitute produced converts to Judaism from all races and classes of people, educated and ignorant alike.

Judaism had the potential to become the religion of the Roman Empire but in order to do that it had to evolve and adapt its teachings and organization to an alien world. It had to give up the idea that its priests were descendants of the tribes of Aaron, temple-attendants of Levi, king and rulers of David, and so on and so forth.

For the true Jewish priests, heredity and the exact observance of the Jewish laws was very important. Unfortunately in the diaspora, religious rules were not always observed and exact heredity was a matter of guesswork, sometimes even fraudulent. This loose application of rules was resented by the conservative Jews and any corrective action taken was usually met with opposition, violence and schisms. The irreconcilable differences between the old conservative Jews and the new breed of liberal semi-Jews grew wider and eventually gave birth to Christianity, a totally new faith.

It was again the Macedonians, among this new breed of liberal Jews, who were the first to preach Jesus' message to the worshipers of Mitra (Mithra), Astart and Zeus as well as others outside the Jewish faith. It was among the Macedonians in Antioch in about 40 AD that the followers of Jesus came to be known as Christians for the first time.

In its refusal to allow Gentile Christianity, as it was then known, to flourish the conservative Jews employed every means, including persecution of its leaders, to stop its progression. Among the savage persecutors pursuing the Jewish Christians was Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus. Saul was a Jew and a Roman citizen headed for Damascus in pursuit of Christians when he had a vision of Christ which changed his life. After that he himself converted to Christianity, took the name Paul and began to spread the &quot;Good News&quot; of Jesus until his death in Rome in 64 AD.

It cannot be said that Paul created Gentile Christianity but he was responsible for giving it impetus. Paul became an important factor in the spread of Christianity to Macedonia when he had a vision of a man, a Macedonian, urging him to &quot;come to Macedonia and help us&quot;. Paul interpreted this vision as God's will to take the &quot;Good News&quot; of Jesus into Macedonia. &quot;And when they had come opposite My'sia, they attempted to go into Bithyn'ia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them; so, passing by My'sia, they went down to Tro'as. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedo'nia was standing beseeching him and saying, 'Come over to Macedo'nia and help us.' And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo'nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.&quot; (Page 1044, The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Holman, Philadelphia, 1952).

There are some who believe that the man in Paul's vision was the Apostle Luke. Luke was a Macedonian, a physician by trade who Paul met for the first time in Troas. Luke may have had some connection to Philippi to have Paul sent there. It is unknown whether Luke was a Christian or not before he met Paul but he was certainly one afterwards. Luke was a great writer and composer of one of the gospels.

It was around 50 AD, when Paul set foot on European soil for the first time. That was in the Macedonian towns of Philippi, Solun (Thessalonica) and Beroea where he preached the word of Jesus (Acta apos., XVI, id. XVII). Around 52 and 53 AD he sent epistles to the people of Solun (Epist. Thess); then in 57 AD he came back to Macedonia to follow up on his progress. In 63 AD he again sent epistles to Macedonia but this time to the people of Philippi (Epist. Philipp).

Even before Paul went to Macedonia legend has it that Macedonia was visited by Jesus' mother Mary. &quot;The Blessed Virgin excluded all other women from Holy Mountain, when she claimed it as 'Her Garden' after she was driven ashore by storms near the site of the present monastery of 'Iviron' USPENIE.&quot; (Page 41, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998). Holy Mountain or Sveta Gora as is known in Macedonia, is the holiest place in Europe and one of the greatest monastic centers of Christendom. 

Initially, in his teachings, Paul had insurmountable problems trying to explain the nature of Jesus' doctrines through the Jewish faith and its laws to a Macedonian audience. However, by using well understood concepts of faith, which in themselves were somewhat of a departure from the original scriptures, the message was quickly understood. Paul was creative and by sticking to the most basic principles of Jesus' teachings and avoiding most of the six hundred and thirteen Jewish commands, he was able to convey his message. Surely no man could fulfill all six hundred and thirteen commands of the Jewish law? Was everyone then a sinner? In Paul's mind, this was not what Jesus was about. Jesus was about freedom and the liberation of law. Paul associated freedom with truth and in pursuit of truth he established the right to think. He accepted the bonds and obligations of love but not to the authority of scholarship and tradition.

If not by nationality then by spirit Paul was truly a Macedonian because he preached something familiar to the Macedonians. Paul spoke directly to the Macedonian people and they understood him without the use of interpreters. This means that he knew the Macedonian language well enough to captivate his audience. Paul's first mission to Macedonia took him to Philippi where he met a woman named Lydia, a fabric dealer. Lydia was a widow who sold cloth and textiles and was a rare example of a free woman who lived and worked in Macedonia. For some time, Lydia was exposed to Jewish religious practices which she had observed at a colony of Jews who had settled near her home in Thyatira. Lydia, along with her household, is believed to be the first Christian in Macedonia to be baptized by Paul. After Philippi, Paul's missionary journey took him to the beautiful Macedonian city of Solun where, in 50 BC, he established what later came to be known as the &quot;Golden Gate&quot; church, the first Christian church in Europe. According to the Bible, Paul, along with his friend Silas, spent about three weeks in Solun in a synagogue debating the &quot;Good News&quot; of Jesus with the Solun Jews. But much to his disappointment he could not sway them to see things his way. He persuaded some to join but the majority would not join and became hostile towards him. The real surprise, however, was that many non-Jewish Macedonians accepted the &quot;Good News&quot; of Jesus and embraced Christianity as their new faith.

I must mention at this point that the process of Christianization and the establishment of the Christian church was not that simple. The central and eastern Mediterranean, for the first and second centuries AD, swarmed with a multitude of religious ideas struggling to be spread out. Jesus' message was being rapidly propagated over large geographical areas and his followers were divided right from the start over elements of faith and practice. The new faith may have had spirit but it lacked organization. Many Christian churches sprang up and practiced a kind of diverse Christian faith. Each church more or less had its own &quot;Jesus Story&quot; based on oral traditions and the personal biases of its founders. It would be a very long time indeed before the Christian faith would be amalgamated into a single religion and achieve unity. In the meantime, besides the competing Jews, the Christians had found a new enemy, the Romans.

The Romans were tolerant of all religions and had no problems with what people believed. There were some conditions however. It was mandatory that all people in the Roman Empire participate in Roman religious festivities, pay homage to the Roman emperor and make regular sacrifices as required. This, unfortunately, for the more dedicated monotheistic Christians was not possible because some Roman traditions conflicted with Jesus' teachings.

The Romans did not know what to make of the Christians. For the most part they were peaceful people with no criminal records, they wanted nothing from the Romans but to be left alone to pray in peace yet they were somehow a danger to the stability of the empire. Even though the Christians were peaceful in nature, their attitude towards Roman traditions was in direct violation of Roman law. Besides, if the Christians disrespected the Roman way, what was to stop others from doing the same? It was Pliny the Younger who first made an example of these disobedient Christians by sentencing them to death for simply being Christian. Others then followed suit. During their trials Christians were offered a chance to renounce their Christian faith and obey Roman law. If they did, they were set free but those who refused were sentenced to a gruesome death.

Following the period after the death of Jesus, the Roman Empire began to experience its own problems, the least of which was Christianity. During the first century AD, Roman pursuit of wealth brought about social changes in the empire. Roman citizenship was no longer determined by one's nationality but rather by one's possession of wealth. Social status or position of power could also be achieved by wealth. One no longer needed to be Italian to become a Roman Senator or hold office in the Roman administration or be a high ranking officer in the Roman military. Successive Roman emperors aligned themselves more and more with the rich. Even some of the early Roman emperors like Trajan and Hadrian were not Italian but Spanish. Even the Roman soldiers were no longer Roman. Wherever there were problems in the empire, the armies sent to deal with them were raised from the local populations. Rome itself was also being challenged demographically. Besides the rich, the well off and the educated who were flocking to Rome to live the high life, Roman soldiers were bringing home brides from various places in the empire. As problems began to develop on the outskirts of the vast empire, central control became less and less effective. Military men were sometimes empowered with carrying on the responsibilities of the emperor and when the need arose, the army was empowered with appointing a new emperor general, a practice the Romans adopted from the Macedonians. The frontiers were long and difficult to hold, stretching from Britain, along the Rhine and the Danube, across the Caucasus and Anatolia, along the Tigris and the Syrian desert to Aqaba and from Egypt to Morocco. Even before the close of the first century AD, Roman leaders came to the realization that one emperor could no longer rule such a vast empire. Unfortunately for a long time no emperor was prepared to willingly give up or share his rule with another.

Besides the change in demographics, the Italians in Rome were beginning to be outclassed by a new breed of middle class intellectuals who preferred the use of the Koine language over Latin. Even in Rome local culture was shifting from conservative to intellectual and Romans and foreigners alike, including most emperors, preferred literary works written in the universal romantic Koine language instead of the dry and brisk Latin. Like the 19th century French language of Europe, Koine, fueled by the literary works of the sophists, began to experience a revival. There was a certain ambiance about the language which gave life and expression to its subjects. Koine was utilized heavily by intellectuals and academics all throughout the vastness of the empire, especially in Asia Minor and Alexandria. Koine was very popular not only with the sophists but also with the philosophers who by now had dedicated themselves to defining the new faith. Jesus' message was spreading like wildfire, captivating the minds of a new breed of philosophers and they in turn recorded their experiences not in the Aramaic language of Palestine nor in Latin, but in the international Koine, the language of the Macedonian elite. As evidenced by the inscriptions found in Dura Europos, of which I made mention earlier, the Macedonians also spoke another language, the language that today is referred to as Macedonian. Although history has no name for it, it is often mentioned as the native language spoken by the Macedonian soldiers. Koine may have been the language of the elite and of the institutions but it was useless when it came to bringing the word of Jesus to the uneducated masses living in the vast Roman Empire. It is well documented that, as Christianity spread from the cities to the towns and to the countryside, many of the scriptures written in Koine had to be translated to native languages. While neither the Macedonians before them nor the Romans saw any benefit in educating the peasants, the Christians did. This was happening as much in Egypt as it was in Macedonia. The word of Jesus was good for everyone including the village dueling peasant. But how does one communicate it to the uneducated masses? This was indeed a problem for the early Christians but through the written word Christianity translated the scriptures to the various native languages and began to educate the masses.

I want to make it clear here that the Koine language was the international language of commerce, introduced to the vastness of the Macedonian Empire by Alexander the Great. This was the language of the educated and elite, not of the masses of people throughout the empire. For the most part, the native people of all parts of the empire, who took part in the affairs of the empire, were educated in Koine. That did not preclude them however from speaking their native language. It is well documented that non Europeans in the ranks of the European elite not only spoke a second language, their native language, but were also known by a different name, their local native name.

While the Macedonians and later the Romans had no interest in local affairs, other than harvesting taxes, Christianity showed great interest in everyone irrespective of social status. In Jesus' eyes all men were created equal and in the image of God. The common people could identify with the Christian God and this had appeal for them. In contrast, deities of the Roman faith imitated &quot;the all-powerful&quot; Roman emperor sitting on his throne, far removed from the common man.

By making contact directly with the native people of the empire, the Christians began to institutionalize the local languages by giving them life through the written scriptures and through educating the masses to read and write. Unfortunately at the turn of the new millennium, in Europe at least, there were only three scripts available upon which to base the written word and these were Aramaic, Koine and Latin. Most local languages had far richer sounds than the existing written scripts could accommodate and in time had to be refined. For the Macedonians, this would take a few centuries but eventually a single refined universal script would emerge and bring Macedonia back into her former intellectual glory.

It seems that around the 4th century BC, in the name of progress, Macedonia abandoned its ancient native Venetic script in favour of the international Koine. Unfortunately, half a millennium of neglect left her native spoken language without a script. As we have seen, again as evidenced by the Dura Europos inscription, the Macedonians utilized Koine and Latin scripts, sometimes in combination, to express themselves in their native language. This may have been good enough for scribbling graffiti and writing casual letters but not for compiling literary works.

With time Christianity introduced the gospel to every race in every corner of the Roman Empire and with it came the written word, formalization and later the institutionalization of the modern written languages. The Macedonian language, to which history refers to as the language spoken by Alexander's soldiers, was no exception.

The development of the modern Macedonian language will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters. Look for it in future articles.

There are some who believe that the period between 27 BC and 180 AD was a period of wasted opportunity. It was a period of spending rather than of creating, an age of architecture and trade in which the rich grew richer and the poor poorer. It was an age when man's soul and spirit decayed. There were thousands of well built cities supplied by great aqueducts, connected to each other by splendid highways and each equipped with temples, theaters, amphitheaters and markets. The citizens of these great cities were well refined in attitude and mannerism, indicative of a civilized society. All this unfortunately was achieved on the backs of slaves who came from the vastness of the empire, including Macedonia. The slaves provided the manpower to build the cities, aqueducts, roads, temples and theaters. The slaves provided the labour to cultivate the soil and feed the masses. And the slaves provided the bodies that fuelled the blood sport that entertained the Roman citizenry so much.

It is unknown how many slaves suffered cruel deaths to civilize the glorious Roman Empire, the pride of the west, but I am certain the numbers were horrendous.

It is often asked, &quot;Who were the Roman gladiators, who were the Christians fed to the lions, and who were the slaves that gave their lives to build the Roman Empire and entertain the Roman citizen?&quot; Although history provides us with no answers, all we need to do is look at the aftermath of every Roman victory and count the numbers enslaved.

Macedonia was the last nation in Europe to fall into Roman hands but the first on mass scale to fall into Roman slavery. While the middle class Macedonian, among others, supplied the Roman Empire with enlightenment, the Macedonian slave, among others, supplied her with the necessary labour to build her civilization. Even though Macedonia, more so than any other nation in the history of the Roman Empire, had contributed to its development, modern Roman history mentions nothing of the Macedonians. The Macedonian people have received no credit for their contribution and the willing and unwilling sacrifices they made for the success of the Romans.

Even though it is well known that the Roman Empire was built on the foundation of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, its modern inheritors refuse to give Macedonia and the Macedonian people the credit they deserve.

Today's modern westerner speaks of the Roman Empire's accomplishments with great pride, forgetting that without Macedonia's contributions their precious empire would be an empty shell.

Every historian knows that the only contribution that the lumbering Roman Empire should be credited for is the construction of roads, cities and aqueducts. In terms of government it had none. At its best it had a bureaucratic administration that kept the peace but failed to secure it. The typical Roman was so overly preoccupied with pursuing &quot;the loot&quot; that he forgot to implement any free thinking and apply knowledge. He had an abundance of books but very few were written by Romans. He respected wealth and despised science. He allowed the rich to rule and imagined that the wise men could be bought and bargained for in the slave markets. He made no effort to teach, train or bring the common people into any conscious participation of his life. He had made a tool of religion, literature, science and education and entrusted it to the care of slaves who were bred and traded like animals. His empire, &quot;It was therefore, a colossally ignorant and unimaginative empire. It foresaw nothing. It had no strategic foresight, because it was blankly ignorant of geography and ethnology.&quot; (Page 397, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961). This is only a tiny sample of what an eminent western scholar and author thinks of the contributions of the Roman Empire.

Ironically we refer to the Romans as civilized and to the Macedonians as barbarian, knowing full well that Macedonia employed no slaves and Rome built its empire on the backs of slaves.

&quot;Civilize: bring out of barbarous or primitive stage of society; enlighten, refine and educate.&quot; (Page 127, The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 1991). I guess 19th century modern historians forgot to consult the dictionary for the word &quot;civilized&quot; when they wrote the modern history of the Roman Empire.

Without getting into the grossness of the Roman excesses and coliseum blood lusts, I believe I made my point that &quot;the Roman Empire was neither civilized nor did it contribute as much as its proponents would have us believe&quot;.

Attacks mounted on Christianity apparently were not restricted to the Jews and Romans. As Christianity began to grow and make its way into Europe, it became a target for the intellectuals who had discovered it and identified it as the enemy.

The sophisticated Athenian intellectual found it difficult to accept Christianity especially since he was expected to abandon his long held beliefs. While the oppressed Macedonian found hope in Christianity, the freer Athenian was not content with leaving behind what truly defined him and his culture.

For better or worse Macedonia gave in and embraced Christianity. Her neighbours to the south, however, were too sophisticated for this modern phenomenon and clung onto their old beliefs.

&quot;Athens in Paul's time was no longer the Athens of Socrates; but the Socratic method had its roots in the soil of Attica and the nature of the Athenian people. In Athens Socrates can never quite die...&quot; &quot;In this centre of the world's education, amid the lecture-rooms where philosophers had taught for centuries that it was mere superstition to confuse the idol with the divine nature which is represented, the idols were probably in greater numbers than anywhere else in Paul's experience.&quot; (Pages 238-239, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

Paul's mission to Athens yielded no converts. There is, however, something interesting that came out of Paul's discussions with the Athenians that gives us a glimpse of the Athenian attitude towards Paul and foreigners in general. In the University of Athens certain philosophers engaged Paul in discussion and some said, &quot;What would this spermologos [ignorant plagiarist] say?&quot; (Page 241, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

Spermolos is an Athenian slang that means &quot;a worthless fellow of low class and vulgar habits, with the insinuation that he lives at the expense of others, like those disreputable persons who hang round the markets and the quays in order to pick up anything that falls from the loads that are carried about. Hence as a term in social slang, it connotes absolute vulgarity and inability to rise above the most contemptible standard of life and conduct; it is often connected with slave life, for the Spermologos was near the type of the slave and below the level of the free man; and there clings to it the suggestion of picking up refuse and scraps, and in literature of plagiarism without the capacity to use correctly.&quot; (Page 242, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).
Is this the superior race of men to whom our modern world owes its foundations?

After a short visit in Athens Paul was kicked out. From there he went to Corinth and after spending some time in Corinth he returned to Solun.

Christianity apparently retaliated against such intellectual attitudes by claiming that their philosophy had nothing to teach the Christians but folly and immorality.

Even though Christianity was beginning to gain confidence and take a more relaxed attitude towards these attacks, its doctrine was still divergent. Gnosticism was particularly strong in many areas of the empire and combined with pagan beliefs and myths not only diverted from Jesus' simple teachings but also infuriated many Christian fundamentalists to advocate the return to &quot;simple faith&quot;. The Gnostics, in their attempt to &quot;purify&quot; Jesus' teaching and free them from their earthly bounds, had injected new ideas into Christianity most of which were based on myth and fantasies and were bordering on heresy.

The call to return to the &quot;simple faith&quot; was easier said than done. In the end &quot;simple faith&quot; was universally restored but not without the help of an emperor.

The start of the new millennium witnessed the death of the Roman Republic and the birth of Imperial Rome. The Augustan emperors may have brought peace to the empire but with it they also brought neglect, decline and decay. As I mentioned earlier, by 180 AD, there were unmistakable signs of decay. Besides the agricultural and economic decline, the empire opened its doors to anarchy when the adoptive system of choosing emperors was abandoned in favour of personal appointments.
The first emperor to break with tradition was Marcus Aurelius who appointed his son, Commodus, as his successor. Unfortunately, Emperor Commodus, instead of ruling, spent twelve years (180 to 192 AD) drinking with the gladiators until he was strangled by his trainer.
After a year of civil war Septimius Severus, an African rose to supreme power and in his eighteen years of rule he did his best to restore peace and order. Severus and his relations kept the empire functioning until 235 AD, when the last member of that family was assassinated.

The following fifty years witnessed bloodshed, misrule and civil war. The erosion of central power opened the doors for barbarian invasions and besides attacks from the various Germanic tribes and Franks on the west, a more serious push came from the Goths in the east. The Goths were a maritime people who lived in southern Russia and controlled the waterways from the Baltic, across Russia to the Black and Caspian Seas.

Unable to withstand their advance the Romans lost the eastern seas and allowed the Goths to enter the Aegean coastline and advance on Macedonia. Another group crossed the Danube in a great land raid in 247 AD, defeating and killing the Emperor Decius.
The Romans eventually did muster enough strength and, in 270 AD, Claudius defeated the Goths driving them back to where they originated.

Further east, under the powerful Sassanid dynasty, the Persian Empire was revived and it too attacked the Romans, capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian in 260 AD. In 276 AD the Goths returned to raid the coasts of Asia Minor. Then in 284 AD Diocletian, an Illyrian born general, seized power in Rome and ruled for the next twenty years.

It was Diocletian who first seized the opportunity and introduced the share of rule. The empire was too great a task for one man to rule so Diocletian established a Board of Four Emperors. This was an old idea whose time had finally come. Unfortunately, this idea only worked while Diocletian was in power and fell apart after his retirement in 305 AD. Fortunately, the concept of sharing rule survived and after another round of destructive conflicts in 313 AD, Constantine emerged victorious as co-Emperor with Licinius. 

One of the main failures that led to the decline of the Roman Empire was poor communication. Rome's geographical position in relation to its empire made her unsuitable as a world capital. Every order and every official document had to travel northward for half the length of Italy before it could turn east or west. Even though some of the more capable emperors set up their headquarters in the hub of activity this still did not solve the communication problem in its entirety.

One of Constantine's priorities after seizing power was to find a suitable location for his capital where communication would not be problem. Although Solun was contemplated for its cosmopolitan Macedonian culture, economy and defenses, Constantine opted for the city of Byzantium. After all was it not Byzantium that withstood Philip II's siege and survived? From a strategic point, Byzantium offered some advantages over Solun. Byzantium was located on the waters of the Bosporus that linked the Mediterranean with the Black Sea. It was the center of the Roman world and linked east with west. From a military perspective, ships could easily be dispatched east or west up the rivers and outflank every barbarian advance. Even Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Aegean and Adriatic coastlines were within a reasonable striking distance from Byzantium. From a commercial perspective, Byzantium was a lot closer to the eastern trade routes than Rome or Solun. In other words, Constantine chose Byzantium by careful planning and design, which in the long term gave his empire the advantage it needed to survive for nearly a millennium and a half, until 1453 AD.

Flavius Valerius Constantinus, or Emperor Constantine as he was later known, was born in Naissus in the province of Moesia Superior, the modern day Nish in Serbia, on 27 February in either year 271, 272, or 273 AD. His father was a military officer named Constantius (later named Constantius Chlorus or Constantius I). His mother, a woman of humble background, was named Helena (later named St. Helena). It has been said that Constantius and Helena were not married. Having previously attained the rank of tribune, provincial governor, and probably praetorian prefect, Constantius, on March 1st, 293AD, was promoted to the rank of Caesar in the First Tetrarchy organized by Diocletian. On this occasion he was required to put aside Helena and marry Theodora, the daughter of Maximian. Upon the retirement of Diocletian and Maximian on May 1st, 305 AD, Constantius succeeded to the rank of Augustus. Constantine, meanwhile, had served with distinction under both Diocletian and Galerius in the east. Kept initially at the court of Galerius as a pledge of good conduct on his father's part, he was later allowed to join his father in Britain and assisted him in a campaign against the Picts. When Constantius died, on July 25th, 306, at Eburacum (York), Constantine was at his side. The soldiers at once proclaimed him Augustus. Constantine henceforth observed this day as his dies imperii. Having settled affairs in Britain swiftly, he returned to the Continent where the city of Augusta Treverorum (Trier) served as his principal residence for the next six years. There too, in 307 AD, he married Maximian's daughter Fausta putting away his mistress Minervina, who had born his first son, Crispus.

At the same time Constantine was proclaimed Augustus, the Senate and the Praetorian Guard in Rome had allied themselves with Maxentius, the son of Maximian. On October 28th, 306 AD they proclaimed him emperor in the lower rank of princeps initially, although he later claimed the rank of Augustus. Constantine and Maxentius, although they were brothers-in-law, did not trust each other. Their relationship was further complicated by their scheming and eventually by the death of Maximian in 310 AD. Open hostilities between the two rivals broke out in 312 AD and Constantine won a decisive victory in the famous Battle of the Milvian Bridge. This made Constantine and co-Emperor and brother in law, Licinius the sole rulers of the Roman Empire.

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

Believe it! Christianity owes its roots to the Macedonians. Almost every book I read that deals with Christianity mentions Macedonians as contributors to founding Christianity. Alexander the Great opened the way to discovering the various religions that existed in Asia, Africa and India. Macedonians pondered and debated whether or not the gods of various cultures were indeed the same gods by different names. Macedonians were among the first philosophers to put forth the idea of one God. Is this a revelation? No it is not! The answer has always been in front of us inside all those books including the Holy Bible.

What surprised me the most is how widespread the use of the Koine language was during the Roman period. Even the original New Testament was written in Koine and later translated to the various languages of the Christian world.

As I said before, the Koine language was the common language or lingua franca of the Mediterranean people, including the Macedonians. It did not exclusively belong to the Athenians or to any other group of people in the Greek peninsula. Koine was also spoken by Thracians, Illyrians, Bythinians, Carians, Phrygians, Armenians, Lydians, Galatians, Paphlagonians, Lycians, Syrians, Cilicians, Misians, Cappadocians, Egyptians, Italians, Romans, etc., etc, of whom none were Greek nor did they live in the Greek peninsula.

Just because the modern Greeks were the first to lay claim to the Koine language, as their own, it doesn't make it so. When modern Greece was created for the first time in 1829, no one spoke the Koine language. The modern Greek language is a modern invention based on the Koine and unsuccessfully on the Attic languages. In fact, before 1829 more than 90% of the population of the Greek peninsula spoke anything but Greek. Do the math! 

The people of western Greece spoke Squiptar (modern Albanian), the people of eastern Greece spoke Turkish, the people of northern Greece spoke Macedonian, the Pontics from Asia Minor who were brought into Greece by force during the 1920's spoke Turkish and the indigenous Vlachs spoke Vlach. It is well known that the Slav intruders that invaded the Greek peninsula down to the Peloponnesus during the early centuries and were assimilated among the Greeks during the 1830's, also did not speak Greek. Even the Cretans and Cypriots did not speak Greek before 1829.

So, who were the Greek speakers of 1829?


This is a question for those who claim that their precious Greek language was handed down to them from generation to generation from the ancient Greeks.

Give it up! 

References:

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje.

F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Atheneum New York, 1976

W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, John Rekos &amp; Co., Thessaloniki, 1980

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Holman, Philadelphia, 1952 

D. Fishwick, The Foundations of the West, Clark, Irwin &amp; Company, Toronto, 1963

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization Caesar and Christ, A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from the Beginnings to A.D. 325, Simon &amp; Shuster, Toronto, 1994.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 1991). 

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>0zv8po4nsblpdi4vp6uk85slz9irrgk</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Constantine I and the Triumph of Christianity</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2071</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11086</id>
      <parentid>7598</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:03Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="54217" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 14 - Constantine I and the Triumph of Christianity

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

During the year 313 AD, from the great imperial city of Milan, Emperor Constantine, together with his co-Emperor Licinius, dispatched a series of letters informing all provincial governors to stop persecuting the Christians, thus revoking all previous anti-Christian decrees. All properties, including Christian places of worship, seized from them in the past were to be restored. This so called &quot;Edict of Milan&quot;, by which the Roman Empire reversed its policy of hostility towards Christians, was one of the most decisive events in human history.

What brought on this sudden reversal?

Rational thinkers believed that Constantine had the foresight to realize that Christianity was a growing power and could be harnessed to work for the good of the empire. Christianity was a result of changing times and harnessing its power was of far greater benefit than following the current policy of attempting to destroy it.

Christianity at that time was disorganized and existed in cult form in sporadic pockets spread throughout the empire. Yet Constantine still had the foresight to see potential in it.

Christianity was a peripheral issue in Constantine's mind when he and his co-Emperor Licinius were about to face Maxentius and Maximin Daita in the greatest battle of their careers. It was at this decisive moment that Constantine experienced a vision which, not only changed his life but, was the turning point for Christianity.

In 312 AD, on the eve of the great battle, Constantine had an experience which swayed him towards Christianity. &quot;A little after noon, as the sun began to decline...[Constantine] declared that he saw with his own eyes in the sky beneath the sun a trophy in the shape of a cross made of light with the inscriptions 'by this conquer.' He was astounded by the spectacle, as were the soldiers who accompanied him on the march and saw the miraculous phenomenon...But when he fell asleep God's Christ appeared to him with the sign which he had seen in the sky and instructed him to fashion a likeness of the sign and use it as a protection in the encounters of war.&quot; (Page 167, D. Fishwick, The Foundations of the West, Clark, Irwin &amp; Company, Toronto, 1963).

I want to mention at this point that even though Constantine was swayed towards Christianity, he himself was personally devoted to Mars, the god of war, and Apollo, the god of the sun.

Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of &quot;the God of the Christians&quot; and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day forward.

Shortly after becoming involved with the Christians, Constantine discovered that there were many problems and a basic lack of unity within the Christian Church. Within the Christian realm there were those who took strict positions towards the behaviour of others because they had shown a lack of faith during the Christian persecutions. Yet others, like the Gnostics, had taken Jesus' message totally out of context. To work out these problems Constantine organized and chaired two synods, one in Rome in 313 AD and one in Arles, southern Gaul, in 314 AD. Even though much was accomplished there were still unresolved problems. Constantine could not get all parties to agree on a common Christian policy. Differences of opinion drove some factions to leave the main church and start separatist churches. One of these was the church of North Africa which possessed considerable power and resisted assimilation for over two centuries.

The Christian Church was not Constantine's only problem. There were difficulties with sharing power with his brother in law Licinius. The agreement of 313 AD, which had been born out of necessity not mutual good will, was beginning to unravel. Hostilities between the two emperors continued to build and erupted in 316 AD, in what later came to be known as the first war. Two battles were fought, the first at Cibalae in Pannonia and the second on the campus Ardiensis in Thrace. During the first battle Licinius's army suffered heavy losses. In the second battle neither side won a clear victory. A settlement was eventually reached which allowed Licinius to remain Augustus but required him to cede all of his European provinces, except for Thrace, to Constantine.

As part of the agreement with Licinius, Constantine announced the appointment of three Caesars on March 1st, 317 AD in Serdica (modern Sofia). Among the appointees were Constantine's two sons, twelve year old Crispus and seven month old Constantine. Licinius's twenty month old son Licinius was also named Caesar. Unfortunately the new agreement was fragile and tensions between the emperors were again surfacing. This was partly due to Constantine and Licinius not being able to agree on a common policy regarding the Christian religion and partly due to the suspicious nature of the two men. Licinius was growing uneasy with Constantine's relationship with the Christian power base. He saw Christians being promoted above their pagan counterparts and Christian soldiers getting the day off on Sunday. Furthermore a growing list of favours, powers and immunities were being granted to Christians, with which Licinius did not agree.

War erupted again in 324 AD and this time Constantine defeated Licinius twice, first at Adrianople in Thrace and then at Chrysopolis on the Bosporus near the ancient city of Byzantium. Licinius was captured but not executed because Constantine's sister, Constantia, pleaded with him to spare her husband's life. Some months later however, still suspicious of Licinius, Constantine ordered his execution. Not too long afterwards, the younger Licinius too fell victim to Constantine's suspicions and was also executed. Constantine was now the sole and undisputed master of the Roman Empire.

Immediately after his victory over Licinius in 324 AD, Constantine began the construction of his new capital, the &quot;City of Constantine&quot;. This would be a Christian city fit for Kings that would not only rival, but would surpass the glory of Rome.

Power was where the Emperor was, and the Emperor was now in his own city in the hub of activity just at the edge of Greece.It was a purely a Greek city, it had the elements of Greek culture and tradition. It was a very un-Roman city in language and culture and not only imitated the Greek cities of Alexandria and Antioch but with time surpassed their cultural and academic achievements. Constantinople was going to be the power base of a new empire, a revival of Alexander the Great's Greek empire with a Christian twist. &quot;This 'Eastern' or Byzantine empire is generally spoken of as if it were a continuation of the Roman tradition. It is really far more like a resumption of Alexander's Hellenic empire.&quot; (Page 478, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961).[http://books.google.com/books?lr=&amp;hl=el&amp;id=JnJDNNw1e6IC&amp;dq=The+Outline+of+History+H.G.+Wells&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;sig=ACfU3U3CxASdmTEtBHRQFNW_m-QuCDi-DQ&amp;q=resumption#PPA478,M1]

While Constantine was building his new city, his mother Helena undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and was instrumental in the building of the Churches of the Nativity at Bethlehem and Eleona on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives.

On November 8th, 324 AD Constantine formally laid out the boundaries of his new city, roughly quadrupling the territory of old Byzantium. While his architects were designing his new city, Constantine and his army, numbering about 120,000 troops, were established in Thessaloniki. Even before moving to Thessaloniki in 324 AD, Constantine had the old Thessaloniki harbour renovated and expanded to fit his fleet of 200 triakondores galleons and about 2,000 merchant ships.

By 328 AD the walls of Constantinopel were completed and the new city was formally ready for dedication in May 330 AD. Soon after the city was opened, Constantine ordered the construction of two major churches, Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) and Hagia Eirena (Holy Peace) and began laying the foundation of a third church, the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Unlike Rome, which was filled with pagan monuments and institutions, Constantinople was essentially a Christian city with Christian churches and institutions. While Constantinople was shaping to be a Christian city, the prevailing character of Constantine's government was one of conservatism. His adoption of Christianity did not lead to a radical reordering of society or to a systematic revision of the legal system. Generally refraining from sweeping innovations, he retained and completed most of what Diocletian had set out to do, especially in provincial administration and army organization.

While implementing currency reforms, Constantine instituted a new type of coin, the gold solidus, which won wide acceptance and remained the standard currency for centuries to come. Some of Constantine's measures show a genuine concern for the welfare and morality of his subjects, even for the condition of slaves. By entrusting some government functions to the Christian clergy he actually made the church an agency of the imperial government. Constantine also showed great concern for the security of his empire, especially at the frontiers. Even though he made Constantinople his capital, Thessaloniki still remained a pole around which his empire was defended. Because of its secure harbour, Thessaloniki flourished economically and experienced much cultural growth.

Constantine campaigned successfully from 306 to 308 AD and again from 314 to 315 AD. He experienced action on the German frontier in 332 AD against the Goths and again in 334 AD against the Sarmatians. He even fought near his homeland in 336 AD on the Danube frontier. As he was getting of age, Constantine made arrangements for his succession and appointed to the position of Caesars, his three sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, 317 AD, 324 AD, and 333 AD respectively. He then appointed his nephew Flavius Dalmatius, son of Constantius I and Theodora, Caesar in 335 AD. Unfortunately he never made it clear which of his successors was intended to take the leading role upon his death.

Between the years 325 and 337 AD, Constantine continued to support the Christian Church by donating generous gifts of money and by passing helpful legislation. His kindness to the Christians was not restricted to the city of Constantinople alone. He also founded the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Golden Octagon in Antioch. Even with all his kindness Constantine was not spared misfortune and shortly after Easter on April 3rd, 337 AD Constantine began to feel ill. He traveled to Drepanum, later named Helenopolis in honour of his mother, and prayed at the tomb of his mother's favourite saint, the martyr Lucian. From there he went to the suburbs of Nicomedia where he was baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. A few weeks later on May 22nd, the day of Pentecost, Constantine died. His body was escorted to Constantinople and lay in state in the imperial palace. His sarcophagus was then placed in the Church of the Holy Apostles, as he himself had instructed in his will. His sarcophagus was surrounded by the memorial steles of the Twelve Apostles, symbolically making him the thirteenth Apostle.

Constantine's failure to specifically appoint his successor sparked a conflict among the Caesars in the palace. After eliminating Flavius Dalmatius and other rivals in a bloody coup, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans each assumed the rank of Augustus. Constantine's army, faithful from the day they crowned him until his death, vowed they would have no other but his sons to rule them. The army, in a violent bloodbath, killed everyone who did not qualify, including two of Constantine's half brothers. The only ones to escape were two of his nephews, Gallus and Julian.

At this point I would like to take a short diversion and examine what was happening throughout the empire.

As I mentioned earlier, while the Roman Empire was decaying, Germanic tribes were growing in strength and pressing from the north. Around 236 AD the Franks were descending upon the lower Rhine and the Alamanni were overrunning Alsace in France. Earlier I mentioned the Goths from southern Russia were overrunning the Black Sea pouring into the Aegean and attacking the province of Ducia.

By late third century most barbarian invasions were repealed but not entirely destroyed. During 321 AD the Goths were again plundering what is now Serbia and Bulgaria but were soon driven back by Constantine I. Then in 337 AD, pressed by the Goths, the Vandals were permitted to cross the Danube and enter Pannonia, part of modern day Hungary (west of the Danube). By the mid-fourth century the Hunnish people to the east were again building up forces and pressing on the Visigoths. The Visigoths, following the Vandal example, also entered Roman territory. But before any agreements could be reached they attacked Andrianople and killed the Emperor Valens. In spite of their violent ways the Visigoths were allowed to settle in what is now Bulgaria. Their settlement was conditional however, requiring their armies to submit to Roman rule. Each army was allowed to remain in the command of its own chief.

The major players in the barbarian armies of the time were Alaric of the Visigoths, Stilicho of the Pannonian Vandals and a Frank who commanded the legions of Gaul. Emperor Theodosius, a Spaniard, was in command of the Gothic auxiliaries. The true power, however, was in the hands of Alaric and Stilicho the two barbarian competitors who wasted no time in splitting the empire between themselves. Alaric took control of the eastern Greek speaking half and Stilicho took the western Latin speaking half.

At about the same time the empire was being split in two, the Huns appeared on the scene and began to enlist in Stilicho's army. Frequent clashes between east and west began to weaken the empire and opened the door for more barbarian invasions. Fresh Vandals, more Goths, Alans and Suevi all began to penetrate the frontiers of the empire. In 410 AD, amidst the confusion, Alaric marched down Italy capturing Rome after a short siege. By 425 AD the Vandals, of present day East Germany, and the Alani, of present day southeast Russia, overran Gaul and the Pyrenees and had settled in the southern regions of modern day Spain. The Huns were in possession of Pannonia and the Goths of Dalmatia. Around 451 AD the Czechs settled in Moravia and Bohemia. The Visigoths and Suevi, in the meantime, pressed their way westwards and ended up north of the Vandals in present day Portugal. Gaul meanwhile was divided between the Visigoths, Franks and Burgundians.

By 449 AD present day Britain was invaded by the Jutes, a Germanic tribe, the Angles and the Saxons who in turn were pushing out the Keltic British to what is now modern Brittany in France. The Vandals from south of Spain had crossed over into North Africa by 429 AD, occupied Carthage by 439 AD, and invaded, raided and pillaged Rome by 455 AD. After ransacking Italy they crossed into Sicily and set up a Vandal kingdom which lasted up to 534 AD. At its peak, which was around 477 AD, the Vandal kingdom occupied North Africa, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles. The Vandal kingdom was ruled by a handful of Vandals whose Vandal population numbered no more than eighty thousand men, women and children. The rest of the population consisted of passive non-Vandals who, under the Vandal occupation, found relief from the Roman burden of slavery and taxation. The Vandals had in effect exterminated the great landowners, wiped clean all debts to Roman moneylenders and abolished military service.

While the Vandals ruled the western Mediterranean, a great leader Attila was consolidating his power among the Huns east of the Danube. At its peak, Attila's empire of Hunnish and Germanic tribes stretched from the Rhine to central Asia. Attila was said to be the first westerner to negotiate on equal terms with the Chinese emperor.

For ten years, while he was passionately in love with Emperor Theodosius II's granddaughter Honoria, Attila bullied Ravenna and Constantinople. During his rule, Attila destroyed seventy cities, some of them in Macedonia, and came upon the walls of Constantinople forcing an uneasy peace on the emperor. The peace treaty however, in spite of her disappointment, did not include Honoria. Even though Honoria voluntarily offered to marry Attila, the emperor would not allow it. Attila was not disappointed.

In 451 AD Attila declared war on the Western Empire and invaded Gaul sacking most of the French cities down to south of Orleans. Just as Attila was ravaging Gaul, the Frank, Visigoth and imperial armies joined forces for a counter offensive. Before the year was over Attila's army was cut off at Troyes and the Mongolian overlord was forced out of France. Beaten but not destroyed Attila turned his attention southward, overrunning northern Italy, burning Aquileia and Padua, and looting Milan. Attila died in 453 AD and subsequently the Huns dissolved into the surrounding population and disappeared from history.

In 493 AD, after seventeen years without an emperor, Theodoric, a Goth, became King of Rome thus putting an end to the rule of god-Caesars and rich men. The Roman imperial system of western Europe and north Africa collapsed and ceased to exist. The Roman had come and gone but what remained was no longer Roman. The west, for almost five hundred years after its fall, experienced a period of decline, which later became known as the Dark Ages.

Out of the ashes of the Roman Empire rose a new empire known as the &quot;Eastern&quot; or &quot;Byzantine&quot; Empire. Many would agree that this was the revival or re-birth of Alexander the Great's old Hellenic empire. Some even called it the &quot;stump&quot; of Alexander the Great's empire.

Along with the re-birth of the Hellenic Empire, the Koine Greek language resurfaced and took its rightful place not only as the language of the intellectuals but also as the language of administration. The Latin language had neither the intellectual vigour nor the literature or science necessary to captivate intelligent men and women. Ever since its humble beginning the new empire was Greek speaking, a continuation of the Greek-Macedonian tradition.(pages 519,520,522, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961)[http://books.google.com/books?lr=&amp;hl=el&amp;id=JnJDNNw1e6IC&amp;dq=The+Outline+of+History+H.G.+Wells&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;sig=ACfU3U3CxASdmTEtBHRQFNW_m-QuCDi-DQ&amp;q=resumption#PPA519,M1] [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&amp;hl=el&amp;id=JnJDNNw1e6IC&amp;dq=The+Outline+of+History+H.G.+Wells&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;sig=ACfU3U3CxASdmTEtBHRQFNW_m-QuCDi-DQ&amp;q=resumption#PPA520,M1] [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&amp;hl=el&amp;id=JnJDNNw1e6IC&amp;dq=The+Outline+of+History+H.G.+Wells&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;sig=ACfU3U3CxASdmTEtBHRQFNW_m-QuCDi-DQ&amp;q=resumption#PPA522,M1]It seems that Latin even lost its way in the west only to be replaced by the languages of the barbarians. While the Roman social and political structure was being smashed in the west, the east was embracing a renewed Greek tradition. Some say Constantine the Great may have been a Greek (page 450, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961)[http://books.google.com/books?lr=&amp;hl=el&amp;id=JnJDNNw1e6IC&amp;dq=The+Outline+of+History+H.G.+Wells&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;sig=ACfU3U3CxASdmTEtBHRQFNW_m-QuCDi-DQ&amp;q=constantine+#PPA450,M1] but it is more appropriate to say that he was half Illyrian half Greek, building a new Hellenic empire and following in the footsteps of his ancestors.

As I mentioned earlier, after Constantine's death his three sons inherited the rule of the empire. The west was to be shared between the eldest and youngest sons, Constantine II and Constans, while the middle son Constantius was to rule the east. Unhappy with the arrangement, a conflict broke out in 340 AD between Constantine II and Constans, resulting in Constantine II's death. After that Constans assumed sole rule of the west until he was deposed and executed by his own troops in 350 AD.

After Constans's death the army recognized one of its own officers. But in 351 AD the usurper's authority was challenged in battle and he was defeated. After that Constantius remained the sole ruler of the entire empire.

While Constantius set out west to personally deal with the usurper, he appointed his young cousin, Gallus, guardian of the east. Gallus unfortunately turned out to be a terrible ruler and quickly fell out of favour. After three years of rule Constantius had him executed.

In 355 AD, before embarking on an eastern campaign, Constantius recalled his last surviving cousin Julian and appointed him guardian of the west to defend the western frontier against the Franks and Alamans. Before sending him off, however, he had him married off to his sister Helena.

Unlike his brother Gallus, Julian was good at his job and in his five years of service he cleansed the western provinces of intruders and improved the western economy. Unfortunately, Julian was exceeding expectations and made Constantius uneasy. To alleviate his concerns, Constantius made an attempt to remove Julian but his effort failed. Julian was a great leader and the army in Gaul refused to give him up. In February 360 AD, with total disregard for Constantius's orders, the army in Gaul proclaimed Julian, Augustus. After some hesitation Julian accepted the position. Fortunately Constantius died before he attempted to remove him.

Having no capable heir to replace himself with, on his deathbed in 361 AD, Constantius appointed Julian his successor. Julian accepted the position and reigned as sole Augustus until June 363 AD.

Constantius was anti-pagan and introduced policies to exterminate pagan cults. Julian, on the other hand, was tolerant of all religions, especially Mithraism and encouraged all sorts of religious practices. In 356 AD, when Constantius was sole ruler of the empire, he decreed the death penalty for all those found sacrificing or worshiping idols. Julian, on the other hand, not only repealed the discriminatory decree but also removed Christians from office and discontinued the provision of subsidies for Christian projects including those for welfare. He even took a step further and proclaimed open and all-inclusive tolerance of all religions in the empire. Julian may have been a visionary but unfortunately he was ahead of his time. His policies of tolerance not only didn't work but conflicts between the various religions began to erupt.

One of Julian's accomplishments during his rule was the reformation of the Empire's educational system. He was responsible for widening the scope of subjects taught, made requirements that all teachers be licensed and forbade Christians to teach in state schools. Unfortunately for Julian, Christianity by now was so well rooted in his empire that many of his reforms were ignored. On the positive side, however, Julian initiated a number of great construction projects, including the massive fortification of the walls of Solun.

Julian died on June 26th, 363 AD from a spear wound during a campaign against the Persians in Asia. Julian was the last male of the house of Constantine. Due to his sudden death he had made no provisions for a successor. It was now up to the senior officers of his army to select the new ruler.

The man who accepted the call to duty was a young officer named Jovian, a Nicaean Christian. Flavius Jovianus (Jovian) was born in 331 AD at Singidunum, near modern day Belgrade. Jovian's first priority was to return Christianity to the empire, thus ending paganism and the religious rivalries introduced by Julian's reforms.

Nicaea was located in Bithynia in modern day northwestern Turkey and was an important city for Christianity. It was in Nicaea that Constantine I, in 325 AD, gathered a council to settle disputes caused by the &quot;Arian views&quot; of the Trinity.

Arius was an Alexandrian priest who believed that Christ was not of the same essence as God. After some deliberation the council disagreed with Arius's views. Instead they adopted what came to be known as the &quot;Nicene Creed&quot; which declared that &quot;Christ and God were of the same essence&quot;. Among other things, the Nicaean council also decided when Easter was to be celebrated and summarized a number of important articles regarding the Christian faith.

Even under the powerful defense of the Constantine dynasty, which lasted approximately 70 years from 293 AD to 363 AD, the eastern empire was not immune to attacks. Earlier in this document I gave a preview of what happened in the western part of the empire, now let us turn our attention to the east.

Long before the Constantine dynasty came to power, while the Roman Empire was experiencing decay, the Persian Empire began to experience a revival. Iran became the Parthian center of culture, first under the Arsacids and later under the Sassanids. Around 241 AD Sassanian forces, under the leadership of Shapur, defeated the Kushan Empire. After a number of campaigns an Iranian dynasty once again came to rule the lands as far east as Indus. Not long after seizing Iran, Shapur's armies crossed into the Caucasus and seized Armenia, Georgia and Albania (north of modern day Azerbaijan).

After his successes in Asia, Shapur turned his attention westward and attacked Antioch. The city defenses turned out to be more formidable than expected and a stalemate was reached. To end the stalemate, Shapur, in 244 AD, was bribed by the Romans to stop the siege. The prize for Shapur's withdrawal was accession of Armenia and Mesopotamia.

Dissatisfied with what he considered &quot;small gains&quot;, Shapur tried again in 256 AD and this time snatched Antioch from the Romans. The city was taken by surprise and ransacked by Sassanian troops. Captives were carried off and resettled in various parts of Iran. Soon after the sacking, Emperor Valerian paid a visit to Antioch only to find the beautiful city in ruins, occupied by Iranian troops. The city was retaken by the Romans but before they had a chance to rebuild it, Shapur struck and took it again in 260 AD. In the process he shattered the Roman army of seventy thousand troops and captured Valerian. Luckily, Valerian had allies in Palmyra who came to his rescue. Even though they came too late to save Valerian, the Syrian and Arab troops attacked the Sassanian army inflicting on them considerable damage. After their defeat the Sassanians were kept in check by the Romans in the west and by the Palmyrans in the east.

While the Sassanians were kept down, the Romans slowly re-took Armenia through appointments of pro-Roman rulers to the Armenian throne. But that did not last long. After Shapur's death, his son Shapur II ceded the Sassanian throne and a new round of hostilities commenced that would last from 338 to 363 AD.

Trouble started when Shapur II, dethroned the Roman installed king of Armenia. Unhappy about the incident, Constantine reacted by making threatening statements about the power of his new Christian God, which provoked Shapur to take revenge on Christians in the Sassanian Empire.

Jovian finally brought the hostilities to an end after Julian's death. Unfortunately the price for peace was costly. Jovian had to give back the trans-Tigrine provinces which Diocletian seized earlier. He also had to concede a large portion of northern Mesopotamia, including the fortress of Nisibis, and the Roman claim to Armenia back to Shapur. If that was not enough, the cities of Singara and Nisibis were also surrendered to Shapur. For all these concessions all Shapur had to do was allow safe passage for the fleeing inhabitants of the cities and guarantee the neutrality of the pro-Roman king of Armenia.

Jovian died at the age of thirty-two on February 17th, 364 AD at Dadastana on the boundary between Bithynia and Galatia. His death was most probably due to natural causes. Some attributed it to overeating.

Was Jovian another Greek, or should I say Byzantine? Although official history does not record him as one, considering his name and where he was born, he could have easily been one.

At this point I would like to take another short diversion and present a famous figure of this era that is not only popular in Greece, but is famous worldwide.

To the Christians he is known by several names including Saint Nicholas, Sinter Klaus and Santa Claus. No one is certain when he was born but it was sometime in the middle of the fourth century. St. Nicholas was probably a native of Patara in Lycia, Asia Minor. There are far more legends about his miraculous good deeds than there are clear details about his life.

Nicholas, during his early career, was a monk in the monastery of Holy Zion near Myra and was eventually made Abbot by the founding Archbishop. When the See of Myra, the capital of Lycia, fell vacant Nicholas was appointed Archbishop. It is said that he suffered for his Christian Faith under Emperor Diocletian and was present at the Council of Nicaea as an opponent of Aryanism.

St. Nicholas is celebrated on December 6th the day he died and his soul entered Heaven. But most western countries today combine St. Nicholas's day with that of gift giving and celebrate both days together at Christmas.

The most famous story told about St. Nicholas has to do with three young sisters who were very poor. Their parents were so poor that they did not have enough money to provide for marriages. In those days, every young girl needed money for a dowry, to pay for her wedding and to set up house. Nicholas heard of this poor family and wanted to help but he did not want his involvement known. There are several versions to this story, but in one version, Nicholas climbed up the roof three nights in a row and threw gold coins down the chimney hoping that they would land in the girls' stockings, which had been hung by the fire to dry. As a result of the mysterious donations appearing in the stockings two nights in a row, two of the three girls had enough money to get married. Curious as to who the benefactor was, the next night the girls' father hid behind the chimney in wait. To his surprise, along came Bishop Nicholas with another bag of money. Nicholas did not want to be identified and begged the father not to tell anyone. But the father was so grateful for the good deeds that he could not hold back and told everyone what a good and generous man Bishop Nicholas was. This is how the story and later the tradition of gift giving and the stuffing of stockings started.

Nicholas, as a young man, studied in Alexandria, Egypt. While on one of his voyages during a storm, he saved the life of a sailor who fell from the ship's rigging. His actions earned him the title Patron Saint of Sailors. During another encounter he miraculously rescued some young boys from a vat of brine, thereby becoming the patron of schoolboys. The characteristic virtue of St. Nicholas, however, appears to have been for his love and charity to the poor. Because of this and the many legends surrounding his work, St. Nicholas is regarded as the special patron of seafarers, scholars, bankers, pawnbrokers, jurists, brewers, coopers, travelers, perfumers, unmarried girls, brides, and robbers. But most of all he is the very special saint of children.

Around 540 AD, Emperor Justinian built a church at Constantinople in the suburb of Blacharnae in St. Nicholas's honor. History and legend are intertwined in the story of Nicholas's life and he has been widely honoured as a saint since the sixth century. No less than 21 &quot;miracles&quot; have been attributed to him. Nicholas died at Myra in 342 AD.

After Jovian's sudden death in 364 AD a number of leading Imperial officials met in Nicaea to select a new emperor. After some deliberation a forty-three-year-old officer of the Imperial bodyguard named Valentinian was chosen. Valentinian, whose full name was Flavius Valentinianus, was a devout Christian born in 321 AD at Cibalis (modern Vinkovci) in southern Pannonia (perhaps another Greek?). Valentinian was not of noble blood and had risen through the ranks to become a great general. He had no great education but did have a bad temper and contempt for those with education. During his reign he was a competent soldier who took some interest in the administration but was overly trusting of his subordinates.

As soon as Valentinian was proclaimed emperor the army demanded that he select a co-emperor. By now it had become apparent that the empire could not be ruled by a single man. To help him rule his huge empire Valentinian appointed his younger brother Valens, emperor of the east. Although this was not the first time that co-emperors reigned over the empire, this would be the beginning of a permanent separation. Three decades later East and West would briefly be reunited under the leadership of Emperor Theodosius. Upon Theodosius's death, in 395 AD, the empire would again be divided between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. From this time forward the division would be permanent and East and West would be ruled separately.

In 367 AD Valentinian suffered a serious illness. After his recovery he learned that discussions had been taking place as to who might succeed him. To be safe Valentinian had his eight year-old son, Gratian, proclaimed Augustus.

Valentinian spent 365 to 375 AD in Trier where he conducted a number of campaigns against the Alamanni. In November 375 AD, enraged by offensive remarks made by some barbarian envoys, Valentinian died of a stroke. His associates, fearing mistreatment at the hands of Gratian's advisors, proclaimed Valentinian's four-year-old younger son Valentinian II, Augustus. Even though Gratian and Valens had no desire to see Valentinian II made Augustus, they agreed to allow him to rule Italy, Africa and Illyricum.

While Valens was occupied in Syria throughout the early 370s AD, keeping an eye on the Persians, a crisis was developing in the northern frontiers and war erupted. The Goths crossed the Danube in 376 AD, which I mentioned earlier, attacked Adrianople and killed Emperor Valens.

After Valens' disastrous defeat in 378 AD, Gratian appointed Theodosius emperor in the east. Theodosius' father was executed for having fallen out of favour with Valentinian I. In spite of that, Theodosius graciously accepted the job and immediately began to put his military talents to good use strengthening the East. Theodosius chose Solun as his base from which to wage war against the Goths.

On the western front in 383 AD, British troops, led by Magnus Maximus, rebelled and invaded Gaul. Unprepared to meet this threat Gratian's soldiers deserted him. Gratian was not very popular with his troops because he preferred to hunt and participate in sports over leading his men into battle. Unable to escape, Gratian was caught by Maximus in Lugdunum (Lyons) on August 25th, 383 AD and was murdered by Maximus's troops.

After Gratian's death, Valentinian II (Gratian's half brother) should have inherited the entire western half of the empire. Unfortunately, he was no more than a nominal ruler and allowed Magnus Maximus to exist. Italy was all he had and even there the real power was held by his mother Justina.

In 387 AD Maximus invaded Italy, forcing Justina and Valentinian to flee. Mother and son sought refuge in Solun with Theodosius where a counter force was put together which attached and defeated Maximus. Unfortunately Maximus's defeat cost Justina her life.

Valentinian II returned to Italy but quickly fell under the influence of his Frankish General, Arbogastes. Arbogastes was a treacherous man who slowly replaced all of Valentinian's important officers and government officials with his own loyal men. When Valentinian attempted to oust him, Arbogastes had him assassinated.

After Valentinian's death, Arbogastes placed Eugenius, a popular pagan philosopher, on the throne. His actions unfortunately did not sit well with Theodosius who, in 394 AD, sent his army to deal with Arbogastes. The two armies met in the passes of the Julian Alps near the river Frigidus. Theodosius decimated the army and captured and killed Eugenius. A few days later Arbogastes committed suicide.

With the removal of Eugenius and Arbogastes, Theodosius assumed control of the entire empire. Flavius Theodosius was born in Cauca, Spain in about 346 AD. As I mentioned earlier, Gratian appointed him emperor of the east in 378 AD.

Theodosius left his legacy in Macedonia in 390 AD when he massacred seven thousand Solunian civilians. As the story goes, while in Solun the local garrison, consisting mainly of Goths, was in bad favour with the Solunian citizens and during a riot a number of Goth officers were murdered and their bodies abused. Unhappy about the situation, Theodosius retaliated by sending yet another Gothic garrison to the city. During one of the chariot races the hippodrome gates were suddenly shut so no one could escape and the Goth soldiers took their revenge, murdering the spectators in cold blood.

When Ambrose, one of the high ranking bishops, found out about the massacre he was outraged and excommunicated the emperor, denying him access to the church for some months. Such a spectacle was unprecedented and for the first time an Emperor was under the control of a Bishop. After that Theodosius was totally under the thrall of Ambrose and ordered a full-scale assault on pagan practices. In 391AD the law banned all sacrifices, public and private, and all pagan temples were officially closed. Then in 392 AD all forms of pagan religious worship were formally prohibited everywhere in the empire.

Theodosius died on January 17, 395 AD leaving the empire to his two sons. The older son Arcadius was left in charge of the east and the younger, Honorius, was left in charge of the west. Unlike previous divisions where power was shared, this division was decisive and permanent. The accession of Arcadius and Honorius is widely viewed as the final division of the empire into two completely separate parts. Thus 395 AD was the official birth of what later came to be known as the 'Byzantine Empire' or as the Byzantines came to call it, the 'Roman Empire' (Romaiki Aftokratoria).

When Arcadius was made Emperor he was too young to rule alone so Flavius Rufinus his guardian, a praetorian prefect of the east, held the reins of power. Similarly, at his accession Honorius was only twelve years old so Theodosius had appointed Stilicho, as guardian to watch over matters of state for him. While Rufinus was the strong man in the east and Stilicho effectively controlled the west, both men were highly ambitious and unscrupulous.

Rivalries between the two men began to surface when Stilicho made claims that he too was asked by the late Theodosius to guard, at least in part, over Arcadius's affairs. The conflicting claims most certainly implied that the possibility for cooperation between the two rivals was diminishing and the two powers behind the thrones were headed on a collision course.

The inevitable happened when the Visigoths, who were settled along the Danube under the leadership of Alaric, rebelled. The barbarians smashed their way through the Balkans into Macedonia devastating all that was in their path. Stilicho, under the pretext of wanting to help the eastern empire, intervened and marched his troops into Macedonia. He did back off and withdrew when ordered by Rufinus, but not before leaving him a present.

During his withdrawal Stilicho left behind a few legions, commanded by a Gothic general named Gainas, with orders to deliver the troops to the Eastern Empire. As the troops marched into Constantinople Rufinus came out to greet them. Instead of extending their hands, the soldiers extended their swords and stabbed Rufinus to death. This was a gift from Stilicho to Rufinus for meddling in Stilicho's affairs. Unfortunately, this incident did irreparable damage to the relations between east and west.

With Rufinus dead and the Visigoths still rampaging Macedonia, Constantinople formally requested assistance from Stilicho. But in 397 AD when Stilicho was making his way into Macedonia, Alaric and his Visigoths disappeared. Stilicho's failure to remove the troublesome Goths forced Constantinople to negotiate directly with the barbarians. Alaric agreed to stop his aggressions and for his cooperation was made 'Master of Soldiers' in Macedonia and the Balkans.

It was unclear whether Alaric evaded Stilicho or Stilicho intentionally allowed Alaric to escape but Stilicho's failure to capture him cast suspicions that would have future consequences.

The real champion of the east turned out to be a woman named Eudoxia (Arcadius's wife) who mustered enough strength and repelled the Visigoth hostilities away from Constantinople . After her success, the strong-minded Eudoxia appointed herself to the rank of Augusta and ruled until she died of a miscarriage in 404 AD. Before dying she made sure her one-year old son Theodosius II was elevated to the rank of Augustus.

Four years later in 408 AD Arcadius died of natural causes leaving his empire to his son Theodosius II.

Stilicho was accused of plotting with Alaric to depose Honorius and for elevating his own son, Eucherius, to emperor of the west. A staged mutiny by his troops in 408 AD forced Stilicho to surrender and Honorius had him executed.

With Stilicho out of the way, Alaric marched on Rome and on August 24th, 410 AD he and his Visigoths sacked the city for three days until there was nothing left. Alaric died at Consentia in 410 AD.

It is my intention from here on to focus only on events that are relevant to the Eastern Empire and to Macedonia.

Even though Theodosius II succeeded his father without any violence, he was still an infant and the regency of Constantinople fell to a praetorian prefect named Anthemius. Anthemius was a competent leader and not only averted a food crisis in Constantinople but also established good relations with the west, repelled the Hun invasions from the north and confirmed peace with the Persians and with the cities along the Danube. Anthemius also made sure Macedonia and the Balkans were given enough aid to help them recover from the Goth devastations.

The sacking of Rome by the barbarians was a wakeup call for Anthemius who took extensive measures to make sure the same did not happen to Constantinople . So in 413 AD a major project was undertaken to build what was appropriately named the great 'Wall of Theodosius', which encircled the city beyond the original Wall of Constantine.

In 414 AD Theodosius II claimed his regency from Anthemius and proclaimed his fifteen-year-old sister Aelia Pulcheria, Augusta. Then in 416 AD when Theodosius II was fifteen years old, in his own right, he was declared ruler of Constantinople . Pulcheria continued to play a part in Theodosius's government but only as an administrator. Theodosius II was Augustus for forty-nine years and ruled the Byzantine Empire for forty-two years. This was the longest reign in the history of the empire. Theodosius II died in 450 AD from a spinal injury after falling off his horse while riding near the river Lycus.

The most memorable accomplishment in Theodosius's career was the 'Theodosian Code' which was published in 438 AD. The Code, made up of sixteen books which took eight years to put together, was a compilation of imperial edicts stretching back to over a century. After the Code's publication, a university was founded in Constantinople to teach philosophy, law and theology from a Christian perspective.

In 447 and 448 AD Constantinople experienced a number of earthquakes which destroyed most of the city, including large parts of the city walls and coastal defenses. Through the great efforts of its citizens repairs to the walls were made in haste and soon afterwards new walls with ninety-two towers were added between the repaired wall and the moat. The result was the famous 'triple defense' which repelled invaders and kept the city safe for another millennium.

After Theodosius II's death, the imperial succession was again thrown open to question for the first time in over sixty years. Theodosius left no heir except for his daughter Licinia Eodoxia who had married his cousin Valentinian III. There were, however, rumours that at his deathbed Theodosius willed Marcian, one of his aids, to be his heir. Some believe this story was a product of after the fact propaganda. Whatever the case, Aspar, a high ranking general, engineered Marcian's appointment with the help of Theodosius's sister, Pulcheria Augusta.

In any case, on August 25th, 450 AD Pulcheria was the one who gave Marcian the imperial diadem.

An Illyrian by birth, Marcian was born in 392 AD. He served as a tribune in 421 AD and fought against the Persians but due to illness he never took part in any actual battles. After this assignment, he served for fifteen years as a personal assistant to general Aspar.

Marcian's reign almost immediately began with a change in policy toward Attila and the Huns. In his last years, as I mentioned earlier, Theodosius II had given up fighting the Huns. To appease them and stop their attacks he had resorted to paying them huge indemnities. Shortly after his coronation, however, the new emperor refused to pay the Huns. Not surprisingly, Marcian's decision was supported by the city's aristocracy, which had been strongly opposed to paying indemnities. At the same time, Attila was too absorbed in imperial politics to deal with Marcian and before he could refocus his attention on the east, he died. Soon after his death his empire disintegrated. Marcian then quickly formed alliances with those peoples previously under Hun domination, including the Ostrogoths, and thwarted the Hun re-emergence. The remaining Huns were allowed to settle in Pannonia, Thrace and Illyricum and over time assimilated in the local populations.

Marcian, the last emperor of the House of Theodosius, died of gangrene in his feet in January 457 AD at age 65. He was buried in the Church of the Apostles next to his wife Pulcheria. He left no heirs to succeed him.

After Marcian's death, his son-in-law Anthemius was the most likely candidate for the throne, however, he did not have support from general Aspar. Aspar decreed that emperors should be chosen by the army, in the Roman tradition, and recommended Leo as the next candidate. Aspar's commanders dared not reject his choice and Leo was crowned emperor by the patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius. Leo, born in 401 AD, was a Thracian by birth.

Even though Leo was emperor, the real power remained in the hands of Aspar, at least for the next six or seven years. Emperor Leo fond of his grandson, Leo, by his daughter Ariadne, had him raised to the rank of Augustus in October of 473 AD. Shortly afterwards Emperor Leo fell ill and died. He was succeeded by his six year old Grandson Leo II in January 474 AD. Leo II's father Zeno was regent at the time but about a month after Leo's death, Zeno raised himself to the rank of co-emperor. Then within a span of less than a year, young Leo II died. There were rumours that Zeno murdered his son to take away the throne.

Zeno was a Rosoumbladian from the province of Isauria in southeastern Asia Minor. Not long after his son's death, Zeno's misdeeds caught up with him. When he was investigated as a suspect in the murder of his son, other misdeeds surfaced. He was implicated in the executions of general Aspar and Aspar's son.

To avoid being prosecuted, Zeno fled Constantinople  and went back to Isauria. In Zeno's absence, the senate chose a new emperor by the name of Basiliscus. Basiliscus was Emperor Leo's brother-in-law. Basiliscus, as it turned out, was even less popular than Zeno especially since he elevated his wife Aelia Zenonis to Augusta, his older son Marcus to Caesar and co-emperor, and his younger sons Leo and Zeno to Caesars. Another reason for his deep unpopularity was his open favouritism towards the Christian Monophysite creed. To the people of Constantinople  this was heresy.

Basiliscus also fell out of favour with the powerful 'Master of Soldiers', Theodoric Strabo. Against Strabo's advice, Basiliscus promoted a notorious playboy named Armatus to the rank of Master of Soldier. Apparently Armatus was the empress's lover. As a result, one of his more powerful Isaurian generals named Illus, who had originally been party to the plot against Zeno, tired of Basiliscus's blunders left Constantinople  to rejoin Zeno. Without the army's support, Basiliscus was virtually finished. At about the same time, Zeno felt the moment was right to leave exile and on August 476 AD marched on Constantinople  unopposed. His first order of business was to exile Basiliscus, his wife and sons to Cucusus in Cappadocia, where they starved to death.

Zeno's reign lasted until 491 AD. During his rule, among other things, Constantinople  experienced a four year Ostrogoth siege. The Balkans, including Macedonia, were ravaged repeatedly and depopulated by onslaughts of war upon war. Zeno left no obvious heir but Ariadne, Zeno's wife, recommended the position be given to Anastasius. Anastasius was an experienced official of the highest character and a credible man universally respected in the empire. He did his best to calm the theological animosities between the orthodox and the monophysite Christians. He built a great defensive wall fifty miles long along the Danube frontier to hold barbarian incursions in check. He also disbanded and sent home the troublesome Isaurian troops, who had made themselves very unpopular in his capital.

Anastasius died in 518 AD, well respected and with a full treasury. Anastasius did not leave an heir to the throne so once again it was up to the military to make the next choice. Being in the right place at the right time and having a lot of friends was all that Justin needed to get into politics. In spite of the fact that he was illiterate and probably more than 80 years old, Justin was elected emperor in 518 AD. Justin's reign is significant for the founding of a dynasty that included his eminent nephew Justinian I.

Justin was born in 435 AD, the son of an Illyrian farmer. Justin joined the army to escape poverty. Because of his military abilities he rose through the ranks to become a general and commander of the palace guard under the emperor Anastasius I. During Justin's later years, the empire came under attack from the Ostrogoths and the Persians. Unable to cope with the pressures of politics, Justin's health began to decline and on April 1st, 527 AD he formally named Justinian his co-emperor and successor. Justin died on August 1st, 527 AD and was succeeded by Justinian.

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

Western and Slav authors have done more to discredit the Hellenic contribution for this period (313 to 527 AD) than they have done to support it. Many authors agree that the Byzantine Empire was a re-emergence and continuation of Alexander the Great's old empire but at the same time they hardly hesitate to call it Roman.

What was Roman about it?

The Emperors were not Roman, the language was not Latin, the culture was not Italian and even the style of Christianity practiced was far from western.

So, what was Roman about it?

Let's look at it from another perspective. The Byzantine Empire, known to the Byzantiness as the Roman Empire (Romaiki Aftokratoriaria) had more Greek emperors than Roman, spoke the Greek language not Latin and smack in the middle of it was Greece not Italy.

Thessaloniki, not Rome, was the Byzantine Empire's second capital and cultural center. Greece, not Italy, was the center, heart and soul of the Byzantine Empire.

Unlike Rome which fell to the barbarians, Thessaloniki was never defeated or sacked by anyone and remained a Greek city in character and culture from the time it was founded by king Cassander, to well into the second millennium AD. Thessaloniki was a Greek city with its culture and tradition well intact and preserved. That is precisely why a Greek and not a Roman civilization re-emerged from Thessaloniki, flourished and reached its zenith around the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries AD.

Thessaloniki was the cradle of Hellenism. This is where the revival of the Hellenic language and culture began and spread throughout eastern Europe. That is precisely why more than six hundred million people today study the ancient Greek language, not Slavonic or Latin. Outside of the Roman and Slav propagandists, no one believes that the Byzantine Empire was anything but Greek, a continuation of Alexander the Greats' old Hellenic Empire.

References:

Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750, W.W. Norton &amp; Company, New York, 1989

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Greek Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, John Rekos &amp; Co., Thessaloniki, 1980

F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Atheneum New York, 1976

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>a3odcl9tuq3f77hdi4qq9use5u3qrua</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Justinian I the Greatest Ruler of Byzantium</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2072</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11087</id>
      <parentid>4984</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:08Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="46757" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 15 - Justinian I the Greatest Ruler of Byzantium

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

&quot;Once the government stopped forcing the use of the Latin language and Roman institutions upon its people, the Eastern empire rapidly became more Eastern in its customs and outlook&quot;.

www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/justinian.html

Before they were known as the Byzantines or were called the Eastern Orthodox and even before they were barely a separate empire, they were known to the Macedonians as the Pravoslavi; an ancient people unified by a common (Eastern Christian) faith which has survived to this day and carries a strong meaning for the faithful.

By 500 AD Christianity had become the standard religion in Macedonia and the Macedonian language and culture re-emerged with it. As I mentioned earlier, the Latin language began its decline about four hundred years earlier and the Koine language was the language of administration and commerce, far from the reach of the common Macedonian. 

Christianity's humble beginnings may have begun with the Koine language but in order for Jesus' message to be understood by the masses it had to be spoken in the language they used. It is well known today that the language of Christianity in Macedonia was Macedonian Church Slavonic, the language of enlightenment made world famous by Kiril and Metodi.

Before we continue with Justinian's story I would like to take a short diversion and explore the Slav connection to the Macedonians.

It is my intention here to show that the Macedonian language of the masses was in existence before Christ and as far back as pre-history.

It has been well documented that the ancient Macedonians, including Alexander's army and Alexander himself, spoke a language known only to Macedonians. Today thanks to linguist Anthony Ambrozic who, through his translations of the Dura-Europos inscriptions, has identified that language to be the root of the same language spoken by modern Macedonians today. 

It can easily be deduced that the language in the Dura-Europos inscriptions is of Macedonian origin. According to modern dating methods it has been dated to the first century BC, about 700 years before the supposed &quot;Slav language&quot;, according to mainstream history, had reached the Balkans. This new evidence, however, contradicts the old claims that modern Macedonians are the descendants of Slavs who invaded Macedonia in the sixth century AD. 

Are modern Macedonians descendants of the Slavs who overran Macedonia during the 6th century AD, or are they descendants of the ancient Macedonians who lived in the Balkans in the first millennium BC?

This is a controversial question that demands attention and it is imperative that we give it much consideration. 

&quot;Our present day knowledge of the origin of the Slavs is, to a large extent, a legacy of the 19th century. A scholarly endeavor inextricably linked with forging national identities....&quot; (Page 6, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

&quot;Instead of a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes, I envisage a form of group identity which could arguably be called ethnicity and emerged in response to Justinian's implementation of a building project on the Danube frontier and in the Balkans. The Slavs, in other words, did not come from the north, but became Slavs only in contact with the Roman frontier.&quot; (Page 3, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

The Slavs, as opposed to other hordes that invaded the Balkans in the first millennium AD, became very important during the 19th century, particularly in 1833 when Slavic languages were recognized as Indo-European. Like the English language of today, the Slav language of the 19th century linguistically linked many nations together. Some of the 19th century Slav academics, however, intentionally or unintentionally interpreted this linguistic commonality as an ethnic commonality, ethnically linking all Slavs together. In other words, if one spoke Slav then one must have belonged to the &quot;Slav tribe&quot;, which in modern terms is the same as believing that if one spoke English then one must belong to the &quot;English tribe&quot;.

The idea of searching for the origin of the Slavs was born out of the theory that &quot;all nations must have ancestors in the ancient world&quot;. Unfortunately, the study of the Slavs began as an almost exclusively linguistic and philological enterprise ignoring historiography and archeology as a means of identifying ethnicity. Based on linguistic evidence alone, it is estimated that the ancient homeland of the Slavs most probably lay between the rivers Visla, Dneiper, Desna and the western Dniva and the Carpathians or, perhaps, in Polesje, in the triangle formed by Brest - Litovsk and Mohilev - Kiev. If any archeology was used to derive these estimates, more often than not, it was used to illustrate conclusions already drawn from the analysis of linguistic material. The concept of a &quot;Slav ethnicity&quot; was a powerful tool for the nation builders and nationalists of the 19th century who used it to unite their people and the Slav language was the perfect instrument for exploring Slav history. However, Slav history began with the first mention of the Slavs, which happened to take place in Justinian's time in the sixth century AD.

The invention of the &quot;Slav tribe&quot; unfortunately had negative consequences for the Macedonian people, which are still felt to this day. Assuming that Macedonians are Slavs only because their language belongs to the Slavic family of languages has unwittingly turned the Macedonian people into victims of modern politics. After being classified as Slavs the 19th century Macedonians where regarded as invaders in their own ancestral lands. Since there was no historic mention of Slavs living in Macedonia before the 6th century AD it was naturally assumed that the Slavs must have come to Macedonia from somewhere else. 

Fortunately, for the last fifty years or so, historians have turned to archeology for answers and are beginning to discover new evidence that, more often than not, contradicts the old beliefs.
Archeological evidence combined with DNA and genetic studies is slowly revealing that the modern Macedonians are not newcomers but in fact are the descendants of the older races of people living in the Balkans.

As I mentioned earlier, the Slavs came into being for the first time as a consequence of coming into contact with Justinian's administration during the 6th century AD. Unfortunately Justinian's administrators left very few clues as to the origins and language of these people. Again most attempts to identify the origin of the Slavs were made by linguistic and philological experts very much biased by 19th century nationalistic ambitions. 

Many historians today believe that the widespread use of the Slav language began with the Veneti. During the first millennium BC, the Veneti occupied almost all of Europe including the Balkans. The Veneti are mentioned by Herodotus, Polibius, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Pomponius Mela, Tacitus and Jordanes. Unfortunately, to most ancient historians the Veneti were just another barbarian tribe and very little was known about them. The Veneti were also mentioned in Caesar's book where he gives an account of the conquest of Gaul. Among other things, Caesar compliments the Veneti for offering him great resistance. &quot;The Veneti are by far the strongest tribe on the coast&quot; wrote Caesar. &quot;They possess the most powerful fleet with which they sail as far as Britain&quot;. (Page 197, Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community, Boswell, B.C., 1966)

The earliest writer to mention the Veneti was Homer, some 800 years before Caesar. After Troy had fallen, the Enetoi (Veneti), who according to Livy fought on the side of Troy, drove out the Etruscans and the Eugeneis in Liburnia after a long sea voyage along the Illyrian coast and then settled beyond the Timara River. Livy also mentions that Paphlagonia, on the south coast of the Black Sea, was the homeland of the Veneti. According to Tacitus and Ptolemy however, the great nation of the Veneti lived in the area between the Vistula, the Danube and the central Dnieper.

There is a close parallel between Justinian's Slavs and the Veneti. It was most likely that Justinian encountered the Veneti in the Danube region and, not being familiar with them, classified them as Slavs, which was simply an arbitrary administrative label for the barbarian tribes he located beyond the Danube.

The real strength of the Venetic linguistic connection to the Slavs comes to us from Anthony Ambrozic's translations of Venetic inscriptions found throughout Europe. A great many of these inscriptions date back to the first millennium BC. More specifically, Ambrozic believes the Veneti were the proto-Slavs and their presence was felt in Dura-Europos through the Macedonians. (Page 86, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press 1999).

According to Ambrozic, the Veneti of the second millennium BC existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also on the Morava, Timok and Vardar. In fact the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus recorded them in the 5th century BC. (Page 87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002).

It is not my intention here to debate the origin of the Slavs outside of Macedonia, but rather to illustrate that they existed in the Balkans prior to the sixth century AD. There is enough evidence provided by Savli, Bor, Tomazic, Ambrozic and Curta to connect the sixth century Slavs to the prehistoric Veneti. The evidence presented by these authors, in my opinion, bridges the Slavs with the Veneti and provides linguistic continuity for the modern Macedonians from at least the early years of the first millennium BC. 

Ambrozic, through his translations of ancient inscriptions, has also discovered that the ancient Pelasgi, who occupied the southern Balkans before the first millennium BC, and the Phrygians of Macedonia and Asia Minor, who occupied the Anatolian plateau 3, 200 years ago, also have linguistic ties to the Veneti. (Pages 85 to 87 and page 118, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002). This naturally implies that, at least linguistically, the Veneti left their mark on many races in the Balkan region.

Before I finish with the analysis of the relationship between Macedonians and Slavs I want to dispel the modern myth that the 6th century Slavs invaded Macedonia and killed off all the Macedonians. 

History offers no evidence of savage battles between Slavs and the 6th century descendants of ancient Macedonians nor does it show records of any massacres taking place. In fact history portrays the Slavs as peaceful people who, more often than not, were able to co-exist with other races in Macedonia. Outside of the unknown author of book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius, who portrayed the Slavs as savage, brutish and heathen barbarians, there is little evidence of Slavs causing atrocities in Macedonia. &quot;On the other hand, however, one gets the impression that the Slavs were a familiar presence. They are repeatedly called 'our Slavic neighbours'&quot; by the people of Solun. (Page 61, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge, New York, 2001). Slavs it seems, contrary to popular belief, were on good terms with the inhabitants of Solun, supplying them with grain and other goods. 

Looking at the problem from a strategic point of view it would have taken a numerically superior Slav army to cross the Danube, descend upon the Balkans, defeat the mighty Byzantine army and then destroy the entire population. History has no record of a great Slav army ever crossing the Danube or of great Slav battles with the Byzantines. In fact records show that most Slavs were displaced refugees, victims of other peoples' wars, traveling peacefully in small numbers together with their families looking for land to farm. 

There is no denying that the Roman occupation, barbarian invasions, population movements by the Byzantines and the Ottoman occupation have left their genetic markers on the modern Macedonians as they have on all other Balkan people. However, there is also strong evidence that suggests that a large part of the modern Macedonian population is genetically linked to the ancient Macedonians. 

On the issue of Macedonian ethnicity, like other nations in the Balkans, modern Macedonians over the years have developed a unique Macedonian national consciousness that no outsider has the right to challenge, especially on dubious historical issues.

And now back to Justinian's story.

It has been said that Justinian spoke Koine with a heavy barbarian accent. Although they were not specific about which barbarian accent, being born in Taor (near Uskub), present day Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, one can assume that it was Slav, or perhaps Macedonian. There are no valid reasons to discount Justinian's Macedonian background. After all he was the son of a Slavonic peasant from Skopje.

Justinian, the son of Sabatius and Vigilantia, was born in May 483 AD and was originally named Petrus (Petre). Being the son of Emperor Justin's sister, Petre, sometimes called Uprauda (perhaps a pet name), was more privileged than most Macedonian peasants and was given the opportunity of a good education in Tsari Grad (Constantinople). Petre took the name Justinian after his uncle, Emperor Justin I, adopted him.

After his adoption, Justinian was proclaimed consul in 521 AD and sometime later he earned the title general-in-chief. But the real break in his career came in April 527 AD when he was made Augustus and co-emperor to Justin. After Justin's death in August 527 AD Justinian became the sole and undisputed ruler of the Pravoslaven (Byzantine) empire. 

Before he became emperor, Justinian had the good fortune to marry a woman who, throughout her life, was an inspiration to his career and an asset to the empire. Justinian married Theodora in 523 AD. 

Theodora was one of three daughters whose father was employed by the Green faction as a bear keeper at the Tsari Grad Hippodrome. Her mother was a professional dancer and actress. Theodora's father died when she was young and her mother remarried with hopes that the Greens would appoint her new husband bear keeper. The Greens unfortunately rejected him. Destitute, the family approached the Blue faction who had recently lost their own bear keeper and after some negotiating got the job. As soon as Theodora was old enough to work she became a mime actress and remained loyal to the Blue faction, which would play an important role in the future of her empire.

It has been said, mostly by Procopius, that Euphemia, Justin's wife objected to Justinian marrying Theodora on the grounds that she was not in pristine condition, for actresses and prostitutes were virtually synonymous. Soon after Euphemia's death Justin passed a constitution declaring that a contrite actress who is willing to abandon her profession should recover her pristine condition and marry whomsoever she wants, even a senator. After that the way for Justinian to marry Theodora was clear but unfortunately there was one more obstacle. Theodora was a converted Monophysite of the Coptic Church who believed that Christ had one nature, a composite nature of both the human and the divine. Justinian, however, not only respected his wife's beliefs but he also protected the Monophysites who were considered heretics by the Church in Tsari Grad. This grand gesture on Justinian's part made the Monophysites feel that they had a champion in Tsari Grad and their allegiance to the emperor and the empire remained secure.

The thirty-eight years of Justinian's reign were the most brilliant in the life of the empire and filled with great events, both in peace and in war. Justinian as a contributor to his empire was most famous for his legal reforms, administration of the empire, ecclesiastical and foreign policies. 

Justinian is famous and most familiar to the modern world for his work as a legislator and codifier of the law. He was one of the first emperors to take serious action in modernizing the archaic and confusing law. Justinian believed that a great empire must have the strength of organized unity which rested on arms and on law. His process of modernization began by having the scattered decrees of his predecessors collected, ordered and logically organized into a complete codex so that every citizen could quickly learn the law on any subject. Besides the codification, Justinian himself also wrote some new laws.

The entire legislation was compiled by first appointing a commission of ten lawyers to reduce the bulky Theodosian Code, published in 438 AD, to an orderly and concise summary, with a means of inserting new laws into it. The &quot;Codex&quot; was completed in 529 AD. 
Next, answers given by authorities over the years, that formed acknowledged precedents, were reviewed, optimized and arranged in fifty books, thus reducing the law library of one hundred and six volumes to about one-fifth of its original size. This became known as the &quot;Digest&quot; or &quot;Pandects&quot; and was published in 530 AD.

Finally a teaching manual known as the &quot;Institutes&quot; for teaching students law was compiled from the commentaries of the 2nd century Gaius and was published in 530 AD.
. 
In 534 AD the entire work was revised and a fourth part, the &quot;Authentic&quot; or &quot;Novels&quot;, was added, which contained later decisions made by Justinian's courts.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the works of law produced at this time are still the basis of civil law in every civilized country in the modern world. 

Justinian was also famous for his contributions to what we now call Byzantine art and architecture. The Byzantine style of architecture, at least in its perfect form, owes its origin to Justinian and the architects he employed. His activity in building was enormous and covered his empire from Ravenna to Damascus with superb monuments. All later building in both East and West were derived from his models. The two most famous of his buildings are the church of Our Lady (now the El-Aqsa mosque) in Jerusalem and, by far the most splendid of all, is the great church of the Holy Wisdom (Sveta Sophia) in Tsari Grad. This church especially, built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus was consecrated on December 27, 537 AD, remains to this day one of the architectural marvels in our world. 

Justinian's interests were not limited to church architecture alone. His administration was also involved in grand projects such as building quays, harbours, roads, aqueducts, castles and fortifying and repairing damaged city walls. 

On matters of religion, Justinian's ecclesiastical policy was complex and varying. For many years even before Justin's time, the Eastern world had been plagued by the struggles of the Monophysites, mentioned earlier. Monophysites recognized only one nature in Christ, against the view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that the divine and human natures coexisted together in Christ. The latter doctrine was adopted at the council of Chalcedon and was held by the whole Western Church, but Egypt, a great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a considerable minority in Tsari Grad clung to Monophysitism. 
At the start of Justinian's reign the Orthodox and the Monophysites resisted the idea of a split in Christendom. By the end of his reign there was a strong Monophysite organization in place and although the schism was not permanent it did exist.

One of Justinian's first public acts was to put an end to this schism. He began his campaign by convincing Justin to persuade the then patriarch to renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion to the creed of Chalcedon. Then when Justinian himself became emperor he attempted to persuade the Monophysites to join the mainstream church by summoning some of their leaders to a conference. Unfortunately, his attempts failed so he began to persecute them but not to the extent that he persecuted the heretic Monastists and Arians. 
After a long time, long disputes and endless negotiations the Church schism became worse and eventually permanent.

Justinian's problems were not limited to ecclesiastic schisms alone. In January 532 AD he was faced with street violence inside Tsari Grad which in time became known as the Nika revolt. Like every other large city worthy of any notice, Tsari Grad had its chariot-racing factions, which took their names from their red, white, blue and green colours. These were professional organizations responsible for fielding chariot-racing teams in the hippodromes. But by Justinian's time they were also in charge of shows and other activities. The Blues and the Greens were the dominant groups, but the Reds and Whites also enjoyed support from the crowds and even from important people. The emperor Anastasius, for example, was a fan of the Reds. The fans, as we call them today, of each faction were assigned their own blocks of seats in the Hippodrome. 

Justinian and Theodora, as I mentioned earlier, were Blue supporters and when street violence began to escalate under Justin's rule they encouraged it. But after Justinian became emperor he began to crack down on the instigators.

The problem started on Saturday, January 10, 532 AD when the city prefect who had arrested some hooligans and found seven of them guilty of murder, had them hung outside the city at Sycae, across the Golden Horn. But before the prisoners were hung, the scaffolding broke and two of them, a Blue and a Green, escaped. Some monks from a nearby monastery gave them sanctuary at the church of St Lawrence. The following Tuesday while the two men were still hiding in the church, the Blue and Green organized factions begging Justinian to show mercy. Justinian unfortunately ignored their pleas and continued his pursuit of them. Unrelenting, the Blue and Greens continued their appeals until the twenty-second race when their frustration boiled over and united they raised the banner &quot;Nika&quot; and took to the streets. When the riots started the court officials took refuge in the palace and watched the street mobs ransack the city.

Justinian tried to continue the games the next day but only provoked more riots, anger and arson. The rioting and destruction continued throughout the week. Even the arrival of imperial troops from Thrace failed to restore order. Then, on Sunday before sunrise, Justinian appealed to the crowds in the Hippodrome by repenting publicly and promising amnesty. The crowds unfortunately turned even more hostile and forced Justinian to flee for his life.

The worst however was yet to come. The night before Justinian dismissed two of emperor Anastasius's nephews, Hypatius and Pompey, from the palace and sent them home. Instead of going home however, the pair went to the Hippodrome where they were met by the mobs and Hypatius was proclaimed emperor. Fearing that the mobs would turn on his palace, Justinian was ready to flee Tsari Grad and perhaps would have done so if it were not for Theodora, who did not frighten so easily. Theodora along with his trusted commanders, Belisarius and Narses, convinced Justinian to stay and fight back. Almost immediately Belisarius and Mundo were dispatched with their troops and made their separate ways into the Hippodrome. Hypatius and his unruly supporters were surrounded and violently put down ending the 'Nika' riot with 35,000 rioters dead.

The 'Nika' revolt obviously left Justinian firmly in charge of Tsari Grad but it also gave him the opportunity to clean house not only of unruly mobs but of political opposition as well. All those opposing him, including the senators that surfaced during the revolt, were eliminated or went into hiding. The revolt left Tsari Grad damaged in more ways than one. The Nika revolt gave Justinian absolute power over Tsari Grad and at the same time cleared the way for his own building program, mentioned earlier. Work on his new church, Sveta Sophia, to replace the one that was destroyed by the mobs commenced only forty-five days after the riots were over. 

On matters of foreign policy, Justinian's empire was involved in three great wars, two of them initiated by him and the third brought on by Persia. The Sassanid kings of Persia ruled a region extending from Syria to India and from the Strait of Oman to the Caucasus. The military character of the Sassanid people made them formidable enemies to the Pravoslavs (Byzantines), whose soldiers at the time were mainly of barbarian stock. When Justinian came to power his military strength on the Euphrates was slowly weakening against the constant Sassanid push. After some campaigning, however, the Pravoslav military skills began to improve and Belisarius obtained considerable success and a peace treaty with the Sassanid's was concluded in 533 AD. Unfortunately the treaty only lasted until 539 AD when the Sassanids declared war again alleging that Justinian had been secretly intriguing against them with the Huns. Justinian at that time was involved in a campaign in Italy and was unable to adequately defend his eastern frontier. So the Sassanids advanced into Syria with little resistance and by 540 AD had captured Antioch and enslaved its inhabitants. While the war on the eastern frontier lingered on for four years, an even fiercer struggle erupted in the mountainous region in the southeastern corner of the Black Sea, lasting for twenty-two years without a clear victor. Then in 562 AD a truce was reached and the contested region was left to the Pravoslavs, under the agreement that Justinian pay the Persian king an annual tribute of thirty thousand gold pieces. This war was not only an embarrassment for Justinian but it greatly weakened his empire and slowed down his campaigning momentum in the west. 

In the west the campaigns began in 533 AD with an attack on the Vandals who were then in control of Africa. Belisarius was dispatched from Tsari Grad with a large fleet and army. He landed without opposition and destroyed the barbarian power base in just two engagements. North Africa was again freed from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar to the Syrtes and came under the control of the Pravoslavs. In western Europe the Moors controlled most of Spain but the Pravoslavs managed to recover parts of the southern coast. Considering the strength of the enemy, Justinian's troops were gaining experience and delivering victories with ease.

The triumphs in Africa encouraged Justinian to declare war on the leaderless Ostrogoths of Italy. After the deaths of Theodoric and later his grandson Atbalaric, the Goth leadership deteriorated and they were left almost leaderless. The Goth kingdom was vast and included part of southeastern Gaul, Raetia, Dalmatia, part of Pannonia, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica.

Justinian declared war on the Goths in 535 AD under the pretext of taking revenge for the murder of Queen Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric, who was at the time under the protection of the Pravoslavs. Justinian also alleged that the Ostrogothic kingdom had always owed its allegiance to the emperor at Tsari Grad.

Belisarius, as commander of the Italian expedition, quickly invaded Sicily, overran southern Italy, and in 536 AD occupied Rome. But his quick victories did not go unchallenged. Within a year the Goths chose a new king Vitiges, amassed a considerable fighting force and retaliated. The siege of Rome lasted over a year but Belisarius held his ground. However, it was not Belisarius's determination alone which held back and eventually repealed the Goths. During this period sicknesses were rampant, preying on the Gothic troops. With a diminished army Vitiges had no choice but to abandon the siege. When the siege was lifted Belisarius took the offensive and pushed the Goth army northwards into Ravenna where it eventually surrendered. Vitiges was captured and became Justinian's prisoner in Tsari Grad. Justinian treated him with much compassion, as he had previously treated the captive Vandal king.

The void created by the Goth fall was filled by the Pravoslavs through the establishment of an imperial administration in Italy. Unfortunately, the defeat of Vitiges did not mean the end of the Goths. Much of the Goth nation had not submitted to Pravoslaven rule and the Goth crown was bestowed on another king. Totila, or Baduila as he was known, was a warrior of distinguished abilities who drove the Pravoslav administration out of Italy.

Belisarius was again dispatched but his force turned out to be too small to do the job. During the next several years the Goths took back their cities one by one, with the exception of Ravenna, Otranto and Ancona.

Justinian at the time had problems at home. With the passing of his wife Theodora, who died of cancer in 548 AD, and the endless ecclesiastical controversies, he neither had the resources nor the funds to commit to a large campaign. In time, however, he did succumb to pressure from a number of Roman exiles who urged him to make a move on Italy. In 552 AD Justinian put together a powerful army and under the leadership of Narses, an old but experienced Armenian general, dispatched it to counter the Goths.

Narses marched his forces along the coast of the Gulf of Venice, and faced Totila's army at Taginae, not far from Cesena. It was a catastrophic battle for the Goths. Totila lost his life in battle and his army was devastated. The Goths, however, refused to surrender and made another valiant attempt under the leadership of Teias, on the Lactarian Hill in Campania. Narses delivered another devastating blow and after that the Goths disappeared from history.

The Pravoslavs recovered Italy but by the time they did it was a terribly impoverished and depopulated region whose possession was of little value to the empire. As it turned out, both wars against the Vandals and the Goths were a great drain on the empire's resources, which could have been better spent defending the northern frontier against invading tribes.

Besides these three great wars, Justinian's empire was troubled by a series of invasions. On the northern frontier various Slavonic and Hunnish tribes who were established along the lower Danube and the north coast of the Black Sea made frequent marauding expeditions into Thrace and Macedonia. Sometimes they penetrated as far as the walls of Tsari Grad and as far south as the Isthmus of Corinth. 

Even though he did his best to stabilize his empire, Justinian continued to face new challenges. In 556 AD he was faced with another revolt, the next year a great earthquake shook his capital city and the year after that the dome of the new Sveta Sophia church collapsed. If that was not enough, at about the same time, the plague returned. Then in early 559 AD a horde of Huns or proto-Bulgars crossed the frozen Danube and advanced into the Balkans.

The Huns penetrated the Balkans in three columns. One column pushed south and went as far as Thermopylae. Another column advanced into the Gallipoli Peninsula but was stopped by the Long Wall, which was defended by a young officer from Justinian's native town. The last and most dangerous column made its way to Tsari Grad.

Faced with an imminent invasion and no suitable forces for defense, Justinian recalled Belisarius from retirement. Belisarius put together a small force of 300 of his best veterans and set a trap for the Huns. As soon as he ambushed the Huns, Justinian took charge of the battle and forced them into a treaty. The news that Justinian was reinforcing his Danube fleet made the Huns anxious and they agreed to a treaty which gave them safe passage back across the river. But as soon as they were north of the Danube they were attacked by their rivals the Utigurs who were incited by Justinian to steal their booty.

The Huns (Kutrigurs) may have been beaten but were not destroyed and came back in 562 AD to raid Thrace. The Huns and their rivals the Utigurs soon fell prey to a new horde of barbarians, the Avars, who in the early 560s swept out of the Asian steppes.

Justinian died in November 565 AD and was succeeded by his nephew Justin II. Undoubtedly, Justinian was one of the greatest if not the greatest emperor after Constantine, to have ruled the Pravoslaven Empire. 

In his quest to build a great empire, Justinian unfortunately also bankrupted his empire's economy. Some believe that that was a contributing factor to the weakening of his frontier defenses in subsequent years, allowing barbarian invasions. &quot;... the disintegration of the military system in the Balkans, which Justinian implemented in the mid-500s, was the result not so much of the destruction inflicted by barbarian invasions, as of serious economic and financial problems caused both by the emperor's policies elsewhere and by the impossibility of providing sufficient economic support to his gigantic building program of defense. This conclusion is substantiated by the analysis of sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which suggest that inflation, not barbarian raids, was responsible for high rates of non-retrieval.&quot; (Page 338, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.).

I am not interested at this point in debating the &quot;Slav problem&quot; other than to show that if indeed it was a problem, it must have been a universal problem for the entire Balkan region down to the Mediterranean Sea. If the Slavs indeed invaded the Balkans on mass and wiped out the indigenous populations, then they must have wiped out everyone as far south as they were able to reach. There were no walls, fortifications or armies to stop them. What is most interesting, however, is that even though mainstream history agrees with the claim that the Slavs invaded and overran the entire Balkan region including the peninsula south of Olympus, it contradicts itself on the modern populations' national origins. On one hand it allows claims of continuity connecting the modern nations south of Olympus to the ancient nations, and at the same time denies continuity for the modern nations for the populations north of Olympus. Is this a historical truth or a political invention concocted to serve the interests of one while denying the interests of another? How can the modern Macedonians be Slavs while their neighbours to the immediate south are not? Didn't the Slavs supposedly overrun the entire region?

The modern Balkan historian today is faced with two contradictory problems. On one hand he or she is faced with the unsubstantiated claim that the Slavs invaded the Balkans on mass and killed off its &quot;civilized and non aggressive&quot; indigenous inhabitants and on the other hand he or she is bombarded with contradictory claims of modern racial pre-Slav continuity. 

As mentioned earlier, the &quot;Slav phenomenon&quot; is largely a political phenomenon with little historical significance. The reasons attributed to the Slavs as opposed to the Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, etc., as being the culprits for the invasions and devastation of the Balkans is to explain the wide use of the Slav language. In other words, the &quot;Slav phenomenon&quot; is a modern 19th century creation designed to explain the prevalent use of the modern Slav languages. It is most unfortunate, however, that modern scholars choose to ignore archeological evidence that links the 6th century Slavs to the ancient prehistoric Veneti. &quot;Archeological research has already provided an enormous amount of evidence in support of the idea that the Venethi were Slavs.&quot; (Page 13, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.). Accepting the hypothesis that the Veneti and the Slavs are connected not only provides linguistic continuity for the modern Macedonians to the ancient Macedonians but also identifies the so-called &quot;elusive&quot; Macedonian language of ancient times. With this in mind, we cannot ignore claims that the Slav language was most probably spoken by Alexander's Macedonian soldiers and settlers and was spread throughout the vastness of the uncivilized regions of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. Also, it would not be far fetched to hypothesize that Alexander's Macedonians colonized parts of European Russia, which would attest to the many common toponyms that Macedonia and European Russia share. 

And now back to Justinian's story.

Justinian had no children of his own when he died but there seemed to have been no shortage of heirs. Theodora died seventeen years before Justinian leaving him childless. Justinian had half a dozen or so nephews but it was Justin, the son of his sister Vigilantia, who rose to the occasion to take Justinian's place. Justin or Justin II as he came to be known was married to Sophia, one of Theodora's nieces. Justin first surfaced on the political scene in 552 AD when he was appointed to take charge of day to day business affairs in the palace. His dealings with important people including Tiberius, who would eventually succeed him, gave him the exposure he needed to gain the palace's support. His only rival was Justin, son of Germanus, who at the time of Justinian's death was the Master of the Soldiers in Illyria, guarding the Danube frontier. 

When Justinian suddenly died the night of November 14, 565 AD, Justin was in the right place at the right time to receive his acclamation. A group of senators hurriedly went to Justin's palace to meet with Justin and Vigilantia to report Justinian's death. Justin and Sophia were then escorted to the Great Palace where Justin was crowned by the patriarch. The next morning Justin appeared in the imperial box at the Hippodrome wearing the crown and received the acclamations of the people. The day after his inauguration Justin crowned his wife Sophia as Augusta.

Justin II's first order of business, after becoming emperor, was to pay off Justinian's debts. Justinian had accumulated them in his last years by raising money through forced loans. Also, Imperial unity depended upon theological peace. Justinian died and left the church in a crisis. The division between the Chalcedonian and the Monophysite factions was wider than ever and now that the Monophysites had priests and bishops of their own it was less likely that the schism would ever be healed. The empress Sophia, like her aunt before her, had openly been a Monophysite. Justin II had possibly leaned in the same direction but realizing that Monophysite sympathies would be a political liability convinced his wife and they both became orthodox. 

In the meantime Justin II wasted no time in assassinating his rival Justin, son of Germanus. With no challengers and confident in his own abilities, Justin quickly settled into the role as emperor and began to receive envoys. Within a week the Avars arrived looking for their subsidies which Justinian had promised, but Justin refused to pay. Soon afterwards Justin became involved in Avar, Gepid and Lombard affairs and as a result lost Italy. The Lombards invaded Italy in 568 AD and occupied it in a few short years. In 572 AD Justin's overtures to the Turks led to a war with Persia and after two disastrous campaigns, the Persians overran Syria. A one-year truce was reached with Persia at the loss of Armenia and at a cost of 45,000 solidi.

The Avars waited until the Pravoslavi were weakened by the Persians before they crossed the Danube in late 573 AD and attacked Tiberius's army. Justin was not prepared for more losses. Unable to cope he fell ill after receiving the bad news. With Justin unable to command the empire, the empress Sophia wasted no time and promoted Tiberius to co-ruler. Tiberius made peace with the Avars and saved the empire from collapse for now. Unfortunately the peace was not meant to last. Even though the Danube frontier still held, it was a matter of time before the Avars would sweep south again. The inevitable did happen around 582 AD during Tiberius II's time when a horde of Avars and Slavs swept south down to Athens.

Justin II never recovered from his illness and in December of 574 AD he appointed Tiberius Caesar with the name Tiberius Constantine. 

Justin's wife Sophia was determined to maintain her own position as Augusta as long as Justin was alive. In the meantime she refused to let Tiberius bring his wife, Ino, into the palace. There are some who rumoured that Sophia herself wanted to marry Tiberius and that is why she forced his family to live in another palace. Whether or not the rumours were true, Sophia's tactics eventually succeeded in making Ino move away from Tsari Grad. Tiberius showed no inclination to abandon his wife so, even before Justin II was dead in 578 AD, Sophia was conspiring with Justinian, another son of Germanus, to replace him. Tiberius, however, was much too clever and popular with the people to fall prey to Sophia's intrigues so after Justin's death he became sole ruler of the Pravoslaven empire.

Once Tiberius became emperor, Sophia had to accept defeat. At his coronation in the Hippodrome Tiberius was asked to name his empress. At that point he proclaimed Ino, whom he named Anastasia, to be his empress and lawful wife. Her coronation as Augusta was a blow to Sophia, who moved on to another palace across the Bosporus, which had been built by Justin. 

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

It is not a question of whether the modern Macedonians are deserving of the ancient Macedonian heritage or not but rather it is a question of whether the modern Greeks are deserving of theirs. We know that modern Greece, when it became a nation for the first time in 1829, was a patchwork of nationalities, none of whom had anything in common with the people of the ancient City States. So then, on what basis are modern Greeks claiming the heritage of the ancient City States? 

If the modern Macedonians are 100% pure Slavs then so are the modern Greeks. By imposing a false language and by making wide and unsubstantiated claims that they are the descendants of the ancients does not necessarily make them so. We know that the Slavs penetrated the Greek peninsula right down to the south of the Peloponnesus. We know that there are Slav villages and toponyms smack in the center of Greece proper. So, if the Slavs killed off all the ancient Macedonians they must have also killed off all the ancient Greeks. So, who then are the modern Greeks? 

Time and time again we have proven that the modern Greeks are a collection of various peoples including Slavs, Albanians, Vlahs, Turks, Roma, etc., etc., upon whom the modern Greek consciousness was imposed making them believe that they are the descendants of the ancient Greeks. 

&quot;Falmerayer's two-volume work deals with proving that the ancient Greek races had totally vanished from the lands where they had once achieved great things. Falmerayer writes that these peoples underwent a natural extermination by consecutive waves of nomadic peoples and that, at the end of a 10-century period, what has come to be present-day Greece was inhabited by Slavs, Albanians, and Greek-speaking Byzantine populations that had moved there from Asia Minor. This substantive racial repudiation has always been difficult to doubt and is becoming more and more so&quot;.

So, on what basis are the modern Greeks laying claim to the ancient heritage and why have they not been challenged on it to this day? A question for pondering?
Just because it happened 175 years ago does not make it right. For the benefit of consolidating their new state, the Greeks, with help from the Great Powers especially Great Britain, deservingly or not, adopted the ancient city state heritage as their own.

I have no problem with Greeks falsely laying claim to the ancient Greek heritage but I do have a problem when they falsely lay claim to the Macedonian heritage at the expense and the exclusion of the Macedonians. 

References:

Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community, Boswell B.C., 1996.

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press 1999. 

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2000.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750, New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Company, 1989.

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos &amp; Co., 1980.

Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Atheneum New York, 1976.

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, Los Angeles: University of California, 1996.

http://www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/justinian.html


You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>fft6dmwow4vd4oj5vl86xnr012wx8bv</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - The Period of Decline</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2073</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11088</id>
      <parentid>4985</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:13Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="46830" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 16 - The Period of Decline

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Justinian I's grand projects and campaigns during his reign may have greatly contributed to the glory of Pravoslavism (Christendom) but at the same time they bankrupt the empire's economy.

Justin II, overwhelmed by his failures, died in anguish. Tiberius had some success in achieving peace with the Persians but it did not last for too long. While Tiberius was campaigning in the west, the Avars, in the absence of Pravoslav (Byzantine) troops, overran the Balkans and demanded that Tiberius relinquish control of the city of Sirmium (near modern day Mitrovica in Serbia). When Tiberius refused they attacked. Quick to take advantage of the Pravoslav weakness, the Persians abandoned the peace treaty already in progress and resumed hostilities. Having been left without many choices, Tiberius dispatched Maurice, one of his commanders, to Persian controlled Armenia where, over the next few years, he conducted a series of successful campaigns. Forced to focus his military efforts on the Persians, Tiberius had no troops to repel the Avars and gave into their demands. In 582 AD Pravoslav control of Sirmium was relinquished to the Avars. In order to be allowed to evacuate the city's residents safely, Tiberius agreed to pay the Avars 240,000 solidi. This was the total of unpaid subsidies that they were owed for the last 3 years.

In 582 AD Tiberius became very ill and appointed Maurice and Germanus as his heirs. To give them legitimacy he had each engaged to one of his daughters and elevated to the rank of Caesar. But when it was time Tiberius only crowned Maurice as Augustus.

On August 14th, 582 AD Tiberius died and Maurice became sole emperor of the Pravoslav Empire.

Maurice, or Matricius as he was then known, began his career as a soldier under the Emperor Tiberius. He was the commander of a new legion formed from the ranks of allied barbarians with whom he fought, against the Persians. When he returned triumphant to Tsari Grad, Tiberius gave him his daughter Constantina in marriage.

After his accession Maurice discovered that, through the reckless extravagance of his predecessors, the empire's treasury was empty and the empire was bankrupt. To remedy the situation he cut court expenses, which unfortunately made him very unpopular with his administrators and eventually led to his fall. During the twenty years of his reign, Maurice witnessed his empire gradually decay. For the first ten years or so he was involved in a long drawn out war with the Persians which only ended because of internal problems in the Persian camp. The Avars and Slavs continued their invasion of the northern provinces unchecked and had penetrated the Balkan Peninsula down to the Peloponnesus. The Lombards ravaged Italy only because the empire did not have the resources to protect it.

To turn the tide, Maurice, in 584 AD, asked the Franks for help. Eagerly the Franks accepted Maurice's proposal and invaded Italy. With the Avars still being a problem, Maurice had to buy them off with a heavy bribe, which further strained his resources. By the time he was finished the emperor had become very unpopular with his people. He had depleted the empire's resources so badly that in 599 AD he could not even pay ransom for 12,000 of his soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars and allowed them all to be murdered.

The situation finally snapped when his own army turned on him. A revolt was started when, instead of giving his soldiers time off, he decided to send them into battle. The well-paid soldiers were usually sent home to rest during the winter. Unfortunately this particular winter emperor Maurice had different plans. Instead of a vacation he ordered his army to cross the frozen Danube and destroy the barbarian camps beyond. Winter was the safest time to cross the Danube, using its frozen surface as a bridge. What started out as an army revolt turned into a revolution when, in 602 AD, the soldiers kicked out their officers. They chose Phocas, a soldier from their own ranks, as their leader and marched on Tsari Grad. Unable to organize resistance, Maurice fled across the Bosporus with his family. He was overtaken at Chalcedon and murdered with his five sons.

Phocas, being chosen by the army in the Macedonian tradition, assumed the role of emperor and began his tyrannical reign which lasted from 602 to 610 AD.

It is important to mention at this point that the cohesion of the empire was held intact not because of the strong leadership exhibited by the Emperors but because of the will of the Christians and their loyalty to their Christian faith. Even at this point in time Christianity was a powerful force that bound people together. The empire was made up of a wide variety of ethnic and cultural groups bound together by their common faith. By this time paganism was viewed as a weakness and was on its way out. The sense that God and his saints would protect the Christians fighting the wicked pagans provided a common cause for soldiers of various ethnicities to fight together, especially against the non Christian Syrians. But as mentioned earlier it was not Christian might but a rebellion within the ranks of the Syrians that ended the Pravoslav-Persian war. Even though they were enemies, the rebellious Syrians asked the Pravoslavs for help. The Pravoslavs agreed to provide it in exchange for their lost territories which had been relinquished to the Persians over the years.

After a deal was reached, the rebel leader Khusro, aided by the Pravoslav army, returned to Persia and confronted the old order with a victorious and decisive battle. Khusro honoured the agreement and gave back Dara, Mytropolis, Arzanene, Iberia and most of Persian Armenia.

Unfortunately the long absence of the Pravoslav army from the Balkans had its consequences for the region. Undefended, the Balkans were left open to Avar invasions.

The Avars were a well-organized nomadic group of people with Mongolian origins who were probably driven out of Mongolia during the 550's. The Avars, it seems, were remnants of refugees from the rise of Turkish power, which pushed them across Eurasia. When they first appeared in the Ukrainian steppe they were a welcome sight by the Pravoslavs who saw them as leverage to control the Katrigurs and Utigurs of whom I made mention earlier. Unfortunately, the Avars conquered the Katrigurs and Utigurs and went on to conquer all other groups in the Ukrainian steppe. In 567 AD they allied themselves with the Lombards, destroyed the Gepids and occupied the Hungarian plains.

Besides the Avars, history has also recorded Slav movements in the Balkans at about the same time. The Pravoslav army, however, did not regard the Slavs as very dangerous opponents, even though they were fierce fighters, because they were not united and generally operated in small groups based on extended family units. In other words, the Slavs at this time were not soldiers but harmless farmers traveling together with their families looking for land to settle to cultivate their crops.

According to historic accounts the Slavs were not conquerors or marauders. They were very happy to settle in forested lands and marshes, places usually not suitable for crop farming. People whose main preoccupation was farming would not easily abandon their ancestral lands unless they were in grave danger. Why would the Slavs abandon their homes, endanger their lives by crossing the very difficult Danube River and settle in hostile and less than ideal lands?


In my opinion the Slavs did not cross the Danube at will but were forced to do so by the pressures of the invading barbarian tribes. The arrival of the Goths, Huns, Avars, etc., near the Danube forced the indigenous people to flee south and seek refuge. A great number of the Slav migrations recorded in history, are actually refugee movements of displaced indigenous people from the Danube River region. My supporting evidence for this, in part, is based on Professor Curta's findings which are based on archeological data derived from settlement excavations. &quot;First, there is already enough evidence to move away from the migrationist model which has dominated the discipline of Slavic archaeology ever since its inception. A retreat from migrationism is necessary simply because the available data do not fit any of the current models for the study of (pre)historic migration.&quot; &quot;It has become increasingly evident that migrations across ecological or cultural boundaries would require considerable planning on the part of the migrants, and should leave substantial and clear archaeological evidence.&quot; &quot;Furthermore, the archaeological evidence... does not match any long-distance migratory pattern.&quot; (Page 307, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

So, if the Slavs were not willing migrants as per Professor Curta's findings then what motivated them to travel south to the Balkans? The most logical and probable explanation, given the political situation of the time, is that the Slavs were war refugees forced out of their homes by the more aggressive invaders the Goths, Huns and Avars. There are those, including Falmerayer, who believe that the traveling Slavs were not allowed to settle in Macedonia and were driven to the south and west by the Pravoslav army. This can be substantiated by the fact that with the exception of one, found north of Skopje, there are no archeological Slav burial finds in Macedonia but a great number of them are found to the west and south of geographical Macedonia. There are also unconfirmed claims that the original Slavs who made their way from north of the Danube region did not speak the &quot;Slav language&quot; that is attributed to them. They learned that language from the indigenous people living south of the Danube.

And now back to Phocas's story.

With time it became clear that, in return for glory, Justinian had bestowed upon his successors the arduous burden of managing an over-extended empire whose resources he had drained and whose institutions and infrastructure proved too weak to meet the future challenges. The empire's inability to cope with its problems ultimately led to the rise of a different breed of illegitimate emperors. According to historian George of Pisidia, Phocas was, and to a certain extent remains, one of the most maligned of all Pravoslav emperors. Another Byzantine author Theophlact Simocatta, among other things, called Phocas a barbarian half-breed, a Cyclops and a Centaur. Phocas, however, cannot be blamed entirely for his actions without understanding the state of the empire he inherited. As I mentioned earlier, the imperial woes began around 565 AD, about the time of Justinian's death. By that time Justinian had expanded the empire to include Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Unfortunately, the empire benefited far less from these conquests than Justinian had hoped. The ambitious emperor had dangerously overestimated the empire's capabilities. Thirty-five years or so late, the empire had still not recovered from its financial smarting. In fact it was getting worse. Phocas marched into Tsari Grad a hero but soon found himself plagued with the same sorts of crises that had brought down his predecessor. With the situation in the provinces already shaky, Phocas was quickly faced with a major threat along the eastern frontier of the empire.

Relations between the Pravoslavs and Persia soured when Phocas overthrew Maurice and the Persian king now had an honourable pretext for an attack. Presenting himself as the avenger of Maurice's murder, the Persian king seized the opportunity to recover the areas that he had earlier ceded to Maurice. In 603AD he started a war that would last for over two decades, critically weakening both empires. In 609 AD, Phocas was forced to withdraw most of the army from the Persian frontier in order to deal with a dangerous rebellion that had spread from the province of Africa to Egypt. The rebellion, it appears, was staged by a man named Heraclius who would eventually replace Phocas as emperor. No doubt encouraged by the commitment of the imperial army against the Persians, a Pravoslav rebel army invaded Egypt in the summer of 608 AD. Heraclius was confident that his supporters could achieve a quick victory in Egypt and gain control of its riches as well its navy.

Shortly after Heraclius's forces entered Egypt, riots broke out in cities throughout Egypt, Syria and Palestine. The people of these provinces had had enough of Phocas's rule and wanted change.

To crush the rebellion in Egypt, Phocas withdrew his army from the Persian war and unleashed it on the rebels in Egypt. Unfortunately, in so doing he left a void in his defenses.

Even with the aid of his army, Phocus was unable to stop the rebellion. The civil war in Egypt came to an end when Heraclius's supporters achieved victory. The end of the civil strife unfortunately came too late to salvage the situation with Persia.

In 609 AD all key Pravoslav fortresses and defenses along the eastern borders were captured by the Persian armies and the Pravoslavs were driven out of Armenia. In the meantime, while his forces were finishing up in Egypt, Heraclius and his fleet made their way to Tsari Grad. Phocas tried to put up resistance but quickly found himself in the same losing position as his predecessor Maurice. Deserted by his supporters, Phocas was seized and brought before Heraclius, who in turn executed him.

Heraclius's revolt marked a crucial turning point in Pravoslav history. In only slightly over two years his actions cost the empire thousands of lives, sapping the empire's manpower, finances and leaving the frontiers virtually undefended. His revolt cost the empire the loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt.


Emperor Heraclius ruled the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641 AD. His entry into Pravoslav affairs was at a time when the Empire was threatened on all fronts by many enemies. Leading citizens had had enough of the corrupt Emperor Phocas and wanted him out.

Heraclius's involvement with the Pravoslavs began when his father, General Heraclius of Carthage, was invited to oust Phocus. The general and his brother responded by sending their respective sons with well-equipped forces. By 610 AD Heraclius, the son, triumphantly entered Tsari Grad.

Heraclius, like his predecessors, found the empire's treasury empty. The empire actually worsened with his first few years of rule before it began to turn around.

Heraclius's first order of business was to strengthen the empire's defenses. He did that by dividing the empire into four military districts, each ruled by a military governor. By giving prospective soldiers land grants (themes), he recruited a considerable number of natives, thus minimizing the need for costly foreign mercenaries. On the economic side, he turned to the church for contributions and at the same time introduced new taxes. It took him twelve years before he was confident to go on the offensive. In the spring of 622 AD he led a powerful army into battle.

There are some who say that Heraclius risked his own life by personally participating in many battles. After six years of fighting, his new army was victorious and defeated the Persians. Unfortunately as soon as he arrived in Tsari Grad to celebrate his victories, in 628 AD, the armies of Islam began to advance on Persia. By 633 AD all the territories gained were lost.

Heraclius did try to stop the Islamic onslaught in 636 AD when he raised an army of 80,000 soldiers and met the Muslims by the river Yarmuk. Unfortunately, the climatic conditions were not favourable for the Pravoslavs when a violent sandstorm struck them head-on giving the Muslims, who were used to this kind of weather, battle advantage. The stressful situation was exhausting mentally and physically for Heraclius and caused him to fall seriously ill. Feeling that he may no longer be able to rule, Heraclius performed the ceremony of succession and appointed his two sons Constantine and Heraclonas as his successors in 638 AD.

With the succession settled, Heraclius spent the last years of his life trying to settle the debate between the monophysites and the monotheleties, centering on the nature of Christ. His efforts were unfortunately in vain and no resolution was reached before his death in 641 AD.

Heraclius is also known as the emperor who finally abolished the Latin language from his empire thus allowing the Macedonian language to begin its revival.

It is noteworthy to mention at this point that, while the Pravoslavs were fighting the Persians for dominion over the near east, a new power was growing in Arabia. By the late 620's the tribes of Arabia were uniting under the Prophet Mohamed and were beginning to raid Palestine. By about 633 AD most of the empire's eastern provinces were conquered and after the fall of Damascus in 635 AD, a large Pravoslav army was dispatched to stop the Muslim advance, but it failed.

After Heraclius's death more territories exchanged hands and Caesaria, on the Palestinian coast, was also lost after the Pravoslavs lost Egypt.

By the late 640's the Pravoslavs had again lost the fortress Dara, Edessa in the near-east, Antioch and Alexandria. By the early 650's the Muslims had launched attacks over the Taurus Mountains, through Azerbaijan and made their way into Armenia. By late 653 AD they were at the shores of the Bosporus on the other side of Tsari Grad.

The loss of the major cities and fortresses in the east was a major blow to the economy of the Pravoslavs, who for many years had become dependent on Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Palestine and the Caspian coastlands for their commerce. Although the economy did not entirely collapse, much of the progress experienced up to the seventh century ceased to exist. Grand projects including building new churches, repairs and renovations to aqueducts, walls, etc. were also abandoned. Many of the larger cities, excluding Solun and Tsari Grad, were emptied and their populations took on a rural village lifestyle, living off the land.

Being cut off from the rich eastern economies, the empire became poor and began to turn its attention inwards. The empire was no longer a superpower and would never again dominate the near-east. It was also during this period that the Pravoslavs chose to elevate Solun to a second capital city.

By the end of the seventh century AD, Islam, seated in Damascus, was becoming a superpower extending from the borders of India and Tibet to Spain and from southern Egypt and Arabia to Armenia. Islam, a powerful new religious force originating in Arabia, was taking over the near-east in rapid conquests following the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 AD.

By this time both the Persian and Pravoslav empires had been weakened by their mutual wars and were experiencing devastating defeats at the hands of the Muslims.

While the Persian Empire quickly succumbed to the Muslim assault, the Pravoslavs were only saved because of Tsari Grad's strong triple wall fortifications. As mentioned earlier, the defensive wall construction of Tsari Grad was commissioned around 410 AD and was completed by 500 AD. The inner wall was about twelve meters high and about five and a half meters wide, defended by ninety-six polygonal towers rising more than ten meters above the wall. The second wall was about ten meters high defended by another ninety-six towers. On the outside was a moat about twenty meters wide and about six meters deep. Beyond the moat was a third low wall designed to act as a retaining wall for the moat. Also, one had to cross ten gates before entering the city.

The outer walls were approximately five and a half kilometers long and extended about a kilometer and a half beyond the original Constantinian wall. The large area between the walls was never built up and was used for farming and to supply the city with secure sources of water.

The existence of open farmland inside the city walls was a vital factor in the city's ability to resist sieges. Used to grow crops and graze animals, the land provided the city with a limited but secure source of food.

Europe and Christianity were saved because the Pravoslavs were able to withstand many waves of Muslim onslaught. Had Tsari Grad not been built to withstand the greatest of sieges, Islam would have overrun Europe, as it did Asia. Christianity and the world as we know it today would not have existed in the same way.

Before his death Heraclius elevated both his 28-year-old son Constantine, from his first wife Fabia-Eudocia, and his 15-year-old son Heraclonas, from his send wife Martina, to co-emperors. Unfortunately 28-year-old Constantine, or Constantine III as he was then known, died three months later.

In the absence of Constantine III, his brother Heraclonas crowned Constantine III's son, Constans II, as his co-emperor. But in September 641 AD the Senate deposed Heraclonas and his mother the Empress Martina. To make sure they would never rule again, Martina's tongue and Heraclonas's nose were cut off.

As Constans II was only eleven years old, the Senate held power in the interim and served as the supreme court of the empire.

Like his predecessors, Constans II inherited an empire full of problems. Although he did his best to solve them, he was more unsuccessful than not. His attempts to invade Asia Minor in 646 AD were met with difficulties. Not only did the Muslim Saracen repel his invasion, but the war was brought closer to Tsari Grad in the end. Year after year Muslim troops continued to raid deeper and deeper into Asia Minor, pushing nearer to the western limit of Asia, while Europe was threatened by losses to the Saracen fleet in the eastern Mediterranean. By 649 AD the Saracen fleet captured Cyprus and the Pravoslav fleet was driven out of Alexandria by 652 AD. In 655 AD the Pravoslav fleet faced its final defeat off Phoenix on the Lycian coast, in the heaviest sea-fight since Actium.

Constans, tired of watching his empire slowly erode, took his campaign north. In 658 AD he invaded the region north of the Danube which, at the time, was occupied by Slavs. He successfully defeated numerous tribes and forced them to resettle in Asia Minor. At the same time he began recruiting captive Slavs into his Anatolian forces. Soon afterwards, due to his unpopularity at home, he went west and in 662 AD set out on an expedition to campaign against the Lombards in Italy. On his way he took a southern route which landed him in Rome in 663 AD. Instead of continuing further north, he ended his campaign and retired in Syracuse on the island of Sicily. From there he directed his African campaigns against the attacking Saracens, who had assaulted and captured Carthage in 663 AD.

Even though his African campaigns were successful and his army was able to drive the Saracens as far back as Tripoli, Constans was not popular. Forcing the cost of the war on Syracuse and making the Sicilians pay for it made them very angry indeed. His unpopularity made him the victim of a conspiracy and in 668 AD he was murdered by a slave while bathing.

After Constans II's death, his son Constantine IV succeeded him as emperor. Before setting out on his campaigns in 654 AD, Constans II elevated his son Constantine IV to co-emperor and in 659 AD he did the same for his other two sons, Heraclius and Tiberius.

To ensure that there would be no problem with the dynastic succession, Constans had his younger brother Theodosius murdered. Theodosius, however, was popular with the court and raised public sentiment against Constans, causing him go to Italy.

Constantine IV was only eighteen years old when he became emperor and his first task was to suppress the rebellion in Syracuse and bring his father's murderers to justice.

The first major threat that Constantine faced was the advance of the Arabs. By 673 AD the Muslims had attacked Sicily, North Africa and had advanced north into Asia Minor. While in possession of the Asiatic shore of the Sea of Marmora in 674 AD, the Muslims began their assault upon Tsari Grad. By about the same time the Pravoslavs had invented a new weapon, a primitive flame-thrower consisting of a mixture of flammable oils blown-ejected with huge bellows. Armed with this revolutionary weapon, the Pravoslav fleet turned the tide on the Arab advance and recovered its mastery of the sea. The Saracens were driven off and their leader had no choice but to sue for peace. Constantine IV was able to negotiate a favourable treaty and the Arab leader agreed to pay an annual tribute of 3,000 pieces of gold.

The Pravoslav victories in the east allowed Constantine to turn his attention to the west. It was at this time that the Pravoslav army was dispatched to Solun to save the city from another barbarian siege. History has recorded this as a Slav siege but the leaderless Slavs never acted alone. It is most likely that the more aggressive Avars organized and conducted the siege with Slav help. After the siege was broken, the Avars sent ambassadors to Tsari Grad to acknowledge Pravoslav control over them.

This was not the first siege that Solun experienced during this period. With the Pravoslav army campaigning in far away lands, there were plenty of opportunities for organized barbarian hordes eager to take advantage of her, in the absence of the army.

In the sixth century Solun was the second largest city in the Pravoslav Empire and a very important commercial and cultural center. It was natural then that she would attract all kinds of loot seekers and adventurers. Solun, however, was a fortress protected by strong walls and by the spirit of St. Dimitrius. Armed with their Christian faith and self determination, the Macedonians of Solun succeeded in defending their city on their own, without armies.

Of the many attacks that took place against this majestic city only a few have been recorded in history. The first was a joint Avar-Slav attack that took place in October 584 AD, carried out by an army of nearly five thousand warriors. Two years later there was a second, more serious attack again led by the Avars. This time the enemy employed siege engines, catapults and other equipment. The siege lasted eight days before the Avars broke off the attack. This time it was not Solunian determination but the spirit of St. Dimitrius, which unleashed the plague on the eager invaders causing them to flee in panic.

The next attack took place in 616 AD, organized by a Slav alliance involving a fleet consisting of numerous boats fashioned from single tree-trunks. This time the Slavs came with their families and households intent upon an immediate settlement of the city. Unfortunately, when they came in contact with the Solunians, the Slavs suffered great losses and beat a hasty retreat. (It is most likely that this particular group of Slavs were refugees looking for a safe haven and were forcibly turned away. During campaigns soldiers did not bring their families to battle. Families and belongings were usually left at camp, a safe distance away from the battle).

Two years later, in 618 AD, the Avars came back, with Slav help. The allied armies appeared in front of the city walls and for thirty-three days attempted to forcibly enter the city, without success. Eventually they gave up and left.

The next wave of attacks came in 674 AD. The entire region nearby was looted for the next two years until the Pravoslav army, freed from its eastern campaigns, put an end to it. Even though Solun itself was placed under siege, the assailants were unable to penetrate her defenses and again were forced out empty handed.

The next barbarian menaces to enter Pravoslav affairs were the Bulgars. By 670 AD the Bulgars had consolidated their power under their leader Asparuch, who intended to eventually invade Pravoslav lands. In time the Bulgars invaded the Danube delta intending to move further south into Pravoslav territory. The Bulgars were a pagan people whom the Khazars, another barbarian tribe, had forced down toward the Danube delta in the latter part of the 7th century.

The Danube delta was considered, at the time, a Pravoslav protectorate and in 680 AD Constantine mounted a joint naval and land force expedition to expel the Bulgars. After several attempts, the Pravoslavs were unable to engage the Bulgars in battle. When the Pravoslavs attempted to retreat, the Bulgars mounted a counterattack and were able to inflict much damage upon them.

In the following year, because of his great losses, Constantine IV agreed to a Bulgar treaty. By virtue of this treaty signed in the same year, the Bulgars were recognized as an independent kingdom, occupying lands south of the Danube into the Thracian plain. Soon afterwards, the Bulgars established their capital at Pliska and gained control of access to the Danube.

To offset this, Constantine established the land grants (theme) of Thrace and settled Avar fugitives there to act as a buffer zone against the Bulgars.

With the Bulgars in check, Constantine's next concern was ensuring the succession of his son Justinian to the throne. To do that, however, he had to remove his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius from their positions as co-emperors. His decision to do so unfortunately caused protests among his Anatolian troops. It has been said that the soldiers of the time felt that the division of imperial power should be three in nature, the same as the trinity. Constantine unfortunately disagreed and acting quickly, arrested and executed the leaders of the protest. He also rescinded his orders to remove his brothers and left them as co-emperors. Afterwards, however, Constantine changed his mind and removed the brothers from their positions. To ensure that they would never again rule, he had their noses slit. After that he proclaimed his son Justinian II as co-emperor.

In 685AD Constantine IV died at the age of thirty-five and was succeeded by his seventeen year old son Justinian II. Justinian's reign was unfortunately plagued with problems. He waged a successful campaign against the Bulgars in 690 AD which gave him a false sense of confidence to try his luck against the Muslims. In 693 AD he invaded Syria through the Taurus Mountains only to meet with an overwhelming defeat.

History has recorded Justinian II as a brilliant but tempestuous and vindictive emperor who dealt very harshly with his unsuccessful generals and drastically taxed his subjects by monstrous methods. No wonder Leontius, one of his more successful generals, revolted against him, deposed him, slit his nose and sent him off to prison in the Crimea.

After deposing Justinian II, Leontius became emperor in 695 AD only to be deposed himself. In 698 AD a number of Pravoslav officers returned to Tsari Grad from Africa. Afraid of paying the ultimate penalty for losing Carthage to the Saracens, they struck first and captured Leontius, slit his nose, shut him up in a monastery and made Tiberius III emperor.

Tiberius III was made emperor by the army in the Macedonian tradition but did not fare well either. He at least did better than Justinian II against the Saracens by successfully penetrating into northern Syria. Unfortunately his luck ran out when Justinian II escaped from the Crimea in 705 AD. After his escape Justinian got help from the Bulgar king and seized the Tsari Grad palace. After he restored himself to the throne he had Leontius and Tiberius III executed.

Justinian was a vindictive man who indulged in an orgy of undiscriminating cruelty, which was only ended by a military insurrection. Having been sent to crush a revolt in the Crimea, instead general Philippicus joined the rebels and sailed back to Tsari Grad. In 711 AD he swept to power on a wave of popular support and had Justinian II, his wife and children killed.

Philippicus, plagued by conspiracies, only lasted as emperor from 711 to 713 AD and was replaced by Anastasius II. Anastasius, unable to cope with the Saracen tide, only lasted from 713 to 715 AD. Anastasius II fell and made way for Theodosius III to take his place in 715 AD.

While the emperors were rising and falling in the palace of the capital city, the Saracens were preparing for a massive campaign against Tsari Grad. A Saracen strike force was being readied in Asia Minor to move on the city. Fortunately a capable army commander named Leo happened to be stationed in Asia Minor and took matters into his own hands. For a while he engaged the Saracens and kept them at bay. Then he made a truce with them, turned around and marched on Tsari Grad himself. Upon his arrival he deposed Theodosius III and installed himself as emperor.

No sooner had Leo III taken control of the empire, in 716 AD, thousands of Arab and Persian warriors arrived at the Hellespont and began their siege of Tsari Grad. The Saracen fleets filled the Bosporus but were eventually beaten back by the Pravoslav flame-throwers.

After freeing the waterways, Leo dispatched troops to the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus and cut off the Saracen supply lines from the east. The besiegers now found themselves effectively besieged and in danger of starving. Another blow was delivered when news came that the Bulgar king was mobilizing a great force and was going to strike at the Saracens from the north.

With the aid of the Bulgars, Leo was able to turn back the Muslim assault. After receiving the bad news, the Saracens abandoned the siege and made their way back to Asia Minor. With the Moslem threat out of the way, at least for now, Leo had time to turn his attention to domestic affairs. Besides making reforms to the themes, he entered the great religious controversies giving them a new twist. Leo felt that the practice of using images and pictures or icons in worship, which at the time was common, tended to encourage idolatry. The practice was ridiculed and criticized by the Moslems which prompted Leo to put an end to it.

In 725 AD Leo banned idolatry and gave orders to remove all religious statues from the churches. All walls with icons and pictures of saints were to be whitewashed. Doing this was not as easy as Leo may have thought and caused a great deal of upset, which history has recorded as the famous iconoclastic controversy. No sooner had officials begun to enforce the edict than riots broke out, not just in Tsari Grad but throughout the entire empire. The Pope in Rome reacted strongly to Leo's initiatives by excommunicating all bishops who were in support of them. Even though Leo was unable to enforce his edict in the west, his actions did alienate the western Church eventually contributing to the eleventh century schism. The worst opposition, however, was yet to come and it was not going to be from outside the empire.

By Leo's time the empire's decline was leveling off, but in terms of territories much was lost. The Danube was no longer the empire's northern boundary. The interior of the Balkan Peninsula had seen its share of violence and occupations and now a Bulgar kingdom came into being where none existed before.

Leo III turned out to be an excellent administrator who revived prosperity and added prestige to his empire through the victories he delivered under his personal command. Leo III died in 741 AD and was succeeded by his son Constantine V.

By Leo's time, the themes (land grants) had taken root and, however dismal, the economic developments had permitted the empire to survive and provided a foundation for greater success in the centuries to come. Military service was a hereditary occupation where the eldest son assumed the burden of service and was supported primarily by revenues from the &quot;granted lands&quot; which were worked by other members of the family. The technological base of Pravoslav society during the 7th and 8th centuries was more advanced than that of contemporary western Europe. The Pravoslavs possessed iron tools that could even be found the villages. Water mills dotted the landscape and field-sown beans provided a diet rich in protein. None of these advances was to characterize western European agriculture until the 10th century AD.

Agriculture in the rural areas of Pravoslav society was taken very seriously and a tradition of careful farming was developed and persisted even through the darkest days. Having lost first its Egyptian granary and later its north African and Sicilian resources, the Pravoslavs had to live from whatever they could produce on the remaining lands. The villages and small peasant holdings seem to have been the main form of rural organization and collective agricultural practices during that time. In trade and commerce, after the loss of Egypt and North Africa, the grain fleets manned by hereditary shipmasters disappeared. In their place emerged the independent merchants who in time developed new trade routes and began to trade with the Bulgars in Thrace and through Cyprus, with the Arabs. With time, despite constant warfare, Pravoslav society was becoming more vibrant and healthier.


Constantine V became emperor in 741 AD after Leo III, his father, died. Constantine's first order of business was to fight his way to the throne by suppressing a revolt initiated by his brother-in-law. In the next few years, internal strife in the Muslim world allowed Constantine opportunities to campaign in Armenia and beyond the Taurus Range.

Constantine was victorious in northern Syria and was able to transfer prisoners to Thrace in preparation for a new war against the Bulgars. He fortified the passes of the Balkan range in an attempt to curb Bulgar aggression. Unfortunately, the Bulgar kings reacted by attacking the Pravoslav initiatives. Constantine in turn launched a counter attack and was able to repel the Bulgars. The only thing that prevented him from crushing them was a disastrous storm which wrecked his fleet. In no fewer than nine campaigns, Constantine undermined Bulgar strength and permanently weakened it. By doing so he cleared the region of brigands allowing merchants to operate safely.

Constantine V was considered a good emperor by many but he did make mistakes. Being a true zealot he searched out and penalized those who continued to practice image worship, even in private, by instituting harsh religious persecution. He even embarked on a campaign against monks and monasticism which by most was thought to be somewhat extreme.

Constantine V's reign lasted until 775 AD when he was succeeded by his son Leo IV. Leo IV unfortunately died prematurely in 780 AD. His 10-year-old son, Constantine VI, was left to assume the throne. But being too young to make his own decisions, he was left in the regency of the empress Irene.

For the next ten years empress Irene reigned in her son's name. Being an image worshiper (iconodule) herself, she somewhat relaxed the measures against the image worshippers by dismissing iconoclast (anti-icon) officials from civil and ecclesiastic duties and replacing them by iconodules. She was an ambitious iconodule but her iconodule policies unfortunately alienated many of her troops, who were still loyal to the memory of the great warrior emperor, Constantine V. To counter the troop alienation and still maintain her popularity among the icon defenders, she rebated taxes to the themes and also reduced the customs duties levied at the ports of Tsari Grad. Unfortunately, the consequent loss of taxes weighed heavily on the treasury, especially after victories won by the Arabs in Asia Minor in 781 AD and by the Bulgars in 792 AD, which led the victors to demand tributes as the price of peace.

In 797 AD Irene instigated a revolt against her own son. He was seized, had his eye gouged out and was imprisoned in a monastery. She then assumed the throne herself. A revolt in the palace in 802 AD led to Irene's deposition. She was exiled to the isle of Lesbos where she later died.

In the face of a Bulgar menace, Nicephorus I, the empire's finance minister, succeeded Irene to the throne in 802 AD. He re-imposed the taxes that the empress had remitted and also instituted some other money saving reforms. Then, in the tradition of Constantine V, Nicephorus strengthened the fortification of Thrace by settling more colonists from Asia Minor. He even led his troops in battle against the new Bulgar Khan, Krum. Unfortunately his career and life came to an abrupt end when his army was defeated in battle by the Bulgars. The Bulgar Khan Krum, after defeating Nicephorus, had his skull lined with silver (some say with gold) and used it as a drinking cup

Nicephorus I died in 811 AD and was succeeded by his son in law, Michael I. Nicephorus's son, Stauracius, was mortally wounded in battle during the Bulgar war and died on his way home. The succession was thus secured by his brother in law the incompetent Michael I.

Michael's lack of ability led his army into internal dissension just as he was about to face Krum in battle. His incapacity not only brought him defeat but also cost him the throne. He was deposed in 813 AD by an Armenian soldier named Leo.

Leo V as he was then known became emperor in 813 AD and faced another Bulgar attack from Krum. Luckily, Krum died a sudden death in 814 AD as he was preparing for the attack, which never materialized. Krum's son, Omurtag, in the meantime arranged a peace treaty with the Pravoslavs. Omurtag needed the Pravoslavs as allies in order to help him protect the western frontiers of his Bulgar empire against Frankish expansion under Charlemagne and his successors.

With the Bulgars in check, Leo decided to delve into the iconoclastic controversy. Like most soldiers he ended up on the unpopular side. Leo V was assassinated in 820 AD and was replaced by another Michael, Michael II who was also a soldier.

Michael II's reign began in 820 AD and was plagued by outbreaks of rebellion. His nine years of reign were mainly memorable for the loss of Crete to the Corsairs and the invasion of Sicily by the Aghlabids.

Michael II established the Phrygian dynasty and his son Theophilus and grandson Michael III each occupied the Pravoslav throne in turn.


Michael's son Theophilus reigned from 829 to 842 AD during which time hostilities between the Pravoslavs and Muslims were renewed. The Muslims invaded Cappadocia and Theophilus was forced to concentrate all his military efforts on the war against them. The consequence was that he could no longer support the campaign in Sicily and in 842 AD Sicily was lost to the Saracens. Meanwhile the war with the Muslims in the east raged on and neither side was able to gain advantage.

Theophilus died in 842 AD and the government was passed on to a council of regents on behalf of his four year old son, Michael III. At the head of the regency council was Michael's mother, the empress Theodora. Theodora was an image worshipper and did her best to reverse her late husband's iconoclast policies. In no time she began to persecute the iconoclasts.

.

When Michael reached the age of eighteen, in 856 AD, he removed his mother from active duty and ruled the empire with his disreputable drinking companion uncle Bardas, first as councilor than as colleague. When Michael became tired of Bardas he dropped him from council and promoted to Caesar another drinking companion, Basil the Macedonian. About a year later, Basil the Macedonian became tired of Michael and murdered him after a heavy drinking bout.

Already being Caesar, Basil in 867 AD assumed the position of emperor without any opposition, thus inaugurating the Macedonian dynasty, which reigned for nearly two centuries.

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Greeks are not at all who they claim to be. History, it seems, is revealing more and more that the modern Greeks are more Slav than the modern Macedonians.

There is clear and more than ample evidence that shows that Greece was the dumping ground for Slav refugees during the first millennium AD.

If anyone does not deserve the ancient Greek heritage it's the modern Greeks. A large part of the modern Greek population, it seems, are not even indigenous to the region. They are Slavs from beyond the Danube planted in Greece by the Byzantine Emperors. Research your own history people!!!

How can a nation of people, so falsely, claim to be who they are not and at the same time deny others the right to be who they are?

I will stress again that the modern Greeks do not deserve the glory of ancient Greece because they are NOT who they claim to be!

How hypocritical of Greek historians to ignore real history and knowingly and falsely assume that they are the descendants of the ancient Greeks and at the same time deny the Macedonians their true heritage?

No imposed language, stolen culture and mythical history can keep the truth hidden forever!

References:

Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, Los Angeles: University of California, 1996.

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community, Boswell B.C., 1996.

Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press, 1999.

Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002.

Anthony Ambrozic, Journey Back to the Garumna. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2000.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750, New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Company, 1989.

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, Skopje, 1979.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos &amp; Co., 1980

Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, New York: Atheneum, 1976.

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>abmeo5edl9txp2yrsaiyxpwi181gtiw</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Revival of the Macedonian State, Language and Culture</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2074</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11089</id>
      <parentid>4986</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:19Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="61467" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 17 - Revival of the Macedonian State, Language and Culture

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

It was Herbert George Wells who said that the barbarian invasion of Europe started with the rise of the Great Wall of China. Migrating tribes of Mongolian nomads, who spent their summers on the Siberian plains and their winters in East Central China, could no longer do so because the Great Wall of China blocked them. Unable to go to their traditional lands, the tribes were forced to change their wintering patterns. Unable to cross into Eastern Central China, the Mongolian tribes began a westward movement putting pressure on the people whose lands they invaded. By the time the great wall was finished in the 6th century AD, many of the Mongolian tribes had abandoned their traditional eastern migrating patterns and moved westward.

It is my belief that the Slavs did not move willingly but were pushed out as a consequence of this great wave of tribal migration.

Who the Slavs were and where they came from are still controversial questions, which will be answered in time and with diligent archeological research. In the meantime, there are two emerging theories.

The first and more popular theory is that the modern Slavs are the descendents of the first Europeans. They are identified by many names but are best known as the Veneti. The second theory is that the Slavs of Europe are the remnants of Alexander the Greats' settlers and soldiers. It is well known that Alexander the Great established many cities and outposts wherever he campaigned in order to support his military needs. Settlers were brought from Macedonia and given lands to farm. When Alexander's empire collapsed, instead of returning home, many of his people remained at their outposts and permanently settled the new lands. Archeological digs in India have revealed that Macedonian estates were still in existence two centuries after Alexander's empire collapsed. It is conceivable then that the Macedonian settlers of Europe also remained on their estates, living undisturbed for centuries, and migrated northward as their populations expanded. Being already civilized, the Macedonians had a well-established language and culture, which they disseminated among the native populations from which they employed their workers.

These are, however, only theories and much archeological evidence is needed to validate them. On the other hand, what is certain and well documented is the 8th century revival of the Macedonian language and culture.

As for the language of the Slavs, there are some who believe that the Slavs north of the Danube spoke different languages and only learned the so-called Slav language after they crossed the Danube River. This was also the case with the Huns, Avars and Bulgars. Today's Bulgarians speak a Slavic language as a consequence of being assimilated by the indigenous Slavic speaking population that lived south of the Danube. &quot;The Bulgarians had adopted Slavic language and culture. It is paradoxical that the Bulgarians, a Turkic people who adopted Slavic language and customs, took a significant role in standardizing Slavic writing.&quot; (Page 197, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, Jefferson North Carolina: McFarland, 1997) The reason for adopting the Slavic language was because the majority of the people whom the Bulgars occupied were Slavs, mostly Macedonians. The true Bulgars their Turko-Tartar rulers were only a small minority.

Relations between Tsari Grad and Bulgaria soured when Khan Presian became ruler of the Bulgars in 835 AD. While the Pravoslavs were busy fighting the Muslims, the Bulgar king sought the opportunity and invaded Pravoslav territory, bringing thirty years of peace to an end.
A large Bulgar invasion force entered Pravoslav territory and occupied several regions of northern Macedonia. Bulgar encroachment continued up until Boris's reign. By then the Bulgars had occupied a large part of the Strumitsa region and parts of central Macedonia to the Vardar valley. Finally in 864 AD the Pravoslavs intervened but instead of pushing the Bulgars out, they settled for peace. The peace treaty did not free Macedonia but it did put an end to Bulgar expansionism for a while. According to the terms of the treaty Boris was also obliged to accept Christianity as his state religion.

It was during the reign of the Pravoslav emperor Michael III (842-867) that Solun had definitely established itself as the religious and philosophical center of the empire. This was the time when Kiril (Cyril) and Metodi (Methodius) set off on a series of missions to spread the doctrines of Christianity to various places in Eastern Europe and Asia. (Solun up to this point had not been invaded by the Slavs, but the Solunians spoke Slavic).

I just want to mention here that, by the eighth century AD, the Macedonian eparchy was controlled by a Macedonian Archbishopric with its center located in Solun and bishoprics existed in eighteen towns including Lerin, Kostur, Voden and Serres.

The brothers Kiril and Metodi were Macedonians, natives of Solun, who were acclaimed as the apostles of the Southern Slavs and the fathers of Slav literary culture. Kiril, the younger of the two, was given the name Constantine when he was baptized. It was much later when he received the name Kiril.

Kiril was very fortunate to have studied in Tsari Grad at a young age and receive his education from Leo the Grammarian and Photius, a prominent educator at the imperial university. Kiril was an extraordinary student and earned himself the nickname &quot;the Philosopher&quot;. After he finished his education he was ordained deacon and later became professor of philosophy at the imperial school in Tsari Grad, where he took over the chair from Photius. Soon afterwards, he retired to the quiet solitude of a monastery. From there, in 861 AD, he was summoned by the emperor, Michael III, and sent on a mission to Christianize the Khazars of southern Russia who lived between the Dnieper and Volga Rivers.

The elder brother Metodi was a well-liked, intelligent man who started his career in his father's footsteps. At first he served in the military in Solun. Later, at age twenty, he became governor of one of the Slav colonies in the Opsikion province in Asia. Then he became a monk and, like his brother, took part in a mission to Christianize the Khazars.

Kiril and Metodi were two of seven siblings. Their father Lev was a prominent Macedonian man who served as assistant to the Solun military commander of the Pravoslav army.

The careers of the Solun brothers took a turn for the better in 862 AD when, Rostislav, the prince of Moravia sent his ambassador to Tsari Grad seeking missionaries capable of teaching his people to read and write in their own language. Rostislav, fearful of his powerful German neighbours, sought the opportunity to strengthen his alliance with the Pravoslavs to counter-balance the German missionary influence in his kingdom. Rostislav preferred the ecclesiastical politics of Photius, now patriarch of Tsari Grad, over those of his western counterpart.

When word came that Emperor Michael was looking for capable missionaries, Photius decided that Kiril and Metodi were the most suitable candidates for the job. The Solun brothers, being Slav speakers themselves, knew the Solunian dialect of the Slav language well and accepted the task.

The old-Macedonian dialect was quite well understood by all the Slav tribes. Unfortunately, teaching the illiterate to read and write was easier said than done. Even though the Slavs had a written form of language described as &quot;lines and incisions&quot;, it was not an easy language to learn.

Kiril was familiar with the Glagolic script but that also was too complex a language for illiterate people to grasp quickly. According to Tsarnorizets Hrabar, an advocate of Macedonian literacy, Kiril and Metodi first tried to use the Koine and then Latin alphabets, but proper pronunciation could not be achieved. Slav speech was far too complex to record with just Koine or Latin letters. Kiril was an intelligent man and solved the problem by constructing a new alphabet based on old Macedonian traditions. The pattern and some letters he based on the Koine alphabet but he enriched it by adding new letters. He borrowed some of the new letters from the Glagolic script and some he fashioned from ancient Macedonian symbols that had traditional Macedonian meaning. &quot;Peter Hill argues that Old Church Slavonic was more than merely a written dialect. It is naïve, he says, to imagine that this construction of a written language was possible without established tradition. Therefore it can safely be assumed that there was at least some tradition on which Cyril and Methodius could build. Presumably their familiarity with this tradition derived from the fact that they were Slavic themselves.&quot; (Page 198, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &amp; Co., 1997)

When it was completed Kiril's alphabet consisted of 38 letters, each accurately and exactly representing a unique sound in the Slav speech. The phonetic nature of Kiril's language made spelling words very simple. One only needed to learn the alphabet to have the ability to read and write. The same is true to this day.

I just want to mention that there are some references claiming that Kiril was the inventor of the Glagolic script, but they are incorrect. Kiril was familiar with the Glagolic script and had composed Glagolic texts but we now know from recent discoveries of ancient inscriptions that the Glagolic alphabet existed before Kiril's time.

In 862 AD Kiril and Metodi, along with a number of followers, arrived in Moravia in Rostislav's court. They immediately set out to work and to their surprise Kiril's vernacular was not only well understood, but became popular with the Moravians.

The Pravoslav missionaries continued their work for a while, with much success, but were soon handicapped by the lack of Pravoslav bishops to ordain their priests. Also, their popularity with the Moravians displeased the German missionaries who saw them as competition and harshly objected to their presence.

German hostilities reached their peak when the German Emperor Louis forced Rostislav to take an oath of loyalty to him. The German prelate, the bishop of Passau, who had the power to ordain Pravoslav priests refused to do so out of contempt. Unable to continue their work the missionaries were forced to return to Tsari Grad.

On their way back the Macedonian brothers took a detour through Venice where they learned that the Pope had excommunicated Photius, the Pravoslav Patriarch in Tsari Grad. Pravoslav missionaries and their liturgical use of the Macedonian language were vehemently criticized.

In 858 AD Emperor Michael III, on his own authority, deposed Patriarch Ignatius and replaced him with the more progressive Photius. The Pope, however, did not agree with Michael's decision and proclaimed his deeds invalid. At the same time the Pope denounced both Photius and the emperor.

When Pope Nicholas I found out that the Pravoslav missionaries were in Venice he summoned them to Rome. By the time they arrived, however, Nicholas had died and the political situation had changed for the better. In a turn of events Nicholas's successor, Adrian II, warmly welcomed the strangers, especially when he found out that they were bringing him an important gift. Kiril it seems had recovered some relics of Pope St. Clement when he was in the Crimea visiting the Khazars and offered them to Adrian as gifts.

When they arrived, Adrian conducted an investigation and found no misconduct on the part of the Pravoslavs. In his judgment he permitted Kiril and Metodi to receive Episcopal consecration and allowed their newly converted priests to be ordained. He also approved Slavonic to be used in liturgy.

Sadly, Kiril died on February 14, 869 AD in Rome and never made it back home. After Kiril's death Metodi pleaded with Pope Adrian to allow him to take his brother's body to Solun for burial but Adrian would not permit it. It was the wish of Kiril and Metodi's mother that if either son should die, the other would bring the body back for a decent burial in the family monastery. Unfortunately Adrian would not allow it claiming that it would not be fitting for the Pope to permit the body of so distinguished a Christian to be taken away. He declared that a man so famous should be buried in a famous place. Kiril was buried with great pomp in the church of San Clemente on the Coelian, where the relics of St. Clement had been enshrined.

After Kiril died Metodi took over the cause and leadership of the mission from his brother. Having been consecrated, he obtained a letter of recommendation from the Pope and the Holy See and quickly returned to his duties. At the request of Kozzel, prince of Pannonia, who at the time wanted to revive the ancient archdiocese of Sirmium (now Mitrovitsa), Metodi was made metropolitan (Archbishop). He was given a large area of responsibility with boundaries that extended to the borders of Bulgaria. Unfortunately as the political situation in Moravia was shifting Metodi's title and his papal approval did not mean much to the Western missionaries, especially the Germans who began a smear campaign against him. To make matters worse, Rostislav's nephew, Svatopluk, allied himself with Carloman of Bavaria and had his uncle driven out. After that it did not take long before Metodi was in trouble again.

In 870 AD Metodi was summoned before a synod of German bishops. They found him guilty of misconduct, no doubt on trumped-up charges, and locked him in a leaking jail cell. It took two years of pleading before Pope John VIII could get him out. Unfortunately, to avoid further controversies Pope John withdrew his permission to use Slavonic, a barbarous language as he called it, for any purpose other than preaching. At the same time he reminded the Germans that Pannonia was never German and since age immemorial it belonged to the Holy See.

After his release, Metodi continued his work in Moravia but there too he got into trouble. Metodi did not approve of Svatopluk's wicked lifestyle and made his displeasure public. In retaliation, Svatopluk reported Metodi to the Holy See. He accused him of conducting divine worship in Slavonic and of heresy, charging that he omitted the words &quot;and the Son&quot; from the creed. At that time these words where not yet introduced everywhere in the West.

In 878 AD, as a result of Svatopluk's accusations, Pope John VIII summoned Metodi to Rome and conducted an inquiry. Metodi was a serious man, a dedicated Christian, and was able to convince the Pope both of his devotion to his religion and of the necessity to use Slavonic liturgy. Even though Pope John was in agreement with Metodi on most matters, he
had certain reservations about the use of the Slavonic language. It seems that some of the western missionaries perceived the Slavonic language as a threat to their own mission and did everything in their power to condemn it. They alleged that, being created by mere men, the Slavonic language was not from God and that God had created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Koine and Latin. Metodi however fought back with equally persuasive arguments, counter-claiming that God did not create the Hebrew, Koine or Latin languages. God created the Syrian language which Adam and the people after him spoke until the flood. Then during the building of the Tower of Babel, God distributed the various languages among the people and created the written form of the languages. His arguments may have bought Metodi some time but he was still in trouble with the German missionaries.

Seeing that he could not easily get rid of him, Svatopluk used his influence as king and persuaded the Pope to appoint Wiching, a known adversary, to work with Metodi. The German (or French) priest Wiching was brought in to assist Metodi as one of his bishops. Wiching was an implacable opponent of Metodi who worked against him tirelessly. This unscrupulous prelate continued to persecute Metodi, even to the extent of forging pontifical documents.

After Metodi's death, Wiching obtained the archiepiscopal see, banished Metodi's followers, and undid as much as he could of Metodi's work in Moravia.

When Wiching was appointed as his assistant, Metodi must have realized that he was fighting a losing battle. In the last four years of his life he took a break from missionary work and translated most of the Bible from Koine to Slavonic.

Metodi died in 885 AD, probably from exhaustion. His funeral service was carried out in Koine, Slavonic and Latin. Metodi was very popular with the people and many came to his funeral to pay their last respects.

I just want to add here that Saints Kiril and Metodi were always celebrated in the lands of their missions and after 1880 they were also celebrated throughout the entire western world.

In Tsari Grad in the meantime, tired of his uncle Bardas, Emperor Michael III had him assassinated and replaced with Basil the Macedonian, whom he elevated to the position of Caesar. About a year later, Basil got tired of Michael and after a heavy drinking bout had him murdered.

Already being Caesar, Basil assumed the position of emperor unopposed in 867 AD. As an emperor, Basil the Macedonian reorganized the empire's finances and justly and fairly managed the empire's administration. He had some luck with his campaigns and recovered some long lost territories in the east from the Muslims. His fleet recovered control of the Mediterranean Sea, driving out the Corsairs. His army managed to drive the Saracens out of Calabria but had little success in Sicily. After his campaigns failed miserably in 886 AD, Basil died without any victories. Basil I was most memorable for staring a Macedonian Pravoslav dynasty that lasted for over two centuries. Basil I was succeeded by his son Leo VI, also known as Leo the wise.

Metodi's death did not end the spread of the Macedonian language and culture as many of his enemies had hoped. In fact, many of Kiril and Metodi's disciples rose to the task and carried on in the tradition of their teachers, spreading Macedonian culture to the Slavs even under the worst of circumstances.

The most famous of the Pravoslav disciples were Kliment (Clement), Naum, Angelarius Sava and Gorazd. Even though Gorazd was groomed to take over from Metodi, the first to rise to the occasion was Kliment, also known as Kliment of Ohrid.

Kliment was one of the brightest of Kiril and Metodi's students and played a pivotal role in their careers. After his banishment from Moravia and Pannonia however, Kliment returned to Ohrid to his place of birth (although some claim he was born in Solun).

Kliment spent the next seven years, from 886 to 893 AD, in Ohrid doing God's work and teaching the Slavonic language. During his stay in Ohrid he was instrumental in founding the Ohrid Literary School and developing the first university in the Balkans and perhaps in all of Europe. It has been said that three thousand five hundred clergy and teachers were educated in the University of Ohrid. But that was not all, Kliment was also responsible for writing poetry and translating other works from Koine to Slavonic.

In 839 AD Kliment was joined by one of his life long friends, Naum. Kliment and Naum were responsible for refining Kiril's alphabet as well as re-writing many of Kiril's works from Glagolic to Slavonic (Cyrillic). Kiril, it seems, had written many works in the Glagolic script in anticipation of using them in his teaching but after finding out that Glagolic was too difficult for lay people to grasp, he opted for the simpler Slavonic which he himself created.

During Leo VI's rule the peace treaty between the Pravoslavs and Bulgars was once again breached. When the Bulgar ruler, Simeon, came to power in 893 AD he resumed aggression in Macedonia. His armies continued to penetrate further west and south and came to within twenty-two kilometers of Solun. A new peace treaty was signed in 896 AD and Leo VI agreed to pay Simeon an annual subsidy of an undisclosed amount to cease his aggression.

After coming to power, in 893 AD, Simeon invited Kliment to Preslav with an offer to make him his son's royal counselor and assistant. The offer however did not materialize due to some demands Simeon had made that seemed unreasonable to Kliment. Simeon had some reservations about making the Slavic language official and requested that Kliment modify it. Kliment of course refused, wanting the work of Kiril and Metodi to stay as it was. Simeon himself was educated in Koine at Tsari Grad and had developed ambitions to take over the Pravoslav empire and become Emperor of a Pravoslav-Bulgar empire.

When the original offer did not work out, Kliment was given a new appointment in the Velika bishopric in a backward province. This was somewhat of a demotion for Kliment but at the same time it allowed him more time to work on his own projects. He continued to translate chants, psalms, festal fragments from the Bible, moralities and so on.

Towards the end of their careers, both Kliment and Naum built churches on opposite sides of Lake Ohrid. Closest to the city, Kliment dedicated a shrine to the holy healer Panteleimon. A little later, near the springs of the Crn Drim River, Naum built a monument in honour of Gabriel and Michael, the archangels.

Both Kliment and Naum were buried in the tombs they had built for themselves. Naum was buried in 910 AD and Kliment six years later in 916 AD.

Naum, like Kliment, was also an important contributor to the development of the Macedonian language and culture. It is believed that Naum was born in Macedonia in 835 AD and had been Kliment's inseparable companion since his earliest youth. As mentioned earlier, Naum was a student of Kiril and Metodi's and was active among the Slavs in Moravia and Pannonia. Naum, also known as Naum of Ohrid, was inseparable from his teachers and fellow pupils and suffered the same humiliation and injustice they did. Their most difficult and fateful moments came after Metodi's death when, under the influence of German churchmen, the Franks attacked the Macedonian missionaries and tortured them. In the words of Kliment of Ohrid's biographer: &quot;Soldiers, stern men because they were Germans and by nature fierce, their fierceness being increased by their orders, took the priests, led them out of the town, pulled off their clothes and began to drag them along naked. Thus by one act they did them two wrongs: dishonored them and tortured them in the icy fog, which had descended on the Danube banks. Besides this, they put their swords against their heads, ready to cut them, and their spears against their breasts, ready to make them bleed, so they would not die a sudden death...&quot;
&quot; Subjected to cruel torture, some of the pupils succumbed, while the others, among them particularly Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Sava and Angelarius, were declared excommunicate by Bishop Vihing. Their books were seized and burnt. The younger pupils (about 200) were sold as slaves, while these five were driven out of the country.&quot;

On their way home to Macedonia, at the request of Boris the Bulgarian prince, Kliment, Naum and Angelarius (who died shortly afterwards) took a detour through Pliska, Bulgaria. After a short visit they felt it was time to return home and continued their work translating books from Koine to Slavonic. Prince Boris insisted that they remain in Pliska but when he couldn't convince Kliment he insisted that Naum must stay. Having no choice, Naum spent the next seven years, from 885 to 893 AD, in Pliska before returning home to join Kliment.

Leo VI became emperor in 886 AD and for a while busied himself writing a manual on military tactics. He was educated by the Pravoslav patriarch Photius and had been co-emperor to his father, Basil I, since 870 AD. During his reign, the empire prospered and Leo managed to keep the Bulgars at bay, though eventually he had to make concessions in order to halt their slow advance. Besides the Bulgar nuisance there was one unfortunate incident that marred Leo's career, which was a monumental blow to Macedonia. It was the sacking of Solun.

In 904 AD, while unprotected and unprepared for military warfare, Solun was attacked by Saracen Arab pirates. The Solunians put up strong resistance but were overwhelmed and could not avoid defeat. After the city's defenses collapsed it was brutally attacked and mercilessly ravaged for days until it was literally laid to waste.

In 907 AD Leo signed a treaty with Russia to regulate trade between the two powers.

Leo was unfortunate not to have left a male heir. He married four times which got him into trouble with the Church, but in the end he died without an heir.

Leo VI was replaced by his younger brother Alexander, the third son of Basil I. Leo VI made Alexander his co-emperor in 879 AD but ruled by himself until his death in 912 AD.

No sooner had he become emperor than Alexander dismissed all of Leo's advisers and exiled Leo's widow Zoë to a nunnery. Alexander also refused to honour his brother's obligations and pay the Bulgars tribute. King Simeon was not at all pleased and resumed his hostilities against the Pravoslavs. One positive thing that Alexander did was to make his young nephew (Leo IV's son) Constantine VII his co-emperor.

Alexander ruled for only a year before five-year-old Constantine VII succeeded him. Being of young age, Constantine could not officially rule so from time to time relatives and court officials were appointed to act on his behalf. One such official was Romanus I, a soldier of some distinction, who co-ruled with Constantine from 920 to 944 AD.

Constantine VII was considered a good emperor because he brought prolonged stability to his empire. Commerce and the arts flourished during his reign and his world enjoyed prosperity and peace.

It was during Constantine's reign that Simeon's son, Petar, became ruler of the Bulgars in 927 AD. It was at Petar's insistence that the Pravoslavs relinquish a great part of Macedonia to the Bulgars.

Constantine VII's relatively long reign ended in 959 AD and he was replaced by his son Romanus II. Constantine named his son Romanus to honour his trusted friend and co-emperor Romanus I.

Romanus II's reign was active but brief. Unlike his father who sought peace, Romanus wanted military adventures and initiated a period of military activities. He exploited a weakness in the Muslim empire and attacked the Saracens. In 960 AD he recaptured Crete and invaded Cilicia.

Romanus II died in 963 AD leaving two infants, Basil II and Constantine VIII, as heirs. They would share their rule with their mother, Theophano, as regent.

Soon after Romanus's death one of his victorious generals, General Nicephorus, who had campaigned against the Saracens, returned and married empress Theophano. Even though he recovered Cyprus and his armies overran most of Syria for the glory of the empire, his motives towards the throne made him extremely unpopular with the clergy and the court. As his unpopularity grew Theophano decided to be rid of him and annulled her marriage. She then had him murdered.

John (Ivan I) Tsimisces, the man who arranged for Nicephorus's murder forced himself onto the throne and proclaimed himself &quot;associate ruler&quot;, to rule on behalf of the two children. He then expected Empress Theophano to marry him but when that did not happen, he had her exiled in a convent.

In time, John, like Basil the Macedonian, made amends for his crime and treated the boys and his colleagues with much respect which boosted his popularity in the court.

The relative peace in the Balkans was again disrupted in 969 AD when the Russian, Sviatoslav, decided to invade Bulgaria. The Russians had been active in the region for a while and were slowly encroaching on Bulgarian territory. The outright invasion was prompted by Petar's death in 969 AD. After Petar's death there was no heir present in his palace to replace him. Both of his sons, Boris and Roman, at the time were in Tsari Grad, held hostage by the Pravoslavs. Upon Petar's death they were quickly returned to safeguard the Bulgar crown but by then it was too late. The Russians were already in Preslav, the Bulgar capital, and they captured the boys.

In the absence of a Bulgar heir, an uprising was organized by the Comitopoloi brothers David, Moses, Aaron and Samoil, sons of Duke-Comes Nikola.

Finally in 971 AD the Pravoslavs organized a counter attack and defeated Sviatoslav in Silistria on the Danube, in two decisive battles. A peace treaty was reached, which not only ceased Russian aggression but also gave the Pravoslavs access into Russia. With Russia as an ally, Christianization of the Russian people was not far behind.

Feeling confident after his victories with Russia, John decided to move his campaign to Syria where the Saracens had been on the move recovering more ground. Unfortunately his career was cut short by his sudden death in 976 AD.

By now Basil II had reached age twenty. He was of age to rule alone, along with his younger brother Constantine VIII, without the need of associates.

Since Petar's rule in 927 AD, even though Bulgarian expansion in the region had halted, Macedonia was still occupied by both the Bulgars and the Pravoslavs. At the time, neither empire had access to resources outside of their own territories and both empires were dependent upon internal means to support their military and administrations. Macedonia's economy, at the time, was mostly rural agriculture consisting of communes operated independently and co-operatively by clan and tribal relationships. Tribal lords ruled over principalities who for the most part were leaders of the co-operatives. As the need for more resources increased in order to support both empires, so did Pravoslav and Bulgar control over Macedonian principalities. The lords who once governed Macedonia independently or semi-independently soon became obedient tools of the occupiers. With time lords were appointed and dismissed at the will of their rulers and only existed to serve them. In addition to the appointed lords, the Bulgars brought their own judges, tax collectors and church officials to serve them.

With the strengthening of Pravoslav and Bulgar rule in Macedonia the decline of tribal self-government among the Macedonians was accelerated. At that time both the Pravoslav and Bulgar states had well formed feudal social relations. More and more agricultural co-operative communes were transformed into territorial communes, which accelerated the division of co-operatively held property. As a result of the clan-link breakdown in Macedonia, new and numerous feudal lords began to appear taking over lands and people. Among them were foreigners and the church. Foreigners from other parts of the empire were granted Macedonian lands and privileges to use the Macedonian population to do their work. Church and monastery land holdings were formed and in time increased through gifts and by means of confiscations. Many Macedonian peasants lost their lands to the church due to defaulting on loans or when being accused of religious crimes.

The establishment of feudal social structures in Macedonia opened the way for mass exploitation not only of the feudal principalities but also of the free peasants who still lived in rural communities. The situation worsened around the middle of the tenth century when the profitable Bulgar wars of conquest came to an end. Having no other substantial sources of income to support the Bulgar military, administrative, court and church systems, the Bulgars turned to feudal exploitation. After everyone took their cut, the Macedonian peasant was left with nothing. Pushed beyond the brink of starvation, the Macedonian peasants revolted in what later became known as the Bogomil movement. Even though it was religious in nature, the Bogomil movement was predominantly a class struggle between the poor Macedonian peasant and his rich foreign rulers. The Bogomil movement was initiated in Macedonia by a Macedonian priest named Bogomil.

It is said that at the dawn of medieval Macedonia two great men arose, Kliment of Ohrid and a priest named Bogomil. The first was an educator and writer whose distinguished work is the pride of Macedonia. The second was an idealist whose heretical theory became a rallying cry for the oppressed in Macedonia and later throughout Europe.

Bogomil was the first to teach religious elements adopted from the Paulician and Marsalian teachings. These beliefs, which forbade taking sacraments, worshipping images, including the cross, and refuted much of the Bible, were probably introduced to Macedonia by the Armenian colonists deposited in Thrace by past Pravoslav emperors. Many of the dualistic, anti-ecclesiastical and anti-feudal characteristics of these movements found their expression in the Bogomil ideology.

The first Bogomil church was built underground, probably by Bogomil himself, to avoid detection and persecution. Bogomil churches served as houses of worship and as schools to disseminate Bogomil doctrines. The Bogomils believed in the existence of a struggle between good and evil and that good would conquer in the end. They maintained that the rich were the servants of the devil and anyone who submitted to them was going against God. According to them, the entire visible world with all its laws and systems had been created not by God but by the devil. They opposed the existence of churches and monasteries, were against the use of crosses, icons and feasts and propagated the belief that man could pray to God without the aid of a priest.

Much of the energy attributed to the rise of the Bogomil movement came from the unbearable exploitation from foreign rulers and the Church.

The Bogomil movement, in reality, was a rebellion against secular feudal lords, the state body and the empires themselves. Foreign rule brought higher taxes, more violence and additional punishment for the common people. Villages grew poorer and peasants lost their properties and means of livelihood. Many were taken prisoner and became serfs and slaves, sometimes in their own lands.

Under feudal ownership the peasants were fully dependent upon their feudal lords. Some historians argue that Kliment of Ohrid's visit to the Bulgar capital and his resignation as bishop a few months before his death was in response to the violence and devastation the Bulgars inflicted on the territory of the Bishopric of Velika.

The swift spread of the Bogomil movement prompted Petar, the Bulgar king, to take measures for its suppression but he did not succeed. Bogomilism was strongest in the territory defined by the triangle of the Vardar River, Ohrid and Mt. Shar. His intervention, however, did cause the Bogomils much suffering. But even the cruelest of methods did not stop the insurrection, which in time spread and became a general people's movement.

Petar's death and the Russian campaigns drastically reduced Bulgar control over Macedonia allowing the Bogomil movement to flourish, at least for a while.
In the meantime, eager to exploit the situation, a new force of power was emerging in Macedonia.

In 976 AD, the year emperor John (Tsimisces) died, the four brothers, David, Moses, Aaron and Samoil raised a rebellion. With the collapse of Bulgar rule and in the absence of Pravoslav forces, the rebellion was successful and the four brothers decided to rule their newly established state jointly. Unfortunately, the joint rule did not last too long. Vlach shepherds killed David, somewhere between Castra and Prespa, and Moses died during a siege in Serres.

In the absence of David and Moses a struggle for the throne ensued between Aaron and Samoil. Samoil, being a much more talented leader and statesman, was victorious.

To prevent further problems, Samoil had Aaron and all his family executed, with the exception of Aaron's son Ivan.

After consolidating his power Samoil started a westerly campaign penetrating Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly right down to the Peloponnesus. Just recovering from its last sacking, Solun was about to be sacked again but Samoil decided to continue south and in so doing he took a large number of towns, including Larissa. Samoil resettled the inhabitants of Larissa in the interior of his state and incorporated the Larissan soldiers into his own army.

From Larissa he removed the remains of St. Achilles and brought them to Prespa, to the island of Ail. Protected by the waters of Lake Mala Prespa, Samoil made Ail his capital and built a magnificent palace on it.

It was no accident that Samoil received his strongest support from the territory defined by the triangle of the Vardar River, Ohrid and Mt. Shar. Samoil's success was fueled by the Bogomil movement and its distaste for foreign rule. In Macedonia the Bogomil movement was particularly influential in the creation of favourable conditions for a liberation uprising and the formation of an independent state. Samoil took full advantage of the situation and established a Macedonian state.

Although Samoil may not have been a Bogomil himself, he accepted Bogomilism and its right to exist in his new kingdom. In turn, the Bogomils ceased to verbally attack Samoil, his upper classes, royal officials and high ranking clergy.

If anyone was not pleased with Samoil's successes it was the Pravoslavs. Samoil, in combination with the Bogomil movement, was perceived as a powerful force and the Pravoslavs wanted it checked.

For the last ten years or so Basil II was attempting to put down insurrections in Asia, ignoring what was happening in his own backyard. But when the threat became too great to ignore, he gathered an army together and crossed over the frontier regions of the Rhodopes and the River Maritsa. There in August 986 AD, at the hands of Samoil, Basil suffered a crushing defeat. Basil lost nearly his entire cavalry, a large section of his infantry and narrowly escaped death himself. A peace treaty was concluded giving Samoil free control of his new territory.

Basil's defeat caused even more internal strife among the Pravoslavs, especially in Asia. The Pravoslav quarrels took attention away from Samoil and opened opportunities to extend his rule to new territories.

In the summer of 989 AD Samoil resumed his campaign and took Berroea (Ber). After that he invaded Dalmatia and declared war on young king Vladimir. When Samoil reached Diocleia, Vladimir fled to the mountains but was persuaded by one of his tribal chieftains to surrender. Samoil took him prisoner and banished him to Prespa.

In much need of resources, Samoil plundered the whole of Dalmatia and took whatever he could find. He then burned the cities of Kotor and Dubrovnik and razed many villages as far away as Zadar. Samoil had no navy and was not able to take any of the coastal towns.

Back in Prespa meanwhile, Samoil's daughter Kossara fell in love with the young captive king Vladimir and wanted to marry him. Not to disappoint her, Samoil gave in and gave her his blessings. Now that he was his son-in-law he gave Vladimir his former kingdom back. As a wedding gift he also gave the newlyweds Dyrrachium and all its territories. He even returned Trebinye to Vladimir's uncle, Dragomir.

Samoil's good deeds not only earned him the respect of his son-in-law but Vladimir also became his ally and loyal vassal.

When the Pravoslav civil war ended Basil decided it was time to terminate his three year treaty with Samoil, which lasted from 987 to 990 AD. War broke out in 990 AD and lasted until 994 AD during which time Basil captured and destroyed a number of Samoil's strongholds.

In retaliation, in late 994 AD, Samoil prepared a siege against Solun during which Gregory Taronites, the city's Governor, was killed. Gregory died while attempting to rescue his son, Ashot, who had been ambushed during a reconnaissance mission. When Basil found out, he was furious and sent Uranus, his Supreme Commander from the west, to investigate. Uranus discovered that not only had Samoil besieged Solun, but he had been plundering the surrounding countryside. He had also been campaigning in Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica and the Peloponnesus. Upset by the situation, Basil ordered Uranus to attack Samoil and put an end to his free reign.

Uranus immediately went in pursuit of Samoil but found the River Spercheius swollen from a flash flood. Unable to cross he camped on the river's bank. As it happened, Samoil's army had also made camp nearby but on the opposite side of the river. Upon his discovery that Samoil was close by, Uranus went in search of and found a safe place to cross. During the night he made the crossing and attacked his sleeping adversary. Being unprepared, Samoil's army was devastated and both Samoil and his son were badly wounded and barely managed to escape.

Victorious, Basil demanded that Samoil surrender. Instead of surrendering Samoil fled to his capital. To convince Basil not to pursue him, Samoil agreed to sign a peace treaty and offered his surrender in writing. But instead of surrendering Samoil had himself proclaimed King.

What Samoil really wanted was the crown of an Emperor but the Pope of Rome, Gregory V, had no intention of creating another Emperor. Samoil could have taken the Bulgar crown, but unfortunately that crown was also in Tsari Grad and out of reach. So, all that Samoil could legally hope for was a mere King's crown.

Even though Samoil's crown was not recognized by Tsari Grad, his coronation gave him international recognition. For the Pope of Rome, this was another chance to erode and weaken Pravoslav rule.

When Basil found out that Samoil was crowned king he became furious and once again dispatched Uranus to destroy him. Unable to engage Samoil in battle, Uranus went on a looting spree burning everything in his path. After three months of mayhem and destruction Uranus failed his mission and returned to Tsari Grad empty handed.

Safe, at least for now, Samoil took the opportunity to marry another daughter, Miroslava, to Ashot, Gregory's son from Solun whom he had previously captured. As a wedding gift he gave the newlyweds Governorship of Dyrrachium with king Vladimir's full approval. The ungrateful Ashot, however, fled to Tsari Grad and for his loyalty was awarded the title of Magistrate, by the Pravoslavs. In the meantime his wife, Miroslava, became a lady-in-waiting at the Tsari Grad court.

Soon after Ashot fled, the city leaders of Dyrrachium broke off relations with Vladimir and surrendered their city to the Pravoslavs.

In retaliation and hoping to stir trouble for Basil in Tsari Grad, Samoil began a propaganda campaign promoting Vatatz, a family member from the Basil Glavas family as his ally.
The Basil Glavas family and a number of other nobles had taken refuge with Samoil to avoid persecution from Basil.

Instead of creating trouble however, Samoil's actions further infuriated Basil prompting him to initiate a new military offensive. Taking a route via Philippopolis, Basil destroyed most cities in the region of Serdica. In the year 1000 he dispatched a large army and attacked all fortified cities, capturing Great and Little Preslav and Pliska, near the River Maritsa. In 1001 Basil himself joined the offensive and marched his army by Solun in the direction of Berroea, where he captured Dobromir. Basil then captured Kolidron, near Berroea, and put Servia under siege. In spite of Servia's brave resistance, the city fell into Basil's hands anyway. Nikolitsa, Servia's Governor, was taken captive to Tsari Grad but instead of being thrown in jail, Basil conferred upon him the honour of a patrician. Nikolitsa, however, was not satisfied and fled to Samoil and together they attacked Servia. Basil retaliated and again captured Nikolitsa but this time he conferred upon him the honour of serving in chains in exile in his jail in Tsari Grad.

After subduing Servia Basil took his campaign to Thessaly. He took back and made repairs to the damaged fortresses which Samoil's troops had held. He then refortified the fortresses with fresh Pravoslav garrisons. After that he turned his attention to Voden and took the city by force from the aggressive Governor Drazhan. Drazhan was captured and sent to Solun as Basil's prisoner. Upon his arrival in Solun, Basil dispatched Uranus to Antioch to deal with the Arabs. Uranus was replaced with the patrician David Arijant as Solun's new military commander.

In 1002 Basil made his way to Vidin and after an eight-month siege he broke through the defenses and captured the town. On the same day Samoil forced marched his troops through Thrace, looting and trashing Endrene (Adrianople). If Samoil's intent was to get Basil's attention by trashing Endrene, he succeeded. Basil now moved his campaign to Skopje, where he caught up with Samoil. Unexpectedly Samoil fled without a fight and Skopje's Governor surrendered the city to Basil. From Skopje, Basil took his campaign to the fortress of Pernik where he encountered heavy resistance from the great warrior Krakras. Not only did Basil not succeed in taking the town but he also incurred great losses in the process and was forced to return to Tsari Grad.

As if Samoil did not have enough problems with the Pravoslavs he now made the Hungarians angry. His son, who was married to a Hungarian princess, decided to leave her thus bringing disgrace to his family and an end to the cordial relations between Samoil and King Stephen I. After the embarrassing incident, King Stephen abandoned his alliance with Samoil and joined Basil who had offered him an alliance of his own.

In the recent past, Pravoslav attacks and plundering of Samoil's territory were more frequent and of greater intensity. Samoil felt it was time do something and soon. His chance came in 1014 when Basil's forces were about to enter a gorge in the Rhodope Mountains. Samoil surrounded the gorge with a strong force in what was going to be a surprise attack. Unfortunately Basil must have anticipated Samoil's move and ordered one of David Arijant's generals to force march his troops around Samoil's forces. When a fierce battle broke out between Basil and Samoil, Samoil's army was attacked from the rear and trapped. Unable to withdraw, many of Samoil's soldiers were slain and even more were captured. Samoil himself was saved by his son who aided his escape to the fortress of Prilep.

After his victory Basil rounded up all his prisoners and had his soldiers gouge their eyes out. According to accounts there were fifteen thousand Macedonian soldiers captured that day. To lead the blind soldiers back to Samoil, Basil ordered that one out of every hundred men be left with one eye intact.

This was indeed a gruesome act, a real tragedy not only for Samoil but for Macedonia as well.
Shaken by the sight of this tragedy Samoil died of shock two days later. Samoil was succeeded by his son Gabriel Radomir.

When Samoil died in 1014, his kingdom was vast and included the whole of Macedonia (except for Solun), Thessaly, Epirus, the coastal sclavenes of Oiocleia, Travunya and Zachlumia, the Neretva region (excluding the islands) as far as Cetina, Serbia, Bosnia and a considerable part of Bulgaria.

For the most part, the majority of the population living in Samoil's empire was Macedonian with large Slav pockets south of Olympus down to the Peloponnesus. To a lesser extent there lived Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, Romani, Albanians and Vlachs. Additionally there lived migrants such as Vardariot Turks and Armenians who were recently settled there by former Pravoslav emperors and some by Samoil. While many Armenians existed in Thrace, Samoil had also settled some in Pelagonia, Prespa and Ohrid. The Romani were known to exist mostly in coastal regions.

Samoil's kingdom was a newly created state with a completely different nucleus of people and with completely different domestic and foreign policies than any of his neighbours. The centre of Samoil's state was in the far south of the Balkans, inside today's Republic of Macedonia.

Samoil had a number of capitals which he used from time to time. During his reign Samoil moved his capital to several places including Prespa, Ohrid, Prilep, Bitola, Pronishte and Setin, all of which were inside Macedonia.

According to ancient sources, very little is known about the socio-economic conditions and the organization of Samoil's state.

It is likely that the majority of people in Samoil's kingdom were peasants, most of whom were freemen, but those working on the feudal estates were either serfs or churchmen. The serfs worked on both secular and church lands while churchmen worked exclusively on church lands. Being of a slightly better social class, the churchmen were exempt from heavy taxes. However, the churchmen were obliged to donate extra labour, probably in community service, in lieu of taxes.

The noble class in Samoil's state was made up mostly of feudal lords and aristocrats who were allied behind Samoil and supported his policies. After his death the alliances began to erode and the nobles went their separate ways in pursuit of their own interests which led them closer and closer towards the Pravoslavs.

Slavery was rarely practiced but on occasion slaves were captured and sold, usually outside the kingdom. The main source of slaves was prisoners of war. It is well known, for example, that Samoil enslaved the population of Larissa after their city fell.

Most of Samoil's income came from imperial land-holdings, sale of livestock, judicial fines and military plunder. Samoil's treasury contained many valuables including gold and money. Having no coins of his own minted the currency circulated in Samoil's kingdom was Pravoslav.

As for his military makeup, Samoil was supreme commander and enlisted his forces almost exclusively from his own kingdom. He had an enormous army consisting of both infantry and cavalry. Samoil was an able strategist who personally took part not only in planning but also in executing battles. For the most part, Samoil's weaponry and military dress was similar to the Pravoslav. His soldiers wore a short outer tunic, trousers and a shirt of steel. They also wore a helmet with a pivoting extension which could be lowered down to the chin to protect the warrior's face. Each soldier was armed with a defensive shield, long spear and sword. Other accessories included bugles and standards. Besides his regular army, Samoil also employed his own bodyguards. Samoil had no navy or any type of war vessel.

The official language of Samoil's kingdom was Macedonian (Slavonic) although Koine was also used occasionally as the language of diplomacy at the imperial palace.

Samoil built some of the most significant buildings in his kingdom including the Basilica of St. Achilles, his various palaces and a number of churches situated in the southern parts of his kingdom.

The famous and historic Archbishopric of Ohrid was created during Samoil's reign. Initially the Archbishopric was seated in Prespa but when Samoil moved to Ohrid, he brought it with him. Ohrid became his capital as well as his religious center. After its consolidation, the new archbishop was given authority over all bishops who fell under Samoil's jurisdiction. Unfortunately the Pravoslavs refused to recognize the Archbishop of Ohrid, probably because the Roman church, which crowned Samoil, had consecrated it.

During Samoil's rule the Macedonian church was quite popular and the clergy, especially the bishops, enjoyed their privileged positions.

When Basil II found out that Samoil had died, he marched his army to Polog via Solun and razed Samoil's imperial palace in Bitola. His troops stormed Prilep and Shtip bringing devastation to everything that stood in their path.

In the spring of 1015 Basil set out for Voden and subdued an uprising. He then moved the town's inhabitants to Voler. He garrisoned Voden with Pravoslav lancers (mounted soldiers armed with long spears) and dispatched two of his military commanders to the Meglen region to seize the town. The siege turned out to be more difficult than expected and the conflict drew in Basil himself. The town finally fell and was destroyed.

To draw the war away from his kingdom, Radomir, Samoil's son and heir, decided to attack the Pravoslavs in their own territory. He would have succeeded had it not been for Vladislav's treachery. It seems that Basil secretly promised Vladislav (Radomir's nephew) the Macedonian crown and convinced him to murder his uncle. Vladislav slew Radomir in 1015, somewhere near Ostrovo, during a hunting expedition.

On his accession, Vladislav took a vow of loyalty to Basil and became a vassal king of the Pravoslavs. After his accession, Vladislav went after Vladimir, Samoil's son-in-law, his only remaining opposition. With the help of the wretched Archbishop David, Vladislav enticed Vladimir to come to Prespa, where he was murdered.

With no internal opposition, Vladislav now consolidated his power and immediately broke off relations with Basil. Basil in turn declared war on the Macedonian kingdom and went in pursuit of Vladislav.

While his military commanders were devastating Pelagonia, Basil set out for Ohrid. On his way forces loyal to Vladislav engaged him. To minimize his losses and create fear among Vladislav's allies, Basil ordered the gauging of the eyes of all those caught fighting against him.

In spite of heavy opposition, Basil took Ohrid and set course for Dyrrachium. On his way news reached him that Ivets, one of Vladislav's military commanders, had completely routed Basil's army in Pelagonia. Basil abandoned his course for Dyrrachium and immediately went in pursuit of Ivets but was unable to engage him in battle. Basil then left for Solun and from there went to Mosynopolis on a totally different campaign.

For a while Basil was busy fighting a war against the Khazars in the Crimea and it was not until the middle of the following year, in 1016, that he was able to renew his Balkan offensive. This time he made his way via Philippopolis to the district of Serdica and surrounded the fortified town of Pernik for a second time in fourteen years. The siege was taking too long so Basil left again for Mosynopolis and then, in the spring of 1017, invaded southern Macedonia by way of Solun. He again dispatched his two commanders to Pelagonia while he himself set out for Kostur. On his way he received news that the great warrior Krakras had allied himself with Vladislav and that the two intended to invade Pravoslav territories.

Basil immediately halted his advance and went in pursuit, razing and burning several fortresses on his way. When he arrived in the vicinity of Ostrovo, Basil captured Setina immediately and dispatched his elite detachments in pursuit of Vladislav. Basil followed with the main army. The sight of the huge Pravoslav army struck panic among the ranks of Vladislav's soldiers, especially since Basil threatened to gauge their eyes out. Defeat for Vladislav was inevitable but, for reasons unknown, Basil withdrew his pursuit and returned to Tsari Grad in January 1018.

Vladislav, in the meantime, regrouped his army and took the offensive with aims of occupying Dyrrachium and taking possession of Vladimir's lands. Unfortunately Vladislav was killed during the city's siege.

As soon as Vladislav died his commanders sent Basil a letter offering him their allegiance and the surrender of the fortresses and towns in their possession.

After taking possession of some sixty or so fortresses and towns, Basil went to Ohrid and took possession of Samoil's extremely rich treasury.

Even after Vladislav's fall, some of his loyal supporters like Fruzhin, Vladislav's eldest son, and the Dukes Ivets and Nikolitsa, refused to surrender. Fruzhin took a diplomatic approach and eventually surrendered and was given a pardon and title. Ivets resisted and set camp in Southern Prespa in an attempt to organize an insurrection. Unfortunately, through deception, the Pravoslavs capture Ivets, gauged out his eyes out and cast him into prison.

Nikolitsa too refused to surrender but after being surrounded with no hope of escape, he yielded to the Pravoslav emperor and received a prison sentence in Solun.

By August 1018, Basil II succeeded in destroying the last remnants of Samoil's forty-two year reign (976-1018) of his Macedonian kingdom.

By now Basil II was an old man and after finishing with Samoil, he took his campaign to Armenia. Some historians believe this was a mistake. By destroying Armenia he destroyed an effective buffer zone between the Pravoslavs and the Islamic powers.

Basil II died in 1025 and so did the revived strength and energy of the Pravoslav Empire. Basil was succeeded by his younger brother Constantine VIII, the last prince of the Macedonian dynasty. Constantine died in 1028 and for the next twenty-six years the Pravoslav emperors were the successive husbands of Constantine VIII's daughter Zoe. Zoe, Romanus III Argyrus (1028-1034), Michael IV (1034-1041), Michael V Calaphates (1041-1042) and Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1054).

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

Is the Koine language Greek? Some of you have asked this question.

The Koine language may have ancient words and letters that belonged to the ancient city states but it is not exclusively Greek. I don't believe the Greek language is exclusively Greek. Most of the letters in the Greek alphabet are borrowed from the Phoenician alphabet.

The Koine language was created out of necessity by Alexander the Great. During Alexander's reign, there was no common or international language to bridge the needs for communication between the various cultures in his growing empire. Koine was born out of necessity. It may have begun as a Greek language but in time it evolved and took many foreign attributes. Those who understand Attic and Koine will tell you that the two are separate and distinctly different languages. The alphabets may have similarities but the vocabularies are not. Koine, at most, may contain 40% ancient Attic elements but the other 60% are foreign elements, mostly Macedonian.

I just want to point out that the modern Greek language of today has its roots not in the Attic but in the Koine language. The Attic language died many centuries ago but Koine survived through the Macedonian institutions and through the Pravoslav Church. I must also add that Koine was not the natural language of the modern Greeks. The vast majority of 19th century modern Greeks did not speak modern Greek (whatever that may be?). The modern Greek language was imposed on the Greek population through the schools and educational institutions.

Also, please do not confuse ancient Greek with modern Greek. Modern Greek is an imposed adaptation of ancient Greek. In other words, modern Greeks have usurped the ancient name and ancient language in order to lay claim to the ancient heritage. If I may add, the Greeks have also usurped the ancient Macedonian heritage at the exclusion of the Macedonians.

If the truth be known then, the modern Greeks speak a language fostered by the ancient Macedonians, which in my opinion, makes it Macedonian.

References:

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, Skopje, 1979.

John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997

Enno Franzius, History of the Byzantine Empire, Funk &amp; Wagnalls, New York, 1967

The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &amp; Co. Inc., 1997.

Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, Los Angeles: University of California, 1996.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos &amp; Co., 1980.

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

Dean A. Miller, Imperial Constantinople, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., New York, 1969

J. M. Hussey, The Byzantine World, Hutchinson University Library, London, 1961

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>khfmirzfzk2hu5t7v66tv8k84jbn2co</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Decline and Fall of the Pravoslav Empire</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2075</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11090</id>
      <parentid>4987</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:24Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="65735" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 18 - Decline and Fall of the Pravoslav Empire

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com 

Once he conquered Macedonia, Basil II made her into a Pravoslav province and sub-divided her into themes. He then installed a large army to keep the peace.

After Samoil's death, the Archbishopric of Ohrid was subordinated to Pravoslav authority and incorporated into the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad. Macedonia was reorganized into thirty-two eparchies. The Bulgarian, Serbian and Albanian eparchies were also incorporated into the Ohrid Archbishopric.

An Archbishop and the Church Synod were given supreme authority over the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Synod met in Ohrid once a year to elect new bishops and to discipline clergy accused of various breaches and misconduct.

The Archbishop of Ohrid was no longer elected by the Synod, as it had been under Samoil's rule, but was appointed by Tsari Grad and confirmed by the Pravoslav Emperor. The Archbishop remained autocephalous but was subject to the Pravoslav state and church authorities. He was a member of the principal administration of the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad, attended its sittings, defended the interests and prestige of the Pravoslav Church and participated in the resolution of disagreements with the western Church.

Basil II allowed the higher clergy of the Archbishopric to retain some privileges. By doing so he gained their support in strengthening Pravoslav rule in Macedonia. To appear sympathetic he also appointed John of Debar, a Macedonian, head of the Archbishopric.

After Basil II's death in 1025 his successor Leo attempted to tighten control over the Macedonian church by replacing the Slavonic language with Koine. Having encountered opposition, in 1037 he removed John of Debar, one of the strongest supporters of the Macedonian language. Henceforth the Archbishops of Ohrid and the bishops of the churches in the Ohrid Archbishopric were regularly elected from the ranks of the Koine speaking clergy. The lower clergy remained Slavonic speakers because they were closer to the people.

When Ohrid came under Pravoslav control the Koine speaking hierarchs began to eradicate all documents written in Slavonic. Many manuscripts which had been preserved in Ohrid were destroyed. In the churches Slavonic liturgy began to be preached in adaptations translated from Koine. The Slavonic names of rivers, towns, etc. were also replaced by either classical Koine or Latin names. The Archbishopric of Ohrid was slowly becoming a Koine speaking institution designed to destroy the Macedonian traditions, which had been nurtured over the years. Slavonic literacy could not, however, be totally destroyed. The adaptation of Koine did not succeed in taking any deep roots among the people who continued to communicate in their native Slavonic language.

As soon as Macedonia came under Pravoslav control the development of feudal relations was again accelerated. Excessive recruitment of men from the ranks of the peasantry, for the Pravoslav army, weakened communities and made them easier to fall into feudal hands. Also, for their security from pillaging invaders, peasants had no choice but to join feudal holdings and pay the feudal lords protection money. Remaining communities who held common lands such as meadows, woodlands, rivers, etc. also became feudal possessions.

Feudal lords were not the only ones after land grabs in Macedonia. The church, in attempting to increase its own holdings, also played its part in the dissolution of the free rural communities. Besides land gifts received from the Pravoslav rulers, the church also established patronage over the free rural communities. Over time the church converted free peasants into feudally tied ones. This was done mostly through land confiscations where peasants were found guilty of heresy, polygamy, or unlawful marriage. In time the church too became a large-scale feudal property-owner.

Besides feudal holdings, the Pravoslavs also set aside lands in support of military needs. Entire villages or several village groupings were set aside purely for providing soldiers for the draft.

The majority of the Macedonian population after Samoil's death became subservient to the feudal lords. Serfs formed the basic category of the tied feudal population. Serfs were allowed to retain their hereditary holdings but under the authority of the feudal lords. Below the serfs were the landless people. They lived and worked on feudal estates or on land set aside for them by the community. Below the landless people were the servants of the feudal lords. Their property was part of the feudal lord's personal demesne and they were personally bound to their lords who had the authority to sell them together with their land.

Below the servants were the slaves. Unlike classical slaves who had no rights at all, with time and services rendered, these slaves gradually received small holdings as well as certain rights from their feudal lords. The slave class consisted almost exclusively of those who either could not pay-up the state taxes or those who had rebelled against their exploiters or the state.

The churchmen, on the other hand, were a separate class of people. The churchmen who owned land enjoyed certain privileges which had been granted to the church by the state.

Like the churchmen, the artisans who were employed on feudal estates were a distinct and more privileged class of the tied population.

With regard to taxation, the Pravoslavs had instituted three types of feudal rent known as work or corvee, kind and monetary. Unfortunately the Macedonian population was burdened with all three types. The work rent or corvee was applicable to the entire population tied to or obliged to work for a feudal lord. The proportion of this unpaid labour was not defined so in times of need, particularly in the summer months, several days of a person's workweek were devoted to it. The majority of this corvee was dedicated to repairing or building fortresses, constructing roads and bridges, building boats and baking bread for the army.

The rent in kind, which varied from individual to individual, was paid with a variety of &quot;finished products&quot; made for the state and for the feudal lords. The customary practice of giving gifts to officials was a particularly heavy burden on the population.

Taxes in kind were also exacted by the church. The Ohrid Church, according to its established canon, exacted taxes in kind from the entire population, including the Vlachs and the Vardariot Turks.

Monetary rent was also exacted on a large scale during this period. After the tax reforms of 1040, regular state taxes were required to be paid with money. With the growing need to pay monetary taxes, a strong stimulus was induced to trade goods for money. This, in many ways, was good for the economy and development of feudalism. Unfortunately the transition became another burden on the Macedonian peasant population. After the feudal lords were awarded rights to collect state taxes, abuse was not far behind. Many took advantage of their position of authority and exacted extra taxes for themselves above and beyond those prescribed by law.

Besides regular taxes, Macedonians were also obliged to pay various supplementary taxes, like judicial fines, toll tax for crossing rivers, fishing tax, water-mill tax and marriage tax. As a marriage tax the groom was obliged to pay his bishop a gold piece and the bride twelve ells (15 meters) of linen.

By 1040, discontent with Pravoslav rule in Macedonia had reached a boiling point and exploded into a full scale armed rebellion. Leading the rebellion was Peter Delyan, Gabriel Radomir's son by his first wife, the daughter of the Hungarian king, mentioned earlier. The rebellion, supported by the Hungarian king, began in the regions of Belgrade and Morava near the Hungarian border and soon spread south to Skopje. With popular support and assistance from the local Macedonian population, the rebel army invaded and took Skopje. Tsari Grad quickly reacted by dispatching an army in pursuit. But instead of attacking, the Pravoslav soldiers defected and proclaimed Tihomir, one of their own soldiers, as their emperor. Tihomir unfortunately died in battle leaving his army under Delyan's command.

After a long period of secure prosperity, the Pravoslav Empire of the 11th century began to experience new pressures, which aggravated the latent tensions in its society. A division in the Pravoslav ruling class began to take place, creating conflict between the military aristocracy of the provinces and the civilian aristocracy and bureaucracy of Tsari Grad. Each faction at any opportune moment did not hesitate to proclaim its own emperor, who was a rival of the other faction. The sophisticated urban aristocracy favoured non-military rulers who would expand the civil service and supply them and their families with lucrative offices and decorative titles. The military families, whose wealth lay not in the capital but in the provinces and who had been penalized by Basil II's legislation, favoured emperors who were soldiers, not civil servants.

Towards the end of the 11th century, however, it became clear that the empire's military strength was no longer sufficient to hold back its enemies. The landowners in the provinces appreciated the dangers more readily than the government in Tsari Grad. They made those dangers an excuse to enlarge their estates in defiance of all the laws passed in the 10th century. The theme system in Anatolia, which had been the basis of the empire's military power, was rapidly breaking down. On the other hand, the urban aristocracy of Tsari Grad, reacting against the evils of war, strove to make their city a centre of culture and sophistication. For example, in 1045 Constantine IX endowed Tsari Grad University with a new charter. The law school was revived under the brilliant jurist John Xiphilinus. Not to be outdone, the school of philosophy thrived under the chairmanship of Michael Psellus, whose research into every field of knowledge earned him a reputation as the great educator of brilliant pupils. Psellus as an aristocrat, statesman, philosopher, and historian was an example of the vigour of 11th century Pravoslav society. What he and others like him failed to see, however, was that their empire was depleting the resources and living off the reputation built up by the former Macedonian emperors.

Back in Macedonia, Delyan began a military campaign to recover his grandfather's kingdom. He started by sending troops to Dyrrachium and, with the support of the local people, managed to take that theme. He then sent a large army to besiege Solun. At the sight of Delyan's immense army, Emperor Michael IV, who at the time was waiting for him, fled in terror to Tsari Grad leaving Manuel Ivets in command of the Pravoslav army. But instead of fighting Ivets defected to Delyan's side, joining forces with the rebels.

Exploiting the panic which had risen in the ranks of the Pravoslav army, Delyan dispatched armies in several directions. One, led by Anthimus, made its way south reaching as deep as the town Tiva, spreading the revolt into Epirus and conquering the theme of Naupactos. Another army took Demetrias (Volos in Thessaly) and so on. Soon Delyan was in possession of a large territory encompassing the greater part of Samoil's kingdom.

Dissatisfied with the situation in Macedonia, the higher echelons of Tsari Grad demanded that the Emperor do something. Not to disappoint them, the Emperor prepared for war and set out to meet Delyan in Macedonia. Unfortunately Delyan was not the emperor's only problem. Aleutian, John Vladislav's second son who was a patrician and commander of Theodosiopolis in Armenia, had also joined the rebellion. Delyan not only accepted Aleutian's services, but also made him commander of his army of forty thousand soldiers and dispatched him to Solun.

Unbeknownst to Aleutian, however, the Pravoslav army stationed in Solun must have been aware of his plans and surprised him. A battle ensued and Aleutian lost about fifteen thousand men. His defeat led to discord in the ranks of the rebels and Aleutian was suspected of treason. Suspicion turned to tragedy when Aleutian turned against Delyan, blinding him in a fit of rage. He then fled to the Pravoslavs. Stripped of their leaders, the rebels were thrown into confusion and the insurrection was condemned to fail.

In the spring of 1041 the Pravoslav Emperor again prepared for war and set out for Ostrovo, the center of the revolt. There he captured Delyan and sent him to Solun. From Ostrovo the Emperor set out for the interior of Macedonia and met up with Manual Ivets in Prilep. Ivets and his troops fought bravely but they were no match for the mighty Pravoslav army. Ivets was captured and the rebellion was extinguished.

After his successful campaign, the Pravoslav Emperor triumphantly returned to Tsari Grad with Delyan and Ivets as his trophies.

Instead of bringing change for the better, the rebellion brought disaster to the Macedonian people. The Pravoslav army, which consisted mainly of Norwegian mercenaries under the command of Harold Hardraga, devastated Macedonia. They enslaved most of the population and brought new state officials and feudal lords who, together with the army, introduced even more oppressive measures.

Unable to cope, the people rose again, this time in Thessaly. In 1066 the Vlach population in Thessaly rebelled under the leadership of Nikulitsa Delphin, the Governor of Larissa, whose grandfather had governed the town during Samuel's reign. Even though the rebellion was entrusted to Nikulitsa, a descendent of rebels, he personally had no interest in a successful outcome. As a result, the revolt did not succeed in spreading as well as it could have and only extended to the towns of Larissa, Trikkala, Pharsala and the fortress of Cythros.

The Pravoslav Emperor Constantine X was quick to react and stopped the rebellion from spreading into the interior of Macedonia. Then, even before the year was over, with Nikulitsa's help, Constantine successfully put down the rest of the rebellion.

In 1072, five years after the Thessalian rebellion, a new revolt broke out, this time inside Macedonia. The revolt, led by George Voyteh, took place in Skopje and was sparked by new and more oppressive financial policies introduced by the Pravoslav authorities. The leaders of the revolt turned for help to Michael, the ruler of Zeta, who was related to Samuel. Michael sent his son Constantine Bodin along with three hundred of his elite troops.

Voyteh and his rebels met Bodin at Prizren and immediately proclaimed him emperor under the name Peter, in honour of the fallen Peter Delyan.

On receiving news that the rebels were headed for Skopje, the former and current Pravoslav governors of that city, along with their armies, came out to stop them. A battle ensued at Prizren and the Pravoslavs were defeated. After taking the governor of Skopje prisoner, Bodin divided his army in two columns. One column he dispatched to Naissus while the second column, with Petrilo in command, he sent into the interior of Macedonia. Voyteh remained in Skopje.

Petrilo's first stop was Ohrid where he was greeted by the town's people as a liberator. When Devol, the Pravoslav governor, saw him coming he surrendered without a struggle. While the town's people were running out to greet the rebel army, the feudal lords, administrators and Pravoslav soldiers slipped out the back and fled to the fortified town of Kostur. There, they convinced the Kostur governor to organize a strong defense. Soon enough Petrilo arrived and indeed was met with strong resistance.

Soon after Petrilo arrived a battle ensued. Combined, the Pravoslav Ohrid and Kostur armies inflicted great damage on the insurgents. Petrilo just barely managed to escape and fled to Zeta.

Bodin had a bit more luck and drove the Pravoslavs out of Naissus. However, hearing of Petrilo's defeat in Kostur, deflated his enthusiasm.

By now the main Pravoslav army, led by Michael Saronit, was closing in on Skopje and the mere sight of its enormity frightened Voyteh. Outnumbered and outgunned, Voyteh agreed to surrender Skopje without a fight but secretly he sent for Bodin to come to his rescue. 

Unfortunately, once again the Pravoslav spies did their job and Saronit set a trap for Bodin. Bodin's army was intercepted and defeated at Kossovo Polye. Bodin was captured and sent to Tsari Grad, along with Voyteh, as Saronit's prisoner. Voyteh unfortunately died on the way, probably from torture.

Initially Bodin was imprisoned in Tsari Grad but later, at the intervention of Venetian mercenaries, he was returned to Zeta.

In 1073 the Pravoslavs stepped up their campaign in Macedonia and brought additional forces in to rout the remaining pockets of rebel resistance. Unfortunately that was not all that they did. In pursuit of the rebels, the Pravoslav army destroyed Samoil's imperial palace in Prespa and looted the churches in the vicinity. These acts further inflamed the situation and the rebels continued to resist, forcing the Pravoslavs to bring even more troops and take more drastic measures. Only by burning and razing everything, wherever opposition was offered, did the Pravoslavs succeeded in putting down the rebellion. By the end of 1073 it was all over.

When all else failed the oppressed masses began to express their frustration by joining the Bogomil movement. They became particularly powerful at the end of the eleventh century and even more so during the course of the twelfth century. The struggle of the Bogomils was directed as equally against the feudal lords as it was against the Pravoslav Emperor and his spiritual and ecclesiastical officials.

The Pravoslav appointed Archbishop, Theophylact of Ohrid, waged a fierce war against the Bogomils of Ohrid yet, in spite of severe punishments, he did not succeed in stamping them out. Led by the priest Basil, the Bogomil apostles and women preachers spread Bogomilism throughout all the regions of the empire, even into Tsari Grad itself.

Confronted with this rapid spread of Bogomilism, the Pravoslav Emperor Alexius I Comnenus decided to personally intervene. While making plans to eradicate the Bogomils he figured it was a good time to also attack the Paulician movement which existed on a large scale in the Balkans. His soldiers rounded up all the Bogomils they could catch, including their leader Basil, and brought them before a Synod in Tsari Grad. The Synod quickly condemned them to death and subsequently had them executed. The movements did not collapse as expected, however, but rather experienced a revival after Alexius I Comnenus's death in 1118.

During the 1070's, while Michael VII Parapinakes was emperor, many enemies began to descend upon Pravoslav territory. The new enemies that appeared at this time seemed to emerge almost simultaneously on the northern, eastern and western frontiers. It was nothing new for the Pravoslavs to have to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously but that task required a soldier on the throne.

The Pechenegs, a Turkic tribe, had long been a northern neighbour and valuable ally against the Bulgars, Magyars and Russians. After the Bulgar empire collapsed the Pechenegs began to raid across the Danube into Pravoslav territory. As allies Constantine IX allowed them to settle south of the river but by mid-11th century they were becoming a nuisance. They were threatening Thrace and Macedonia and encouraging the spirit of revolt among the Bogomils. Alexius I put their reign of terror to an end in1091.

The next to arrive, this time on the eastern frontier, were the Seljuq Turks, whose conquests would change the shape of both the Muslim and Pravoslav worlds. In 1055, having conquered Persia, they entered Baghdad and their prince assumed the title of sultan and protector of the Abbasid caliphate. Before long they asserted their authority up to the borders of Fatimid Egypt and through Pravoslav Anatolia. They made their first appearance across the Pravoslav frontier in Armenia during the mid-1060's and went as far west as Caesarea in central Anatolia.

The appearance of the Turkish raiders frightened the military aristocracy in Anatolia who, in 1068, elected one of their own emperors, Romanus IV Diogenes. Romanus assembled an army consisting mainly of foreign mercenaries and went on a campaign against the Turks. In August 1071 the Pravoslavs lost the battle at Manzikert, near Lake Van in Armenia. Romanus was taken prisoner by the Seljuq sultan, Alp-Arslan. After signing a treaty with the sultan, Romanus was allowed to buy his freedom. Unfortunately Tsari Grad did not want him back and installed their candidate Michael VII. Subsequently Romanus's treaty with the Turks was rejected and Romanus himself was treacherously blinded. With their treaty rejected, the Seljuqs were justified in resuming their raids.

It didn't take too long before an irreconcilable rift began to form between Tsari Grad and the eastern themes. Civil war broke out consuming all resources and leaving no troops to defend the eastern frontier. The Turks were quick to exploit the situation and by 1081 had penetrated Asia Minor and taken Nicaea. The heart of the empire's military and economic strength was now in Turkish hands.

The next enemy, the Normans, arrived from the west and began their conquest of southern Italy early in the 11th century. Ironically the Norman conquests were made possible by Basil II's project of recovering Sicily from the Arabs. Sicily was almost recovered in 1042 by the great general of the post-Macedonian era, George Maniaces. Unfortunately, being fearful of him and his military reputation, Constantine IX had him recalled and killed as a pretender to the throne. The Normans afterwards simply filled the political void and made steady progress conquering Italy.

In 1071 after a three-year siege the Normans, led by Robert Guiscard, finally took Bari, the last remaining Pravoslav stronghold in the west. After that, Pravoslav rule in Italy and the hope of re-conquering Sicily came to an end.

The simultaneous losses of Manzikert, to the Turks in the east, and Bari, to the Normans in the west, were a disaster for the Pravoslavs. The final loss of Italy put a permanent physical barrier between the Pravoslav east and the Latin west.

After conquering Bari, the Normans pressed on with their campaign into Pravoslav territory. In 1072 they won a resounding victory in Dyrrachium and in the following year another in Ioannina. Then they turned to Macedonia and took Ohrid, the two Pologs and Skopje. After that they made their way to Berroea and Meglen and rebuilt the destroyed fortress. The Normans then followed the Vardar River and camped for three months in Beli Tsrkvi. Following their long rest they came back and took Pelagonia, Trikkala and Kostur. In January 1084, in an attempt to take Larissa, they suffered a devastating defeat.

A year later Emperor Alexius I, making use of his victory, attacked and took back Kostur, forcing the Normans to retreat from the Balkans.

The Norman conquests had serious long term consequences for Macedonia. Outside of the Norman mayhem and looting, the Macedonians were once again subjected to new cruelties as the Pravoslavs returned and imposed law and order on the province.

The Norman expulsion unfortunately did not bring peace to Macedonia. As mentioned earlier, Bodin succeeded his father to the throne of Zeta in 1081and immediately began campaigning in Pravoslav territory. He seized Mokra, a part of the Ohrid district including Mt. Bagora, and then proceeded to take the district of Dyrrachium. At that time the Pravoslav Emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, intervened and Bodin was forced to retreat. Later, from time to time, Bodin took the occasion to campaign in the Ohrid region but always withdrew at the presence of the Pravoslav army.

Towards the end of the 1090's Vukan, the ruler of Rashka, decided to invade Macedonia and attack Skopje. Vukan's presence in Pravoslav territory provoked a counter attack from the Emperor who this time personally took charge of the mission. Comnenus undertook three campaigns against Rashka in 1091, 1093, and 1094. His personal intervention not only gave the Pravoslavs an opportunity to take back all of Macedonia, but also sent a clear message to Bodin to keep out.

Even with all of Macedonia's possessions under Pravoslav control, the empire could not replenish the military and economic resources it lost as a result of losing Asia Minor to the Turks. Its shrinking boundaries reduced the once mighty empire from the status of a world power to that of a small state fighting for survival. The loss of Anatolia forced the Pravoslavs to turn away from the east and start looking to the west.

The first sign of this westward interest was in 1082 after the Normans captured Dyrrachium and were about to advance overland to Solun. Alexius, the Pravoslav emperor, having no resources to raise a sizable army, called on the Venetians to help him. However, even before the west had a chance to react, the Norman leader Robert Guiscard died, in 1085, thus temporarily easing the Norman problem. The following year the Seljuq Turk sultan died and the sultanate was engulfed with internal rivalries.

The Venetians eventually did come and were glad to help drive the Normans out of the Adriatic Sea but at the same time demanded large concessions for their services. In 1082 Alexius I granted them trading privileges in Tsari Grad with very lucrative terms. Unfortunately this created resentment for the westerners in Tsari Grad. The rich Pravoslavs, who otherwise might have invested in shipbuilding and trade, were pushed to invest in more familiar securities like land and property.

In Alexius's estimation the loss of Anatolia was only temporary and he fully expected to win it back. He would have too had it not been for the first crusade of western Europe in1096.

Alexius asked the west for help, not for the liberation of the Holy Land from the infidel but for the protection of Tsari Grad and the recovery of Anatolia. However, when Jerusalem was lost to the Turks in 1071 all the west could think of was revenge

The Holy War fervor finally peaked in 1095 when Pope Urban II appealed to the Christian world for recruits to go to war. The response in western Europe was overwhelming. Some came out of religious enthusiasm, others in the spirit of adventure and yet others with hopes of material gain. It was no comfort to Alexius to learn that four of the eight leaders of the First Crusade were Normans, among them Bohemond, the son of Robert Guiscard.

Failing to convince the Crusaders to help him re-take Anatolia, the next best thing the Emperor did was get its leaders to swear that they would restore towns or territories they might conquer from the Turks on their way to the Holy Land. In return for this gesture he gave them guides, a military escort and food supplies.

One group of fearsome Crusaders, with Bohemond of Taranto at the helm, traveled along the Via Egnatia route and entered Macedonia in 1096. They had no qualms about using force and violence when it came to obtaining food and other necessities. While passing through they stopped in Kostur for several days, seizing oxen, mules and everything else they could pilfer. In the region between Prilep and Bitola they destroyed a fortified settlement and killed its inhabitants. While crossing the Vardar River the Crusaders were ambushed by a group of renegade Turkish and Pecheneg soldiers from the Pravoslav army. Unscathed, the Crusaders continued on their journey to Serres where they were welcomed by Pravoslav officials and given gifts collected from the local population. After a brief stop in Tsari Grad the Crusaders crossed into Asia Minor.

After a short siege the Crusaders, in 1097, took Nicaea and in accordance with their agreement gave it back to the Emperor. In 1098 the Crusaders captured Antioch but this time they refused to honour the agreement. The trouble was started by Bohemond's refusal to turn it over on the grounds that he made the city his own principality. If other Crusaders could keep the lands they conquered for themselves, why shouldn't he? As precedence he used the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, which the crusaders had taken the year before. As further evidence, there were also the Latin conquered counties of Edessa and Tripoli which belonged to Crusaders as well.

When the crusaders finished conquering they settled down and colonized their possessions, which stretched along the coast of Palestine and Syria. Then they began to quarrel among themselves.

While the crusaders were complacent and the Turks were busy fighting each other, Alexius established and secured a new boundary, extending his empire to the middle of Anatolia. Alexius was able to take advantage of prevailing rivalries between the Seljuq sultans at Konya, and the rival dynasty of the Danishmend emirs at Melitene.

The First Crusade may have brought some benefits to the Pravoslavs but it certainly created new problems. The small rivalries between Alexius and Bohemond soon erupted into full scale war when Bohemond invaded Pravoslav territory. In the fall of 1107, Bohemond, with an army of forty-five thousand troops and two hundred transport ships, left Italy and disembarked near Avlona where he took the port without much difficulty. His army then set out for Dyrrachium and took several neighbouring fortresses including Arbanon and Debar. By this time Alexius had built up his forces and immediately went in pursuit. He met Bohemond at Dyrrachium in 1108 and gave him a crushing defeat. Bohemond agreed to a peace treaty and withdrew to Italy where he died in 1111.

Alexius I's victory brought some prestige to the Pravoslav Empire, but at a price. Alexius managed to rebuild his army and fleet only by sacrificing his economy. He devalued his gold coins to one-third their original value and imposed more supplementary taxes on his subjects.

Alexius I's policies were continued after his death by his son John II Comnenus through the years 1118 to 1143 and by his grandson Manuel I Comnenus through the years 1143 to 1180. With the dawn of the 12th century the increasingly complex political situation in Europe and the growing involvement of the western powers into Pravoslav affairs could no longer be ignored. In Asia matters were also complicated by the conflict between the Seljuq and the Danishmend dynasties and by the activities of the crusader states. Foreign relations and skillful diplomacy became of paramount importance for the Pravoslavs as John II tried but failed to break the Venetian monopoly in Pravoslav trade.

Manuel I came to the conclusion that the Pravoslavs could no longer ignore or afford to offend the growing powers in the west and went out of his way to understand and appease them.

It was most unfortunate that the second Crusade in 1147 was during Manuel's reign. By trying hard to appease both sides, Manuel aggravated existing animosities between Pravoslavs and Latins pushing Tsari Grad deeper into the tangle of western politics.

While internal western rivalries kept the westerners busy fighting among themselves, Manuel started a campaign of recovery. His armies won back much of the northwest Balkans and almost conquered Hungary, reducing it to a Pravoslav client kingdom. The Serbs too, under their leader Stephen Nemanja, were kept under control while Manuel's dramatic recovery of Antioch in 1159 gave the crusaders reason to treat him with respect. Unfortunately the Emperor went too far when he intervened in Anatolia to stop the formation of a single Turkish sultanate. After invading the Seljuq territory of Rum in 1176, his army was surrounded at Myriocephalon and annihilated. The loss of this battle marked the end of the counter-offensive against the Turks which was started by Alexius I.

Manuel's failure in Asia Minor delighted the western emperor, Frederick I Barbarossa, who had supported the Seljuq sultan of Rum against the Pravoslavs and now openly threatened to take over the Pravoslav Empire by force.

Manuel's personal relationships with the crusaders and with other westerners remained cordial to the end. But his policies antagonized the Holy Roman Empire, the papacy, the Normans and the Venetians. His effort to revive Pravoslav prestige in Italy and the Balkans roused the suspicions of Venice. In 1171, following an anti-Latin demonstration in Tsari Grad, all Venetians in the empire were arrested and their properties confiscated. The Venetians did not forget this episode and soon began to think in terms of putting Tsari Grad under western control as the only means of securing their interest in Pravoslav trade.

Manuel's policies antagonized many of his own people as well, especially his favouritism towards the Latins and the lavish granting of estates to them.

Manuel's popularity soon plummeted. This prompted his cousin Andronicus I Comnenus to murder him in 1180 and take his throne. Andronicus, while posing as the champion of Pravoslav patriotism and of the oppressed peasants, also murdered Manuel's widow and son Alexius II. Unfortunately when the time came to enforce his reforms he turned from a peoples' champion to a peoples' tyrant. By undermining the power of the aristocracy he weakened the empire's defenses and undid much of Manuel's work.

In the meantime, taking advantage of the internal Pravoslav strife, the king of Hungary broke his treaty with them. Stephen Nemanja of Serbia also declared his independence from the Pravoslavs and founded a new Serbian kingdom. Dissention was not limited to outsiders alone. In 1185 Isaac Comnenus, governor of Cyprus, took advantage of the situation and set himself up as independent ruler of the island. In the same year the Normans again invaded Macedonia and captured Solun. The news prompted a counterrevolution in Tsari Grad resulting in Andronicus's murder.

In 1185 the Normans, armed with eighty thousand men and two hundred vessels, laid siege to Solun by land and by sea. The city, unable to obtain reinforcements from Tsari Grad, fell to the enemy and was looted and plundered to no end.

Andronicus I Comnenus was the last of the Comnenian family to wear the crown. Shortly after his death in 1185 Pravoslav society weakened and the state found itself on the verge of collapse. Apart from increased feudal exploitation, lack of respect for the law and abuses perpetrated by the feudal lords and official bodies, the main danger to the empire's stability came from internal strife and mass defection of aristocrats from the central government. Usurpation of authority followed by armed clashes, banishment and harsh punishments became the norm. The imperial palace had become a hotbed of politics and intrigues.

After Andronicus I Comnenus died in 1185, Isaac II Angelus replaced him as emperor. It was during Isaac II's reign that the newly developed feudal powers in Serbia and Bulgaria were established and became a significant political factor in the Balkans. The sacking of Solun by the Normans weakened the Pravoslavs and that too created favourable conditions for the Slavonic feudal lords to gain some independence. Among the more successful of these was Dobromir Hrs. Hrs had accumulated an army of five hundred men and, for the most part, maintained peaceful relations with the court in Tsari Grad. He was however, an opportunist and looked for ways to expand his authority. His chance came in 1189 during the third Crusade, led by Frederic I Barbarossa, when a number of Crusaders left the main route and invaded Macedonia. While passing through Gradets they killed people and set fire to several buildings, including the town's church. After descending to Vkahija (near Strumitsa) they clashed with a rebel group and took their possessions. It was here that Hrs made contact with the Crusaders and sent them on their way. Unfortunately no sooner had the Crusaders departed for Asia Minor than Pravoslavs rounded up these opportunistic feudal lords and sent them to jail. Dobromir Hrs was imprisoned for a while but was then released and awarded the governorship of Strumitsa.

In 1195 Isaac II was deposed and blinded by his brother Alexius III Angelus.

When unrest broke out during Alexius III's reign, Dobromir Hrs again declared his independence, first in Strumitsa and then in the naturally fortified town of Presok. After arming Presok with an elite garrison he transferred his seat and fortified the town with defensive weapons and adequate stores of food. By repealing the Pravoslav laws he introduced his own brand of barbarian rule.

After consolidating his power, Hrs went on a campaign to Serres but in 1199 was met by the Pravoslav Emperor and a battle ensued. Hrs's handpicked soldiers fought skillfully. By using catapults, operated by ex-Pravoslav mercenaries, they inflicted severe losses on Alexius. In the course of battle Hrs's soldiers slipped out in the dark of night and destroyed Alexius's siege equipment causing him to lose the battle. Alexius's failure to defeat Hrs forced the Emperor to meet his demands thus recognizing Hrs as the ruler of the towns of Strumitsa and Prosek.

It wasn't too long before relations between Prosek and Tsari Grad deteriorated. The cause of the deterioration was the Emperor's refusal to pay the agreed upon ransom for the release of Hrs's father-in-law, Kamits. Kamits was a prisoner in Bulgaria for some time and the Emperor had agreed to arrange for his release. But after Kamits was freed the Emperor refused to pay the ransom. The two hundred centenariis in gold were eventually paid by Hrs but left bad feelings and a breach in the treaty between the Emperor and Hrs.

Free from any obligations, Hrs, together with his father-in-law, renewed their military campaigns and took Pelagonia and Prilep, then entered Thessaly and sparked a massive uprising in the Peloponnesus.

While Hrs was wreaking havoc in the western provinces, the Emperor put an army together and went in pursuit. The Pravoslavs quickly re-took Pelagonia, Prilep and Thessaly, depriving Hrs of his latest gains. Through treachery in 1201 the Pravoslavs took Strumitsa, leaving Hrs isolated in Prosek.

The westerners, who had blamed the failure of their crusade on the Pravoslavs, were now looking for retribution. Their chance came when the western emperor Henry VI, who by now had united the Norman Kingdom of Sicily with the Holy Roman Empire, wanted to become master of Tsari Grad. Henry would have attacked the Pravoslavs had it not been for Alexius's steady bribes and payoffs. Unfortunately Henry died in 1197.

Henry's idea, however, lived on and gained ground in the west. The conquest of Tsari Grad was seen as the ultimate solution to many of the west's problems that would be of benefit not only to trade but also to the future of the crusades and the church. Henry's idea came closer to fruition in 1198 when Innocent III was elected pope.

It was through Innocent's inspiration that the Fourth Crusade was launched. It was by treachery and intrigue that the conquest and colonization of the Pravoslav Empire by the west was realized.

In 1203 the crusaders, under the pretext of restoring Isaac II and his son to the Pravoslav throne, drove Alexius III out of Tsari Grad. Instead of making good on their promises however, the Venetians and crusaders attacked, conquered and divided Tsari Grad and the Pravoslav provinces between themselves. Tsari Grad fell to the Latins in April 1204.

In the west's quest for trade, Venice was becoming the leader of commerce. Venice wanted to become a great merchant power; a middleman of consumerism, but Tsari Grad was always in the way. Far superior to Venice, Tsari Grad monopolized the silk trade and prohibited Venice from realizing her dream. Finally, as fate would have it, her moment of glory was near. When the Crusaders ran out of money and couldn't afford to pay for their voyage to the Holy Lands, they turned to Venice. Venice offered them a way out but the offer came at a price. It was Pope Innocent III who turned the crusaders first against the Christian town of Zara in the Adriatic in 1202 and then against Tsari Grad in 1204. Principles gave away to greed and Christian turned against Christian: all this to satisfy the greed and commercial appetites of Venice. It was not a war of armies but a war of betrayal, deceit, and total annihilation. The unsuspecting and trusting citizens of Tsari Grad gladly opened the city doors for the Crusaders. Instead of bringing peace, however, the Latins killed the entire Tsari Grad population, military and civilian, then looted the city of its possessions. The city streets were flooded with the blood of the innocent. Warriors, women and children alike were all slaughtered like lambs by the Latin crusaders. This was an act of shame that the western Church will have to bear for all eternity.

After taking Tsari Grad, the Venetians, led by their doge Enrico Dandolo, appropriated the principal harbours and islands on the trade routes and dispatched the crusaders in the conquest of the European and Asiatic provinces. The first Latin emperor, Baldwin I, became the feudal overlord of the feudal principalities established in Thrace, Solun, Athens, and the Peloponnesus. Baldwin soon came into conflict with the ruler of Bulgaria and later faced serious opposition from the three provincial centers of Pravoslav resistance.

At Trebizond (Trabzon) on the Black Sea, two brothers of the Comnenian family laid claim to the imperial title. In Epirus Michael Angelus Ducas, a relative of Alexius III, made his capital at Arta and harassed the crusader states in Thessaly. The third centre of resistance was based in the city of Nicaea in Anatolia. Theodore I Lascaris, another relative of Alexius III, was crowned there as emperor in 1208 by a patriarch of his own making.

Of the three new powers of resistance Nicaea lay nearest to Tsari Grad, between the Latin Empire and the Seljuq Turk sultanate of Rum. Theodore proved worthy of the Pravoslav traditions by simultaneously fighting on two fronts and by being a skillful diplomat.

Theodore Lascaris and his son-in-law John III Vatatzes built up a small Pravoslav Empire at Nicaea and established a Pravoslav church in exile. The Latins were thus never able to gain a permanent foothold in Anatolia. Even in Europe their position was constantly threatened by the Pravoslav rulers in the Balkans.

In 1204 the Latin Crusaders formed a Frankish kingdom, the Kingdom of Solun, on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea with Solun as its capital. With Boniface of Montferrat as its first king, the Solunian people went through twenty years of unprecedented oppression and subjugation. In their seizure of Macedonia, the Crusaders took over large quantities of grain supplies, livestock and other wealth, establishing their own garrisons in various towns.

After the 1205 defeat of the Latin Emperor Baldwin and the Adrianople Crusaders, the Bulgarian army attacked and destroyed the town of Serres and invaded the district of Solun. Bulgarian pressure on Solun increased in 1207, particularly after the death of Boniface of Montferrat. The Bulgarian emperor Kaloyan laid siege to the city but soon died and the siege was abandoned.

In the period after Kaloyan's death a power struggle ensued in Bulgaria and Strez. A descendant of the Bulgarian royal line was able to establish an independent kingdom in Macedonia. With the aid of Serbia he set himself up in Prosek and extended his rule from the Solun region to Ohrid. All Bulgarian governors within these territories swore loyalty to him. After a while, agitation from the Bulgarians subsided and Strez was able to establish good relations with the Bulgarian state.

Upon consolidating his rule in Macedonia, Strez began a campaign against the Kingdom of Solun which in 1212 sparked a massive conflict in Pelagonia. Even though the conflict was between Strez and the Latins, it had support from the more powerful Despot of Epirus on one side and the Bulgarian state on the other. After losing to the Latins, Strez broke off relations with the Serbians. In 1214 he initiated a campaign against them but died unexpectedly.

After Strez's death the Despot of Epirus conquered a large portion of Macedonia, including Skopje and Ohrid. In 1244 Solun too fell prey to the army of Epirus.

Immediately after conquering Ohrid, Demetrius Chomatianus, the Archbishop of Ohrid, crowned the Despot Theodore Angelus Ducas Comnenius, emperor. The despot had intentions of renewing the Pravoslav Empire but his defeat by the Bulgarians in 1230, near Klokotnitsa, prematurely ended his great plans. Bulgaria, on the other hand, not only increased its reputation and prestige but also expanded its territory to Thrace, Macedonia and part of Albania. After it consolidated its hold on the new territories, Bulgarian governors were appointed and garrisons were stationed in various Macedonian towns. The Pravoslav bishops in the eparchies were replaced by archpriests of the Trnovo Church, which in 1235 became a Patriarchate. The power of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, which was somewhat eroded by the Serbian Church becoming autocephalous in 1219, was now further eroded with the formation of the new Bulgarian Patriarchate.

The Latin Empire in Tsari Grad lost its ambitions to maintain control of its territories after the Latin, Henry of Flanders died in 1216. This, as mentioned earlier, created new opportunities in 1224 for the despot Theodore Ducas of Epirus to expand his empire. Theodore had already extended his territories north into Bulgaria, taken Solun from the Latins and had been crowned emperor in spite of objections from the Emperor in Nicaea. Unfortunately his defeat in battle in 1230 against the Bulgars stopped him before reaching Tsari Grad.

Theodore's defeat opened new opportunities for John III Ducas Vatatzes of Nicaea to expand his empire. Being an ally of the Bulgarians, John played an important role in invading Europe, encircling Tsari Grad and getting Theodore's successor to surrender. The despot's successor finally surrendered in 1246 and was forced to renounce his imperial title and surrender to the empire of Nicaea. As luck would have it, at about the same time, the Mongols invaded Anatolia and started a campaign against the Seljuk Turks in the east, which greatly benefited the Nicaeans. The Mongol invasion weakened the Seljuq Turkish sultanate and isolated the rival empire of Trebizond.

Over time the Nicaean Empire became self-sufficient with a thriving economy based on agriculture and trade. It had no navy but it did have a well disciplined, organized army. By slowly stretching its frontiers into Europe the empire had gained much strength, especially since it took the greater part of eastern Macedonia and Solun in1246.

After the eviction of the Latins in 1261, the seat of the Nicaean government was moved from Nicaea to Tsari Grad. To the Pravoslavs, Tsari Grad was &quot;the Jerusalem&quot; and they were not about to leave it in foreign hands. Unfortunately, after the damages inflicted by the Fourth Crusade the city was no longer the focal point of an integrated empire. It was more like an immense city-state in the midst of a number of more or less independent provinces. Much of Peloponnesus and the islands remained in French or Italian hands and the Pravoslav rulers of Epirus and Thessaly refused to recognize Michael VIII as their emperor.

The regime change in Tsari Grad was good for Macedonia. During its initial rule the Macedonian people experienced two decades of life without external harassment. Then in 1282 the Serbian feudal army of king Stephen Urosh II Milutin invaded northern Macedonia and took Lower and Upper Polog, Skopje, Ovche Pole, Zletovo and Piyanets. Shortly afterwards, the Serbs initiated a new campaign and invaded Poreche and the Kichevo and Debar regions. After that a Serbian detachment was dispatched along the lower course of the Struma River and penetrated as far as Krstopol.

About four decades later the Serbians, under the rule of the Serbian King Stephen Urosh III Dechanski, launched another campaign against the Pravoslavs. During their first wave of attacks they invaded and captured the towns of Shtip, Chreshche on the River Bragalnitsa, Veles and Prosek on the Vardar. Then in 1328 they took Prosek and the Serbian army invaded the regions of Demir Hisar and Debartsa, coming face to face with the Pravoslavs in Ohrid.

Ohrid was an important Pravoslav stronghold and the threat did not go unnoticed in Tsari Grad. Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus immediately prepared a counter-offensive and went in pursuit of the invaders. By 1330 the Emperor had recaptured the towns in the Demir Hisar and Debartsa regions, including Zheleznets.

Four years later, under the leadership of their new ruler Stephen Urosh IV Dushan, the Serbs renewed their offensive in Macedonia. With the capture of Serres in 1345, Serbian rule was extended over virtually all of Macedonia. The same year the Serbian ruler Stephen Urosh IV Dushan proclaimed himself emperor and elevated the Serbian Archbishopric to a Patriarchate. The coronation took place in Skopje on April 16, 1346 but the Pravoslavs refused to recognize it along with Serbia's territorial gains and the Serbian Patriarchate.

During the course of the late 1340's Serbian rule was expanded to Thessaly and Epirus. But in 1350 the towns of Serres and Voden rebelled and severed links with the Serbs. After that opposition became common everywhere and the Serbs found it very difficult to hang on to their conquered territories.

After Stephen Urosh IV Dushan's death in 1355 the central government's authority quickly eroded, leaving the feudal lords to rule independently. The most notable of the feudal lords in Macedonia at the time were the brothers Volkashin and Uglesha. Volkashin proclaimed himself king in 1365 with Emperor Urosh as co-ruler.

In Tsari Grad, meanwhile, Michael's son, Andronicus II who reigned from 1282 to 1328, unwisely attempted to economize by cutting down the size of the army and disbanding the navy. This forced unemployed soldiers and sailors to seek service in foreign and enemy states. It has been said that many of Michel's sailors ended up in the service of the new Turkish emirs, raiding the Aegean islands.

Unable to afford his own, the emperor contracted the Genoese to provide him trade ships and a navy to defend Tsari Grad by sea. This unfortunately made the Venetians very jealous, to the point of declaring war, which in 1296 led to the first of a series of naval battles off Tsari Grad.

Michael's cost cutting measures weakened the empire's ability to adequately defend itself and the Turks did not hesitate to take advantage of it.

The empire's downslide began in 1302 when a band of Turkish warriors, under the leadership of Osman I, defeated the Pravoslav army near Nicomedia in northwestern Anatolia and, for the first time, penetrated Europe. Osman I was the founder of the Osmanli, or Ottomans as they would later be known by westerners.

Unable to beat the Ottomans back, a year later in 1303, Andronicus hired a professional army of mercenaries known as the Grand Catalan Company. The Catalans made one successful counterattack against the Turks in Anatolia but after that they became unruly and unpopular. After their leader was murdered they turned against their employers. Having failed to conquer Tsari Grad they headed for Macedonia and stopped in Solun, looting and plundering everything in sight. Even Sveta Gora (Mount Athos), Macedonia's Holy Mountain was not spared by the Catalan's ferocious greed. Solun, however, held out and succeeded in repelling the Catalan invaders who were forced to push further southwards.

For some years the Catalans used the Gallipoli Peninsula as a base from which to ravage Thrace, inviting thousands of Turks to come over and help them. The Catalans finally moved west and in 1311 conquered Athens from the French and established the Catalan Duchy of Athens and Thebes. The Turks who were left behind were not ejected from Gallipoli until 1312.

The Catalans were only a minor problem for the Pravoslavs in comparison to their own internal strife and civil wars. The trouble started around 1320 when Andronicus II disinherited his grandson Andronicus III. The cause of the young emperor was taken up by his friends, who periodically fought against the old emperor. The civil strife lasted from 1321 to 1328 until the older Andronicus yielded the throne to the younger. Unfortunately this internal fighting took attention away from needed economic reforms and gave the enemy new opportunities to gain more ground.

In 1329 the Turks renewed their campaign against the Pravoslavs. A battle was fought and lost at Pelekanon (near Nicomedia) giving the Turks a needed victory. Victorious, Osman's son Orhan and his Turkish warriors went on to capture Nicaea in 1331 and Nicomedia in 1337. Northwestern Anatolia, once the heart of the empire, was now lost to the Turks.

Surprisingly the Pravoslavs accepted their defeat and came to terms with the Turks. By so doing Andronicus III now opened the door to an almost limitless number of Turkish soldiers to join his army and fight for pay against his enemies the Italians in the Aegean islands and the Serbs and Bulgars in Macedonia and Thrace.

By allowing the Turks to aid them, the Pravoslavs taught them military skills and gave them combat experience, which helped them to form a base for future campaigns. By the middle of the fourteenth century, the Ottoman Turks had consolidated their power in Asia Minor and were becoming a threat to the Balkan states. Their first serious campaign for the conquest of Europe began in 1352 when they took the fortress of Tzympe, on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Two years later, taking advantage of a devastating earthquake, they took the fortress of Gallipoli, thus creating a convenient bridgehead for their forthcoming penetration of the Balkans.

Among the first to be threatened by the Turkish forces was Uglesha's rule, the feudal lord in Macedonia mentioned earlier. Confronted with danger he persuaded his brother Volkashin to take joint actions. Hostilities broke out in September 1371 near Chernomen followed by a fierce battle on the River Maritsa. The river turned red as casualties mounted, among them the brothers Volkashin and Uglesha. It was a major victory for the Turks and a catastrophe for the Macedonians, not only for the loss of life but for the terrible change of fate.

Even though, this was an insignificant battle, its outcome had disastrous significance for Macedonia. The balance of power was destabilized and as a result the Despot Manuel Palaeologus captured the Serres region and Chalcidice. Volkashin's son Marko retained the title of King but recognized Turkish authority and began paying tribute and rendering military aid to them. The Dragash brothers, rulers of eastern Macedonia with their seat at Velbuzhd, became Turkish vassals while Vuk Brankovich extended his rule to include Skopje and the Grand Zhupan, Andrea Gropa, consolidated his position in Ohrid.

After winning the Battle of Maritsa the Turks continued to campaign throughout Macedonia. In 1383 they took the town of Serres and in 1385 took the towns of Shtip, Veles, Prilep and Bitola.

From 1382 to 1387 Emperor Manuel reigned from Solun and worked hard to make the city a rallying point for resistance. Unfortunately the city fell to Murad's army in April 1387.

When the Turks drove deeper into Macedonia, the Serbs organized a counteroffensive but were overwhelmed at Kossovo in 1389.

The loss of Solun and the Battle of Kossovo unfortunately cut off access to Tsari Grad by land. By 1393 the Turk Bayezid had completed his conquest of Bulgaria and returned to lay siege to Tsari Grad. His blockade lasted many years and Manuel II, like his father, pinned his hopes of rescue on the west.

The king of Hungary organized a great crusade against the Turks but was defeated at Nicopolis on the Danube in 1396. In 1399 the French marshal Boucicaut, who had fought the Turks at Nicopolis, returned to Tsari Grad with a small army. There he persuaded Manuel to take his appeal for help to the west in person.

Leaving his nephew John VII in charge, Manual went to Italy, France, and England. The westerners gave him audience and sympathy but little in the way of practical help. During Manuel's absence, in July 1402, the Ottomans were defeated at Ankara by the Mongols. Bayezid was captured and his empire in Asia was shattered. His four sons, however, individually secured control of European provinces, which had not been affected by the Mongol invasion, and began to compete against one another for total dominion.

During these unexpected circumstances the Pravoslavs found themselves holding the balance of power for the Turkish contenders. For their services, the Pravoslavs were able to negotiate the lifting of the blockade of Tsari Grad and the restoration of Pravoslav rule in Solun, Sveta Gora (Mt. Athos) and so on. The payment of tribute to the sultan was also annulled.

Being in a position to hold the balance of power, unfortunately, did not last too long and in 1413 Mehmed I, with the help of Emperor Manuel, triumphed over his rivals and became sultan of the reintegrated Ottoman Empire.

During Mehmed I's reign, from 1413 to 1421, the Pravoslavs enjoyed their last respite. Manuel II, aware that the lull would not last long, made the most of it by strengthening the defenses and administration of his fragmented empire.

The most flourishing province in the last years was the Despotate of Morea (Peloponnesus). Its prosperity had been built up first by the sons of John Cantacuzenus (who died there in 1383) and then by the son and grandson of John V, Theodore I and Theodore II Palaeologus. Its capital city Mistra became a haven for Pravoslav scholars and artists and a centre of the last revival of Pravoslav culture, packed with churches, monasteries, and palaces.

When Murad II became sultan in 1421 the days of Tsari Grad were numbered. In 1422 Murad revoked all the privileges accorded to the Pravoslavs by his father and laid siege to Tsari Grad. His armies invaded Macedonia and blockaded Solun. The city at the time was ruled by Manuel II's son Andronicus, who in 1423 handed it over to the Venetians. For seven years Solun was a Venetian colony. Then in March 1430 the Sultan assaulted and captured it.

The Pravoslav collapse and the Ottoman triumph followed swiftly. Mehmed II laid siege to the walls of Tsari Grad in April 1453. His ships were obstructed by a chain that the Pravoslavs had thrown across the mouth of the Golden Horn but the Turks dragged their ships overland to the harbour from the seaward side, bypassing the defenses. The Sultan's heavy artillery continually bombarded the land walls until, on May 29, some of his soldiers forced their way in.

As a final note, in the glory of the Pravoslav Empire, I want to add that had it not been for the advent of the cannon the Pravoslav Empire might still exist to this day. It was not the might of the Turk but the might of his new cannon that brought the walls of Tsari Grad tumbling down.

The Sultan allowed his victorious troops three days and nights of plunder before he took possession of his new capital. The Ottoman Empire had now superseded the Pravoslav Empire. The material structure of the empire, which had long been crumbling, was now under the management of the Sultan. But the Pravoslav faith was less susceptible to change. The Sultan acknowledged the fact that the church had proved to be the most enduring element in the Pravoslav world and he gave the Patriarch of Tsari Grad an unprecedented measure of temporal authority by making him answerable for all Christians living under Ottoman rule.

The last scattered pockets of Pravoslav resistance were eliminated within a decade after 1453. . Before ending this story, I want to mention a few words about king Marko, affectionately known to Macedonians as Marko Krale.

Marko Krale was a legendary folk hero in western Macedonia who was surrounded by tales and superhero stories.

Marko was the son of the feudal lord Volkashin, mentioned earlier. Volkashin was the head of a tribal state in Prilep and later became a high courtier and a despot. In about 1365 Volkashin proclaimed himself king (tsar) and became a co-ruler with king Urosh. His brother, the despot Uglesha, ruled over the Struma region.

Both brothers were killed in 1371 at Chernomen, Thrace during the Marica battle against the Turks, as mentioned earlier. This unsuccessful battle was the last major attempt, by local rulers, to prevent further penetration of Turks into the Balkan Peninsula and to forestall the Turkish occupation of their territories.

After Volkashin's death, his eldest son Marko inherited his throne and title. Unfortunately, as part of the treaty with the Turks he had to recognize Turkish authority and pay tribute to the Turkish Sultan.

It is believed that Marko was born in 1335. His name was discovered in a document establishing him as one of Volkashin's delegates to Dubrovnik. His name was also discovered in some chronicles of his time establishing him as the son of Volkashin and later as Marko the king. In another document dated 1370 Volkashin makes mention of his sons Marko and Andrew and of his wife Elena.

With its capital in Prilep, Marko inherited a state that lay between the Vardar River and Albania stretching from the Shar Mountain range down to Kostur excluding the cities of Skopje and Ohrid.

After becoming king, Marko minted his own coins and placed the inscription: &quot;King Marko faithful to Lord Jesus Christ&quot; on them.

Marko Krale was killed on May 17, 1395 in Craiova Romania, during a battle against the Vlach military leader Mircho. Marko was obliged to fight for the Turks as part of his treaty agreement with Sultan Bayazit.

Marko Krale, it appears, left no heir. After his death his state reverted to the Turks. Even though Marko Krale had been a Turkish vassal and fought on the side of Bayazit's army he was a devout Christian and just before he died he begged God for forgiveness and prayed out loud, asking God to help the Christians. And thus a legend was born.

Marko Krale, the fearless legend, has been enshrined in the Towers of Prilep where he was born and by his frescoes and paintings in various churches and monasteries.


To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

I have scoured the annals of history and I have yet to find this so called unique Greek culture that has survived from ancient times to the present. It is not there. It does not exist.

Whatever hordes or invaders invaded Macedonia they also invaded Greece. Whatever foreign populations were deposited in Macedonia they were also deposited in Greece.

Whatever language was spoken in Macedonia was also spoken in Greece. So please tell me where did this unique Greek culture come from that binds the ancients with the modern Greeks and not with the modern Macedonians? Where did the modern Greeks get their Greek culture? Could it be that the modern Greek culture is like Greek coffee, Greek salad, or Greek Pizza, all stolen from other cultures?

There is nothing unique about the modern Greeks to make them the exception and deserving of the ancient heritage to the exclusion of the modern Macedonians. There is, however, gross misconduct on their part for which they have to answer in the future.

References:

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, Skopje 1979.

John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.

Enno Franzius, History of the Byzantine Empire, New York: Funk &amp; Wagnalls, 1967.

The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, North Carolina: McFarland, 1997.

Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, Los Angeles: University of California, 1996.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos &amp; Co., 1980.

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998.

Angus Konstram, Historical Atlas of The Crusaders, New York: Thalamus Publishing, 2002.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

L. Sprague De Camp, The Ancient Engineers, New York: Ballantine Books, 1963.

Dean A. Miller, Imperial Constantinople, New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., 1969.

J. M. Hussey, The Byzantine World, London: Hutchinson University Library, 1961.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>c59qtbmnv0k17s5tf143ki0ffc6lztg</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>History of the Macedonian People - Ottoman Rule in Macedonia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2076</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11091</id>
      <parentid>4988</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:28:30Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="56648" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, copyvio http://www.pollitecon.com/Assets/Ebooks/History-of-the-Macedonian-People-from-Ancient-Times-to-the-Present.pdf}}
History of the Macedonian People
from Ancient times to the Present

Part 19 - Ottoman Rule in Macedonia

by Risto Stefov
rstefov@hotmail.com

The Ottomans crossed into Europe for the first time around the year 1345 as mercenaries hired by the Pravoslavs to defend the Pravoslav Empire. Over the years as the Ottomans grew in number, they settled in Galipoly, west of the Dardanelles (Endrene), and later used the area as a staging ground for conquest.

In 1389 the Ottomans attacked Kosovo in a decisive battle and destroyed the Pravoslav army, killing the nobility in the process. In 1392 they attacked and conquered geographical Macedonia including Solun but not Sveta Gora (Holy Mountain). In 1444 while attempting to drive north, through today's Bulgaria, they were met and crushed by the western Crusaders at Varna. Soon after their recovery they besieged and took Tsari Grad in 1453, looting all the wealth that had been accumulated for over two millennia.

Feeling the sting of the 1444 defeat, the Ottomans turned northwest and in 1526 attacked and destroyed the Hungarian army, killing 25,000 knights. After that they unsuccessfully tried twice to take Vienna, once in 1529 and then again in 1683. The failure to take Vienna halted the Ottoman expansion in Europe.

In a steady process of state building, the Ottoman Empire expanded in both easterly and westerly directions conquering the Pravoslavs and remnants of the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian kingdoms to the west and the Turkish nomadic principalities in Anatolia as well as the Mamluk sultanate in Egypt to the east. By the 17th century the Ottoman Empire had grown and held vast lands in west Asia, north Africa and southeast Europe.

During the 16th century the Ottomans shared the world stage with Elizabethan England, Habsburg Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Valois France and the Dutch Republic. Of greater significance to the Ottomans were the city states of Venice and Genoa which exerted enormous political and economic power with their fleets and commercial networks that linked India, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and west European worlds.

Initially the Turks may have been ethnically Turkish, perhaps originating from a single race but by the time they had conquered the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire had become multi-ethnic and multi-religious. The Ottoman Empire built its power base on a heterogeneous mix of people who were added to its population with every conquest. What may have been Turkish at the start was soon lost and the term &quot;Turk&quot; came to mean &quot;Muslim&quot; as more and more people from the conquered worlds were Islamized. To be a Turk, one had to be a Muslim first. &quot;The devsirme system offered extreme social mobility for males, allowing peasant boys to rise to the highest military and administrative positions in the empire outside of the dynasty itself.&quot; (Page 30, Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Binghamton University, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

When the Ottomans crossed over to the Balkans and conquered Macedonia the basic state institutions and military organization of the empire were still in a state of development. Built on a basis of feudal social relations the empire was despotic with many elements of theocratic rule. After sacking Tsari Grad the Ottomans adapted much of the Pravoslav administration and feudal practices and began to settle the Balkans. The conquered people of the new Ottoman territories became subjects of the empire, to be ruled according to Muslim law. At the head of the Ottoman Empire sat the Sultan who was God's representative on earth. The Sultan owned everything and everyone in the empire. Below the Sultan sat the ruling class and below them sat the Rajak (protected flock). Everyone worked for the Sultan and he in turn provided his subjects with all of life's necessities.

The Sultan was the supreme head of the empire and his power was unrestricted. Initially his capital was in Bursa then it was moved to Endrene (Adrianople) and after Tsari Grad fell, in 1453, it became the permanent Ottoman capital. Even though their empire was spread throughout Asia and Africa, the European provinces were considered to be the Ottoman Empire's heart and soul.

Initially at the head of the Ottoman state administration stood a single Vizier but by 1386 a second Vizier was appointed, elevating the first one to Grand Vizier. The number of viziers continued to increase with time and by the middle of the 16th century there were four.

After the Balkan conquests, the Ottoman Empire was divided into two large Bejlerbejliks, or administrative units. The rulers of these provinces, the Bejlerbejs, were appointed directly by the Sultan. The Bejlerbejs were the highest local military commanders in the Bejlerbejliks or Pashaliks as they later came to be known. The Rumelia or European Bejlerbejlik incorporated the territories of the Turkish provinces of Europe. This Pashalik was further divided into smaller units called Sanjaks or Jivi, which made up the basic military and territorially administrative components of the empire. Each Pashalik was also divided into kazas where each kaza represented a judicial district for which a qadi or judge was responsible. With time and with the extension of the empire's frontiers the number of Bejlerbejliks grew and their nature began to change. Bejlerbejliks became Elajets or Pashaliks and during the 1470's two Kaziaskers, or Supreme Military Judges, were appointed: one in Rumelia and the other in Anatolia in Asia Minor. There was also a Nichandji, or Keeper of the Imperial Seal, who sat at the head of the administration and, on behalf of the Sultan, placed the seal on all acts issued by the central government. Financial affairs were handled by the Defterdars.

The Divan, or State Council headed by the Grand Vizier consisted of the highest state officials, including viziers, kaziaskers and defterdars, who regularly met to discuss and resolve important state matters.

The Ottoman military was subdivided into land and naval forces. The land force, considered to be the strength of the empire consisted of the Sultan's guard and the provincial (Elajet) armies. The most powerful and most numerous of the Elajet was the Spahis or cavalry. The striking force of the Sultan's guard was the Corps of Janissaries, which was formed around 1329.

The Janissaries were initially recruited from the prisoners-of-war and, by means of the &quot;Blood Tax&quot;, from the subordinated Christian population.

Muslim Turks always administered their government and the military. However, due to lack of manpower to rule an expanding empire, the Ottomans adopted the &quot;devshirme&quot; or child contribution program in the 1300's. This so called &quot;Blood Tax&quot; was harvested by rounding up healthy young Christian boys and converting them to Islam. After being educated, the bright ones were given administrative roles and the rest, the &quot;Janissary&quot;, were given military responsibilities. The devshirme was abolished in 1637 when the Janissary proved to be a handful for the Sultan. In some regions, however, this practice was continued up until the 19th century.

The navy started out very small but was intensively built up in the late 1390's by Sultan Bajazid I. Initially, and at times of war, the Grand Vizier was Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. The empire's feudal lords had no right to exert legal, administrative, financial or military authority, even on their own estates.

The legal system was created around the Seriat which had its basis in Islam. The Koran and Hadith were the books from which the ideals and fundamental principles for the construction of the legal system were drawn. No law could be passed which in principle contradicted the Seriat. Only the supreme religious leader, the Sejh-ul-Islam, had the right to interpret and assess the legal norms and only from the point of view of Islamic law.

The Koran dictated Muslim conduct and behaviour, including punishment for crimes. In the Ottoman mind only religion and the word of God had sole authority over peoples' lives. Religion was the official government of the Ottoman State. Islam was the only recognized form of rule that suited Muslims but could not be directly applied to non-Muslims. So the next best thing was to allow another religion to rule the non-Muslims. The obvious choice of course was the Pravoslav Christian religion, which was the foundation of the Pravoslav Empire. There was a catch however. The official Muslim documents that would allow the &quot;transfer of rule&quot; were based on an ancient Islamic model, which denounced all Christianity as a corrupt invention of the &quot;Evil one&quot;. The conservative Turks regarded the Christians as no more than unclean and perverted animals. Also, the ancient documents called for sacrifices to be made. A Christian religious leader, for being granted leadership by the Muslims, was expected to sacrifice his own flock on demand, to prove his loyalty to the Sultan. It was under these conditions that the Patriarch accepted his installment as sole ruler of the Christian Orthodox faith and of the non-Muslim Millet.

The Sultans tolerated Christianity as the Government of the non-Muslim Millet and sold the Patriarchate to an adventurer who could buy (bribe) his nomination. Once nominated, the Patriarch in turn sold consecration rights to Bishops, who in turn regarded their gain as a &quot;legitimate investment&quot; of capital and proceeded to &quot;farm their diocese&quot;. Under Ottoman rule the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad became a corrupt business, having little to do with faith and more to do with making money. As more and more bishoprics fell into the hands of the new Patriarch, faith at the top began to fade away. This was also the beginning of the end for the Slavonic (Macedonian) Churches in the Ottoman Empire.

In addition to being a religious ruler, the Patriarch and his appointed Bishops became civil administrators of the Christian and non-Muslim people. Their authority included mediating with the Turks, administering Christian law (marriages, inheritance, divorce, etc.), running schools and hospitals, and dealing with the large and small issues of life. There were no prescribed provisions, however, on how to deal with criminal matters or the limit of authority on the part of the Bishops. In other words, there was no uniform manner by which Christian criminals could be punished or how far a Bishop could exercise his authority. This opened the way for interpretation, neglect, abuse, and activities of corruption such as nepotism, favouritism, and bribery.

After conquering the Balkans, the Ottoman Turks immediately started to establish their own administration and, where possible, retained existing administrative and territorial divisions. Macedonia belonged to the Bejlerbejlik, or Elajet of Rumelia. Solun was administered by the famous military commander Evrenos Beg and served as the oldest military centre for the defense of the empire's western frontier. When Skopje fell to the Ottomans in 1392 it became the centre of a new region. The first Skopje regional commander was Pashaigit Beg.

In an attempt to create a stable political and social support system in conquered Macedonia, the Ottoman authorities introduced voluntary migration for Turks from Asia Minor. As a result, many Turkish settlements sprang up all over Macedonia and occupied strategic positions like valleys of navigable rivers and coastal plains. This increase in Moslem numbers, particularly in the larger towns, was at the expense of the Christian population. The nomads of Anatolia were best suited for such migration because of their nomadic way of life.

In time and as a result of Ottoman colonization policies, small Turkish livestock breeding settlements were established at Jurutsi and Konjari near Solun, and in the districts of Nevrokop, Strumitsa, Radovish, Kochani and Ovche Pole. Migration into Macedonia was not restricted to Turks. Late in the 15th century Jews fleeing the western European Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal also settled in Macedonia. These migrations were of particular significance to Macedonia's economic development. Jewish colonies sprang up and flourished in important urban centres like Solun, Bitola, Skopje, Berroea, Kostur, Serres, Shtip, Kratovo and Strumitsa. The Jewish colony in Solun was one of the largest and most significant of all colonies in the entire Ottoman Empire. By the middle of the 16th century Solun was home to more than three thousand Jewish families.

Besides the colonization of Macedonia by foreign elements, there was also the assimilation of Macedonians in the Islamic fold. The process of converting Christians to Muslims began as soon as Macedonia was conquered. At the outset, a fair number of the old nobility converted to Islam in the hope of protecting and even increasing their landholdings. Gradually greater proportions of the population were converted, sometimes whole villages and districts at once. Macedonians living among the Turks, especially in the larger towns, gradually began to assimilate into the Turkish fold. Even though they became Turks, a great majority of the Macedonians retained their mother tongue and continued to speak Macedonian, practicing their traditions and even their religious customs.

In terms of taxation, the most fundamental and distinguishing feature of the feudal system introduced in the Balkans by the Ottomans was the Timar-Spahi system. In Ottoman terms, at the top was the Sultan and supreme owner of all lands. At the bottom were the peasants, or Rajak. Between the Sultan and the peasant were the feudal landlords (Spahi) who, in return for their military service, received a fief from the state. The Spahi had the right to work the land but could not dispose of it. The amount of income derived from the fief in the form of feudal rent from the Rajaks was standard and controlled by the state.

&quot;One of the major evils for the people of our village, and for the rest of the enslaved Christians, was the imposed tax, the so-called 'one tenth', or as the people used to call it the 'spahiluk' after the Spahi or tax collectors. This tax was to be paid in produce since there was no money in circulation at the time. Great injustices were committed by the tax collectors in their arbitrary ways of getting the taxes from the people. It was to be one tenth of the produce, but only God knows how much more the Spahi took from the people. The trouble was not the amount of tax that had to be paid by each family, but the way in which it was collected. The Turkish government would put the collection of taxes on auction - the one who would offer the best price had the right to collect the tax from the population. The right of collecting taxes was usually purchased from the government either by the Turks or the 'Arnauti' (Mohammedan Albanians). The State took its due, but those who obtained the right to collect taxes charged the people what they wanted. These people went to each house in the village, to the fields, to the pastures and the vineyards, and collected these taxes without any control or scales or measures. These collectors were the masters of the population and no one dared to complain because the people feared the worst. And, if someone dared to complain his voice was a voice in the desert - no one would hear it. People used to say: 'Whom to complain to? God is high and the Tsar is far away.' The people endured and carried this heavy burden like mute animals. The burden of the yoke was increased by the arbitrary acts of the Spahi. Sometimes the Spahi would not come in time to collect the produce and the people silently waited for him; they waited without daring to speak. What followed was a sorrowful sight - the fields of grain ripened, and the sheaves were gathered, the rain fell, and everything rotted. The grapes, already spoiled by the rain were gathered, but to what avail? This pitiful situation did not disturb the Spahi. The Spahi were lords and they would get their dues by robbing the 'Rajak' (the slaves) anyway. The Spahi would bribe government officials to look the other way. All these people were corrupt - from the lowest to highest officials in office. They conspired with each other and the population in silence carried the burden.&quot; (Foto Tomev).

Initially, the Ottomans divided their land into four categories. The &quot;meri&quot; lands such as valleys, forests, mountains, rivers, roads, etc., belonged exclusively to the Sultan. The &quot;timar&quot; lands were meri lands loaned or granted to Ottoman civil and military officials. After the land reforms, timar estates converted to private property and became known as &quot;chifliks&quot;. The &quot;vakof&quot; lands were tax-exempt lands dedicated for pious purposes and to support public services such as fire fighting etc. The &quot;molk&quot; lands occupied by peoples' houses, gardens, vineyards, orchards etc. were also private lands.

Even though the Sultan was considered to be God's representative on earth, his real power was derived from his empire's material holdings. Most of the income for his treasury was derived from the imperial fiefs, the large complexes of state land. Other revenues were derived from mining, commerce and various other taxes. The highest state functionaries possessed their own fiefs. Each fief produced an annual income of no less than 100,000 akcas. The annual average income of the fief owned by Isa Beg, the Skopje regional commander, excluding that from Skopje itself, was 763,000 akcas. Feudal lords, depending on their contributions to the empire, were awarded lands known as zeamets and timars. The zeamets produced an annual income between 20,000 and 99,999 akcas and the smaller timars produced at most 19,999 akcas. The average timar produced an income from approximately 2,000 to 6,000 akcas. According to records, the greater part of Macedonia during the 15th and 16th centuries was subdivided mostly into Timars.

In the early period of Ottoman rule, due to labour shortages, Christians were employed to do the job of the Spahis. According to an incomplete census carried out in the mid-15th century, out of a total of one hundred timars and two zeamets in the territory of the Prilep and Kichevo nahije, twenty-seven timars and one zeamet were awarded to Christians. In the 1466/67 census of the Debar district, eighteen of the ninety-eight recorded timars were in Christian hands. With time, however, the number of Christian Spahi decreased and by the 16th century they all disappeared.

Muslims were trusted more by the authorities than Christians so many Christian Spahi converted to Islam and amalgamated their belongings with those of the Turkish feudal lords. This was the surest and most often the only way to permanently safeguard their positions.

The feudally dependent peasantry or Rajak, both Christian and Moslem, held limited amounts of state lands known as the bashtina or chiflik. A portion of this land was awarded to each family in the Rajak along with a paper deed or tapia giving the family rights of inheritance and disposal, provided there was prior approval by the Spahi.

Besides paying taxes, the new citizens of the Ottoman Empire were given special duties to serve their new empire. These included martolozes, vojniks, falconers, derbendkis, bridge-keepers rice-growers and madenkis. The job of the martolozes was to protect various regions that were threatened by outlaws, or haiduks, or to garrison certain fortresses and provincial towns. The job of the vojniks was to go into battle and serve as fighters or members of the supply corps or work in the imperial stables or imperial meadows. The falconers job was to catch, train and look after falcons for hunting. The derbendkis, whose services were widespread throughout Macedonia, provided safe passage through gorges and other places where passage was difficult, especially along the more important military and trade routes. Linked with the services of the derbendkis were those of the bridge-keepers who were responsible for guarding and repairing bridges of strategic importance. The rice-growers were obliged to provide the state with a certain amount of rice, which was considered the basic food of the empire. The job of the madenkis included coal-mining, tar-making and ferrymen services. In return for their services these people were wholly or in part exempt from paying taxes and from other obligations to the empire.

Besides feudal exploitation the Macedonian population, especially throughout the 18th century, was also subjected to religious and national discrimination, which in time became so profound that the term &quot;Rajak&quot; became virtually synonymous with the term &quot;slavery&quot;.

Macedonia's rural economy remained largely agricultural for centuries but its techniques remained stagnant and underdeveloped. The peasants produced a number of varieties of wheat, fruits, vegetables and wine. Tobacco, cotton, rice, sesame, opium poppies, maize, saffron, anise seeds, chick-peas and a number of green vegetables were also cultivated and became more popular during the Ottoman period.

Animal husbandry became one of the predominant branches of rural economy. All kinds of livestock were kept including large numbers of sheep and goats. The buffalo was introduced from Asia Minor as a yoke animal for tilling soil and pulling carts. Hunting and fishing in rivers, lakes and seas also played a part in Macedonia's rural economy.

Given the significant immigration, Macedonian towns grew in population and gradually took on a visibly oriental character. With the coming of new populations new skills and talents followed. Tanner and furrier crafts experienced a particularly strong growth. Jews who had business links in western Europe contributed greatly to this development.

In towns the craftsmen, called esnafs or rufekas, were organized in guilds and worked as private corporations. Each religion had its own guilds and Moslems, Christians and Jews alike competed with each other for work, thus keeping the price of goods and services down to a reasonable level.

The strong central government also played its role in the development of the domestic economy by providing security and safeguards for traders and travelers. Fairs and farmer's markets were established and operated on a regular basis allowing goods to be bought and sold. Fairs were opened up in several places in Macedonia, including Struga, the village of Doljani near Strumitsa and the village of Beshik near Siderokapsa.

As European and Turkish currency came into circulation, domestic and foreign trade flourished. Solun became one of the most important Ottoman trading centers for trading with foreign merchants including the powerful merchants of Venice. While various metal and luxury products such as finely woven goods, silver and gold articles, salt and weapons were imported, items such as wheat, skins, furs, wool, silk and silver were exported.

Mining was also an important aspect of the Ottoman economy producing, among other things, coal and metals necessary for minting silver and gold coins.

The Islamic Ottomans belonged to the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion. The empire's subjects belonged to one of two religiously (not nationally) divided Millets. The Islam Millet was exclusively for Muslims and the non-Islam or Roum (for Roman) Millet grouped all other religions together.

Islam was the dominant religion in the Ottoman Empire but Christianity and Judaism were also allowed to exist. In Macedonia, the powerful Ohrid Archbishopric was active right up to the year 1767 when it was abolished by the Ottoman Sultan Mustafa III.

Ever since its inception, the Ohrid Archbishopric extended its sphere of influence and dominated the neighbouring churches. In spite of Pravoslav attempts to curb its power, the Ohrid Archbishopric survived and began its revitalization. By the start of the 15th century it subordinated the Sofia and Vidin eparchies and by the middle of the same century it was in control of the Vlach and Moldavian eparchies. Shortly afterwards it took control of parts of the Pech Patriarchate including Pech itself. Even the Orthodox districts of Italy (Apulia, Calabria and Sicily), Venice and Dalmatia were subordinated to the Ohrid Archbishopric for a while.

At the beginning of the 16th century the Vlach metropolitan diocese became subordinated to the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad and as a result in 1530 Paul, the Metropolitan of Smederevo, rejected the authority of the Ohrid Archbishopric. In retaliation on March 13, 1532 a synod of archpriests was summoned in Ohrid which in turn excommunicated Paul and all the clergy he had ordained. Paul, however, continued to regard himself as an independent and elevated himself to the level of Patriarch. Then by using his influence and by bribing the Ottoman authorities he brought charges against Prohor, the Archbishop of Ohrid, landing him in jail. On June 20, 1541 another synod of archpriests, including Paul, was summoned in Ohrid and made its decision to remove Paul from his position as a church dignitary. The only opposition received was from the Metropolitan of Kostur.

Unfortunately all this infighting and Paul's involvement with the Ottoman authorities created a great deal of negative attention, prompting the Sultan to break up the Ohrid Church by establishing separate eparchies. In 1557 the Pech Patriarchate was reinstated and took Tetovo, Skopje, Shtip and Upper Ozumaya from the Ohrid Archbishopric. In 1575 the Orthodox Christians of Dalmatia and Venice were taken away from the Ohrid Church and moved under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad. At the start of the 17th century Ohrid lost all the eparchies from southern Italy. After that Ohrid's boundaries remained unaltered until its dissolution in 1767.

As mentioned earlier, the Archbishopric of Ohrid, since its inception, has been an autonomous church headed by an Archbishop who was elected by a Synod. The Synod consisted of archpriests from various eparchies and was summoned on various occasions to deal with the more important matters while the Church Convocation dealt with general matters. The majority of Archbishops who served the Ohrid Church were foreigners and most of them were greedy for money, succumbing to bribery. Some, however, worked hard to raise the standards of the Archbishopric and others including Prohor, Athanasius and Barlaam even worked secretly against the Ottoman yoke.

Even though the Ohrid Church had lost a great number of its possessions to the Ottomans it still remained a feudal institution and, apart from the returns it received from its church lands, it also received considerable income from various taxes, from performing services and settling disputes. The Ohrid lower clergy were all Macedonian and were scarcely distinguishable economically from the general population. Even though foreigners occupied the leading positions in the church, the church itself supported a unique Macedonian culture and an independent Macedonia.

During the second half of the 16th century there were obvious signs of a weakening Ottoman Empire. The successful campaigns that were waged earlier were coming to an end only to be replaced by a series of military defeats and territorial losses. Unable to expand or even hold onto existing territories, the Ottoman central government began to lose prestige and slowly fell into an economic crisis. The situation worsened when feudal lords decided to replace the Rajak's tax contributions in kind (finished products) with money, most of which they kept for themselves. With time, the feudal lords became less interested in taking part in unsuccessful campaigns and defied the weakening central government by refusing to supply the war effort with men or materials. The central government's inability to exercise authority over the feudal lords created a suitable environment for anarchy. More and more of the more powerful feudal lords began to take advantage of the situation and formed their own small-scale military fiefs.

When the state treasury was completely depleted, the central government was forced to take measures which further undermined the military fief. The problem was solved by offering Spahi landholdings to people who could be trusted. The only people the central government could trust were the representatives of the court aristocracy who had absolutely no links with the ranks of the Spahi.

Instead of collecting taxes itself, the state government began to lease its lands to the highest bidders and collected rent. The lease holders in turn, behaving like true landlords and masters of their leased property, leased their land to a third party while exacting a profit for themselves. By this method landholding quickly began to move out of the control of the state and into the hands of the profiteers. Landholding became so profitable that even the Rajak's small holdings were in demand and could be bought and sold in the market. Soon outsiders began to purchase Rajak plots and transformed the purchased land into chifliks, swallowing up entire villages. The new lords of the Rajak lands, known as the Chifliksajbia, continued to fulfill the obligations of the tied peasants but contractors now worked the land. The contractors were usually the same peasants (chiflikari) or former landowners who, after disposing of their lands, no longer had any share in their ownership. The contractors could be freely hired and fired which forced them to work even harder. Under the harsher conditions of not only meeting their existing obligations to the Spahi and the state, they now had to pay an additional rent to the chifliksajbia.

By the middle of the 17th century life in the chifliks became so harsh that peasants left their villages for larger towns, adding to the influx of Moslems and Jews. Many, who could no longer bear the burden and had nowhere to go, turned to marauding and robbing. Bands of peasants left their hearths and fled to either join outlaw organizations (ajdutska druzhina) or live in larger towns where some of them succeeded in becoming factors of significance in the urban economy.

During the 17th century western Europeans came to Macedonia and procured certain privileges from the Ottomans that allowed them to open consular agencies. In 1685, French merchants from Marseilles opened an agency in Solun and in 1700 they opened another one in Kavalla, through which they purchased cotton and wheat. Later Britain, Venice and the Netherlands also established consular agencies in Macedonia. At that time Solun was the gateway to the Ottoman Empire and the largest port for European goods destined for the Balkans.

With the ascendancy of the Atlantic trade routes, Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Italian towns began to decline, particularly during the 17th century when western traders were being replaced by local ones, especially in central Europe.

Catholic influence and propaganda, although somewhat disorganized, was present in Macedonia as early as the 16th century. Then in1622 when the Papal Throne came under Jesuit control, a new organization called the Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith was established with aims at controlling all Catholic missionary activities throughout the world. It was not too long afterwards that the Catholic missions infiltrated Macedonia, including the Archbishopric of Ohrid. By the first half of the 17th century four of the Archbishops of Ohrid (Porphyry, Athanasius, Abraham and Meletius) were secretly working for the Catholics. Links were established by eparchies where Church Congregations were discretely approached to switch to Catholicism. The missionaries from Rome were cautious, tactful and did not impose the Latin language upon the population. By doing so and by showing respect for the dogma of the Eastern Church, Catholic propaganda in Ohrid became very effective in gaining ground. In fact it became so effective that in 1630 the Unites attempted to take over the archiepiscopal church of the Assumption of the Virgin but the Archbishop, by handsomely bribing the Ottoman authorities, was able to halt the takeover. That unfortunately did not stop the Catholics from trying and by the middle of the 17th century they created a Catholic Archbishopric inside Ohrid. But as soon as it was created, conditions turned unfavourable for them and it had to be dissolved and subordinated to the Diocese of Skopje.

In 1661 Archbishop Athanasius took a trip to Rome with a proposal to unify Rome and the Archbishopric of Ohrid. An agreement was reached and a missionary by the name of Onuphrius Constantine was elected as Bishop to serve at the Koine speaking College in Rome. The union, however, did not work out and Catholic propaganda in Macedonia began to lose its effect. A new hope was growing among the Balkan people that Russia, an Orthodox country, would some day liberate them from their bondage.

The Macedonian people were never content with being occupied and showed their displeasure at every opportunity. The first major incident occurred in the middle of the 15th century in the Debar region, where Macedonians, Albanians and Vlachs lived together. Led by George Castriot, the people rose up against the tyranny of the Turks.

George Castriot, who took the name Scanderbeg after Iskander, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, came from an illustrious feudal family which at the time ruled part of present day central Albania and the greater Debar region in the present day Republic of Macedonia. During the Ottoman conquests in the region, John Castriot, George's father, managed to retain his title and holdings by acknowledging the supreme authority of the Sultan and fulfilling certain obligations as his vassal. As proof of his loyalty, John Castriot surrendered his sons to the Sultan to be held as hostages. One of those sons was George. George quickly became fascinated by the energy and vigour of the Ottoman military and could not wait to join them.

Having accepted Islam, George's first act was to change his name to Scanderbeg. Scanderbeg quickly built a reputation as an able commander and gained the confidence of the Ottoman supreme authorities. When his father died in 1437, Scanderbeg took his father's place as governor of the same district. Even though Scanderbeg was an ally of the Sultan, his real loyalties lay with his people.

When war broke out in the region in 1442 and Janos Hunjadi's armies penetrated the interior of the Ottoman Empire, Scanderbeg decided the time was right to renounce his allegiance to the Sultan and raise a rebellion. When a great battle broke out in 1443 near Nish and the Ottoman front was crushed, instead of attacking, Scanderbeg together with his nephew Hamza and three hundred cavalrymen deserted and fled with the panic stricken Ottoman soldiers.

On his way, Scanderbeg passed through the Debar region where he received much support and a hero's welcome. In Debar he was joined by local chieftains and a large number of rebel peasants. With his cavalry and new recruits he began the revolt by attacking Croia (Kruje), an important Ottoman military and administrative centre. After sacking Croia with ease he returned to Debar where he began to organize a general rebellion. With Croia in his possession, Scanderbeg, on November 27, 1443, declared his principality independent. Using the Debar region as his base, Scanderbeg's rebels began a campaign against a large number of fortresses including the strategically significant fortress of Svetigrad (Kodzhadzhik). The siege of Svetigrad was led by Moses the Great, one of Scanderbeg's loyal supporters and his three thousand strong rebel force from the Debar region. After a fierce battle, the fortress fell and the entire Debar region became completely liberated.

For the time being the rebels ceased their easterly expansion and, as a result, the eastern border of the greater Debar region became the borderline between the Ottomans and the rebels which in the next three decades or so would become an area of continuous conflict.

The next great battle was fought on April 29, 1444 at Dolni Debar. A rebel strike force of insurgents from the Debar region led by Moses the Great decimated the Ottoman army leaving seven thousand dead and five hundred captured prisoners. Two years later, on September 27, 1446, another battle took place near Debar in which the Ottomans suffered heavy losses again.

Scanderbeg was becoming a legend and a serious threat to Ottoman stability, so in the summer of 1448 Sultan Murat II, together with his heir prince Mehmed, prepared a strike force and set out to find him. Their first encounter with the rebels was at the fortress of Svetigrad where a garrison of local rebels, led by Peter Perlat, offered them strong resistance. Unfortunately, after a long drawn out siege the fortress fell. All was not lost however, due to more pressing matters elsewhere the Sultan decided to abandon his pursuit and left, leaving a greater part of the Debar region still in the hands of the insurgents.

The next encounter came in 1452 when Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror amassed a large army in Ohrid. Upon finding out, Scanderbeg immediately concentrated his forces at the military camp of Oronic, the present day town of Debar and launched an attack, together with Moses the Great and his nephew Hamza. The opposing armies met near the fortress of Modrich and Scanderbeg's forces broke through the Turkish lines in a single battle giving him a decisive victory and forcing the Turkish army to retreat.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the following spring Mehmed dispatched his general Ibrahim Pasha and launched another attack on the rebels. The armies met in Polog on April 22, 1453. Led by Scanderbeg and Moses the rebels fought fiercely and gained another victory over the Turks.

Unable to gain any ground against the rebels by battle, the Sultan turned to bribery. He paid Moses to look the other way while a large Ottoman force crossed the Debar frontier and approached Scanderbeg's forces in a surprise attack. During this catastrophic battle which took place in 1455 near Berat, six thousand men, nearly half of the rebel force, were lost. To save himself Moses fled the region and joined the Ottoman army. In spite of the heavy losses, the people of Debar did not give up and continued to support Scanderbeg. In no time at all, he was able to recoup his losses, rebuild his army and renew the conflict.

The next Ottoman attack came a year later. This time not only was Scanderbeg ready for it, but being aware that it was led by the traitor Moses the Great, he marched his army in person to meet him. On May 19, 1456 near Oronic, the rebels attacked and defeated the Ottoman army of fifteen thousand, giving Scanderbeg another victory. Pleased with the results, Scanderbeg forgave Moses for his treachery and welcomed him back to the rebel camp. Upon their return home, Scanderbeg reinstated Moses to his former position entrusting him, once again, with the defense of the Debar region.

When it seemed like Scanderbeg's worries were over a new set of problems began to plague the uprising. The Sultan made a deal with a number of powerful feudal lords and they in turn began their personal attacks on rebels causing them to lose massive territories. One such territory was the fortress of Modrich which, like the fortress of Svetigrad, was of strategic importance.

By gaining Modrich the Ottomans gained a safe route to the rebel camps. Losing no time, an Ottoman army was dispatched and reached the town of Lesh in the summer of 1457. Feeling their vulnerability, instead of waiting for the attack, the rebels took the offensive and met the marching Turkish army head on in a fierce battle. Surprised by the attack the Ottoman army broke up and gave Scanderbeg another decisive victory. With the success of this battle the rebels diplomatically regained all previously lost territories.

The prolonged struggle with the rebels convinced the Sultan that Scanderbeg could be subdued and the rebel territory freed only by a large-scale military campaign. Led by the battle hardened, experienced commander Balaban Pasha, from Mat, a massive campaign was organized and unleashed upon the rebels in 1465. A fierce battle ensued near Debar but the Turkish force was much too powerful to break. Besides losing much of his force, Scanderbeg also lost many of his experienced commanders, including Moses the Great, who was captured, sent to Tsari Grad and cruelly put to death. Both sides suffered heavy losses but Balaban succeeded in quelling the rebellion but only in the Debar region. The rebellion was moved to the interior of Albania and continued to flourish until a decade past Scanderbeg's death.

Scanderbeg died of illness on January 17, 1468. Ten years later after the fall of Croia, the last bastion of rebel strength, on January 16, 1478 the rebellion was over. This, however, was not the first or last rebellion. In time, and with the breakdown of Ottoman rule, more and more revolts would take place in the future.

As mentioned earlier, with the breakdown of the timar and Spahi system and the decline of the Ottoman state, exploitation of the dependent population in Macedonia was at an incline. Violence, especially on the part of the Ottoman government, was reaching a record high. Life for the average Macedonian was unbearable and frustration began to express itself in various forms. Peasants who could no longer afford to pay their taxes were fleeing to the mountains and settling in less accessible places where the tax collectors could not easily find them. Without a peaceful means of relieving their anguish and exploitation from the Ottoman yoke, the Macedonian people had no choice but to turn to violence.

The next local uprising took place in 1564/65, in the Moriovo region and spread to the Prilep plains and from there to the town of Prilep. Dubbed as the Moriovo and Prilep revolt, it is unknown why this revolt began, but it is clear that three peasants and two priests from the Moriovo district started it. No sooner had the trouble started than the Sultan, through a decree dated October 3, 1564, ordered that the leaders of the revolt be put to death while the followers were to be sent to serve as oarsmen on Turkish galleys. Before the decree could be enforced, however, the perpetrators fled causing the Sultan to order another decree for their capture.

Prilep soon became a hotbed of demonstrations when the Ottoman court ruled in favour of a Pasha in a dispute with the peasants. According to a document dated December 1565 a revolt broke out inside the town of Prilep when the Prilep Court, in settling a dispute between the peasants and Mustapha Pasha, ruled in favour of the Pasha. When the news hit the streets more than a thousand rebels from the surrounding villages, armed with sticks and stones, assembled and stormed the court. It is unknown how this revolt ended.

Since Christians by law were not allowed to carry arms, they had no effective defense against maltreatment, especially from the corrupt legal system. The only recourse available to them was to become outlaws. Although unpopular, outlawry was one of the oldest forms of armed struggle expressed by the Macedonian people, which unfortunately, reached epidemic proportions over the course of the 17th century. The outlaws, or haiduks, lived secret lives known only to other outlaws or trusted friends. When it came to defending their homes and properties, they came together in bands or druzhini of twenty to thirty people. Occasionally, for defensive purposes a number of smaller bands combined together to form a large band usually numbering no more than three hundred people. The band leaders or vojvodi were elected members of their bands and were usually chosen for their military skills and leadership abilities. The ranks of the outlaws came mostly from the feudally tied peasants but it was not uncommon to find priests and monks among them. Women too were known to have joined outlaw bands. The oldest record of a woman outlaw dates back to 1636. Her name was Kira and she was from the village Chapari. Kira was a member of Petar Dundar's band from the village Berantsi, near Bitola. There were also recorded cases of women who led outlaw bands.

The main preoccupation of the outlaws was to defend the oppressed and in times of trouble come to their aid. In retaliation the outlaws were known to attack feudal estates and even burn down Spahi harvests. They also ambushed and robbed merchant caravans and tax collectors. Bands were known to have attacked some of the larger towns. On several occasions outlaws banded together and overran Bitola, Lerin, Ohrid and Resen. Twice they looted the bezesteen in Bitola, once in 1646 and another time in 1661.

To curb outlaw activities, the Ottoman authorities frequently undertook extreme measures by organizing posses to hunt them down, burning down villages that were known to be sympathetic to outlaws and imprisoning and sometimes executing relatives of outlaws. When all these measures failed to stop them, the Ottomans introduced the services of the derbendkis, to provide safe passage through the countryside to important functionaries such as merchants, tax collectors and travelers.

Outlaws who were captured were tortured, sent to prison for life, or executed. The lucky ones were executed outright. Their dead bodies were then impaled on stakes or on iron hooks for everyone to see. Those less fortunate were skinned alive, had their heads split open and were left to die a slow and painful death. Those sent to prison were usually chained to galleys and spent the rest of their lives as oarsmen.

Despite the extreme measures exercised against them, the outlaws were never stamped out and were always a part of every conflict. The outlaws were the nucleus of the armed forces and the experienced leaders and commanders of the revolts and uprisings. They were the first to raise the spirit of resistance and the first to stand up for the people. That is why the outlaws are so widely revered in Macedonian folklore.

Unwilling to yield, the Ottoman noose continued to tighten on the peasants, Christian and Muslim alike. Their moment to strike back, however, came when the Ottomans became entangled with the Austrians in a war during the Austrian invasion of Macedonia.

What came to be known as the Karposh Uprising, dubbed after its leader Karposh, was a Macedonian people's revolt against the economic, social and political injustices perpetrated by the Ottoman overlords.

As mentioned earlier, in 1683 the Ottomans, for the second time, tried to take Vienna but failed after a two-month siege. The city was saved with the assistance of the Polish army led by King John Sobiesky. The Ottoman army suffered a catastrophic defeat resulting in enormous losses of territory, material and manpower. To prevent further expansion and keep the Ottomans in check, the Holy League of Austria, Poland, Venice and later Russia was created.

Once they gained momentum the Austrians continued to drive the Ottomans southward reaching the northern boundaries of Macedonia. Led by General Piccolomini, the Austrians entered the Plain of Skopje on October 25, 1689 and were met by a jubilant crowd celebrating their triumphant arrival.

The Austrians continued to march southward and came upon the town of Skopje only to find it empty. Skopje had been evacuated and left with plenty of food and all kinds of merchandise. Feeling that it may have been a trap, Piccolomini withdrew his forces at once and set the town on fire. The fires raged for two whole days and consumed the greater part of Skopje.

The Austrians continued to move through the Macedonian interior and set camp in the village of Orizari, near Kumanovo. A detachment was sent to Shtip, which arrived there at dawn on November 10, 1689 only to be met with Ottoman resistance. A fierce battle broke out but the Austrians managed to force the Ottomans out, leaving about two thousand of their dead behind. After setting the town on fire, the Austrians left for camp but on their way ran into an Ottoman detachment of three hundred soldiers. Another battle ensued and the Ottomans disbursed.

During mid-November the Austrians organized a detachment of Albanian Catholic volunteers and sent them to Tetovo where they succeeded in putting down a garrison of more than six hundred Ottoman troops. On December 20 an Austrian detachment, with Serbs led by Captain Sanoski, was sent from Prishtina to Veles where it succeeded in capturing and burning down the town. Unfortunately upon their retreat, the detachment was ambushed by Janissaries and Sanoski was mortally wounded.

The destruction and mayhem caused by the Austro-Turkish War brought a sudden deterioration in the economic and political situation in the region. The need for further military operations forced the Ottoman state to increase its purchases of grain, fodder, livestock, timber and other agricultural products, far below normal prices. Also, to pay for the military campaigns, a host of new taxes were introduced. During this difficult period the Rajak also suffered violence at the hands of deserters from the Ottoman army and from the defectors of the central government.

Among those who deserted their military duty was the notorious general Jegen Pasha, the former Bejlerbej of Rumelia. With ten thousand deserters among his ranks he ravaged the Balkan Peninsula until he was finally put to death in February of 1689.

The military catastrophe and the chaotic situation inside the Ottoman Empire created suitable conditions for widespread outlawry in all parts of Macedonia, especially in the Moriovo, Bitola, Tikvesh, Veles, Shtip and Mt. Dospat regions which led up to the famous Karposh Uprising.

Sometime in the middle of October 1689 the famous outlaw Arambasha Karposh led an uprising which broke out in the region between Kustendil and Skopje. Immediately after declaring a revolt, Karposh attacked and captured Kriva Palanka. Kriva Palanka was an Ottoman stronghold built in 1636 to house Ottoman soldiers. After capturing the stronghold, Karposh declared it liberated rebel territory and made it his centre of resistance. Among the items captured at the stronghold were six cannons, a real prize for the rebels. After securing Kriva Palanka the rebels built and secured a new stronghold near Kumanovo.

It is not known whether or not the rebels were assisted by the Austrians but it is possible. According to contemporary Ottoman chronicles and local legends, Karposh was known as the &quot;King of Kumanovo&quot;. This could have been a title conferred upon him by the Austrian emperor Leopold I who sent him a Busby (a tall fur hat worn by hussars and guardsmen) as a gift and a sign of recognition.

Unfortunately for the rebels, the current situation did not last long and a reversal in military and political events played a decisive role in the fate of the uprising. The Ottomans had by now had enough time to take countermeasures to stop the economic and military decline of their state. The first step taken in Macedonia was to put down the rebellion and drive the Austrian army out of Macedonian territory. To do that the Ottomans employed the services of the Crimean Khan Selim Giray, along with his fierce detachment of Tartar worriers.

The council of war which met in Sofia on November 14, 1689 decided to attack the Karposh uprising through Kustendil. But before they could do that they had to secure Kriva Palanka.

Upon finding that they were about to be attacked, the rebels set fire to Kriva Palanka and concentrated their forces in the new fortress in Kumanovo. No sooner had they prepared their defenses than the Ottoman and Tartar detachments arrived. The rebels stood their ground and fought gallantly but were quickly overwhelmed by the numerically superior Ottoman force. A large number of rebels, including Karposh, were captured at the outset.

When the battle was over, all rebels who resisted to the end were slaughtered. Karposh and the others were taken prisoner. After subduing Kumanovo, the Ottomans left for Skopje where they executed Karposh and the others.

Karposh was brought before Selim Giray who at the time was standing on the Stone Bridge over the River Vardar. Selim used him for target practice and impaled him with his Tartar lances. He then had his body hurled into the Vardar River. Karposh died early in December of 1689 and with him died the Karposh uprising.

For the rebels who survived the battles there was no salvation from the Ottoman backlash except to leave Macedonia. Many fled north beyond the Sava and Danube Rivers. Some even went as far north as Russia and joined the Russian military. There they formed the &quot;Macedonian regiment&quot; which became part of the regular Russian army.

The failed Karposh uprising depleted the local population of northwestern Macedonia, opening the way for large scale Albanian immigration.

Just as the Karposh revolt was winding down in Macedonia, on April 6, 1690, Leopold I issued a manifesto inviting &quot;all peoples of Albania, Serbia, Mysia, Bulgaria, Silistria, Illyria, Macedonia and Rashka to join the Austrians in taking up arms against the Turks.&quot; Then on April 26, 1690, he issued a letter making Macedonia and her people his protectorate. It has been said that Leopold acted on the advice of Macedonians Marko Krajda of Kozhani and Dimitri Georgija Popovich of Solun. Among other things the letter stated that &quot;we graciously accept the Macedonian people, in its entirety in every respect, under our imperial and regal protection.&quot; Another letter was issued on May 31, 1690 extending Austria's protection to Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Unfortunately, all these good gestures were too little too late for Macedonia which by 1690 was back under tight Ottoman control.

To be continued...

And now I leave you with this...

I have received several letters from Ottoman sympathizers who believe my writing has been very critical of the deeds of the Ottoman Empire. Their general feeling is that the Ottomans were &quot;not as bad&quot; as our Christian brothers the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians. In my opinion and in the opinions of several Macedonians whom I have consulted on this matter, &quot;one evil cannot be good because of a greater evil&quot;. However, in my next article, I will present some positive aspects of the Ottoman Empire.

For those Greeks who incessantly insist that the ancient Macedonians spread the Greek language and culture to the world, I have a question. Show me where can that Greek culture and language be found in the world today? Besides you neo-Greeks who imposed the ancient Koine language upon yourselves NO ONE else speaks Greek. Now on the other hand, 600 million people speak, read and write the Macedonian language, the language of Kiril and Metodi. And that is reality.

References:

Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Binghamton University, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000.

Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650 The Structure of Power, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, North Carolina: McFarland, 1997.

Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today's Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One - Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney - 2004.

A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje.

Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos &amp; Co., 1980.

Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998.

A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura, Skopje, 1993.

H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, New York: Garden City Books, 1961.

L. Sprague De Camp, The Ancient Engineers, New York: Ballantine Books, 1963.

You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>2g8dqwaaffdzzjb4iax56qt4x9l1ew0</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity - 1918-1941</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2102</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11046</id>
      <parentid>8967</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:10:28Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2501298&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="81859" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2501298}}
The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity - 1918-1941

by Andrew Rossos

Slavic Review, vol. 53, number 2, Summer 1994 

The study of the Macedonian identity has given rise to far greater controversies and debates than that of most, if not all, other nationilisms in eastern Europe. This has been only in part due to the hazy past of the Slavic speaking population of Macedonia and to the lack of a continuous and separate state tradition, a trait they had in common with other &quot;small&quot; and &quot;young,&quot; or so-called &quot;non-historic,&quot; peoples in the area. Controversy has been due above all to the fact that, although it began in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, Macedonian nationalism did not enjoy international acceptance or legitimacy until the Second World War, much later than was the case with other similar national movements in eastern Europe.&lt;ref&gt;For a discussion of the significance of international recognition or legitimacy in the development of Balkan nationalisms, see especially John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), 103-11, 115-16 and 373; and Alan Warwick Palmer, The Lands Between: A History of East-Central Europe since the Congress of Vienna (London: Macmillan, 1970), 28-29. &lt;/ref&gt; Recent research has shown that Macedonian nationalism developed, generally speaking, similarly to that of neighboring Balkan peoples, and, in most respects, of other &quot;small&quot; and &quot;young&quot; peoples of eastern, as well as some of western, Europe.

But Macedonian nationalism was belated, grew slowly and, at times, manifested confusing tendencies and orientations that were, for the most part, consequences of its protracted illegitimate status.&lt;ref&gt;See especially Blaze Ristovski, Makedonskiot narod i makedonskata nacija (Skopje: Misla, 1983), 1: 75-86, 163-87, 263-80. Ristovski is the leading authority on Macedonian national thought and development. His two volumes contain previously published studies on the subject. See also the following works published recently in the west: Fikret Adanir, Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstchung und Entwicklung bis 1908 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979); Marco Dogo, Lingua e Nazionalita' in Macedonia: Vicende e pensieri di profeti disarmati, 1902-1903 (Milan: Jaca Book, 1985); Jutta de Jong, Die nationale Kern des makedonisehen Problems: Ansatze und Grundlagen einer makedonischen Nationalbeweguag (1890-1903) (Frankfurt: Lang, 1982); Andrew Rossos, &quot;Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left&quot; to be published in Ivo Banac and Katherine Verderv. eds.. Nationa1 Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe. &lt;/ref&gt; 

For a half century Macedonian nationalism existed illegally. It was recognized neither by the theocratic Ottoman state nor by the two established Orthodox churches in the empire: the Patriarchist (Greek) and, after its establishment in 1870, the Exarchist (Bulgarian). Moreover neighboring Balkan nationalists-Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian-who had already achieved independence with the aid of one or more of the Great Powers, chose to deny the existence of a separate Macedonian identity; indeed they claimed Macedonia and the Macedonians as their own. They fought for Macedonia with propaganda and force, against each other and the nascent Macedonian nationalists. A prolonged struggle culminated in 1913 with the forceful partition of Macedonia after the Second Balkan or Inter-Allied War between Bulgaria, on one side, and allied Greece and Serbia, on the other. &lt;ref&gt;The literature on the struggles in Macedonia is vast but rather uneven and polemical in nature. A good documentary survey in English of the activities of the neighboring Balkan states in Macedonia is to be found in George P. Gooch and Harold Temperley. eds., British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914 (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1926-1938), 5: 100-23. Among the more useful works in western languages are Duncan M. Perry, The Politics of Terror: The Macedonian Revolutionary Movements, 1893-1903 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988); Henry N. Brailsford, Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future (1906, reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1980); Elizabeth Barker, Macedonia: Its Place in Balkan Power Politics (1950, reprint, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980); Jacques Ancel, La Macedoine (Paris, 1930); Gustav Weigand, Ethnographie von Makedonien (Leipzig, 1924). For a representative sampling of the divergent points of view, see Jovan M. Jovanovic. Juzna Srbija od kraja XVIII veka do oslobodjenja (Belgrade. 1941) (Serbian); G. Bazhdarov, Makedonskjat vapros vchera i dnes, (Sofia, 1925) (Bulgarian); Georgios Modes, 0 makedonikos agon kai i neoteri makedoniki istoria (Salonica: Etaireia Makedonikon Spoudon. 1967) (Greek). Macedonan historians have turned their attention to this problem more recently. See Kliment Dzambazovski, Kulturno-opstestvenite vrski na Makedoncite so Srbija vo tekot na XIX vek (Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija (Ini), 1960); Risto Poplazarov, Grckata politka sprema Makedonija vo vtorata polovina na XIX i pocetokot na XX vek (Skopje: Ini, 1973); Slavko Dimevski, Makedonskoto nacionalno osloboditelno dvizenie i egzarhijata (1893-1912) (Skopje: Kultura, 1963); Krste Bitoski, Makedonija i Knezevstvo Bugarija (1893-1903) (Skopje: Ini, 1977). On the partition of Macedonia, see Andrew Rossos, Russia and the Balkans: Inter-Balkan Rivalries and Russian Foreign Policy. 1908-1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981); Petar Stojanov, Makedonija vo vremeto na balkanskite i prvata svetska vojna (1912-1918) (Skopje: Ini, 1969).&lt;/ref&gt; Each of these three states consolidated their control over their respective parts of Macedonia, and throughout the inter-war years inaugurated and implemented policies intended to destroy any manifestations of Macedonian nationalism, patriotism or particularism- Consequently, until World War II, unlike the other nationalisms in the Balkans or in eastern Europe more generally, Macedonian nationalism developed with-out the aid of legal political, church, educational or cultural institutions. Macedonian movements not only lacked any legal infrastructure, they also were without the international sympathy, cultural aid and, most importantly, benefits of open and direct diplomatic and military support accorded other Balkan nationalisms. &lt;ref&gt;Blaze Ristovski, Portreti i procesi od makedonskata literaturna i nacionalna istorija (Skopje: Kultura, 1990), 3: 34.&lt;/ref&gt; Indeed, for an entire century Macedonian nationalism, illegal at home and illegitimate internationally, waged a precarious struggle for survival against overwhelming odds: in appearance against the Turks and the Ottoman Empire before 1913 but in actual fact, both before and after that date, against the three expansionist Balkan states and their respective patrons among the Great Powers. &lt;ref&gt;Ristovski, op cit. and 2: 24-72; and my forthcoming study &quot;Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left.&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;

The denial of a Macedonian identity by the neighboring Balkan states, and their irreconcilably contradictory claims, motives, justifications and rationalizations, are mirrored by the largely polemical and tendentious Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian literature on the Macedonian question. &lt;ref&gt;The Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian claims were extensively publicized. For a representative sampling of the divergent points of view, see Tihomir R. Georgevich, Macedonia (London: G. Allen &amp; Unwin, 1918) (Serbian); Iordan Ivanov, La question macedoine (Paris, 1920) (Bulgarian); Cleanthes Nicolaides, La Macedoine (Berlin, 1899) (Greek). See also the works cited in note 3. &lt;/ref&gt; But the attitudes of the individual Great Powers and the thinking, motivations and internal foreign policy establishments have not yet been studied. In this article I will focus on the British Foreign Office and its attitude toward the Macedonian question during the inter-war years. The British Foreign Office provides a case study because Great Britain played a leading role in the area after the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano; during the inter-war years respect for national self-determination and for the rights of national minorities was, at least in theory and in official policy, the accepted and prevailing norm. 

For the Macedonians the inter-war period was conditioned by the Balkan wars and the partition of their land. The peace conferences and treaties which ended the Great War, represented for many &quot;small&quot; and &quot;young&quot; nations of eastern Europe the realization of dreams of self-determination. But with some minor territorial modifications at the expense of Bulgaria, these treaties confirmed the partition of Macedonia agreed upon in the Treaty of Bucharest. For the victorious allies, especially Great Britain and France, this meant putting the Macedonian problem finally to rest. It also meant that the allies could satisfy two of their clients which were pillars of the new order in south-eastern Europe: the Kingdom of Greece and the former Kingdom of Serbia, now the dominant component in the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Yugoslavia. Even though their territorial acquisitions in Macedonia did not necessarily satisfy their maximal aspirations, official Athens and Belgrade also pretended that Macedonia and the Macedonian problem had ceased to exist. Belgrade proclaimed Vardar Macedonia to be Old Serbia and the Macedonians Old Serbians; for Athens, Aegean Macedonia became simply northern Greece and the Slavic speaking Macedonians were considered Greeks or, at best, &quot;Slavophone&quot; Greeks. Although Bulgaria had enjoyed the greatest influence among the Macedonians, because of its defeat in the Inter-Allied and the Great Wars, it was accorded the smallest part, Pirin Macedonia, or the Petrich district, as it became known during the inter-war years. Unlike official Athens and Belgrade, the ruling elite in Sofia did not consider the settlement permanent; but without sympathy among the victorious Great Powers and threatened by revolutionary turmoil at home, they had to accept the settlement for the time being. In any event, the Macedonian question was not a priority for the Agrarian government of A. Stamboliski. &lt;ref&gt;See (London) Public Record Office, FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity,&quot; 26 November 1925, 3-4. (All Foreign Office documents cited hereafter are found in the Public Record Office). See also Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, Velika Britania i makedonskoto prasnje na pariskata mirovna konferencija vo 19l9godina (Skopje: Arhiv na Makedonija, 1973); Ivan Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje. Makedonskoto nacionalno prasanje megju dvete svetski vojni (1919-1930) (Skopje: Kultura, 1977), 1: chap. 1. Katardziev provides the most comprehensive, valuable and interesting treatment of the Macedonian national question in the 1920s. &lt;/ref&gt; Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria all sought to destroy all signs of Macedonianism through forced deportation, so-called voluntary exchanges of populations and internal transfers of the Macedonian populations. They also implemented policies of colonization, social and economic discrimination, and forced denationalization and assimilation based on total control of the educational systems and of cultural and intellectual life as a whole. 
These policies were particularly pursued with great determination in Yugoslavia and Greece. Though he approved of these policies, C. L. Blakeney, British Vice-Consul at Belgrade, wrote in1930:

It is very well for the outsider to say that the only way the Serb could achieve this [control of Vardar Macedonia] was by terrorism and the free and general use of the big stick. This may be true, as a matter of fact one could say that it is true ...On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that the Serb had no other choice ... He had not only to deal with the brigands but also with a population who regarded him as an invader and unwelcome foreigner and from whom he had and could expect no assistance. &lt;ref&gt;FO371/14316, A. Henderson (Belgrade) to N. Henderson, 9 May 1930, Enclosure 2, &quot;Memorandum by Vice-Consul Blakeney.&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;
Ten years later, on the eve of Yugoslavia's collapse during the Second World War, it was obvious that the Serbian policies in Macedonia had failed. R.I. Campbell, British minister at Belgrade, now denounced them to Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary: 

Since the occupation by Serbia in 1913 of the Macedonian districts, the Government has carried out in this area, with greater or lesser severity, a policy of suppression and assimilation. In the years following the Great War land was taken away from the inhabitants and given to Serbian colonists. Macedonians were compelled to change their names and the Government did little or nothing to assist the economic development of the country... &lt;ref&gt;FO371/29785, Campbell (Belgrade) to Halifax, 6 January 1941. On developments in Vardar Macedonia during the interwar years, see also Katardziev, op.cit., 1: 23-85; Institut za nacionalna istorija, Istorija na makedonskiot narod (Skopje, 1969), 3: part 11; Aleksandar Apostolov, Kolonizacijata na Makedonija vo stara Jugoslavija (Skopje: Kultura, 1966), and &quot;Specificnata polozba na makedonskiot narod vo kralstvoto Jugoslavija,&quot; Glasnik (Skopje) 16, no.1(1972): 39-62. &lt;/ref&gt;
Athens was even more extreme than Belgrade: under the guise of &quot;voluntary&quot; emigration they sought to expel the entire Macedonian population. Colonel A.C. Corfe, chairman of the League of Nations Mixed Commission on Greco-Bulgarian Emigration, reported in 1923: &quot;In the course of conversation, Mr. Lambros [Governor General of Macedonia], actually said that the present was a good opportunity to get rid of the Bulgars [sic] who remained in this area and who had always been a source of trouble for Greece.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO 371/8566, Bentinck (Athens) to Curzon, 20 August 1923, Enclosure, Colonel A.C. Corfe, &quot;Notes on a Tour Made by the Commission on Greco-Bulgarian Emigration in Western and Central Macedonia,&quot; 5. By &quot;Bulgars,&quot; Lambros meant Macedonians. &lt;/ref&gt;[10] This could be achieved at least superficially: Athens made a concerted effort to eradicate any reminders of the centuries old Slav presence in Aegean Macedonia by replacing Slav Macedonian personal names and surnames, as well as place names, etc., by Greek. This policy reached its most extreme and tragic dimensions during the late 1930s under the dictatorship of General Metaxas when use of the Macedonian language was prohibited even in the privacy of the home to a people who knew Greek scarcely or not at all, and who in fact could not communicate properly in any other language but their own. &lt;ref&gt;On the situation of the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia, see Andrew Rossos, The Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia: A British Officer's Report, 1944,&quot; The Slavonic and East European Review (London) 69, no.2 (April 1991): 282-88. See also Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 85-106; Istorija na makedonskiot narod, 3: part 13; Stojan Kiselinovski, Grckata kolonizacija vo Egeiska Makedonija (1913-1940) (Skopje: Ini, 1981); Lazo Mojsov, Okolu prasanjeto na makedonskoto nacionalno malcinstovo vo Grcija (Skopje: Ini, 1954), 207-87; Giorgi Abadziev, et al., Egejska Makedonija vo nasata nacionalna istorija (Skopje, 1951). &lt;/ref&gt; In 1944 Captain P.H. Evans, an agent of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) who spent eight months in western Aegean Macedonia as a British Liaison Officer (BLO) and station commander, condemned the Greek policies in a lengthy report for the Foreign Office. He described the attitude &quot;even of educated GREEKS towards the SLAV minority&quot; as &quot;usually stupid, uninformed and brutal to a degree that makes one despair of any understanding ever being created between the two people.&quot; However, he also left no doubt that the Greek government's policies had failed:

It is predominantly a SLAV region not a GREEK one. The language of the home, and usually also of the fields, the village Street, and the market is MACEDONIAN, a SLAV language... The place names as given on the map are GREEK...; but the names which are mostly used - - - are - - - all Slav names. The GREEK ones are merely a bit of varnish put on by Metaxas... GREEK is regarded as almost a foreign language and the GREEKS are distrusted as something alien, even if not, in the full sense of the word, as foreigners. The obvious fact, almost too obvious to be stated, that the region is SLAV by nature and not GREEK cannot be overemphasized. &lt;ref&gt;Rossos, &quot;Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia,&quot; 293-94. Captain P.H. Evans' &quot;Report on the Free Macedonia Movement in Area Florina 1944&quot; is given verbatim, 291-309. &lt;/ref&gt; 
Revisionist Bulgaria, where major trends in Macedonian nationalism were well entrenched in Pirin Macedonia and among the large Macedonian emigration to its capital, assumed a more ambiguous position. Sofia continued its traditional attitude towards all Macedonians, acting as their patron but claiming them to be Bulgarians. To a certain extent it left the Macedonians to do what they wanted; unlike Athens and Belgrade, it tolerated, or felt compelled to tolerate, the free use of the name &quot;Macedonia&quot; and an active Macedonian political and cultural life.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/12856, Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 16 February 1928 &lt;/ref&gt; In its annual report on Bulgaria for 1922, the British Legation at Sofia referred to the Pirin region as &quot;the autonomous kingdom of Macedonia&quot; and stressed that &quot;Bulgarian sovereignty over the district - - - is purely nominal and, such as it is, is resented by the irredentist Macedonian element no less strongly than is that of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government over the adjacent area within their frontier.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/8568, 22. A few years later, O. Sargent, a counselor in the Foreign Office, complained that &quot;the Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation... defies openly the Bulgarian Government and practically administers and governs part of the Bulgarian territory&quot; (FO371/12856, Sargent [London] to Sperling, 1 October 1928). &lt;/ref&gt; Indeed, it could be argued that, after the overthrow of the Stamboliski regime in June 1921, Sofia not only encouraged Macedonian discontent in all three countries but also sought to take advantage of it to further its own revisionist aims.&lt;ref&gt;On Pirin Macedonia as well as the Macedonians in Bulgaria, see Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 107-19; Istorija na makedonskiot narod, 3: part 12; Dimitar Mitrev, Pirinska Makedonija (Skopje: Nasa Kniga 1970), 126-202. &lt;/ref&gt; Bulgaria's revisionism split the ranks of the partitioning powers and was of great significance for the future of Macedonian nationalism. For no matter how much Greece and Yugoslavia, and their patrons among the Great Powers, especially Great Britain, pretended officially that the Macedonian question had been resolved, Bulgarian policies helped to keep it alive. &lt;ref&gt;See Stefan Troebst, Mussolini, Makedonien und die Machte, 1922-1930: Die &quot;Innere Makeodnische Revolutionare Organisation&quot; in der Sudosteuropapolitik der faschistischen Italien (Cologne: Bohlau, 1987); and Barker, Macedonia, chap. 2; Leften S. Stavrianos, Balkan Federation: A History of the Movement Toward Balkan Unity in Modern Times (1944, reprint, Hamden: Archon Books, 1964), chaps. 8 and 9. &lt;/ref&gt; 

More importantly still, the Macedonians, both in the large emigration in Bulgaria and at home, rejected the partition of their land and the settlement based upon it. As the British Legation at Sofia warned: &quot;the Governments of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, if not that of Greece, are faced with practically an identical problem in the pacification and control of a district overlapping both the frontiers inhabited by a population hostile to both Governments for different reasons and determined on strengthening the hands of the opposition parties in each country.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/8568, p.22. &lt;/ref&gt; Disturbing to London were calls for open resistance to foreign rule. Early in 1922 W.A.F. Erskine, the minister in Sofia, drew Lord Curzon's attention to an anonymous article in the newspaper Makedonija, purportedly from a Macedonian professor at the University of Sofia, which exhorted the Macedonians to follow the example of the Irish, who after a bitter struggle lasting through centuries, have succeeded in gaining their autonomy. &quot;Their country is today free. Ours, too, will be free if we remain faithful to our own traditions of struggle and if we take as our example the lives of people, who, like the Irish, have &quot;never despaired of the force of right.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/7375, Erskine (Sofia) to Curzon, 25 January 1922. Harold Nicolson commented: &quot;There is less disparity between the Irish and Macedonian temperament than might be supposed&quot; (Minute, 1 February 1922). &lt;/ref&gt; 
To be sure, organized Macedonian activity in Aegean and Vardar Macedonia, which had declined after the bloody suppression of the Ilinden uprising of 1903 and the repeated partitions of 1912-1918, came to a virtual standstill immediately after World War I. Virtually the entire Exarchist educated elite, most Macedonian activists from Aegean Macedonia and large numbers from Vardar Macedonia had been forced to emigrate and now sought refuge in Bulgaria.&lt;ref&gt;Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: part 2, chap. 1. &lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, the remaining Macedonian population in Aegean Macedonia, overwhelmingly rural and lacking an educated elite, found itself after the Greek-Turkish War (1919-1922) a minority in its own land as a result of the Greek government's settlement there of large numbers of Greek and other Christian refugees from Asia Minor.&lt;ref&gt;Kiselinovski, Grckata kolonizacija, chap. 4. &lt;/ref&gt; The situation among the Macedonians in Bulgaria was only slightly more encouraging: while there were large concentrations of Exarchist educated Macedonians and Macedonian activists both in the Pirin region and in Sofia, there were deep divisions within each group. Demoralization had set in and a long process of regrouping ensued among the Macedonians there.&lt;ref&gt;Katardziev, op.cit.; Dino Kiosev, Istoria na makedonskoto natsionalno revoliutsionerno dvizhenie (Sofia: Otechestven front 1954) 493-99 &lt;/ref&gt;

Nonetheless, opposition to foreign rule existed in all three parts of Macedonia from its imposition and systematic anti-Macedonian policies only intensified it. That this discontent was considerable was clearly evident in the support given to the terrorist activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) in the 1920s. A popular revolutionary movement in the early twentieth century, by the mid-1920s IMRO had emerged as a terrorist organization. It virtually ruled Pirin Macedonia and was a state within the state of Bulgaria, pursuing its own self-saving ends by relying on Bulgarian reaction and Italian fascism, and allowing itself to be used by both. However, officially and very conspicuously-it promulgated the aims and the slogans of the older movement: &quot;united autonomous or independent Macedonia&quot; and &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians.&quot; IMRO conducted repeated, so-called &quot;Komitaji,&quot; armed raids and incursions into Vardar and, to a lesser extent, into Aegean Macedonia until the military coup in Sofia of May 1934 when the new regime liquidated the organization. More than anything else, it succeeded in maintaining the Macedonian question on the international scene and, as champion of Macedonia and the Macedonians, it continued to enjoy considerable support throughout most of the 1920s.&lt;ref&gt;Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1:171-83 and part 2, chap. 2; Kiosev, ibid., 512- 28. On the activities of the IMRO in all three parts of Macedonia, see also the memoirs of its leader after 1924: Ivan Mikhailov, Spomeni, 4 vols. (Selci, Louvain, Indianapolis, 1952, 1965, 1967, 1973). &lt;/ref&gt;

Widespread opposition to foreign rule is also demonstrated by the results of the first post-war elections held in Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the freest to be held during the inter-war years.

Significant support in all three parts of Macedonia went to the newly formed communist parties, 
which also rejected the status quo and declared themselves champions of Macedonia and the Macedonians.&lt;ref&gt;Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: 375-76; Istorija na makedonshiot narod, 3: 20-23, 176-78; Evangelos Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia (Salonica: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1964), 69; Dimitrios G. Kousoulas, Revolution and Defeat: The Story of the Communist Party of Greece (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 65. &lt;/ref&gt; As Erskine reported from Sofia: &quot;The program of the Communists, therefore, at the instigation of Moscow, was modified to a form of cooperation with the Macedonian revolutionaries - - - to stir up trouble generally - - - and to pave the way for a revolution by creating disorder.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/7377, Erskine (Sofia) to Curzon, 20 March 1922. &lt;/ref&gt; Commenting on the election in Yugoslavia, the British minister at Sofia, R. Peel, stressed that although Serbian troops had resorted to the worst excesses in order to terrorize the inhabitants into voting for government lists, &quot;...a large proportion of communist deputies were returned from Macedonia.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/6197, Peel (Sofia) to Curzon, 10 February 1921. &lt;/ref&gt; Clearly, the communist vote was, in effect, a Macedonian protest against foreign rule.&lt;ref&gt;See FO371/8568. &lt;/ref&gt; This cooperation between communists and Macedonians, dating from the end of World War I, intensified in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when the Balkan communist parties, after long and heated debates, officially recognized Macedonia as a distinct Slav nation with its own language, history and territory. The Comintern followed suit in 1934 and thus supplied the first formal international recognition of Macedonian nationalism.&lt;ref&gt;On communism and Macedonian nationalism, see Katardziev, Vreme na zreenje, 1: part 3, chaps. 1-4, 2: part 5, and ed., Predavnicite na makedonskoto delo (Skopje: Kultura, 1983), 5-56; Stojan Kiselinovski, KPG i makedonskoto nacionalno prasanje, 1918-1940 (Skopje: Misla, 1985), chaps. 2-4; Kiril Miljovski, Makedonskoto prasanje vo nacionalnata programa na KPJ (1919-1937) (Skopje: Kultura, 1962), 24-140; Dimitar Mitrev, BKP i Pirinska Makedonija (Skopje: Kultura, 1960), 42-59; Kofos, op.cit., chap. 4; Darinka Pacemska, Vnatresnata makedonska revolucionerna organizacija (Obedineta) (Skopje: &quot;Studentski zbor,&quot; 1985). I have dealt with the subject in &quot;Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left&quot; to be published in Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery, eds., Nationa1 Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe. &lt;/ref&gt;
Both rightist and leftist activities-the renewal of terrorism by IMRO, led by I. Mihailov, and the association of Macedonian nationalism with international communism-led to a revival of the Macedonian question as the central issue dividing the Balkan states and hence as the major cause of instability in southeastern Europe. These activities not only represented rejections of the territorial and political terms agreed to at the Paris Peace Conference, but also were serious challenges to Great Britain, one of the architects of the treaty and its main defender throughout the inter-war years.

For some time following World War I, London refused to consider the unrest in Macedonia and, hence, the revival of the Macedonian question. A lengthy memorandum, &quot;The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity,&quot; prepared by the Central Department of the Foreign Office in 1925, maintained that &quot;While amongst the Slav intellectuals there is violent partisanship, probably the majority of Slavs - - - do not care to what nationality they belong.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity,&quot; 26 November 1925, 4. &lt;/ref&gt; DJ. Footman, the vice consul at Skopje, echoed a similar sentiment when he wrote, &quot;I believe that 80 percent of the population merely desire a firm, just and enlightened Administration, and regard Nationalism as of minor importance.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/10793, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 6July 1925, Enclosure, Footman (Skopje) to Kennard, 30 June 1925, 5. John David Footman was a fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford (1953-1963) and author of several books on modern Russian history. &lt;/ref&gt; If there was a problem, the explanation for it could be found in Bulgaria: London blamed Sofia not only for tolerating, but for encouraging and sponsoring an organized Macedonian movement, revolutionary organizations and armed bands on its own territory.&lt;ref&gt;See especially ibid., 14 and FO371/8568, 3 and FO371/10667, 6. &lt;/ref&gt; A more sophisticated explanation for the unrest could be based on a combination of social, economic and especially administrative causes: reports from the Balkans pointed to the economic backwardness of Macedonia and to the exacerbation of its economic woes by the partition, which had destroyed traditional trade routes and markets. They further stressed the lack of government reforms and constructive policies to alleviate the prevailing condition: communications remained as primitive or non-existent as they had been before the Great War, and towns such as Bitola, Skopje and Ohrid were in a state of general decline. The peasantry appeared to be slightly better off, but &quot;this was less the result of agrarian reform or of the government colonization policy than of the energy and initiative shown by the peasantry, who have, in many cases, bought land either individually or in corporations, from Turks or Albanians who have emigrated to Anatolia.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11405, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 21 April 1926; Enclosure R.A. Gallon. &quot;Conditions in Macedonia,&quot; 19 April 1926, 4. &lt;/ref&gt; &quot;Such discontent as exists springs from genuine economic distress,&quot; wrote O.C. Harvey of the Foreign Office after a visit to Yugoslav and Greek Macedonia in April 1926: &quot;Although the peasants are said to be doing well, the towns are dying from lack of trade. And wherever else the Serb is spending his money, he does not seem to be spending it in Macedonia. Yet this country is perhaps really the biggest problem for the Serbs.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;F0371111245, O. Ch. Harvey, &quot;Notes on a Visit to Jugoslavia and Greece,&quot; April 1926, 6 May 1926, 3. &lt;/ref&gt; Or, as R.A. Gallop, third secretary in the legation in Belgrade, put it: &quot;What discontent there is comes from economic causes and the Government must seek palliatives. This of course will take time and cost money, but to my mind the key to the Macedonian question is now this: a prosperous Macedonia will be a contented one.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/11405, 5. &lt;/ref&gt;

But most reports to London singled out the administration as the root cause for discontent in Macedonia. The new rulers had forced on the Macedonians their own, that is foreign, administrative and legal codes ''without regard to local conditions or requirements.&quot; Their manner of administration was considered even worse:&lt;ref&gt;FO371/10793, 6. &lt;/ref&gt; it was described as invariably harsh, brutal, arbitrary and totally corrupt. As Colonel Corfe wrote: &quot;One of the Macedonian's chief grievances is against the Greek Gendarmerie and during our tour we saw many examples of the arrogant and unsatisfactory methods of the Gendarmerie, who comandeer from the peasants whatever food they want...One visits few villages where some of the inhabitants are not in Greek prisons, without trial...&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/8566, 3. &lt;/ref&gt; DJ. Footman described the Serbian officials in Vardar Macedonia as poorly qualified, underpaid, arbitrary and corrupt. &quot;Officials depend for their promotions and appointment on the service they can render their political party... ,&quot; he wrote. &quot;It is therefore only natural for them to make what they can while they are in office. I regard this as the factor which will most militate against improvement in administration.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/10793, 6. &lt;/ref&gt; And, after a twelve-day motor tour in the same part of Macedonia, Major W.H. Oxley, the military attaché at Belgrade, reported: To start with they [the Prefects] have practically unlimited power over the local inhabitants and ... I gathered that they must exercise a pretty firm control. Further, we were informed that on the whole they were corrupt and were liable to use their power either to blackmail their flock or to accept bribes from over the frontiers, in order to allow terrorists to pass through their areas...&lt;ref&gt;FO371/14316, N. Henderson (Belgrade) to A. Henderson, 13 May 1930, En-closures. &lt;/ref&gt;

The Central Department of the Foreign Office admitted all this and more. Its lengthy review of 1930 of the Macedonian question stated: At present Jugoslavia lacks the material out of which to create an efficient and honest civil service. This want is especially felt in the new and &quot;foreign&quot; provinces such as Serb-Macedonia. To make matters worse, the Jugoslav Government,... are compelled to pursue a policy of forcible assimilation, and, in order to &quot;Serbise&quot; the Slavs of Serb-Macedonia, must necessarily tend to disregard those grievances of the local inhabitants which spring from the violation of their local rights and customs.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/14317, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Origins of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation and Its History Since the Great War,&quot; 1 July 1930, 12. &lt;/ref&gt;
Although this authoritative statement of the Foreign Office acknowledged the existence and the seriousness of the Macedonian problem, the underlying assumption was that, once the economic and administrative causes for grievance were allayed, it would be finally resolved. But while the Foreign Office endeavored to avoid dealing with the national dimension and implications of the problem until as late as 1930, by the mid-1920s its position was already being questioned and challenged by Foreign Office officials in the Balkans, and was becoming untenable. It was difficult to reconcile the use of three different terms-Slavophone Greeks, Old Serbians and Bulgarians-when referring to a people who called themselves Makedonci and spoke Macedonian or dialects of it.&lt;ref&gt;See FO371/11337, Kennard (Belgrade) to H. Smith, Enclosure, R.A. Gallop &quot;Notes,&quot; 23 April 1926. &lt;/ref&gt; The British could maintain their position only as long as relations between Athens and Belgrade remained friendly; and a crisis in Greek-Yugoslav relations in the mid-1920s provoked a heated debate over the national identity of the Macedonians -Although unwillingly, the Foreign Office was also drawn into this debate and was forced to consider: &quot;Who are the Macedonian Slavs?&quot; 

Ironically, the crisis in Greek-Yugoslav relations was sparked by the conclusion of the abortive Greek-Bulgarian Minorities Protocol of 1924, which &quot;connoted the recognition on the part of Greece that the Slavophone inhabitants of Greek Macedonia were of Bulgarian race.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11337, C.H. Bateman, &quot;Memorandum on &quot;Serbian Minorities in Greek Macedonia,&quot; 3 March 1926, 2. &lt;/ref&gt; This infuriated the Serbs and the Belgrade government broke off its alliance with Greece on 7 November 1924; &lt;ref&gt;Ibid. &lt;/ref&gt; it also launched a press and a diplomatic campaign that Greece protect the rights of what it called the &quot;Serbian minority&quot; in Aegean Macedonia.&lt;ref&gt;See FO371/10793 and FO371/11337. &lt;/ref&gt; The Yugoslav government clamored for a special agreement with Greece similar to the abortive protocol between Bulgaria and Greece. &quot;The object of this move is quite patent,&quot; wrote C.H. Bateman of the Foreign Office. &quot;All that the Serbs want is that the Greeks should recognize a Serbian minority in Greek Macedonia in the same way as they recognized a Bulgarian minority in l924.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11337. &lt;/ref&gt; In the end, even though Greece did not sign such an agreement with Yugoslavia, relations between these two countries returned to normal; but the debate concerning the national identity of the Macedonian Slavs that this crisis had instigated in the Foreign Office continued well into the 1930s. 

The debate was not entirely new or confined to Britain. The national identity of the Macedonians had sparked continuous and heated controversies before the Balkan Wars and the First World War. However, the debate assumed far greater relevance and urgency after the peace settlement because all democratic governments had embraced the principle of national self-determination. This principle was supposedly the basis for the entire settlement in east central Europe; and it supposedly bound all overnments of the &quot;New Europe&quot; to respect the national rights of those national minorities who for one reason or another could not exercise their right to national self-determination. Hence, to a certain extent the fate of the peace settlement in this part of Europe hinged on this principle and it was thus of particular interest to Great Britain, perhaps its chief architect and defender. 
Even before the Greek-Serbian dispute London had received reports that the causes for the revival of the Macedonian problem were not solely economic or administrative, but rather that they were primarily ethnic or national. While noting in its annual report on Bulgaria for 1922, that &quot;the province known as Macedonia has, of course, no integral existence,&quot; the Chancery of the British Legation at Sofia had emphasized that as an entity it still existed &quot;in the aspirations of men of Macedonian birth or origin scattered under the sovereignty of Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria.&quot; It also had added that Macedonia has &quot;clearly defined geographical boundaries.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;See FO371/8568. &lt;/ref&gt; Colonel Corfe had written in 1923 that the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia, and incidentally in the other two parts, were fearful of state officials and had nothing to say in their presence:

But in the evenings in their own houses or when we had given the officials the slip, we encouraged them to speak to us. Then we in-variably heard the same story as &quot;Bad administration. They want to force us to become Greeks, in language, in religion, in sentiment, in every way. We have served in the Greek army and we have fought for them: now they insult us by calling us 'damned Bulgars&quot;' ... To my question &quot;What do you want? An autonomous Macedonia or a Macedonia under Bulgaria?&quot; the answer was generally the same: &quot;We want good administration. We are Macedonians, not Greeks or Bulgars...We want to be left in peace.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/8566. &lt;/ref&gt;

The Greek-Serbian crisis, however, forced the Foreign Office to concentrate its attention, as never before, on the national identity of the Macedonian Slavs and, indeed, on the question: who are the Macedonians? On 30 June 1925, DJ. Footman, the British vice consul at Skopje, the administrative center of Vardar Macedonia, addressed this issue in a lengthy report for the Foreign Office. He wrote that &quot;the majority of the inhabitants of Southern Serbia are Orthodox Christian Macedonians, ethnologically slightly nearer to the Bulgar than to the Serb..&quot; He acknowledged that the Macedonians were better disposed toward Bulgaria than Serbia because, as he had pointed out: the Macedonians were &quot;ethnologically&quot; more akin to the Bulgarians than to the Serbs; because Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia in the time of the Turks, largely carried on through the schools, was widespread and effective; and because Macedonians at the time perceived Bulgarian culture and prestige to be higher than those of its neighbors. Moreover, large numbers of Macedonians educated in Bulgarian schools had sought refuge in Bulgaria before and especially after the partitions of 1913. &quot;There is therefore now a large Macedonian element in Bulgaria,&quot; continued Footman, &quot;represented in all Government Departments and occupying high positions in the army and in the civil service....&quot; He characterized this element as &quot;Serbophobe, [it] mostly desires the incorporation of Macedonia in Bulgaria, and generally supports the Makedonska Revolucionara [sic] Organizacija [the IMRO].&quot; However, he also pointed to the existence of the tendency to seek an independent Macedonia with Salonica as its capital. &quot;This movement also had adherents among the Macedonian colony in Bulgaria. It is supported by the parties of the Left in Bulgaria, and, at least theoretically, by large numbers of Macedonians.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/10793. Footman dismissed the Serbian claims to a &quot;Serbian minority&quot; in Aegean Macedonia and pointed to two other factors as the real causes of the Greek- -Serbian dispute: &quot;a) Politically, the Serb displeasure at Slav inhabitants of Greek Macedonia being recognized as Bulgars; and b) Economically, the loss suffered by Serbian Macedonia and the Kingdom as a whole by being separated by a frontier from Salonica&quot; (6). &lt;/ref&gt;
The Central Department of the Foreign Office went even further in clarifying the separate identity of the Macedonians. In a confidential survey and analysis of the entire Macedonian problem it identified the Macedonians not as Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs, but rather as Macedonian Slavs, and, on the basis of &quot;a fairly reliable estimate made in 1912,&quot; singled them out as by far the largest single ethnic group in Macedonia.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity,&quot; 26 November 1925. It gave the following figures: Macedonian Slavs 1,150,000; Turks 400,000; Greeks 300,000; Vlachs 200,000; Albanians 120,000;Jews 100,000; Gypsies 10,000 (2). &lt;/ref&gt; It acknowledged, as did Footman, that these Slavs spoke a language &quot;understood by both Serbs and Bulgars, but slightly more akin to the Bulgarian tongue than to the Serbian&quot;; and that after the 1870 establishment of the Exarchate, Bulgarian propaganda made greater inroads in Macedonia than the Serbian or Greek. However, it stressed that &quot;While it is probable that the majority of these Slavs are, or were, pro-Bulgar, it is incorrect to refer to them as other than Macedo-Slavs. To this extent both the Serb claim that they are Southern Serbs and the Bulgarian claim that they are Bulgarians are unjustified.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 4. &lt;/ref&gt;

By declaring that the Macedonian Slavs were neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, the survey acknowledged implicitly that they were different from both and hence that they constituted a separate south Slav element. However, it did not go so far as to recognize them explicitly as a distinct nationality or nation. It sought to explain this omission by maintaining, without convincing evidence, that &quot;while amongst the Slav intellectuals there is violent partisanship, probably the majority of Slavs... do not care to what nationality they belong.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid. &lt;/ref&gt; The real reason for the omission, however, lay elsewhere. In view of the prevailing acceptance of the principle of national self-determination, the recognition of the Slav Macedonians as a distinct nationality would have legitimized the Macedonian claims for autonomy or at least for national minority rights. This would have connoted the tearing up or at least the revision of the peace treaties and of the frontiers, neither of which was acceptable to Britain's clients, Greece and Yugoslavia, or indeed, to Great Britain itself. &quot;In all the circumstances the present partition of Macedonia is probably as good a practical arrangement as can be devised,&quot; declared the Central Department, &quot;and there is no real reason or consideration of political expediency which could be quoted to necessitate a rearrangement of the present frontiers.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid. &lt;/ref&gt;

Indeed, the Foreign Office was contemplating a different and, as it turned out, an illusory solution to the Macedonian problem. It accepted as valid the official Greek determination of the low number of Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia and assumed that with time they would be assimilated.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 1, 4; See also Rossos, &quot;Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia,&quot; 284-85, 290, 293-94. &lt;/ref&gt; It also assumed that with time the Yugoslav hold on Vardar Macedonia would become more secure, that this would be followed &quot;as a natural consequence&quot; by the &quot;rounding up of Macedonian agents,&quot; and that the Macedonian organization operating from Bulgaria would &quot;suffer correspondingly through the lack of funds and general support forthcoming from that district....&quot; And, as organized Macedonian activity declined, the prospect of more cordiality between Bulgaria and the Serb-Slovene-Croat kingdom will become brighter, and pro tonto, the idea of Serb-Bulgar Slav confederacy will become more feasible. The formation of such a Slav State in the Balkans will settle the Macedonian question once and for all. Other considerations arising out of the formation of such a confederacy must be reserved for the future. &lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 7. &lt;/ref&gt;

A few months later, on 3 March 1926; C.H. Bateman, a second secretary in the Foreign Office, issued the official position in a separate &quot;Memorandum on 'Serbian Minorities' in Greek Macedonia.&quot;

In this strong statement he reiterated the main points of the Central Department's memorandum of 26 November 1925: &quot;Most authorities are agreed that by all ethnological and language tests the Macedonian Slav is more akin to the Bulgar than to the Serb.&quot; Again, without substantiation, he declared that the deciding factor in the national allegiance of the Macedonian Slavs &quot;is the national consciousness of the individual who changes his allegiance according to circumstances... His national allegiance is largely a matter of the propaganda which is exercised upon him...,&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11337,1&lt;/ref&gt; in effect, under the influence of propaganda, Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian, the Macedonian Slav would become a loyal Bulgarian, Greek or Serb. Bateman therefore sided with the Greeks in the Greek-Serbian dispute: &quot;Taking the broadest interpretation of the Macedonian Slavs, one thing is certain, namely, that the Serbs have only the flimsiest of rights to intervene at all on their behalf. The Greeks are correct in contesting this right and contending that it is a matter that touches the internal administration of Greece.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 4.&lt;/ref&gt; If, as it appears, Bateman's aim was to put an end to the Foreign Office debate concerning the Macedonian national question, he failed. Although the Greek-Serbian dispute came to nothing, this debate intensified. R.A. Gallop, third secretary of the Legation at Belgrade, spent a week in April 1926 in Vardar Macedonia; his report after the tour is most revealing:

The most striking thing to one familiar with North Serbia [Serbia proper], who has been accustomed to hear Macedonia described as Southern Serbia and its inhabitants as Serbs, was the complete difference of atmosphere which was noticeable almost as soon as we had crossed the pre-1913 frontier some miles south of Vranje. One felt as though one had entered a foreign country. Officials and officers from North Serbia seemed to feel this too, and I noticed especially in the cafes and hotels of Skopje that they formed groups by themselves and mixed little with the Macedo-Slavs. Those of the latter that I met were equally insistent on calling themselves neither Serbs nor Bulgars, but Macedonians.... There seemed to be no love lost for the Bulgars in most places. Their brutality during the war had lost them the affection even of those who before the Balkan War had been their friends...&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11405, Kennard (Belgrade) to A. Chamberlain, 21 April 1926, Enclosure, R.A. Gallop, &quot;Conditions in Macedonia,&quot; 19 April 1926,1. &lt;/ref&gt;

Moreover, in his response to Bateman's memorandum, Gallop defined more clearly than ever before the central issue in the Greek-Serbian dispute. He reminded Bateman that the Serbian claim is founded not on the contention that among the Slavs of Greek Macedonia there are some that can be picked as Serbs, but on the contention that the population is of exactly the same stock on both sides of the border. The Serbs see that to admit that the Macedonians in Greece are Bulgars weakens their case that the Macedonians in South Serbia are Serbs. While he agreed with Bateman &quot;that the Macedonian Slavs used, before the days of propaganda, to call themselves 'Christians' rather than Serbs or Bulgars,&quot; Gallop did not agree &quot;that the Macedonian Slavs are nearer akin to the Bulgar than to the Serb.&quot; In any case, he questioned the impartiality of so-called &quot;authorities&quot; and emphasized the actual reality that &quot;nowadays&quot; the Macedonian Slavs considered and called themselves &quot;Makedonci.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;&quot;I should like to know the names of any authorities who are impartial,&quot; wrote Gallop. &quot;Certainly none of the Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, British or German ever are!&quot; (FO371/11337, Enclosure, 23 April 1926). &lt;/ref&gt;
Oliver C. Harvey of the Foreign Office, who visited both Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, reinforced Gallop's views. Indeed, in his &quot;Notes&quot; on the fact-finding mission he left no doubt about the existence of a distinct Macedonian consciousness and identity. In connection with Vardar Macedonia he reported that &quot;The Slavophone population of Serb Macedonia definitely regard themselves as distinct from the Serbs. If asked their nationality they say they are 'Macedonians,' and they speak the Macedonian dialect. Nor do they identify themselves with the Bulgars, although the latter seem undoubtedly to be regarded as nearer relatives than the Serbs.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/11245, 2. &lt;/ref&gt; As far as Aegean Macedonia was concerned, Harvey noted that in its eastern and central part &quot;the Slavophone population had 'voluntarily' emigrated and their place had been taken by 500,000 Greek refugees&quot; from Asia Minor. &quot;'Voluntary' emigration,&quot; he observed, &quot;is a euphemism; incoming Greeks were planted on the Slavophone villagers to such an extent that life was made unbearable for them and they were forced to emigrate.&quot; Such upheaval did not take place in its western part and large numbers of Slavophones remained there, in the area around and south of Florina (Lerin). &quot;These of course constitute the much advertised &quot;Serb minority,&quot; he continued. &quot;But they are no more Serb than the Macedonians of Serbia-they speak Macedonian, and call themselves Macedonians and sentimentally look to Bulgaria rather than to Serbia.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., p.3. &lt;/ref&gt;
Through this internal debate, the Foreign Office appeared to have reached a virtual consensus that the Macedonian Slavs were neither Serbs, nor Bulgarians nor Greeks, a de facto acknowledgment that they comprised a separate southern Slav national group. But they were not given official recognition as a distinct nationality or nation; as I have already shown, the Foreign Office hoped to see the Macedonian problem disappear by their eventual assimilation into the three nations that ruled over them. In the meantime, during the second half of the 1920s and until its dissolution in 1934, the IMRO intensified its activities in Bulgaria and armed incursions into Vardar Macedonia, thereby reminding London of the Macedonian national question. 

Unlike in Greece and Yugoslavia, in Bulgaria the various aspects of the Macedonian problem were generally argued freely and publicly. This was only partly due to the traditional Bulgarian paternalism toward the Macedonians; it also reflected the strength and influence of the organized Macedonian movement in the Pirin region, in Sofia and in other major urban centers. Consequently, British diplomats there were more deeply and broadly versed in all the intricacies of the Macedonian problem than their counterparts in Athens and Belgrade, and they were more apt to search for alternative solutions. 

Early in 1928 Charles ES. Dodd, the charge d'affaires at Sofia, assured the Foreign Office that the IMRO &quot;would at once desist from its sinister activities&quot; &quot;if the Jugoslav Government would grant educational and religious autonomy to Macedonia.&quot; To DJ. Footman, whose reaction from Skopje had been sought by the Foreign Office, this read &quot;like pious hope&quot; rather than &quot;a practical proposition.&quot; He did not reject the idea in principle; indeed, he even used the terms &quot;nationality&quot; and &quot;national minority&quot; when referring to the Macedonians, and argued that if such autonomy had been introduced immediately after the war &quot;the results would no doubt have been beneficial.&quot; Now, however, &quot;it would not suffice to wipe out the bitterness felt against the Serbs&quot;; it would no longer satisfy the entire Macedonian movement. Instead, he warned, Macedonian activists would interpret it &quot;as a confession of failure and a sign of weakness on the part of Serbs, to be exploited to the utmost possible extent.&quot; He considered (and the future proved him right) that &quot;the best chance for real progress in Macedonia&quot; was &quot;the removal of the Serb predominance in the Jugoslav state.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Footman argued that &quot;such local autonomy would have greater chance of success were it to be introduced by some future government in which Croats and Slovenes held the preponderating position. There is throughout Macedonia a sullen bitterness against the Serbs...&quot; (FO371/12856, Footman [Skopje] to Kennard, 4 February 1928 in Kennard [Belgrade] to Chamberlain, 18 February 1928). &lt;/ref&gt; The Foreign Office dismissed Dodd's suggestion and showed little appreciation of Footman's pessimistic, but rather sensitive and measured analysis of the Macedonian problem in Yugoslavia. &quot;It is quite clear, however,&quot; wrote Orme Sargent, a counselor and a future assistant under secretary of state, &quot;that it would be impossible to expect the Jugoslav Government to adopt measures which would recognize the population of Southern Serbia as a political minority.&quot; Inasmuch as he had convinced himself that the discontent in Macedonia was &quot;due to economic and administrative conditions rather than psychological or racial issues,&quot; he endorsed instead a proposal made by H.W. Kennard, the minister at Belgrade, to grant financial loans to Yugoslavia to improve internal conditions &quot;in Southern Serbia and thus help to lessen the present sullen discontent of the population.&quot; Most important, such expenditure, Sargent concluded, would not have the appearance of being extorted from the Jugoslav Government at the point of the Macedonian bayonet, nor would it commit the Jugoslavs in any way to a recognition of the claim of a separate Macedonian nationality. Reforms on these lines could therefore be carried out at any time without loss of face by the Jugoslav Government. &lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 16 February 1928, Minute, 24 February 1928; see also Sargent (London) to Kennard, 20 February 1928. &lt;/ref&gt;

Obviously Sargent was concerned with the sensitivities and interests of the Yugoslav government and not with the demands of the Macedonians and consciously sought to minimize &quot;the psychological and racial issues&quot; as the basis of Macedonian discontent. This did not go unnoticed at the British Legation at Sofia: in a rather blunt and less than diplomatic manner, R.A.C. Sperling, the new minister at Sofia, accused the &quot;Powers,&quot; meaning, of course, primarily his own government and that of France, of always unfairly taking the side of Yugoslavia against Bulgaria and the Macedonians. Or as he put it, &quot;Jugoslavia continues flagrantly to violate the provisions of the Minorities Treaty of 1919. The Powers as well as the League of Nations accept any quibble advanced by the Jugoslav Government as a pretext for not raising the question of the Macedonian minority.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Sperling (Sofia) to Cushendun, 13 September 1928. &lt;/ref&gt;
The exchange of views provoked by Sperling's &quot;outburst,&quot; as O. Sargent called it, is most revealing about the Foreign Office's thinking on the Macedonian national question. Howard Kennard, Sperling's counterpart at Belgrade, was so taken aback by it that he did not wish to comment on it officially. In a letter to 0. Sargent, however, he expressed his &quot;private regrets that Sperling cannot understand that it is not a question of taking sides one way or the other, but of assisting in preserving the peace in the Balkans, which is, after all, our only political raison d'etre here.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Kennard (Belgrade) to Sargent, 20 September 1928. &lt;/ref&gt; C.H. Bateman accused Sperling of holding general views &quot;that are not only erroneous but certainly dangerous ...His Majesty's Government has long since decided that what are nebulously called Macedonian aspirations are impossible of realization, and that to give way to Macedonian agitation would be the best way to create upheaval in the Balkans.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 20 September 1928. &lt;/ref&gt; Sargent felt that Sperling's &quot;outburst&quot; ought not to go unnoticed; but instead of an official reprimand he proposed to send him a private letter.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 0. Sargent, Minute, 28 September 1928. &lt;/ref&gt; This was approved by R.G. Vansittart, private secretary to the Prime Minister and assistant under secretary of state in the Foreign Office, who added that &quot;the next time this sort of thing happens, he [Sperling] should have it officially.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., R.G. Vansittart, Minute, 29 September 1928. Robert Gilbert Vansittart was knighted in 1929 and created a baron in 1941 &lt;/ref&gt; Sargent's lengthy private letter was polite, but direct. He pointed out that Serbia was the signatory &quot;of one minorities treaty,&quot; that signed at St. Germain on 20 September 1919. &quot;In your dispatch you make mention of a Macedonian minority. But what is this minority?&quot; he asked. &quot;You will find no mention of it in the Jugoslav Minorities Treaty... He also reiterated the well known view of the Foreign Office that the grievances which &quot;the population of Southern Serbia complain of are common to all and are due to the general low level of administrative ability among the local officials and not to the intentional ill treatment of any particular race, sect or language.&quot; Finally, he rejected Sperling's suggestion that some satisfaction of the &quot;Macedonian national aspirations&quot; might lead to a solution of the Macedonian problem. &quot;What are we to understand by such aspirations?&quot; asked Sargent. &quot;If Macedonian autonomy is what is aimed at it can be said at once that it is impossible of realisation.&quot; To aim at it would be to play into the hands of Italy and other revisionist elements, and Britain was determined &quot;to stick strenuously to the peace terms.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Sargent (London) to Sperling, 10 October 1928 &lt;/ref&gt;
Sperling was not deterred by the hostile reaction of his superiors. He responded to Sargent with a lengthy letter of his own in which he reduced the Macedonian problem to its bare essentials by asking bluntly two questions: &quot;a, Is there such a thing as a Macedonian minority?&quot; and &quot;b, If there is, is it ill treated by the Serbs?&quot; He then went on to answer them. &quot;Sounds superfluous,&quot; he wrote, &quot;but you ask 'What is the Macedonian minority?' I can hardly believe you want me to quote all the authorities from the year one to show you that there is such a thing as a Macedonian.&quot; He referred him specifically to the earlier reports by Gallop, Harvey and Footman, and stressed that the Slav inhabitants of Macedonia called themselves neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but Macedonians. With regard to the second question, Sperling argued that it made no difference to the Macedonians &quot;whether these things were due, as you say, to the general low level of Serbian administrative ability or to the intentional ill treatment of a particular race. ... The fact remains that their charges stand...&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Sperling (Sofia) to Sargent, 10 October 1928. &lt;/ref&gt;

London was not prepared to listen and, indeed, wished to put an end to the expression of views that seemed to run counter to the main tenets of Britain's policies in southeastern Europe. C.H. Bateman suggested to Sargent that &quot;a short reply would be sufficient to point to the confusion of thought which appears to exist at our legation at Sofia on this Macedonian question.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 18 October 1928. &lt;/ref&gt; Otherwise, his comments, which were drafted by Sargent into a letter to Sperling, reveal a characteristic British slighting of nationalism and national movements among the so-called &quot;small&quot; and &quot;young&quot; peoples in eastern Europe. He argued that just because the Slavs of Macedonia called themselves Macedonians, &quot;there was no reason why We or you should consent to give them a name which coincides with a piece of territory... which has not for a thousand years been an autonomous entity in any sense...&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Sargent (London) to Sperling, 22 October 1928 &lt;/ref&gt; However, he could not come up with another, more acceptable name for them, except perhaps &quot;Macedo-Slavs,&quot; which was in effect the same thing.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;The fact was of course that the framers of the Minorities Treaty hesitated to mention them under any specific name,&quot; wrote Bateman. &quot;The most they could be called is Macedo-Slavs&quot; (ibid., C.H. Bateman, Minute, 18 October 1928). &lt;/ref&gt;

Such intervention and argumeilts do not seem to have been sufficient to silence the legation at Sofia. At any rate, R.A.C. Sperling left Sofia shortly after,&lt;ref&gt;Great Britain, Foreign Office, The Foreign Office List and Diplomatic and Consular Year Book for 1935 (London, 1935), 416. &lt;/ref&gt; and his successor-, Sidney P.P. Waterlow, held views on the Macedonian problem that were, if anything, even more revisionist. He expressed them most cogently in a long, thoughtful and courteous letter to R.G. Vansittart,&lt;ref&gt;FO371/14316, Waterlow (Sofia) to Vansittart, 21 May 1930. &lt;/ref&gt; who had in the meantime become permanent under secretary of state for foreign affairs. He did not believe, as the Foreign Office did, that the Macedonian problem would simply disappear when the militant revolutionaries had been destroyed in Bulgaria and when Yugoslavia had provided the Macedonians with good administration and a civilized minority regime. Unlike Nevile Henderson, Kennard's successor as minister at Belgrade, he could not see how any amount of good administration, even if it would improve the atmosphere and facilitate the suppression of the IMRO, could be an ultimate solution. He argued that only genuine home rule-freedom to manage local affairs, churches, schools, etc.-could do that, but even here he had doubts. In any case, he seemed convinced that Belgrade was not capable of giving its Macedonian subjects anything like real local autonomy or, at least, not so long as the Macedonians considered themselves Macedonian.

It is this that dictates the present policy of intense Serbification. But it is this that makes it impossible to introduce a genuine minority regime until there is no minority to give the regime to, and it is just this that Bulgaria, with her Macedonian exiles (the most stubborn and intelligent people in the Balkans) and her indigenous Macedonian population, can never wholeheartedly accept ...&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 7. &lt;/ref&gt;

Thus, even if the revolutionaries were destroyed and Serbian Macedonia was ruled with &quot;kindly wisdom,&quot; the Macedonian question would most likely remain unresolved, an apple of discord, a stumbling block to stability in the Balkans, etc. In Waterlow's search for a solution &quot;that might bring real peace at long last,&quot; he seriously considered the idea, which seemed entirely logical to him but at the same time not altogether practical from the perspective of British foreign policy, of an autonomous united Macedonia. &quot;I do not share the view of the department that Macedonia never having been a geographical or racial entity, the idea [an autonomous united Macedonia] is inherently absurd;&quot; he wrote, &quot;that is an exaggeration, inherited, I fancy, from the predominance of Serb views at the Peace Conference.&quot; He believed that, united and independent, the Macedonians &quot;might play the part which God seems to have assigned to them in the Balkans, but which man has thwarted-that, namely, of acting as a link between their Serb and Bulgar brothers, instead of being a permanent cause of division.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 8-9. &lt;/ref&gt; He did not really expect a positive reaction to this idea from the Foreign Office; yet, as he concluded, &quot;one's mind keeps flying back in this direction, as one goes over the problem day after day, only to find Alps upon Alps of hopelessness arise.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 9. &lt;/ref&gt; But when John Balfour at the Foreign Office read Waterlow's report, he did not consider this a logical idea and maintained that Britain &quot;must continue to concentrate [on the peace treaties] in the forlorn hope that they will pierce a Simplon Tunnel through the Alps of despair.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., J. Balfour, Minute, 2 June 1930. &lt;/ref&gt;

On the basis of this lengthy debate, which involved those in the Foreign Office and service most concerned with the Macedonian question, the Central Department drafted a new, updated memorandum on the Macedonian question in 1929.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/13573, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity,&quot; 6 December 1929, 9 pp. &lt;/ref&gt; Parts of the first version were revised shortly thereafter as a result of last minute critical comments and objections voiced by Waterlow.

The final draft of this lengthy and valuable document, dated 2 July 1930, presented the official British interpretation of the history of the Macedonian question since the 1860s, as well as an analysis of the contemporary political problem.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/14317, Central Department, Memorandum, &quot;The Origins of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and Its History Since the Great War,&quot; 1 July 1930,16 pp. &lt;/ref&gt; It acknowledged once again that the Slav inhabitants of Macedonia, the Macedo-Slavs or Macedonians, were neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, and thus implicitly recognized their separate and distinct identity. It also admitted the existence in Yugoslav Macedonia of &quot;a uniquely dangerous minority problem, which is aggravated by the fact that the Macedonians are the most stubborn and hard-headed people in the Balkans.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 9. &lt;/ref&gt; It was therefore deeply concerned that the League of Nations could be dragged into the Macedonian problem, first of all, because it was a threat to international peace and, secondly and more importantly, because the Yugoslav minorities treaty, concluded at St. Germain in 1919, applied &quot;to all territories acquired by Serbia as a result of the Balkan wars, and the enforcement of which is entrusted to the League Council.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 14. &lt;/ref&gt; Great Britain, however, could not allow the consideration of the Macedonian question in Yugoslavia by the League of Nations, the body that was specifically delegated to deal with and arbitrate national problems, conflicts and grievances, for it would &quot;inevitably involve the airing of the whole Macedonian problem at Geneva and its discussion could hardly fail to precipitate a crisis which the League Council might find it very difficult to control.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 15. &lt;/ref&gt; London feared that League of Nations consideration of the Macedonian problem in Yugoslavia would amount to a de facto recognition of the Macedonian nationality. This would in turn legitimize to a certain extent the Macedonian demands for a united and independent Macedonia, thus challenging the existing status quo in the Balkans. The Memorandum made this quite clear: &quot;Indeed, once the existence of a Macedonian nationality is even allowed to be presumed there is a danger that the entire Peace Settlement will be jeopardized by the calling into question, not merely of the frontiers between Jugoslavia and Bulgaria, but also of those between Jugoslavia and Greece and between Jugoslavia and Albania&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Ibid. &lt;/ref&gt; It strongly recommended that &quot;this Balkan cancer&quot; be treated &quot;not by drastic surgical excision (e.g. plebiscite resulting in a change of frontiers....)&quot; but rather &quot;by the use of the healing properties of time and by the use of radium treatment of persuasive diplomacy, which while basing itself on the territorial status quo, shall endeavor gradually to eradicate the open sore that has for so long poisoned the relations of the Balkan states.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 16. &lt;/ref&gt;
The analysis and the recommendations of this memorandum remained the official British position on the Macedonian question virtually until the outbreak of World War II. 

The Foreign Office interpreted the subsequent &quot;degeneration&quot; of the IMRO of Ivan Mihailov and, after the military coup in Sofia in 1934, the decline and cessation of its terrorist activities, as signs of the gradual eradication of &quot;this Balkan cancer.&quot; In actual fact, this view represented a serious misreading, indeed, a rather crude misunderstanding of the transformation of Macedonian nationalism at the time. The IMRO, which had been divided between a right and a left wing from its very inception, finally split in 1924-1925. The left formed its own separate organization, the IMRO (United) and joined the Balkan Communist Federation and the Comintern. Unlike the right, it had a clearly defined social, economic and particularly national program; unlike the terrorist campaign of the right, it enhanced the cause of both nationalism and communism in Macedonia through underground work. By the early 1930s it had attracted a large following and was challenging Mihailov's IMRO for leadership. Waterlow informed the Foreign Office of the split and the growing strength of the left in his report on the proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the Macedonian Brotherhoods in Bulgaria, the legal organization of Mihailov's IMRO, held in Sofia on 24-27january 1932.

The opposite view [the left], which has lately grown within the movement, which was suppressed at the congress, but which was clearly set out in the communist press, is that Mihailoff has forsaken the ideal of the Macedonian movement, that he does not fight for the liberation of Macedonia and that he has become the tool of the Fascist regime in Bulgaria, which uses the Macedonian organization for the sole purpose of maintaining its dictatorship ...
The Macedonian movement should again become national and independent, it should throw off the tutelage of the Bulgarian Government, which supports it only for its own ends, and it should fight for a genuinely independent Macedonia as part of a Balkan Federation under Soviet protection.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/57473, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 5 February 1932. According to the assistant to the Bishop of Nevrokop, one of the major centers of Pirin Macedonia, &quot;The Revolutionary Organization itself was split by a growing Communist current, ... aiming at the liberation of Macedonia by the bolshevisation of the Balkans, while the local population was in its turn divided, about half being for the organization and half against, and the hostile half being largely Communist in feeling (FO371/15896, Waterlow [Sofia] to Simon, 22 June 1932; see also FO371/19486, Bentinck [Sofia] to Hoare, 16 September 1935 and 26 September 1935). On the left of the Macedonian movement see also the works cited in note 27. &lt;/ref&gt;

The growth of the left undermined the support of the IMRO of Mihailov and forced the latter, for reasons of self-preservation, to free itself from the tutelage of the Bulgarian government and to identify itself with a Macedonian national program clearly calling for &quot;the unification of Macedonian territories held by Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria, into an independent political entity within its natural geographical frontiers.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/16650, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 27 February 1933. &lt;/ref&gt; But it is safe to assume that this reorientation of the IMRO contributed to its suppression in 1934: by the second half of the 1930s most Bulgarians had become convinced &quot;that the Macedonians have been more trouble in Bulgaria than they were worth and merely gave the country a bad name abroad without helping the national [Bulgarian] cause....&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia) to Nichols, 25 August 1940. &lt;/ref&gt;

IMRO's suppression, in turn, helped to enhance the role of the Macedonian left, whose nationalist activities had previously been hampered by the IMRO and whose many activists had fallen victims of the mihailovist terror. As Bentinck, the new minister at Sofia, pointed out:
Since the coup d'etat last year, however, the Macedonian communists became much more active, especially in Sofia and Bulgarian Macedonia. I am told the intention was to detach the three portions of Macedonia belonging to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, and to unite them into a Soviet Republic - - - At the same time the communist parties in Bulgaria, Jugoslavia and Greece were ordered by Moscow to support the Macedonian communists...&lt;ref&gt;FO371/19486. Bentinck (Sofia) to Hoare, 26 September 1935. &lt;/ref&gt;

Thus, contrary to the hopes and expectations of the Foreign Office, neither the dissolution of the terrorist IMRO nor &quot;the healing properties of time&quot; resolved the Macedonian problem or caused it to disappear. Macedonian nationalism was forced underground and into the embrace of international communism, where it continued to grow. As Simeon Radev, a prominent Bulgarophile Macedonian and a well known retired Bulgarian diplomat, pointed out to Waterlow, &quot;no solution of the [Macedonian] problem could be expected by the mere aflux of time. There was no prospect whatever of the population acquiescing in the policy of Serbianisation pursued by Belgrade....&quot; He also emphasized &quot;that the Macedonian sense of nationality was not a sense of Bulgarian nationality. It took the shape, especially with the younger generation, of an aspiration for autonomy.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;FO371/16651, Waterlow (Sofia) to Simon, 21 July 1933. &lt;/ref&gt; On a private visit to Istanbul in September 1933, E. Venizelos, the great Greek statesman, expressed similar sentiments to Sir George Clerk, the British ambassador: Venizelos had always counselled that the Jugoslav Government should make a serious effort to content the Slav Macedonian minority... M. Venizelos maintained that these people, of which Greece has a small share...., are not pure Bulgarians, but something between Bulgarian and Serbian, and he had, he said, always been ready to give them Slav Macedonian schools and other reasonable privileges.&lt;ref&gt;FO371/16775, Clerk (Constaninople) to Simon, ^ October 1933. &lt;/ref&gt;

Furthermore, as Radev had also argued, a driving force behind the Macedonian movement at this time was the fundamental belief that anything, however improbable, might occur in a world of flux. And central to this belief was &quot;a desire for a union of all Macedonians in an autonomous state...&quot; &lt;ref&gt;90. FO371/16651 &lt;/ref&gt; As the outbreak of the Second World War approached the growing challenges to the status quo in Europe intensified this belief and desire in the second half of the 1930s.&lt;ref&gt;On the aims of Macedonian nationalism on the left in the 1930s, see Biblioteka &quot;Makedonsko zname,&quot; no.1, Ideite i zadachite na Makedonskoto progresivno dvizenje v Bulgaria (Sofia, 1933); Ristovski, Makedonskiot narod i Makedonskata Nacija, 2: 481-560; and my forthcoming study &quot;Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the Left.&quot; &lt;/ref&gt; In addition to the USSR or, rather, the communist movement, which already enjoyed widespread support among the Macedonians, by the end of the decade both Germany and Italy actively advocated schemes for &quot;the liberation of Macedonia&quot; with which &quot;they are trying to attract Macedonians ...&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia)to F.O., 15 August 1940. &lt;/ref&gt;

While the Foreign Office either minimized or was ignorant of the strength of Macedonian nationalism on the left, it was not ready to overlook the spread of German and Italian influence in the area. And it was this more than anything else, that brought about a renewed British interest in the Macedonians and the beginning of a British reappraisal of the Macedonian national problem. After the fall of France in summer 1940, G.W. Rendel, the minister at Sofia, warned of the increased Soviet, German and Italian activities in Macedonia and concluded that &quot;Presumably' however the Macedonians would accept any 'autonomous' Macedonian state which a great power succeeds in establishing.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;93. Ibid. &lt;/ref&gt; He analyzed the aims of the Macedonians in greater detail in a private letter to P.B.B. Nichols of the Foreign Office written ten days later:

My impression is that there is now a fairly large section of the Macedonians who look to Russia for their salvation. ... I think the pro -Russian groups probably hope for the eventual creation of an autonomous Macedonian Soviet Republic as one of a chain of South Slav Soviet states running from the Black Sea to the Adriatic and to the German and Italian frontiers. On the other hand, there are certainly a number of Macedonians who are short sighted enough to be ready to intrigue with Germany and Italy...The Macedonians are notoriously difficult, and have many of the characteristics of the Irish, and my impression is that they are happiest in opposition to any existing regime...&lt;ref&gt;FO371/24880, Rendel (Sofia) to Nichols, 25 August 1940. George L. Clutton of the Foreign Office described the Macedonians as &quot;discontented peasants who are anti-Jugoslav, anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian, anti-German, and anti everything except possibly anti-Russian&quot; (FO371/24880, Campbell [Belgrade] to F.O., 4 September 1940, G.L. Clutton, Minute, 10 September 1940). &lt;/ref&gt;

Early in 1941 the vice consul at Skopje provided the Foreign Office with an even more extensive and perceptive analysis of the current state of the Macedonian problem. He claimed that the vast majority of the Macedonians belonged to the national movement; indeed, he estimated &quot;that 90 percent of all Slav Macedonians were autonomists in one sense or another....&quot; Because the movement was wrapped in secrecy, however, it was extremely difficult to gauge the relative strength of its various currents, except that it could be assumed that IMRO had lost ground since it was banned in Bulgaria and its leaders exiled. While the vice consul acknowledged the close relationship between communism and &quot;autonomism&quot; or nationalism in Macedonia, he downplayed the frequently expressed contention that the communists used the Macedonian movement for their own ends.

Instead, he argued that since virtually every Macedonian was an autonomist, it was almost certain &quot;that the Communists and autonomists are the same people...&quot;; and, in any case, that Macedonian communists were not doctrinaire and were &quot;regarded by other Balkan communists as weaker brethren....&quot; &quot;My own opinion,&quot; wrote Thomas, &quot;is that they are autonomists in the first place and Communists only in the second.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;FO371/29785, Campbell (Belgrade) to Halifax, 6 January 1941, Enclosure, &quot;Report on the General Situation in Southern Serbia by Mr. Thomas, British Vice-Consul at Skoplje.&quot; &lt;/ref&gt; He concluded his lengthy report by stressing what by then should have been obvious: the Macedonian problem was &quot;a real one&quot; and &quot;an acute one&quot; and that it &quot;has in no way been artificially created by interested propaganda.&quot; He considered change unavoidable and felt that it was &quot;in the interest of Jugoslavia to satisfy the aspirations of Macedonia.&quot;

He was equally convinced, however, that it was highly improbable, &quot;in view of the instinctive dislike of the Serbs engendered by twenty years of Serbian rule, that anything short of autonomy would be acceptable.'' &lt;ref&gt;Ibid.. &lt;/ref&gt;

Rendel's and Thomas's appraisals of the Macedonian situation were not radically different from many produced by their predecessors stationed in the Balkans. However, with the world once more at war, the Foreign Office now accorded them more serious consideration and appeared, although grudgingly, to accept them. It seemed to accept the fact that Britain's hitherto refusal to officially recognize the existence of a Macedonian nationality, a policy that it had shaped and defended for over twenty years, might no longer prove tenable and most likely would not survive the war. In a highly revealing, indeed almost prophetic, comment on Thomas's report, Reginald J. Bowker of the Foreign Office conceded this when he wrote: &quot;To the layman the only possible solution of the Macedonian problem would seem to be in giving the Macedonians some sort of autonomy within Jugoslavia. Possibly after the war the Jugoslavs may be willing to consider this. But such a measure would, no doubt, incur the risk of whetting the appetite of the Macedonians for complete independence.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., Reginald J. Bowker, Minute, l6 January 1941. &lt;/ref&gt;

The lack of official recognition or legitimacy internationally and in the three Balkan states obviously had hindered the normal and natural development of Macedonian identity. However, it could not destroy it. Macedonianism in its various manifestations-particularism, patriotism, nationalism-was too deeply entrenched among the Macedonian people and among the small, but vibrant and dynamic intelligentsia, especially on the political left. During World War II, which began for the Balkans in late 1940 and early 1941, Macedonians in all three parts of their divided land joined resistance movements in large numbers and fought for national unification and liberation.&lt;ref&gt;On the aims of Macedonian nationalism during the Second World War, see the informative and illuminating discussions by Kiril Miljovski, &quot;Motivite na revolucijata 1941-1944 godina vo Makedonija,&quot; Istorija (Skopje) 10, no.1 (1974): 19ff; and by Cvetko Uzunovski, &quot;Vostanieto vo 1941 vo Makedonija,&quot; Istorija, 10, no.2 (1974): 103 if.&lt;/ref&gt; They did not achieve national unification; however, the Macedonians in Vardar or Yugoslav Macedonia won not only national recognition but also legal equality with the other nations of the new, communistled, federal Yugoslavia. 

== Наводи ==
{{наводи}}

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>oayoq3p3z9bftrphjjqxwzqqnjqte4t</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Greek Proposal for a Sovereign Macedonia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2126</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11092</id>
      <parentid>5162</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:29:25Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6272" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio}}
Greek Proposal for a Sovereign Macedonia

By Aleksandar Donski
Translated and Edited by Risto Stefov

(This article was taken from the Macedonian magazine
“Makedonsko Sonce” 531 / 3.9.2004, pages 52 and 53) 

First Greek President Yannis Kapodistria calls for a sovereign and independent Macedonian State! Imperial Russia was in favour of the creation of a contemporary Greek State!

It is interesting to note that Imperial Russia, in October 1829, during a leadership meeting with Czar Nikolai I, decided that it was in Russia’s best interests to preserve the Ottoman Empire.
It is also interesting to note that during the same meeting the Russian leadership considered the eventual breakup of the Ottoman Empire and reviewed the proposal put forward by the then Greek national advocate Yannis Kapodistria. This proposal (in which Macedonia was considered as an independent state), at the same meeting, was brought forward by Dashkov, the Russian minister of foreign affairs. In his proposal, the Greek Kapodistria envisioned the formation of five Balkan states. These are:

*1.	Dachia (which consisted of the principalities of Moldavia and Vlachia, i.e. the closest territories to present day Romania and Moldavia); 
*2.	Serbia (which consisted of the territories of the then Serbian State, along with parts of the territories of Bulgaria and Bosnia); 
*3.	Macedonia (which consisted of the entire territories of the then Rumelia together with the surrounding islands, i.e. the entire territory of ethnic Macedonia and parts of today’s Bulgaria, Thrace and Thessaly); 
*4.	Epirus (which consisted of the territories of upper and lower Albania); and 
*5.	Greece (with the name “Territory of the Hellenes”, which consisted of the territories south from the river Pena in Thessaly including the city Arta and the entire Archipelagos). (For more details about this consult Blazhe Ristovski’s “Istoria na Makedonskata Natsia”, MANU Skopje, 1999, page 10.) 

From this Greek proposal we can clearly see that the then nationally conscious Greeks considered Thessaly to be the most northern part of their Greek territories.  Epirus was not considered to be part of the Greek territories and Bulgaria was not even considered to be a country.

This proposal carries even more weight if we consider that it was put forth by Yannis Kapodistria, the first president of the Independent Greek State!

Before becoming president of Greece, Kapodistria was a Russian Count and served in the Russian State as secretary of foreign affairs. Afterwards he became President of the newly formed Peoples Greek Assembly and at the end he was chosen as the first president of the Greek Independent State.  
Russian Proposal for a Macedonian State

At the same Russian leadership meeting one more proposal was put forth, this one from the Russian Count Bulgari who proposed the following states for the Balkans:

*1.	Greece (with the Archipelagos, Samos and Crete); 
*2.	Macedonia (together with the northern part of Albania and part of Thrace up to the river Maritsa); 
*3.	Serbia (together with Bosnia), for which he asked to become a protectorate of the Great Powers; and  
*4.	The Territories of Moldavia, Vlahia and Bulgaria (as one state), to become a protectorate of Russia. 

The Academic Ristovski (from whose book this information is obtained), justifiably concluded that during that time in Europe, and in the Balkans, there was no clear representation of ethnic boundaries in the Balkans and in these combinations Bulgaria was only mentioned as part of Serbia, Romania and Russia.

And now we will return to the history of the creation of the then Greek State, its development and territorial expansion.

During the period between 1453 and 1460, most territory of present day Greece was captured by the Sultan Mohamed II and annexed by the Ottoman Empire. In the following two centuries the Ottomans fought against the Venetians and other City States who had remaining colonies in Greece.  In 1669 the Ottomans succeeded in taking the island of Crete but lost Peloponnesus to the Venetians. In 1718 the Ottomans recaptured the Peloponnesus and the Greek territories remained under Ottoman rule up until the 19th century. 

A great number of Greeks suffered from the Ottoman regime, however it is a fact that many of them also enjoyed a variety of privileges in the Ottoman State.  This, above all, was carried out by the Greek Church whose high ranking officials (with the Patriarch in charge) enjoyed great privileges and influence in the politics of the Ottoman Empire. Actually, the worst suffering was felt by the Macedonians, when under the influence of the Patriarch, the Sultan ordered the abolishment of the Ohrid Eparchy. 

Many Greeks took important positions in the Ottoman administration and served as officials and political advisers (for more information on this consult the world famous Microsoft Encarta CD encyclopedia, 1988, re: Greece). 

The first signs of serious and significant Greek nationalism surfaced in the mid 18th century directly initiated by Russia. Being a Pravoslav (Orthodox Christian) State, Russia incited the Pravoslav (Christian Orthodox) Greeks to rebel against Ottoman rule. Unfortunately these first attempts at creating a Greek consciousness were unsuccessful. In 1770 the Russian Count Orlov came to the Peloponnesus with warships aiming to start a Greek rebellion, but without success. 
Another factor that played an important role in the awakening of the Greek ethnic consciousness and its desire for liberation was the French Revolution. Then again under Russian influence, the Russian prince of Greek descent, Alexander Ispilanti, in 1814 formed a secret organization under the name “Filiki Heteria” (friendly association) and in 1821 started a rebellion, which was quickly put down. In the next three years the Greeks again began to actively arm but in their fight they were almost entirely alone. They did receive material help from a number of European countries but that help was self serving in the eventual creation of the Greek State.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>qdgzbotzqxc9kan4ayxfdjvfwrkzfk0</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>The Origin of the Slavs</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2153</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11044</id>
      <parentid>5200</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:07:03Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279597_The_Origin_of_the_Slavs&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="25942" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237279597_The_Origin_of_the_Slavs}}
The Origin of the Slavs

by Joseph Skulj

October 13, 2004 

The following two, articles, courtesy of Joseph Skulj, contain very important information on the origin of the Slavs. 

Pozdrav, Risto Stefov 

&quot;Slavs have been known by many names during the historical period. However, genetically they are descendents of populations that sought refuge in the Balkans and Ukraine during the Last Glacial Maximum approx. 20,000 years ago. In the attachments (marked ITEM 2) is an article which will appear in the Sept/Oct issue of 'The Voice of Canadian Slovenians/GLASILO kanadskih slovencev', which shows a genetic continuity between Veneti and the people in the Balkans. Also included in the attachments (marked ITEM 1) is a letter to Prof. Curta who is of the opinion, that Slavs are a 6th century invention.&quot; 

(J. Skulj)
 
ITEM 1 

2004-10-13

Joseph Skulj P. Eng.
11 Westacres Dr.
Toronto ON, Canada M6M2B7
jskulj@hotmail.com

Prof. Florin Curta
Department of History
University of Florida

Re: The Making of the Slavs

Dear Prof. Curta:

The Making of the Slavs-Will this book with its eye-catching title tell us about the origin of the ~40 % of the population of Europe who are occupying more than half of its land mass? Will it reveal to us how, when and where they originated? Will we find out why they speak so many sister languages and are known by so many names? What were the mechanisms that caused this spread; how much can be attributed to elite dominance and how much to other factors?

The origin of the Slavs is relatively unclear, but the title of your book suggests that you have found the answer. Recently I ordered your book The Making of the Slavs, through U. of T. bookstore, (since they did not have it in stock), hoping that the information you compiled would give me a historian's insight into the linguistic and genetic origin of the Slavs and why they now represent ~40% of the population of Europe and occupy more than half of the continent. I was also hoping to learn, why even in the 2nd cent. A.D., one third of all the Roman military bases were located in the northern Balkans.

Now, on reading The Making of the Slavs, I find that I have been misled by the title of the book. While the book does provide valuable detailed historical information, specially, from the Arabic and Greek sources regarding the Slavs during the historical period, when they fought against the Roman Empire, the super-power of that time both on land and sea, it does not adequately address their genetic and linguistic origins. You mention the building and renewing of the Roman forts in the Balkans-&quot;eight times more than in the entire Asian part of the Empire&quot;. This is reminiscent of the 20th cent. Cold War armaments between the 2 super powers of the day. Since the Roman Empire did not spring into existence overnight, it is reasonable to assume, in the light of historical data you provide, that Slavs have a pre-historical origin. Based on archaeological evidence, scholars such as Alinei and Renfrew posit that there is a considerable continuity in Europe, from the time of the first farmers and that there is no reason to think in terms of large-scale movements of people in association of the spread of metallurgical practices. There is also genetic and linguistic evidence that indicates a pre-historic origin of the Slavs.

Genetic studies indicate that populations of Europe, including the Slavs, were present for millennia before the 6th cent. A.D., in the regions that they now occupy. For instance, Richards M. and 36 others (2000), in their studies of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), conclude that (i) the majority of extant mtDNA lineages entered Europe in several waves during the Upper Paleolithic, (ii) there was a founder effect or bottleneck associated with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 20,000 years ago, from which derives the largest fraction of surviving lineages, (iii) the immigrant Neolithic component is likely to comprise less than one-quarter of the mtDNA pool of modern Europeans. They also estimate that from the Bronze Age to the recent time, the migration events brought the following percentages of mtDNA lineages to various regions of Europe: Alps-6.9%, Southeastern Europe-8.2%, Northeastern Europe-5.5%. And (iv) there has been a substantial back-migration into the Near East. Eastern Europe appears to have been the main source of the back-migration, also the Philistine migration, and the slave trade. In addition, there were also the desertions from the Byzantine army that you point out in your book.

Vernesi C. and 12 others (2004) in their recent study of the mtDNA lineages of the ~2,500 year old skeletal remains of the Etruscans and the Veneti, provide the mitochondrial sequences present in these skeletal remains. Thus they make it possible to compare, genetically, the present day populations with the Etruscan and Veneti upper classes, since those tombs typically belonged to social elites.

Malyarchuk B.A. and 5 others (2003) with their mtDNA study of Bosnians and Slovenians make it possible to compare genetically these extant populations with the ancient populations of Etruria and Venetia. Surprisingly, 4 out of 5 (80%) of the mtDNA lineages found in the skeletal remains from Adria, which was in the Roman province of Venetia et Histria, are also found in the present day Bosnians and Slovenians. This, along with other studies, is an indication that there has been a genetic continuity for at least 2,500 years, between the people of the Balkans and the peoples of the northeastern Italy.

The research into the paternally inherited Y-chromosomes of the various populations gives the researchers another insight into pre-historical events. In a recent study of the Y-chromosome haplogroup I (Hg I), Rootsi S. and 45 others (2004), find it in Macedonians (northern Greece) at 30 %, Slovenians at 38 %, Croats at 38 %, Bosnians at 42 %, Poles at 18 %, Ukrainians at 22 % and Russian (Cossacks ) at 23 %. They conclude that the Hg I subhaplogroup I1b2* in the extant populations, arose in Europe before Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). It is at the highest concentration in the northwestern Balkans at ~40%, but it extends from just west of the Italian Apennines to Eastern Europe, and it probably diffused after the LGM from a homeland in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. The high diversity of these lineages in Bosnia supports the view that they may have been present in the Balkans before the LGM. Semino O. and 16 others (2000), propose that this lineage originated in Europe in descendents of men that arrived from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago.

Malyarchuk B.A. and 5 others (2003) note that another Y-chromosome genetic marker Hg R1a is also present in Slavic speaking populations at a high frequency 30%-50% (Poles, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks). Rosser ZH., and 62 others (2000) quantify this frequency: in Poles at 54 %, Russians-47 %, Belorussians-39 %, Ukrainians-30 %, Czechs-38 % and Slovaks-47 %. It is also present at a relatively high frequency in the Slavic speaking populations in the Balkans: Croats-29%, Slovenians-37%, Macedonians-35%. The Bulgarians are an exception at only 12%. Semino et al. interpret the distribution of this haplotype as a signature of expansion from isolated nucleus in the present Ukraine, following LGM. The lineage appears to have been present in Europe since the Paleolithic times.

Belyaeva O. and 7 others (2003), based on mtDNA studies, propose a central European origin of the Eastern Slavs.

Based on the genetic data available, there is evidence that Slavs developed primarily from two populations who sought refuge during the LGM, one in the Balkans and the other in the Ukraine, and who expanded subsequently from their climatic sanctuaries. The Apennine Mountains appear to be the westerly limit and the Indian sub-continent the easterly limit of this expansion.

Qamar R. and 8 others (2003) note that four out of five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan, which together make up 79% of the total population are also frequent in western Asia and in Europe, but not in China or Japan. The frequency rises to 86% in the Pathan and Sindhi populations who are Indo-European speakers and where the dominant haplogroup is Ra1 at 47%, which is similar in frequency to Slovak and Russian populations.

Bamshad M., and 17 others (2001), in &quot;Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations&quot; conclude that for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians and the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being more similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. Generally, haplogroup Ra1 is the most frequent amongst the speakers of Slavic languages and their cousin languages, the Indic languages. The Slovenian language in the most westerly Slavic country has ~80% of its vocabulary similar to its sister Russian language in sound and meaning. In addition, Slovenian has lexical and grammatical similarities to the cousin Indic languages in particular to the Vedic Sanskrit, where ~20% of the lexicon is similar in sound and meaning.

This grammatical similarity between Sanskrit and Slovenian is well illustrated by the conjugation of the verb, &quot;to be&quot;:

  English Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi 
1. p. sing. I am asmi sem x x (hu:n) 
2. p. sing. you are  asi si x x (hain) 
3. p. sing. he is asti x (je) yest x (hai) 
1. p. dual   svah sva x x 
2. p. dual   sthah sta x x 
3. p. dual   stah sta x x 
1. p. plural we are smah smo x x (hain) 
2. p. plural you are stha ste x x (hain) 
3. p. plural they are  santi so  x x (hain) 
 

It is anomalous that the present day Slovenian retains so many similarities with the Sanskrit, in particular with the Vedic Sanskrit, despite the wide separation due to time and geography. It should be noted that Slovenian retains many lexical and grammatical similarities with Sanskrit no longer present in Indian and some Slavic languages as can be seen from the example above.

It is rather unfortunate, that the book does not address more thoroughly the origins of the Slavs in the light of the historical information about them in Europe that you amassed and also in light of the linguistic and genetic similarities with the people of the Indus valley, particularly the linguistic similarity with the Vedic Sanskrit and the more recent genetic studies of the Etruscan and Venetic skeletal remains in the west and also the 2500 year old Scytho-Siberian skeletal remains in the east. Perhaps, you are planning a sequel to the book, where you will address the pre-historical origin of the Slavs, not just one name and will incorporate the results of the latest archaeological, genetic and linguistic studies into your hypotheses, using a multi disciplinary approach. Hopefully, you will use the historical records as a guide into pre-history to interpret the results of the current archaeological, genetic and linguistic studies.

Yours truly,

Joseph Skulj P. Eng.


ITEM 2

ETRUSCANS, VENETI and SLOVENIANS: A Genetic Perspective

(J. Skulj P.Eng. The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, Canada. 2004-10-5)

POVZETEK

Genetske primejave Etrušcanov in današnjih Slovencev ka?ejo na znatne sorodnosti. Ertušcanski primerki so vzeti od okostnjakov--njihovih veljakov--iz grobnic, nastalih med 1. in 7. st. pr. Kr.. V te primerjave je vkljucenih 5 okostnjakov iz mesta Adria, ki je v pokrajini Veneto-v rimski dobi pa je bila Adria v provinci Venetia et Histria. Genetsko najbli?ji Slovencem so prav ti ~2,400 let stari okostnjaki iz Adria; kar 4 od 5 (80%) ima genetske vrste ki se sedaj najdejo na Balkanu. Sedaj ~20% Slovencev nosi genetske vrste ki so prisotne pri ~2,400 let starih okostnjakih iz Adria. Tako se genetski podatki skladajo s teorijo kontinuitete na ozemlju Slovenije-in podpirajo Venetsko teorijo, ki zagovarja sorodnost Slovencev in Venetov.

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of modern populations has become a useful tool for human population studies and for reconstructing aspects of evolutionary history. The maternal mode of inheritance of the mtDNA, allows it to be used for inferring the pattern of prehistoric female migrations and peopling of different regions of the world. It is now technically possible to validate these analyses by directly studying the DNA of ancient people (Malyarchuk 2003, Vernesi 2004).

Vernesi et al. obtained fragments of well preserved skeletons from Etruscan necropolises, covering much of the Etruria in terms of both chronology (7th to 2nd centuries B.C.) and geography. The tombs typically belong to the social elites, so the individuals studied may represent a specific social group, the upper classes. The ancient human remains came from the following sites: Adria, Volterra, Castelfranco di Sotto, Castellucio di Pienza, Magliano and Marsiliana, Tarquinia and also Capua. Two cities, Adria in the Po valley and Capua in Campania, were at the fringes of Etruscan territory. In Adria the hybridization with the Veneti may have occurred (Vernesi 2004).

Vernesi et al. compared the mtDNA results obtained from the ancient remains to a number of modern populations. Unfortunately, they did not take into account the genetic studies of Slovenians ( Malyarchuk 2003), who are geographically relatively close to Adria.

The Etruscans are one of the mysterious peoples of the ancient world, who seem to have appeared for a time on the stage of history, and then seemed to have disappeared. In fact, from the end of the Roman period to the Middle Ages, they could be said to have ceased to exist, since the sites of their cities, towns, villages and farms had been completely lost. It was in the19th century that the study of the Etruscan legacy began in earnest. The heart of Etruria was the territory, in the present day Italy, on the Tyrrhenian Sea between the rivers, Arno on the north and Tiber on the south and extending to Perugia in the east. The Etruscan influence in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., went beyond its heartland and extended to, Adria in the Po valley in the north and to Capua in the south. It is generally accepted, that present day Tuscans are the Etruscans' closest neighbors (Wellard 1973, Vernesi 2004).

The Veneti are also one the historic peoples, subject of many discussions and debates, but who were more widespread than the Etruscans. They were present in many lands (Mogentale-Profizi 2001): Veneti in Paphlagonia -northern coast of present day Turkey-were mentioned by Homer in 9th cent. BC., Veneti in Illyricum (Enetoi) on the lower Danube and in the upper Adriatic, were mentioned by Herodotus in 5th cent. BC:, Veneti in central Europe mentioned by Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, Veneti in Gaul were mentioned by Caesar, and Veneti in Latium who are referred to as Venetulani by Pliny the Elder. The Veneti and Etruscans appear to be related. However, Adria was in the 10th Roman province 'Venetia et Histria' until the downfall of the empire. There is historical, linguistic and topographic evidence that present day Slovenians are indigenous to their land and descendents of the Veneti (Šavli 1996).

DISCUSSION of GENETIC STUDIES

In the bone fragments, taken from the tombs of Etruria, Capua and Venetia, Vernesi et al. have found that out of 22 mtDNA HVS1 haplotypes, which they observed in 28 individuals, only two of them, CRS and 16126, occur in a sample of modern Tuscans and carried by ~14% of them. Tuscans are considered to be the descendants of the Etruscans. Both haplotypes occur in skeletons from Adria and Magliano/Marsiliana. The fragments from Magliano/Marsiliana have been dated at 7th-6th centuries B.C., whereas those from Adria are from 5th-4th centuries B.C. (Vernesi 2004).

Comparing the results of Vernesi et al and Malyarchuk et al, it becomes apparent that, the present day Slovenians, carry more than just CRS and 16126 'Etruscan' mtDNA HVS1 haplotypes found in the Tuscans. Twice as many 'Etruscan' haplotypes have been found in Slovenians than in Tuscans, namely: CRS, 16261, 16223, 16311. These were found in skeletal remains from Adria, Magliano/Marsiliana and also from Volterra. Two additional haplotypes from Adria, 16126 and 16129, are similar to Slovenian haplotypes, but the Slovenian haplotypes differ from the 'Etruscan' ones of Adria, by an additional substitution; 16069-16126 and 16129-16304. However, haplotype 16129 without the 16069 substitution is found in Bosnia. This leaves just one haplotype out of five, namely, 16126-16193-16278, where no similar haplotype is found in Slovenia. However, this 16126-16193-16278 haplotype is similar to that found in skeletal remains from Capua at the southern limit of Etruscan influence where hybridization with Samnium natives or Greek colonizers may have occurred (Malyarchuk 2003, Vernesi 2004).

The root type 16069-16126 HVS1 sequence, present in ~8% of Slovenians, is very diverse and may represent a trace of Neolithic (new Stone Age at the beginning of agriculture) migration from the Middle East (Malyarchuk 2003). Haplotypes CRS, 16223, 16261 and 16311 are carried by ~17% of Slovenians. They belong to haplogroup H, which is estimated to be ~20, 000 years old; this haplogroup is the most common one in Slovenians at 47% (Richards 2000, Malyarchuk 2003).

Adria in Veneto

Focusing on 5 haplotypes, CRS, 16126, 16129, 16223, 16126-16193-16278 found in skeletal remains from Adria, which was part of Venetia et Histria during the Roman era,.(Adria is even now located in Veneto, Italy), and comparing them to the present day populations, we find:

--CRS in Slovenians at 13% (Malyarchuk 2003), in Europe at 24% (Richards 1996)

--16126 is found as 16069-16126 in Slo at 8% (M), in Eu 16069-16126 is at 7% (R)

--16129 is found in Bosnians (Bos) at &lt;2% (M), in Russians at 1% (M1) in Basques at 9% (R); in Slo it is found as 16129-16148-16223-16391 and 16129-16223-16391 at 2% (M).

--16223 is found in Slo at 1%, elsewhere in Eu only in South Germans and Ukrainians (M)

From the above comparison, it can be seen, that there is a genetic continuity between ancient populations as attested from the skeletal remains found in Etruria proper and especially between those found in Venetia and the present day Europeans. While Tuscans share 2 haplotypes with the Etruscans, Slovenians and Bosnians share 3 haplotypes. It should also be noted that 2 additional Etruscan haplotypes from Adria in Veneto, differ from the Slovenian haplotypes by one to three substitutions. Considering the evidence, this shows the relatively strong genetic mtDNA relationship between ancient Veneti and modern day Slovenians.

In addition to the haplotypes in ancient Veneti from Adria, Slovenians also share haplotypes with the skeletal remains of Etruscans from Etruria proper, namely from Volterra (Vo) and Magliano/Marsiliana (M/M). Furthermore,Russians and Poles share one lineage with Castelfranco di Sotto (CS) not found in the Slovenian sample.

--16261 of Vo is found in Slo at 1% (M), in Eu at &lt;1% (R).

--16311 of M/M is found in Slo at 2%, in Bosnians at 7% (M), in Eu at 5% (R)

--16126 of M/M is found in Slo as 16069-16126 lineage at 8% (M) in Eu at 7% (R).

--CRS of M/M is found in Slo at 13% (M), in Eu at 24% (R).

--16189-16356 of (M/M) is found in Poles at 0.5%, Russians at 0.5% and Germans at 0.4% (M1)

Here again, no abrupt differences are seen between skeletal remains from Etruria proper and the present day Slavic populations in the Balkans. Richards et al., in their study of 520 individuals from Europe, where the Slavic populations were not included, did not detect in the 16223 haplotype, which present in skeletal remains from Adria, nor has it been found in a sample of modern Tuscans (Richards 1996, Vernesi 2004), but is has been found in Slovenia, South Germany and Ukraine (Malyarchuk 2003).

The Y chromosome studies revealed that Haplogroup I (Hg I), reached ~40%-50% in two distinct regions-in Nordic populations in Scandinavia and around the Dinaric Alps. Overall, this suggest, that populations carrying the Hg I could have played a central role in the process of human re-colonization of Europe, after the Ice Age (Rootsi 2004). Semino proposes that Hg I (M170) haplogroup originated in Europe in descendants of men that arrived from Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago. This can be associated with an Epi-Gravettian culture in the area of the present-day Austria, the Czech Republic and the northern Balkans (Semino 2000). Subhaplogroup HgI1b* is the most frequent clade in eastern Europe and the Balkans; its subclade Hg I1b2 is found in Sardinia, Castille and in Basques (6%). Rootsi et al., mention and also show graphically, that Hg I1b* and Hg I1b2 co-occur west of the Italian Apennines. In the Veneto region of Italy, Hg I1b* occurs at a frequency of~10% and I1b2 is absent; only Hg I1b* is present west of the Appenines; east of the Adriatic Hg I1b* reaches its highest concentration in the north western Balkans (Rootsi 2004). This is also an indication that there is a genetic continuity, based on paternally inherited Y chromosomes, between the Slovenians and the people of Veneto region, including Adria..

Barbujani in his paper ''Genetics and the population history of Europe'', shows graphically a genetic continuity between the populations of the north western Balkans and the peoples now occupying the land of the ancient Veneti and Etruscans in Italy. A clear demarcation is seen in northern Italy at the western boundary of the Veneto region (Barbujani 2001). In another genetic study of the present day populations, it has been found, that the population in eastern Veneto, is more akin to Tuscanian, than to western Veneto population (Mogentale-Profizi 2001). Furthermore, Malyarchuk et al., have also noted, that Slovenians have a high frequency, at 5%, of H-subcluster 16162, which is characteristic for central and eastern European populations. In the western neighbors of Slovenians, in the Veneto speakers of Italy, this is also present, at 6% (Malyarchuk 2003).

What language did the Etruscans and/or Veneti speak? Barbujani has made an intriguing observation, that partial correlations with language are stronger for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA (Barbujani 1997). Conventional opinion has it, that Etruscans spoke a language isolate, a non-Indo-European language and that it disappeared ~90 B.C., when they lost their autonomy to the Romans (Vernesi 2004). Some Slovenian scholars held/hold a different view. Bor had postulated that Etruscans were people originally linguistically related to the Veneti; (the genetic evidence supports his hypothesis); they came from the north and in course of time merged with another people, which in turn influenced their language. By using Slavic languages, as a point of reference, he was able to decipher some of the older Etruscan inscriptions, including the Pyrgian Tablets, but not their later inscriptions. On the other hand, he was quite successful in deciphering the Venetic inscriptions (Šavli 1996).

CONCLUSION

There is a genetic continuity between the ancient Etruscans and Veneti and the present day Slovenians.

Genetic information makes it evident, that Slovenians are indigenous to their land as indicated by the mtDNA relationship with the ~2,500 year old skeletal remains of the Etruscans, particularly those from Adria in Veneto.

Genetic information supports the historic quotation from the biography of St. Columban written in 615 A.D. and cited by Toma?ic &quot;Termini Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur&quot;-the land of the Veneti who are also called Slavs (Šavli 1996).


REFERENCES

Barbujani G (1997) DNA Variation and Language Affinities. Am J Hum Genet 61:1011-1014.

Barbujani G, Bertolle G (2001) Genetics and the population history of Europe. PNAS vol. 98 no.1:22-25.

(M) Malyarchuk BA, Grzybowski T, Derenko MV, Czarny J, Drobnic K, Miscicka-Sliwka D (2003) Mitochondrial DNA Variability in Bosnians and Slovenians. Ann Hum Genet 67: 412- 425.

(M1) Malyarchuk BA, Grzybowski T, Derenko MV, Czarny J, Wozniak M, Misicka-Sliwka D (2002) Mitochondrial DNA in Poles and Russians. Ann Hum Genet 66:261-283.

Mogentale-Profizi N, Chollet L, Stevanovitch A, Dubut V, Poggi C, Pradie MP, Spadoni JL, Gilles A, Beraud-Colomb E (2001) Mitachondrial DNA sequence diversity in two groups of Italian Veneto speakers from Veneto. Ann Hum Genet 65: 153-166.

Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E and 34 others (2000) Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool. Am J Hum Genet 67:1251-1267.

Richards M, Corte-Real H, Forster P and 7 others (1996) Paleolithic and Neolithic Lineages in the European Mitochondrial Gene Pool. Am J Hum Genet 59:185-203.

Rootsi S, Magri C, Kivisild T and 42 others (2004) Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe. Am J Hum Genet 75:128-137.

Šavli J, Bor M, Toma?ic I, trans. Škerbinc A (1996) VENETI: First Builders of European Community. Wien, Boswell: Editiones Veneti ISBN 0-9681236-0-0. pp.80, 197- 199, 344, 443, 501.

Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ and 14 others (2000) The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science vol.290 10 November.

Vernesi C, Caramelli D, Dupanloup I, Bertorelle G, Lari M, Capellini D, Moggi-Cecci J, Chiarelli B, Castri L, Casoli A, Mallegni F, Lalueza-Fox C, Barbujani G (2004) The Etruscans: A Population-Genetic Study. Am J Hum Genet 74: 694-704.

Wellard J (!973) The Search for the Etruscans. London: Sphere Books Ltd. ISBN 0 351 18677 8. pp.11,113.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>1g06h4trrf4okg00c98d2s2yajbfkf3</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>DILEMMAS AND ORIENTATIONS OF GREEK POLICY IN MACEDONIA: 1878-1886</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2174</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11093</id>
      <parentid>5234</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:30:28Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, copyvio: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dilemmas-and-orientations-of-Greek-policy-in-%3A-Kofos/14cbeae5c620790103f2b50cf89a2b33723b3f4d&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="19271" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, copyvio: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dilemmas-and-orientations-of-Greek-policy-in-%3A-Kofos/14cbeae5c620790103f2b50cf89a2b33723b3f4d}}
DILEMMAS AND ORIENTATIONS OF GREEK POLICY IN MACEDONIA: 1878-1886

by Evangelos Kofos
(One of the chief architects, and certainly the most influental, of Greece's policies over Macedonia in the past several decades. All foreign research on Macedonia must be approved by him personally. Once the reader carefully selects out propaganda important information appears on the Greek presence, or absence, in Macedonia.)

The period between 1878 and 1886, covers the critical years from the Congress of Berlin to the annexation of Eastern Rumelia by Bulgaria, when Greek policy on the Macedonian Question was undergoing a general reappraisal. Balkan historiography tends to view this policy in terms of its adverse effects on the national movements of the other Balkan nationalities; it is understandable. Now, with the aid of hitherto untapped archival material—mostly from the Archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AYE) this paper will attempt to examine how Greek policy was formulated, what its aims were and how it was carried out. 

Prior to the 70’s, the Greeks viewed Macedonia as one of the Ottoman regions which would form part of an enlarged Greek state. The realization of this aspiration was rather a remote one as other regions, closer to the Greek Kingdom—such as Thessaly, Epirus, and of course Crete—had first priority. 

To support their claim, the Greeks argued on a number of points. Historically, they sought to trace the region’s hellenic ties all the way back to antiquity and Alexander the Great. Ethnologically, they identified the nationality of the inhabitants on the basis of their Church affiliation; and this meant the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Politically, they felt they could move into a vacuum, once the Empire collapsed. Serbia was a small and far away state, while Bulgaria did not even exist an the political map of the Balkans. 

With such reasoning in the 40’s, 50’s, and even the 60’s, the Greeks of Athens were betraying an ignorance of basic facts about the situation in Macedonia, and the Balkans as a whole. Their distorted vision, however, prevented them from drawing out a realistic policy in their discussions for an alliance with the Serbs in the 60’, as well as in the ecclesiastical dispute with the Bulgarians. 

Their illusions, however, were shattered by the events of the 70’s. First came the establishment of a Bulgarian National Church, by Ottoman firman. Then followed the San Stefano treaty, which placed under Bulgarian rule—on paper at least—most of the Macedonian districts. Both these developments, which affected Macedonia, came about as a result of forces which Hellenism could not control. Greek reaction to both occasions was negative. On the San Stefano treaty, they sided with the revisionist Balkan and European Powers. And although, at the Congress of Berlin the voice of the Greek Kingdom was no more than a whisper, the &quot;Greek card&quot; was used by Western diplomats—particularly the British—in order to restore Macedonia and Thrace to Ottoman rule. 

So the stage had been set at Berlin for a long inter-Balkan conflict. The political status of Macedonia had remained unaltered. But the Macedonian Question had taken up new dimensions. 

Certainly the Bulgarian challenge was the more serious. Indeed, the Bulgarians had now a state of their own with physical proximity to Macedonia— which the Greeks lacked. They had the active support of a big Power—Russia—which the Greeks did not have. Language was no problem for communicating with the Slav-speaking segment of the Macedonian population—and finally, with the emergence of the Exarchate, Church affiliation could no longer be a monopoly of the Greeks. To these, one should add that shortly after the Congress of Berlin, the Bulgarians of Northeast Macedonia, had raised a short-lived insurrection which gave away to guerrilla warfare during the following two years. This armed manifestation was a clear warning to the Greeks who, hitherto, had tended to view developments in Macedonia as academic arguments for historians or clergymen. 

It was understandable, that the Greeks had no time to spare. Already, the International Commission set out by the Congress of Berlin, was deliberating the question of reforms in Macedonia. Despite the outstanding boundary issue with the Turks over Thessaly and Epirus, the Greeks carried out an impressive &quot;research work&quot; which allowed the Athens government to formulate a more comprehensive policy. From 1879 to 1881, a wealth of confidential material reached the Foreign Ministry from the consulates, individual educators and clergymen, the Association for the Propagation of Greek Letters—which had its own network of agents and correspondents in Macedonia— and finally from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This material helped to clarify certain confusing issues and to set the limits within which Greek policy could develop. 

The first point was that the extravagant claims, which had been based on historical grounds, were of no political consequence. They had been totally ignored by the Powers during the critical deliberations of 1876-1878. 

A second point was that in 1879-1880 not only the Balkan peoples, but two large European Powers as well—Russia and Austria-Hungary—coveted Macedonia and wished to place it under their influence, directly or through proxy. 

A third point was that Macedonia could no longer be viewed as a geographical and ethnic entity; and, indeed, it was neither an administrative entity, as its districts had been apportioned among three vilayets. 

A final point was that the emergence of the Bulgarian Exarchate, had now introduced a new objective element by which one could determine more safely the national feelings of the inhabitants of Macedonia. And, although in the early 80’s, church affiliation could not be fully identified with nationality, in the years to come, it was bound to develop into a basic determinant of national orientations. 

On the basis of these evaluations the Greeks had to reassess their long-range objectives, as well as their immediate tactics. But the government of the Greek Kingdom could hardly dictate alone such a policy, without taking into consideration the views and the interests of the leadership of the Greek millet in Constantinople. But the views of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the leading educators and influential financiers did not always coincide with those of Athens. Furthermore, in the interior of Macedonia, the local Greeks would take initiatives which differed both with the Athens and Constantinople lines. 

Without going into details, it is safe to say that on the territorial issue, the concept of the three population zones was now generally recognized. The northern zone contained a population which not only was slavic in speech but had also quickly espoused the Bulgarian Exarchate and had actively manifested its national inclinations during the preceding decade of the 70’s. True, there were pockets which still remained loyal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but this could not alter the over-all picture. The southern zone, Greek in speech and religious affiliation, did not present a problem of identification. There remained the central—and politically delicate zone. This zone contained a polyglot, mixed Christian population, mostly Slav-speaking in the countryside and Greek—and Vlach—speaking in the urban and semi-urban centers, with pockets of Albanian-speaking Christians. To judge by confidential Greek consular reports of this period—as well as other contemporary sources—the situation in this part of Macedonia was fluid, uncertain and bound to quick changes. The Grecophone, Vlachophone, and Albanophone Christian groups were viewed as having espoused the hellenic national idea (although Roumanian and Albanian national ideas made, about this time, a timid appearance among the latter groups). The Slavophones, however, were an open case. There were those who were strongly attached to Hellenism—a fact which gained them the name of &quot;Grecomans&quot;. And there were those who had definitely adhered to the Bulgarian national idea. But among the two elements, there were still the shifting groups, mostly of the peasantry, with yet no concrete national orientation. This central zone of Macedonia, where this ethnic confusion existed, was defined in consular reports as follows: To the north it ran from lake Ohrid to Krousovo, south of Prilep, north of Bitola and then on a line all the way to Nestos (Mesta) river, leaving inside the belt the towns of Strumnitsa, Petrich, Melnik, Nevrokop. To the south it commenced from Grammos, covered half of the Kaza of Kastoria, south of Florina and Edessa, north of Kozani, Thessaloniki, Chalkidiki, all the way to Serres and Drama. 

As a result of this assessment, the northern tier of Macedonia was crossed off from the national program of the Greek Megali Idea, admittedly with a certain degree of reluctance on the part of the most ardent nationalists. Immediately, Greek historians sought to armour the new line with scholarly evidence, proving that, indeed, the excluded region had, in fact, no historical grounds to be considered as Macedonia, as it had never been part of the ancient Macedonian State. Thus, the northern limits of the central belt had, early in the 80’s, formed the maximum of Greek claims in Macedonia. 

The next step was to secure foreign recognition or support to these claims. Russia and Austria-Hungary were excluded as both were viewed as rivals to Greek interests in Macedonia. Britain was considered a natural alIy. But British policy aimed at strengthening, through reforms, Ottoman authority over its regions, not at encouraging Greek nationalist aspirations. To get out of the impasse, Greek leaders, in Athens as well as Constantinople, sought to develop friendly relations with the Turks. But even this policy was carried half-heartedly. It is characteristic that when in 1884, the Sultan invited King George, to visit him in Constantinople, the Greek Government sought to take advantage by setting out a number of terms mostly of a commercial and legal nature. Of course, the visit did not take place. On the local level, similar attempts to induce local Ottoman authorities to take up Greek grievances— particularly on issues referring to the return of a school or a church from the Exarchists to the Patriarchists—proved of ephemeral value. Decisions were easily reversed, sometimes within the same day. Soon, the Greek consuls reported that Ottoman administrators meant to assist the weaker side, and to punish the least obedient one, thus maintaining the necessary balance which ensured their rule over all the Christians. 

With the failure of the policy of rapprochement with the Turks, another option to Greek diplomacy was to try to reach an understanding with the Balkan neighbours. This had been a popular idea in the past, both with the masses and the leaders. But, now the ranks of the dedicated followers of the dogma &quot;the East to the Easterners&quot;, had shrunk. Yet, opportunities did not cease to present themselves. 

Such an opportunity to open a Greco-Bulgarian dialogue appeared in 1883, with Prince Alexander’s visit to Athens. The Greek government, however, realizing that the Prince remained firm on his view for an extension of Bulgaria all the way to Thessaloniki, advised that no meaningful discussions could be held on such a basis. If, however, he would be willing to sharply curtail Bulgarian claims in Macedonia, the Greek government would not raise any objections to a future union of Eastern Rumelia with the Bulgarian Principality. Naturally, the visit did not bring any fruits. 

About the same time, another opportunity was lost, when the Russian government conveyed to Patriarch Joakim III proposals for amending the schism. And although the Patriarch was inclined to discuss them, the Greek government strongly advised against it. It was by now apparent, that unless the Exarchate was excluded from the dioceses of the central zone of Macedonia, the Greeks would prefer the retention of the schism to a compromise which would endanger their positions in the region. 

With the Serbs the omens appeared more favourable. But the initiatives again did not come from the Greek side. It is well known, that following the Congress of Berlin, the Serbs had turned their attention in the direction of Macedonia. Repeatedly, they tried to come to an understanding with the Greeks, in order to curtail excessive Bulgarian aspirations. The Greeks, however, showed some concern with publicised Serbian claims, which cut deep into the central zone of Macedonia. For this reason, as a prerequisite to a meaningful discussion, they were requesting a clear statement of Serbian territorial claims, which naturally was not forthcoming. As a result, the Greeks, through the Patriarchate, were temporizing in naming Serbian bishops to certain northern dioceses. Only in 1885, when the Bulgarians proclaimed the union of Eastern Rumelia with the Bulgarian Principality, did the Greek and Serbian governments sought to come to an understanding for an alliance and a settlement in Macedonia. The active intervention, however, of the Powers restrained Greece from entering into a war, as the Serbs did. Greek mobilization was to prove a heavy burden on Greek economy, which, alongside with the deterioration of relations with Turkey, was to affect adversary Greek positions in Macedonia. 

The failure of Greek diplomacy to find foreign support for its aims in Macedonia, compelled the Greeks to shift their efforts into the interior of Macedonia. Resting solely on their own means, they set out to hold the lines of Hellenism as far to the north as possible. 

Briefly, the Greek work in Macedonia, during this period, was focussed on the following directions: 

a. Strengthening Greek education throughout the region. Emphasis was given to building new schools from the primary level to teacher colleges. Special care was given to the education of girls. Scholarships to Athens University increased. Hitherto, the coordination of the educational work was carried out by a private society called &quot;Association for the Advancement of Greek Letters&quot;, while a similar organization existed in Constantinople. But by the mid 80’s, the program was reaching proportions which could not be controlled by a private organization. In its place a Committee was established in 1887 which, in substance, was a government agency. Immediately, however, problems were created with the Patriarchate and the bishops who objected to the direct involvement of the Athens government and its consuls with the education of the subject Greeks. The conflict raised many obstacles to the Greek educational program and, in the end, it brought in the Ottoman Government, who sought to keep a closer eye on the education of the subject Christians. 

b. Strengthening the Church institutions. Although on a number of issues, the nationalist policy of the Greek state, and the ecclesiastical views of the higher clergy did not coinside, the Greek government sought to support, even financially, some vulnerable dioceses. Generally, however, Athens failed to achieve perfect coordination with the bishops. In the event, consuls and bishops were more frequently than not, at loggerheads. 

c. Strengthening the economic potential of the Greeks. Many proposals of such a nature were advanced during this period, but very little was achieved in the form of a coordinating program. What was achieved in that direction was basically the result of private initiative. Suffices only to mention the Greek government’s efforts to increase commercial communication between the Kingdom and Macedonia, by the linkage of Greek and Ottoman railways (which the Turks refused), as well as by operating regular lines between Volos and the Macedonian ports. Another interesting project, which did not materialize during this period, was the establishment in Macedonian towns of branches of a Greek - controlled agricultural bank, to assist, through credits, the Greek element of the population. Due to the Ottomans’ reservations to capital investment from the Kingdom, an alternative was discussed with Ottoman Greek financial circles, particularly those connected with the Ottoman Bank. Probably it is no coincidence that years later, a branch of this bank was opened in Thessaloniki. 

d. To counteract similar tactics on the Bulgarian side, the Greek consulates sought to establish networks of agents for collecting and dispersing information, outside the regular channels of teachers and clergy. It is interesting to note that a significant number of these agents were medical doctors, graduates of the University of Athens. 

e. Armed activity, as proposed on a number of occasions by Macedonian Greeks in the field, was categorically turned down by the Greek governments of this period. Nevertheless, violence did erupt on many occasions in various communities, but no evidence exists to suggest that the government in Athens, or its official representatives in the field, had a direct or indirect implication in such occurrences. 

Such, very briefly, were the means employed by the Greeks to carry through their program in Macedonia. A program which required if not the support of the local Ottoman authorities, at least their favourable disposition. This was not the case. The three years of conflict over the Thessaly-Epirus territorial issue, and Greek mobilization in 1886, had a direct adverse impact on Turkish attitude toward the Greeks in Macedonia. 

As an epilogue, one could add, that in the years following 1886, Greek efforts in Macedonia were weakened. Renewed disturbances in Crete shifted the attention of the successive governments of the Greek Kingdom to the south, while the Turks adopted an even more negative attitude, toward Greek operations in Macedonia. An economic crisis in the Kingdom, sharply reduced financial aid to Greek institutions in Macedonia and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. Under these circumstances, strongly nationalist elements began to show impatience and to form secret societies with the aim of imposing a &quot;dynamic&quot; policy. This coincided with similar activities of the Bulgarians, following the annexation of Eastern Rumelia. 

It was, therefore, clear that during the first decade following the Congress of Berlin, the Greeks had come to realize the importance of developments in Macedonia and to seek to formulate a policy based on existing realities rather than sentimental prejudices and wishful thinking. Although internal difficulties and pressures from other regions of the Ottoman Empire mounted, it was evident that the Macedonian Question was assuming a pivotal role in the Eastern Question and, indeed, in the process for the liberation and unification of Greeks in one national state.


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>fgs5qck84eby4fa9zw3g0kvpckdicsi</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Kога ќе одиш моме за вода</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2186</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11070</id>
      <parentid>5266</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:21:09Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;already on wikisource [[:s:Кога ќе одиш моме за вода]]&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1085" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=already on wikisource [[:s:Кога ќе одиш моме за вода]]}}
:Kога ќе одиш моме за вода, (х2)
:и мене Злато моме да ме ругаш. (х2)

:Да ти поносам моме стомните, (х2)
:да не те бољат моме раците. (х2)

:Kога ќе одиш моме за слама, (х2)
:и мене Злато моме да ме ругаш. (х2)

:Да ти поносам моме косето, (х2)
:да не те боља моме рачето. (х2)

:Kога ќе одиш моме на нива, (х2)
:и мене Злато моме да ме ругаш. (х2)

:Да ти поносам моме дикељо, (х2)
:да не те боља моме лакчето. (х2)

Оваа песна е собрана од селото [[Куфаја]], од околината на [[Солун]]. 

== Надворешна врска ==

[http://www.mkmuzika.com Во изведба на [[Костас Новакис]] ]

[[Категорија:Македонски народни песни]]</text>
      <sha1>g9gfiutui5d0hwp091fqhrc6y5ie9xv</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>CASE OF STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2211</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11050</id>
      <parentid>5318</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:14:33Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="2205" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
COUNCIL OF EUROPE

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

(Applications nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 October 2001

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
 
In the case of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mrs	E. PALM, President,
	Mrs	W. THOMASSEN,
	Mr	L. FERRARI BRAVO,
	Mr	J. CASADEVALL,
	Mr	B. ZUPANČIČ,
	Mr	T. PANŢÎRU,
	Mrs	S. BOTOUCHAROVA, judges,
and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2000 and on 11 September 2001,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

*[[PROCEDURE]]
*THE FACTS
:*[[I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE]]
::*[[A.  Background of the case]]
::*[[B.  Prohibitions against the holding of meetings during the period under consideration]]
::*[[C.  Other evidence concerning the aims and the activities of the applicant association and its supporters]]
::*[[D.  Evidence submitted by the Government in support of their allegation that some of the members of the applicant association were in possession of arms]]
::*[[E.  Government’s summary of the historical context]]
:*[[II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW]]
*THE LAW
:*[[I.  THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS]]
:*[[II.  SCOPE OF THE CASE]]
:*[[III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION]]
::*[[A.  Arguments of the parties]]
::*[[B.  The Court’s assessment]]
:*[[IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION]]
::*[[A.  The applicants’ claims]]
::*[[B.  The Government’s submissions]]
::*[[C.  The Court’s assessment]]
*[[FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT]]
*[[DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BOTOUCHAROVA]]


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>f94pidoe0gjk4oozol2u6qw2g41ddx5</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>PROCEDURE</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2212</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11051</id>
      <parentid>5299</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:14:53Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3375" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95) against Bulgaria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Boris Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“the applicants”). The applications were introduced on 29 July 1994. Additional complaints were introduced on various dates between 1994 and 1997 (see the annex to the Commission’s partial decision of 21 October 1996 and the Commission’s final decision on admissibility of 29 June 1998).

2.  The applicants appointed as their representative Mr Iordan Kostadinov Ivanov, a Bulgarian citizen residing in Sandanski, who was chairman of the applicant association for an unspecified period. In June 1998 Mr Ivanov, in turn, instructed Mr L. Hincker, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. Mr Hincker first wrote on 19 June 1998 but did not intervene in the proceedings until the oral hearing (see below paragraph 7).
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs G. Samaras, of the Ministry of Justice.

3.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the authorities’ refusal to allow the holding of their commemorative meetings on 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995, and 20 April and 2 August 1997.

4.  Having joined the applications and declared them partly inadmissible on 21 October 1996, the Commission declared the remainder admissible on 29 June 1998. As the Commission had not completed its examination of the case by 1 November 1999, the case was transmitted to the Court on that date in accordance with Article 5 § 3, second sentence, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention.

5.  The applications were allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

6.  By letter of 9 May 2000 the parties were invited to submit written observations on the merits before 30 June 2000.
By letter of 22 June 2000 the applicants submitted short observations on the merits. The Government’s memorial was filed on 25 July 2000.

7.  A hearing, which was initially scheduled for 12 September 2000 but was postponed upon the Government’s request, took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 17 October 2000 (Rule 59 § 2).

There appeared before the Court:

(a)  for the Government
Mrs	G. SAMARAS, Ministry of Justice,	Agent;

(b)  for the applicants
Mr	L. HINCKER, Avocat,	Counsel,
Mrs M. LEMAITRE,	Adviser.

Mr Iordan Kostadinov Ivanov, chairman of the applicant association, was also present.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Hincker and Mrs Samaras.

8.  On 24 October 2000 the applicants’ lawyer filed written submissions on the claims for just satisfaction made at the hearing. The Government replied on 29 December 2000.


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>qp4fw4u96gw2wtrp1i7n75lbt15a26r</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2213</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11052</id>
      <parentid>5300</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:14:58Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="687" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
9.  The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“the applicant association” or “Ilinden”) is an association based in south-west Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia).
Mr Boris Stankov is a Bulgarian citizen who was born in 1926 and resides in Petrich. At the relevant time he was the chairman of a branch of the applicant association.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>3f476gpzy9vudbxe18239qawqoyapjz</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>B. Prohibitions against the holding of meetings during the period under consideration</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2215</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11054</id>
      <parentid>5302</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:05Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7718" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
1.  Events of July 1994

19.  In July 1994 Mr Stankov, as chairman of the Petrich branch of the applicant association, requested the mayor of Petrich to authorise a meeting in the area of Samuilova krepost, to be held on 31 July 1994 in commemoration of a historical event. On 13 July 1994 permission was refused by the mayor, but no reasons were given. The applicant association appealed to the Petrich District Court which dismissed the appeal on 16 July 1994. The District Court found that since the applicant association had been banned, there were well-founded fears that the demonstration would endanger public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
On 28 July 1994 Mr Iordan Kostadinov Ivanov, the representative of the applicant association, and another person, were issued written warnings by the police to stay away from the official traditional fair at Samuilova krepost. The warnings stated that they were based on the applicable law.

20.  Despite the refusal of the authorities, on 31 July 1994 some members of the applicant association (120-150 according to the applicants’ assessment) attempted to approach the historical site of Samuilova krepost but the police, who according to the applicants were heavily armed, blocked their way.
In the Government’s submission, the allegation that the area had been sealed off was “manifestly ill-founded”.

2.  Events of April 1995

21.  On 10 April 1995 the applicant association requested the mayor of Sandanski to authorise a meeting to be held on 22 April 1995 at the grave of Yane Sandanski at the Rozhen monastery, in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of his death.
This was refused on 14 April 1995 as the applicant association was not duly registered by the courts. On 15 April 1995 the applicant association appealed to the Sandanski District Court stating inter alia that the Macedonian people had been deprived of their right to their own cultural life in violation of international law. The District Court never examined the appeal.

22.  On 22 April 1995 the municipality of the town of Sandanski held an official ceremony to mark the anniversary of Yane Sandanski’s death. The event took place at his grave at the Rozhen monastery. The ceremony commenced at about 10 a.m.
The applicants submitted that a group of their supporters who had travelled to the Rozhen monastery on 22 April 1995 had been ordered by the police to leave their cars in the nearby town of Melnik and had been transported to the monastery by local buses. There they had been allowed to visit the grave, to lay a wreath and to light candles. However, they had not been allowed to bring to the site the placards, banners and musical instruments which they were carrying or to make speeches at the grave. The police had allegedly taken away the ribbon attached to the wreath. The participants had then celebrated the event, without music, near the monastery but away from the grave.

3.  Events of July 1995

23.  In July 1995, as in previous years, the applicant association again requested authorisation to hold a commemorative meeting on 30 July 1995 at Samuilova krepost, the historical site in the vicinity of Petrich. On 14 July 1995 the mayor of Petrich refused the request without giving reasons. Upon the applicant’s appeal the refusal was upheld by judgment of the Petrich District Court of 18 July 1995. The District Court found that the “holding of a commemorative meeting of Ilinden on 30 July 1995 at Samuilova krepost would endanger public order”.

4.  Events of April 1997

24.  On 8 April 1997 the applicant association informed the mayor of Sandanski and the local police that they were organising a meeting to be held on 20 April 1997 at the Rozhen monastery to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Yane Sandanski. It stated in the letter to the mayor that Yane Sandanski, who is considered in Bulgaria as a Bulgarian national hero, was in fact a “Macedonian fighter for the national independence of Macedonia from Turkish rule and against the Bulgarian oppressors”.
On 11 April 1997 the mayor refused to grant permission. He stated that permission for the commemoration of the same historical event had been requested on 4 April 1997 by the director of the local high school. The mayor further explained that the commemoration would be organised jointly by the school and the municipality and that “every [person], individually, could come”.

25.  On 15 April 1997 Ilinden appealed to the Sandanski District Court against the mayor’s refusal stating inter alia that the mayor had not allowed them, “as a separate ethnic community”, to organise a meeting at the tomb of their national hero.
On 17 April 1997 the President of the Sandanski District Court issued an order refusing to examine the appeal on the merits as it had been submitted on behalf of an unregistered organisation.

26.  The date on which that order was notified to the applicant association is unclear. The applicants initially denied having received a response to their appeal, but in later submissions to the Commission stated that on 5 May 1997 they had become aware of the order of 17 April 1997.

27.  As the defects in the appeal were not remedied within the statutory seven-days’ time-limit, on 5 May 1997 the President of the Sandanski District Court ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings. That order was notified to the applicant association on 13 August 1997.
28.  The applicants claimed that on 20 April 1997 the police had prevented a group of their supporters from approaching the Rozhen monastery and that two persons had been ill-treated. They submitted that on 20 April 1997 only 13 students and two teachers from the local high school had arrived at the Rozhen monastery. The students had laid a wreath in the presence of the police and had left two minutes later.

5.  Events of July and August 1997

29.  On 14 July 1997 Mr Stankov as President of the association’s branch in Petrich requested authorisation for a commemorative meeting to be held on 2 August 1997 at Samuilova krepost, in the outskirts of Petrich. On 17 July 1997 the mayor refused the request, stating that the applicant association was not “a legitimate organisation”.

30.  On 20 July 1997 the applicant association appealed to the Petrich District Court against the refusal of the mayor stating inter alia that there was no legal provision prohibiting meetings of organisations which were not “legitimate” and that the planned public event would be peaceful and would not endanger public order.

By decision of 1 August 1997 the Petrich District Court dismissed the appeal on the merits. It found that the applicant association was not duly registered “in accordance with the laws of the country” and that it had not been shown that the persons who had acted on its behalf actually represented it. As a result, it had been unclear who had organised the event and who would be responsible for order during the meeting, in accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the Law on Meetings and Marches. The District Court concluded that the lack of clarity as regards the organisers of a public event endangered public order and the rights and freedoms of others.

31.  The applicants submitted that on 2 August 1997 the police had not allowed a group of supporters of the applicant association to reach the historical site in the vicinity of Petrich.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>1fpfvtbcktcd3zbwjwf9f6k9omb640u</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>C. Other evidence concerning the aims and the activities of the applicant association and its supporters</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2216</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11055</id>
      <parentid>5303</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:09Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6961" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
32.  The parties made submissions and presented copies of documents concerning the activities of the applicant association.

It appears that some of the documents relied upon by the Government concern statements of persons adhering to a faction or a branch of the applicant association. Those groups apparently differed in their views and activities.

33.  The Government relied on the declaration of 20 April 1991 (see paragraph 16 above), on the police report concerning the meetings of 1990 and 1991 (see paragraph 17 above) and on other material.

The Government submitted that during meetings, in letters to institutions or in statements to the media persons associated with the applicant association and its supporters had made declarations to the effect that they wished that the Bulgarians left the region of Pirin Macedonia and stated that there could be “no peace on the Balkans unless the Bulgarians, the Geeks and all others recognise the national rights of the Macedonian people and no democracy in any Balkan country without such recognition”.

34.  The Government submitted copies of several issues of Vestnik za Makedonzite v Balgaria i Po Sveta and Makedonska poshta, pamphlets published by one of the factions linked to the applicant association, and copies of press material. These contain information, inter alia, about a “secret” private meeting of a faction of the applicant association held on 28 September 1997. The meeting allegedly declared that on 10 August 1998 the region of Pirin Macedonia would become “politically, economically and culturally autonomous” or independent. That was so because on that day, 85 years after the Bucharest treaty of 1913, the States Parties to it were allegedly under the obligation to withdraw from the “enslaved” Macedonian territories.

Makedonska poshta further invited all Macedonians to a procession in Sofia on 3 August 1998. The invitation stressed that the participants should not carry arms.

35.  A hand-written poster, allegedly issued by followers of the applicant association in Petrich, called for a boycott of the 1994 parliamentary elections “to prevent the establishment of legitimate Bulgarian authorities in the region” of Pirin Macedonia. The document further called for a united Macedonian State and for “an international invasion” by the Security Council of the United Nations “according to the model of Grenada, Kuwait and Haiti”.

36.  An appeal for a boycott of the 1997 elections stated that the Macedonians should abstain from voting in protest against the lack of recognition of their rights as a minority.

37.  In a declaration published in the press in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the leaders of a faction linked to the applicant association criticised the Bulgarian authorities for their refusal to recognise the Macedonian language and the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and appealed to various international organisations to exert pressure on the Bulgarian authorities in this respect.

38.  The Government submitted a copy of a “memorandum” addressed to the United Nations, signed by activists of the applicant association or a faction of it, dated 1 July 1997. It contains a short overview of historical events, complaints about the attitude of the Bulgarian authorities and the following main demands: collective minority rights, access to Bulgarian State archives, the return of confiscated material, the revision of the way Bulgarian history is seen, the revision of international treaties of 1912 and 1913, the dissolution of the “political police”, the dissolution of nationalistic and violent parties and organisations, the registration of Ilinden as the legitimate organisation of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, radio broadcasts in Macedonian, an investigation into violations committed against Macedonians, and economic assistance.

The appeal also stated:

“[...] being conscious of the contemporary economic and political realities in the Balkans, Europe and the world, we are not acting through confrontation, tension or violence. Our way to achieve enjoyment of our rights as a Macedonian ethnic minority in Bulgaria and in Pirin Macedonia, where our ethnic and historical roots lie, is through peaceful means and negotiations...
Our peaceful and lawful means [...] are to the advantage of the authorities who [...] deny the existence of a Macedonian minority. Our democratic ways are to our detriment: the authorities can afford political, economic and psychological pressure, and arms.”

39.  Before the Court the Government relied on a judgment of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court of 29 February 2000 in a case concerning the constitutionality of a political party, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN: Party for Economic Development and the Integration of the Population (“UMOIPIRIN”), which had been registered by the competent courts in 1999. The Constitutional Court found that that party’s aims were directed against the territorial integrity of the country and that therefore it was unconstitutional.

40.  The Constitutional Court noted that UMOIPIRIN could be regarded as a successor to or a continuation of the applicant association. On that basis the Constitutional Court relied extensively on submissions about the history and the activities of the applicant association in the assessment of the question whether UMOIPIRIN was constitutional.
In particular, the Constitutional Court took note of the demands made in the declaration of the applicant association of 20 April 1991 (see paragraph 16 above). It also observed that maps of the region, depicting as Macedonian parts of Bulgarian and Greek territory, had been published by the association and that there had been repeated calls for autonomy and even secession. The Constitutional Court further noted that representatives of the applicant association had made offensive remarks against the Bulgarian nation.

41.  The Constitutional Court thus found that the applicant association and UMOIPIRIN considered the region of Pirin as a territory which was only temporarily under Bulgarian control and would soon become independent. Their activities were therefore directed against the territorial integrity of the country and were as such prohibited under Article 44 § 2 of the 1991 Constitution. The prohibition was in conformity with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, there being no doubt that an activity against the territorial integrity of the country endangered its national security.

The judgment was adopted by nine votes to three. The dissenting justices gave separate opinions which have not been published.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>hqeiwu5ebks1srf8ide64wnkz6ybnsw</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>D. Evidence submitted by the Government in support of their allegation that some of the members of the applicant association were in possession of arms</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2217</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11056</id>
      <parentid>5304</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:12Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1818" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
42.  In support of this allegation the Government have submitted copies of two documents.

43.  The first is a copy of an article from the Kontinent daily newspaper, dated 1/2 March 1997. The newspaper informed that a Mr D.P.K. had been arrested in Petrich for having threatened police officers with blowing up their homes, as they had impeded his business. During the arrest the police had allegedly discovered explosives in Mr D.P.K.’s home. The short publication went on by recalling that Mr D.P.K. was allegedly a leader of Ilinden and a “Macedonian activist”.

44.  The second submission appears to be a photocopy of a flyer announcing the founding of an organisation and inviting those interested to join. The document bears no signature. It dates allegedly from 1995 and appears to have been typed on a typewriter.
The flyer explained that the newly created United Macedonian Organisation Nova did not wish to replace Ilinden. It criticised certain leaders of the applicant association.
The flyer further stated that the new organisation would form armed groups with the aim of “helping the Republic of Macedonia to survive”.

45.  The Government have not provided any comment or additional information on the contents of the two documents submitted by them.

46.  During the hearing before the Court, in response to a question put to her, the Government’s agent informed the Court that no criminal proceedings relevant to the present case have ever been brought against members of the applicant association.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>9ynbncrb8l2uxd25xdb39qfsp463i2c</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>E. Government’s summary of the historical context</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2218</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11057</id>
      <parentid>5305</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:18Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3344" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
47.  The Government stressed that knowledge of the historical context and of the current situation in Bulgaria and on the Balkans was essential for the understanding of the issues in the present case. Their explanation may be summarised as follows:

“Historically, the Bulgarian nation consolidated within several geographical regions, one of them being the geographical region of Macedonia. In 1878, when Bulgaria was partially liberated from Turkish dominance, the Berlin Peace Treaty left the region of Macedonia within the borders of Turkey. Between 1878 and 1913 the Bulgarian population of Macedonia organised five unsuccessful uprisings seeking liberation from Turkish rule and union with Bulgaria. There followed massive refugee migrations from the region to the Bulgarian motherland. Hundreds of thousands of Macedonian Bulgarians settled in Bulgaria.

In 1934 the so-called ‘Macedonian nation’ was proclaimed for the first time by a resolution of the Communist International. Before that no reliable historical source had ever mentioned any Slavic population in the region other than the Bulgarian population. After the Second World War the Communist power in Yugoslavia proclaimed the concept of a separate Macedonian nation. A separate language and alphabet were created and imposed by decree of 2 August 1944. A massive assimilation campaign accompanied by brutalities was launched in Yugoslavia. For a short period of time the Bulgarian Communist Party – inspired by the idea of creating a Bulgarian-Yugoslav federation – also initiated a campaign of forcible imposition of a ‘Macedonian’ identity on the population in the region of Pirin Macedonia. In the 1946 and 1956 censuses individuals living in that region were forced to declare themselves ‘Macedonians’. The campaign was abandoned in 1963, partly due to the refusal of the population to change their identity.

In those parts of the geographical region of Macedonia which were in Yugoslavia the realities of the bi-polar cold-war world – where the relations between Yugoslavia and the socialist block dominated by the USSR were tense – exacerbated the population’s feeling of doom and exasperation and their fear that unification with Bulgaria proper would never be possible. The forcible imposition of a Macedonian identity by the Tito regime also played a decisive role.
Therefore, even if a process of formation of a new nation has taken place, it was limited to the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

In the 1992 census, only 3,019 Bulgarian citizens identified themselves as Macedonians and indicated Macedonian as their mother tongue. Another 7,784 declared themselves Macedonians in the geographical sense, while allegedly indicating their Bulgarian national conscience and mother tongue.

Individuals considering themselves Macedonians are far from being discriminated against in Bulgaria. They have their own cultural and educational organisation, Svetlina. There are books and newspapers in the ‘Macedonian language’”.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>3x4qtkigkzuddq58qkf7dplnhrwg9k9</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2219</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11058</id>
      <parentid>5306</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:22Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4442" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
48.  The provisions of the Constitution of July 1991 concerning freedom of assembly read as follows:

Article 43

“(1)  Everyone shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly at meetings and marches.

(2)  The procedure for organising and holding meetings and marches shall be provided for by act of Parliament.

(3)  Permission shall not be required for meetings to be held indoors.”
Article 44 § 2
“Organisations whose activities are directed against the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the country or against the unity of the nation, or aim at stirring racial, national, ethnic or religious hatred, or at violating the rights and freedoms of others, as well as organisations creating secret or paramilitary structures, or which seek to achieve their aims through violence, shall be prohibited.”

49.  The legal requirements for the organisation of meetings are set out in the Law on Meetings and Marches of 1990. Its relevant provisions are as follows:

Section 2

“Meetings and marches may be organised by individuals, associations, political or other public organisations.”

Section 6 § 2

“(2)  Every organiser [of] or participant [in a march or a meeting] shall be responsible for damage caused through his or her fault during the [event].”

Section 8 § 1

“Where a meeting is to be held outdoors the organisers shall notify in writing the [respective] People’s Council or mayor’s office not later than 48 hours before the beginning [of the meeting] and shall indicate the [name of] the organiser, the aim [of the meeting], and the place and time of the meeting.”

Section 9 § 1

“The organisers of the meeting shall take the measures necessary to ensure order during the event.”

Section 10

“(1)  The meeting shall be presided over by a president.

(2)  The participants shall abide by the instructions of the president concerning the preservation of [public] order ...”

50.  Prohibitions against meetings are also regulated by the Law on Meetings and Marches:

Section 12

“(1)  Where the time or the place of the meeting, or the itinerary of the march, would create a situation endangering public order or traffic safety, the President of the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, or the mayor, respectively, shall propose their modification.

(2)  The President of the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, or the mayor, shall be competent to prohibit the holding of a meeting, demonstration, or march, where reliable information exists that:

1.  it aims at the violent overturning of Constitutional public order or is directed against the territorial integrity of the country;

2.  it would endanger public order in the local community;

...

4.  it would breach the rights and freedoms of others.

(3)  The prohibition shall be imposed by a written reasoned act not later than 24 hours following the notification.

(4)  The organiser of the meeting, demonstration or march may appeal to the Executive Committee of the People’s Council against the prohibition referred to in the preceding paragraph. The Executive Committee shall decide within 24 hours.

(5)  Where the Executive Committee of the People’s Council has not decided within [that] time-limit, the march, demonstration or meeting may proceed.

(6)  If the appeal is dismissed the dispute shall be referred to the respective district court which shall decide within five days. That court’s decision shall be final.”

51.  The Law on Meetings and Marches was adopted in 1990, when the Constitution of 1971 was in force. Under the Constitution of 1971 the executive local state organs were the Executive Committees of the district People’s Councils. The mayors referred to in some of the provisions of the Law on Meetings and Marches were representatives of the Executive Committee acting in villages and towns which were under the jurisdiction of the respective People’s Councils.
The 1991 Constitution abolished the Executive Committees and established the post of mayor, elected by direct universal suffrage, as the “organ of the executive power in the municipality” 
(Article 139).

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>49d1di8fqn93zjkndzfj30r08sjmehe</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2220</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11059</id>
      <parentid>5307</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4890" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
52.  The Government reiterated and expanded, in the light of recent developments, upon their objections made at the admissibility stage of the proceedings. They submitted that certain discrepancies in the applicants’ statements before various authorities demonstrated the abusive nature of the applications. The Government further maintained that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that the applications were manifestly ill-founded.

Commenting the Commission’s decision on Ilinden’s locus standi, the Government, while not disputing in their memorial the Commission’s conclusion, stated that the judicial decisions of 1990 and 1991 (see above paragraphs 11-13) had the legal effect of a ban on Ilinden’s activities as an association and as a group of individuals. At the oral hearing the Government’s agent asked the Court to find, on that ground, that the applicant association had no locus standi.
The standing of Mr Stankov was not called into question. The Government considered, however, that he was not validly represented before the Court, as he had not authorised Mr Ivanov, his representative, to delegate his power to act to Mr Hincker, who – moreover – had only mentioned Ilinden in his letter to the Court announcing his participation as counsel. The Government further questioned, for the first time in their submissions on Article 41, the validity of Mr Hincker’s power to represent the applicant association, there having been no collective decision by the association’s members authorising Mr Ivanov to delegate his power to act to another person.

53.  The applicants invited the Court to rule on the merits.

54.  The Court recalls that, under the Convention system as in force after 1 November 1998, where the respondent Government repeat objections raised and examined at the admissibility stage, its task is to verify whether there are special circumstances warranting re-examination of questions of admissibility (Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 57, ECHR 1999-V; and Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, § 34, to be published in the court’s official reports).

The provision of Article 35 § 4 in fine of the Convention, which allows the Court to declare an application inadmissible at any stage of the proceedings, does not signify that a respondent State is able to raise an admissibility question at any stage of the proceedings if it could have been raised earlier (see paragraph 88 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 11 to the Convention and Rule 55 of the Rules of Court) or to reiterate it where it has been rejected.

55.  It is true that, unlike the Velikova and Basic cases, in the present instance the questions of admissibility were examined by the Commission, prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, and not by the Court. The Court observes nevertheless that, pursuant to Article 5 § 3 in fine of Protocol No. 11, applications declared admissible by the Commission and transmitted to the Court without the Commission having completed their examination, shall be dealt with “as admissible cases”. The judgment of the Chamber in such cases is not final, subject to the provisions of Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

The Court finds, therefore, that in cases falling under Article 5 § 3 in fine of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention it will only re-open questions of admissibility if there are special circumstances warranting such re-examination.

56.  In the present case the Government essentially reiterated their objections as to the admissibility of the application, which had already been examined and rejected by the Commission in its decision of 29 June 1998.

57.  The Court notes that the Commission dealt with the Government’s arguments in detail and gave full reasons for its decision. Having carefully examined the Government’s submissions, including their comments in the light of new developments, there are no new elements which would justify a re-examination of the admissibility issues in the present case.

In respect of Mr Stankov’s legal representation before it, the Court is satisfied, on the basis of the authorisation forms signed by him and Mr Ivanov (see paragraph 2 above), that he is validly represented. The Court finally does not find anything which would cast doubt on Mr Hincker’s power to represent Ilinden. The Court leaves open the question whether the Government are estopped from raising that question for the first time in their submissions on Article 41 of the Convention.
The Government’s preliminary objections are therefore dismissed.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>ie401gzqejgaw3noux9k3rv7m9hr1ve</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>II. SCOPE OF THE CASE</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2221</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11060</id>
      <parentid>5308</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:30Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="2077" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
58.  The Government relied on evidence which did not concern directly the commemorative meetings of 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995, and 20 April and 2 August 1997. They argued that the ban on holding meetings on those dates should be seen against the background of other events – whether before or after those meetings – and that all information about the activities of the applicant association or other connected organisations and persons should be taken into account. The Government relayed extensive information about events between 1990 and 1993 and also about developments subsequent to the Commission’s final admissibility decision of 29 June 1998.
The applicants also relied on evidence concerning events outside the scope ratione temporis or materiae of the case while disputing the relevance of some of the material submitted by the Government.

59.  The Court recalls that the admissibility decision delimits the scope of the case before it. It follows that it is not its task to decide on complaints concerning events from 1990 to 1993 (which were declared inadmissible by the Commission). Nor is it called upon to express a view in this judgment on the question whether the banning of meetings in 1998, 1999 and 2000 or the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 29 February 2000 were consistent with the Convention (those issues being the subject-matter of other applications pending before the Court: nos. 44079/98, 59489/00 and 59491/00).

The scope of the present case is confined to the applicants’ complaints that the authorities prohibited their meetings on 31 July 1994, 22 April and 30 July 1995, and 20 April and 2 August 1997. The Court will take into account evidence concerning other events in so far as it might be relevant to those complaints.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>2z06xj6fc0slvvlxst0vm4gxy28ytgk</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2222</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11061</id>
      <parentid>5309</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:33Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="876" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
60.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others ...

2.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others...”

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>d1jyf9a049xegngyusmh7zsxlm3gcmb</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>B. The Court’s assessment</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2224</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11063</id>
      <parentid>5311</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:42Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="23337" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
1.  Applicability

76.  The Government expressed doubts as to the peaceful character of the applicant association’s meetings and on that basis disputed the applicability of Article 11 of the Convention.

77.  The Court recalls that Article 11 of the Convention only protects the right to “peaceful assembly”. That notion – according to the Commission’s case-law – does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions (no. 13079/87, dec. 6.3.89, DR 60, p. 256; no. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, DR 21, p. 138).

78.  In the present case, having carefully studied all the material before it, the Court does not find that those involved in the organisation of the prohibited meetings had violent intentions (see above paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 31 and 32-46). Article 11 is thus applicable.

2.  Whether there has been an interference

79.  The Court notes that on all occasions under examination the authorities prohibited the meetings planned by both applicants. That was, indeed, a practice that had been invariably followed ever since 1992 (see above paragraphs 17 and 74). In July 1994 the Chairman of the applicant association and another person were issued police warnings to stay away from the site of their planned commemorative meeting.

In one case, on 22 April 1995, despite the ban imposed by the mayor, supporters of the applicant association were allowed to approach the historical site where they wished to hold their meeting and were able to lay a wreath at the tomb of Yane Sandanski and light candles. That was only possible, however, on the condition that the participants abandoned their posters and slogans. No speeches were allowed to be made at the site. The participants were permitted to celebrate the event only from a certain distance (see paragraph 22 above).

That approach by the authorities, allowing members of the applicant association to attend the official ceremonies held at the same places and time on the occasion of the same historical events, provided that they did not carry their posters and did not hold separate demonstrations, was reiterated in the mayor’s decision of 11 April 1997 and the Government’s submissions to the Court (see paragraphs 24 and 66 above).

80.  On the basis of the above, the Court considers that there has undoubtedly been an interference with both applicants’ freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention.

3.  Whether the interference was prescribed by law

81.  The Court notes that the reasons given by the authorities for the prohibition of meetings fluctuated and were not elaborate. They repeatedly mentioned the lack of registration of the applicant association, a fact which could not in itself, under the applicable law, serve as ground for a ban on a meeting. On two occasions the mayors did not provide reasons and that was only partially rectified by the district courts in their judgments on appeal (see above paragraphs 19, 21, 23, 24, 29 and 30).

The Court observes, however, that the authorities referred to an alleged danger to public order which in accordance with domestic law was among the grounds justifying interference with the right to peaceful assembly. The fact that Ilinden had been refused registration was apparently considered relevant in the assessment of the alleged danger to public order (see above paragraphs 19 and 30 in fine). Furthermore, the prohibitions complained of were imposed by decisions of the competent mayors and courts in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Law on Meetings and Marches.

82.  In these circumstances the Court accepts that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly may be regarded as being “prescribed by law”.

In so far as the applicants challenged the soundness of the authorities’ finding that there had been a danger to public order, that issue falls to be examined in the context of the question whether or not the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly had a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention.

4.  Legitimate aim

83.  In the Government’s view the measures taken against Ilinden’s commemorative meetings pursued several legitimate aims: the protection of national security and territorial integrity, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, guaranteeing public order in the local community and the prevention of disorder and crime.

The applicants disputed that position. In their submission the disguised objective of the prohibitions complained of had been the denial of the collective rights of the Macedonian minority.

84.  The Court recalls that the enumeration of exceptions to freedom of expression and assembly, contained in Articles 10 and 11, is exhaustive. The definitions of those exceptions are necessarily restrictive and must be interpreted narrowly (see, the Sidiropoulos v. Greece judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, §§ 37-39).

Having regard to all the material in the case the Court accepts that the interference was intended to safeguard one or more of the interests cited by the Government.

5.  “Necessary in a democratic society”

(a)  General principles in the Court’s case-law

85.  The Court recalls that notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must also be considered in the light of Article 10. The protection of opinions and the freedom to express them is one of the objectives of the freedoms of assembly and association as enshrined in Article 11 (Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC] , no. 23885/94, § 37, to be published in the Court’s official reports.

Such a link is particularly relevant where – as here – the authorities’ intervention against an assembly or an association was, at least in part, in reaction to views held or statements made by participants or members.

86.  Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49; Gerger v Turkey [GC], appl. 24919/94, § 46, 8 July 1999, unreported).

Likewise, the freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote (the Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, § 32).

87.  The expression “necessary in a democratic society” implies that the interference corresponds to a “pressing social need” and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a “restriction” is reconcilable with the rights protected by the Convention (see Gerger v Turkey, loc. cit., § 46).

When the Court carries out its scrutiny, its task is not to substitute its own view for that of the relevant national authorities but rather to review under Article 11 the decisions they took. This does not mean that it has to confine itself to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; it must look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine, after having established that it pursued a “legitimate aim”, whether it was proportionate to that aim and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are “relevant and sufficient”. In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (the United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 47).

88.  There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, the Wingrove v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, § 58).

One of the principal characteristics of democracy is the possibility it offers of resolving a country’s problems through dialogue, without recourse to violence, even when those problems are irksome. Democracy thrives on freedom of expression. From that point of view, there can be no justification for hindering a group solely because it seeks to debate in public the situation of part of the State’s population and to find, according to democratic rules, solutions capable of satisfying everyone concerned (the United Communist Party of Turkey judgment, loc. cit., § 57).

89.  The inhabitants of a region in a country are entitled to form associations in order to promote the region’s special characteristics. The fact that an association asserts a minority consciousness cannot in itself justify an interference with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention (see the Sidiropoulos judgment, loc. cit., § 44).

90.  Admittedly, it cannot be ruled out that an organisation’s programme may conceal objectives and intentions different from the ones it proclaims. To verify that it does not, the content of the programme must be compared with the organisation’s actions and the positions it defends (the United Communist Party of Turkey judgment, loc. cit., § 58).

An essential factor to be taken into consideration is the question whether there has been a call for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles (Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey, loc. cit., § 40). Where there has been incitement to violence against an individual or a public official or a sector of the population, the State authorities enjoy a wider margin of appreciation when examining the need for an interference with freedom of expression (see the Incal v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1567, § 48 and Sürek (No. 1) v. Turkey [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV).

(b)  Application of the general principles to the present case

91.  The authorities referred to the fact that the applicant association had been refused registration because the courts found that it was anti-constitutional (see paragraphs 11-13 above).

92.  The Court considers, however, that while past findings of national courts which have screened an association are undoubtedly relevant in the consideration of the dangers that its gatherings may pose, an automatic reliance on the very fact that an organisation has been considered anti-constitutional – and refused registration – cannot suffice to justify under Article 11 § 2 of the Convention a practice of systematic bans on the holding of peaceful assemblies.
The Court must rather scrutinise the particular grounds invoked to justify the interference and the significance of that interference.

(i)  Grounds invoked to justify the interference

(α)  Alleged possession of arms

93.  The Government produced a photocopy of a typewritten flyer announcing the creation of armed groups (see paragraph 44 above). It has not been established, however, that it emanated from the applicant association. The Government have not provided any details. Nor have they explained the relevance of the newspaper article submitted by them (see paragraph 43 above) which reported that a man was suspected of certain offences, some of them apparently concerning a private business conflict.

In the Court’s opinion it is evident that if there had been preparation for armed action the Government would have been able to adduce more convincing evidence in this respect.

(β)  Alleged threat to public safety

94.  The Government argued that incidents had occurred in the past, when the applicant association had held meetings and that there was a likelihood of recurrence.
There is no evidence, however, of serious disturbances having been caused by the applicants. The incidents referred to were of a minor nature and did not result in prosecutions (see paragraphs 17, 18 and 46 above). The decisions of the mayors and the local courts referred only to a hypothetical danger for public order, without providing further details.

The risk of minor incidents thus did not call for a ban on Ilinden’s meetings.

(γ)  Alleged dangers stemming from Ilinden’s goals and declarations
Separatist ideas

95.  The Government stressed that the applicant association imperilled Bulgaria’s territorial integrity as it sought secession from Bulgaria.

The applicants stated that the sole purpose of their meetings had been to commemorate historical events and that they did not pursue separatist goals.

96.  On the basis of all the evidence, the Court finds that at the relevant time it was not unreasonable for the authorities to suspect that certain leaders of the applicant association – or small groups which had developed from it – harboured separatist views and had a political agenda that included the notion of autonomy for the region of Pirin Macedonia or even secession from Bulgaria. That is borne out by various statements made by those leaders (see paragraphs 16, 33, 34 and 35). The Court also takes into account the findings of the Supreme Court from 1990 and 1991 and of the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 29 February 2000 (see paragraphs 12, 13 and 39-41 above).

It follows that the authorities could anticipate that separatist slogans would be broadcast by some participants during the commemorative ceremonies.

97.  The Court reiterates, however, that the fact that a group of persons calls for autonomy or even requests secession of part of the country’s territory – thus demanding fundamental constitutional and territorial changes – cannot automatically justify a prohibition of its assemblies. Demanding territorial changes in speeches and demonstrations does not automatically amount to a threat to the country’s territorial integrity and national security.

Freedom of assembly and the right to express one’s views through it are among the paramount values in a democratic society. The essence of democracy is its capacity to resolve problems through open debate. Sweeping measures of a preventive nature to suppress freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles – however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used may appear to the authorities, and however illegitimate the demands made may be – do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it.
In a democratic society based on the rule of law political ideas which challenge the existing order and whose realisation is advocated by peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means.

98.  The Court finds, therefore, that the probability that separatist declarations would be made at meetings organised by Ilinden could not justify a ban on such meetings.
Alleged propagation of violence and rejection of democratic principles

99.  The Government referred to statements which could be interpreted as inviting the Bulgarians to leave the Pirin region to the Macedonians (see above paragraphs 16, 17 and 33) and suggested that even if the separatist aims of Ilinden had not thus far been pursued by them in an openly violent manner, there had nevertheless been some indications that that would happen.

The applicants rejected these allegations as groundless and stressed the peaceful character of their meetings.

100.  There is no doubt that seeking the expulsion of others from a given territory on the basis of ethnic origin is a complete negation of democracy.

It is noteworthy, however, that the Supreme Court, when refusing to allow the registration of the applicant association in 1990 and 1991, and the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 29 February 2000 (see above paragraphs 12, 13 and 39-41) did not state that Ilinden’s goals and activities involved incitement to violence or rejection of democratic rule. Furthermore, no relevant criminal proceedings against members of Ilinden or participants in meetings have ever been brought (see above paragraph 46).

101.  Most of Ilinden’s declarations and statements emphasised their reliance on public debate and political pressure for the achievement of their goals and expressly rejected violence (see paragraphs 10, 16, 37 and 38). Those statements which could be interpreted as calling for violence or rejection of democracy appear isolated against the background of all material in the case. Moreover, since various persons and groups associated with Ilinden had divergent views, not all the material cited necessarily reflected ideas and goals that dominated the applicant association’s agenda.

102.  In its judgment in the case of Incal v. Turkey the Court found that the mere fact that a message read out at a commemorative ceremony to a group of people – which already considerably restricted its potential impact on national security, public order or territorial integrity – contained words such as “resistance”, “struggle” and “liberation”, did not necessarily mean that it constituted an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising (loc. cit., § 50).
In the present case the Court takes into account the fact that some of Ilinden’s declarations apparently included an element of exaggeration as they sought to attract attention.

103.  In the Court’s opinion, there is no indication that the applicant association’s meetings were likely to become a platform for the propagation of violence and rejection of democracy with a potential damaging impact that warranted their prohibition. Any isolated incident could adequately be dealt with through the prosecution of those responsible.

“Conversion” of the Bulgarian population into a Macedonian population

104.  The Government submitted that the applicant association had sought the “conversion of the population in the region into a Macedonian population” in order to achieve its final goal – secession from Bulgaria.

The applicants maintained that Ilinden was an association of the Macedonians in Bulgaria.

105.  The Court does not accept the argument that it was necessary to limit the applicants’ right to demonstrate in order to protect those whom they were allegedly trying to “convert”. It has not been shown that unlawful means of “conversion”, infringing the rights of others, have been or were likely to be employed by the applicants.

Statements perceived as offensive by the public opinion

106.  It appears that Ilinden’s meetings generated a degree of tension given the special sensitivity of public opinion to their ideas which were perceived as an offensive appropriation of national symbols and sacred values (see paragraphs 13, 17, 18 in fine, 24 and 47 above).
In particular, the applicants sought to commemorate historical events, to which they attached a different significance to that which was generally accepted in the country. They considered as Macedonian martyrs historical personalities who were commonly and officially celebrated in the country as Bulgarian national heroes and therefore sought to organise their meetings at the same times and places as the traditional official ceremonies.

107.  However, if every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensitivity of the majority opinion.

The fact that what was at issue touched on national symbols and national identity cannot be seen in itself – contrary to the Government’s view – as calling for a wider margin of appreciation to be left to the authorities. The national authorities must display particular vigilance to ensure that national public opinion is not protected at the expense of the assertion of minority views no matter how unpopular they may be.

(ii)  The significance of the interference

108.  The Government suggested that a fair balance was achieved through the relative flexibility shown – when supporters of Ilinden were allowed to approach the historical sites provided that they did not brandish banners or make speeches –, and that the applicants should have chosen other sites for their meetings.

109.  The Court considers that depriving the applicants of the right to express their ideas through speeches or slogans at meetings cannot reasonably be characterised as evidence of flexibility. Indeed, the authorities had adopted the practice of imposing sweeping bans on Ilinden’s meetings (see above paragraphs 17 and 74).

Furthermore, it was apparent that the time and the place of the ceremonies were crucial to the applicants, as well as for those attending the official ceremony. Despite the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Government in such matters the Court is not convinced that it was not possible to ensure that both celebrations proceeded peacefully either at the same time or one shortly after the other.

(iii)  The Court’s conclusion

110.  As the Government have pointed out, the applicant association had only about 3,000 supporters, not all of whom were active.

The authorities nonetheless resorted to measures aimed at preventing the dissemination of the applicants’ views at the demonstrations they wished to hold.

111.  That approach, in the circumstances where there was no real foreseeable risk of violent action or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles was in the Court’s view not justified under paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Convention.

112.  In sum, the Court finds that the authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation and that the measures banning the applicants from holding commemorative meetings were not necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention.

There was therefore a violation of that provision.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>t7cbaq67sdf9vvm3psenhi5avsqr175</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2225</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11064</id>
      <parentid>5312</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:46Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="621" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
113.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>0k87yjh4qan5nmyjvdm3zv2hc083lxq</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>B. The Government’s submissions</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2227</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11066</id>
      <parentid>5314</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:54Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="2023" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
117.  In respect of the applicants’ claims made in August 1998, on 2 December 1998 the Government commented, stating that if the Committee of Ministers had to rule on them, it should reject them as being unsubstantiated and unrelated to the issues in the case.

The Government’s reply to the applicants’ claims made in October 2000 was submitted at the hearing and in writing on 29 December 2000. They argued that those claims had been submitted out of time under Rule 60 §§ 1 and 3 of the Rules of Court and had not been corroborated by sufficient documentary proof.

118.  The claim in respect of costs in the domestic proceedings – the Government continued – was out of proportion and abusive. The applicants had only submitted, in each case, one-page standard requests and appeals, evidently prepared without legal advice. No court fees had been due and no other expenses incurred.

The DEM 15,000 claimed in respect of the Strasbourg proceedings had not been itemised. The assertion that providing documentary evidence had been difficult was groundless.
In the Government’s view, an award of FRF 35,000 in legal fees would be clearly excessive as it did not correspond to the actual legal work done by the applicants’ counsel and also because the economic conditions in the respondent State should be taken into account. The lawyer’s claim was the equivalent of 146 minimum monthly wages in Bulgaria and of about 6 minimum monthly wages in France.
The Government concluded that an award of costs covering Mr Ivanov’s travel and subsistence expenses for the hearing before the Court (FRF 8,127) plus FRF 5,000 in legal fees for Mr Hincker would be acceptable, if the Court decided to award just satisfaction.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>0otxjbk9zv6ddveewkm22cowqdlcjnw</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>C. The Court’s assessment</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2228</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11067</id>
      <parentid>5315</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:15:59Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3405" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
119.  Rule 60 § 1 of the Rules of Court provides, in so far as relevant:
“any claim which the ... applicant may wish to make for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention shall, unless the President of the Chamber directs otherwise, be set out in the written observations on the merits or, if no such written observations are filed, in a special document filed no later than two months after the decision declaring the application admissible.”

120.  The Court notes that on 25 August 1998 the applicants introduced a general just satisfaction claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs, albeit in the framework of a procedure under former Article 32 of the Convention. That claim has not been withdrawn.

It is true that at the hearing the applicants’ lawyer only claimed costs. However, the Court cannot interpret his submissions as withdrawing the claims filed by the applicants directly, without the involvement of Mr Hincker, in the absence of an express statement in that sense.
As regards the Government’s objection under Rule 60 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court observes that the applicants’ memorial was prepared without legal advice and that the claims which were submitted for the first time at the hearing concerned solely their costs. It is clear that certain costs and expenses, and in particular those related to the hearing, could not be specified in advance.

Finally, the Government were given every opportunity to comment in detail on all the applicants’ claims and have done so, in December 1998 and December 2000.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that there is a validly submitted claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs, which should be examined.

121.  The Court accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a consequence of the violation of their right to freedom of assembly. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards under this head to the applicant association and to Mr Stankov the global sum of FRF 40,000, to be paid jointly to Mr Stankov and to the representative of Ilinden, Mr Ivanov.
The claim in respect of pecuniary damages is unsubstantiated and should be dismissed.

122.  As regards costs in the domestic proceedings, the Court agrees with the Government that the applicants were not legally represented at that level and have not mentioned any legal fees paid.
The applicants must have incurred certain expenses, however, in translating correspondence and submissions for the purposes of the Strasbourg proceedings. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards FRF 3,000 under this head.

123.  In addition, the amounts claimed in respect of Mr Ivanov’s appearance before the Court (FRF 8,127) are to be awarded in full.

As regards counsel’s fees, the Court, noting that Mr Hincker was only involved in the last stage of the proceedings and ruling on an equitable basis, awards FRF 25,000.

124.  According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in France at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 4.26% per annum.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>gchql0n355d95gtqf3tikt70fw8z0h5</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2229</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11068</id>
      <parentid>5316</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:16:03Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1657" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
1.  Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objections;

2.  Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;

3.  Holds by six votes to one, that the respondent State is to pay jointly to Mr Stankov and Mr Ivanov, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, 40,000 (forty thousand) French francs for non-pecuniary damage;

4.  Holds unanimously, that the respondent State is to pay jointly to Mr Stankov and Mr Ivanov, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, 36,127 (thirty six thousand one hundred twenty seven) French francs for costs and expenses, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable;

5.  Holds unanimously, that simple interest at an annual rate of 4.26% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

6.  Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and delivered in writing on 2 October 2001.

	Michael O’BOYLE	Elisabeth PALM

	Registrar	President

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the dissenting opinion of Mrs Botoucharova is annexed to this judgment.

E.P.
M.O’B.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>qgepy7xedzfgqiw9tpt64vosiyo605q</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BOTOUCHAROVA</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2230</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11069</id>
      <parentid>5317</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:16:07Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4481" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Case_of_Stankov_and_the_United_Macedonian_Organization_Ilinden_v._Bulgaria}}
I voted against the finding of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in the present case.
My analysis starts from the same general principles as that of the majority: paragraphs 85-90 of the judgment, which set out the essence of the Court’s case-law on freedom of assembly and expression and, in particular, the criteria on the basis of which an interference with those freedoms in cases such as the present one may be considered justified. I accept fully the summary of those criteria.

In my opinion, however, their application to the facts of the case before us – a border-line case – may lead to a different conclusion if appropriate weight is given to the fact that the applicants’ demonstrations posed risks for public order in the local community. The authorities, when restricting the applicants’ right to hold commemorative meetings, repeatedly referred to the existing danger of clashes between the supporters of Ilinden and those participating in the official ceremonies which were held at the same place and time. The fears were based on past experience: there had been a number of previous incidents at events organised by Ilinden, and their attitude was characterised as “provocative” (see paragraph 17 of the judgment). That last element was of crucial importance as it meant that the authorities were convinced that Ilinden supporters might seek to provoke disorder and clashes. What is at issue in this case, however, is the freedom of peaceful assembly.

The protection of the rights of others, public safety and the prevention of disorder are legitimate aims that may justify, under Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, an interference with freedom of peaceful assembly provided that such interference is proportionate to the aims pursued.
The Bulgarian authorities were apparently conscious of the requirement not to restrict Ilinden’s freedoms beyond what was necessary. The prohibitions complained of only concerned specific dates and places. On some of the dates when demonstrations were planned, the authorities did not prevent Ilinden’s supporters from reaching the historical sites, but required them to abandon provocative slogans.

The Court has established in its case-law that “by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, state authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the ... [necessity of an interference] ...The Court, which ... is responsible for ensuring observance of those states’ engagements, is empowered to give the final ruling on whether [an interference was justified] ... Consequently, Article 10 § 2 [as well as Article 11 § 2] leave[] to the Contracting States a margin of appreciation... The domestic margin of appreciation ... goes hand in hand with a European supervision” (the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 22-23).

Taking into account the domestic margin of appreciation, the Convention organs found in many cases that restrictions on demonstrations were justified on public-order grounds. To cite some examples, the following prohibitions on assemblies were considered in conformity with Article 11 § 2: a two-month ban on public processions other than customary ones in London (no. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, DR 21 p. 138); a general ban on demonstrations on issues related to Northern Ireland in Trafalgar Square in London (no. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, DR 81-A, p. 146); a four-day ban on assemblies within a radius of four miles from the Stonehenge Monument in view of past incidents and disorder caused by Druid followers (no. 31416/96, Dec. 19.10.98 (unreported).

In my opinion, the Bulgarian authorities in the particular circumstances of the present case did not overstep their margin of appreciation and restricted the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly to the extent strictly necessary for the protection of the rights of others, public safety and the prevention of disorder.

As I did not find a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, I also voted against the award on non-pecuniary damages to the applicants.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>4mq0qlidc55bv2raqhk7lc4qfrlv63p</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians?</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2232</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11007</id>
      <parentid>5324</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:29:54Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="5317" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio}}
Eugene Borza

Who Were (and Are) the Macedonians?

(Abstract from a paper presented at the 1996 Annual meeting of the American Philological
Association http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/96program.html)

This paper seeks to illuminate the problems associated with determining the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians (were they Greek?), and to discuss the &quot;reverberations&quot; (to use the organizers' term) of that issue in modem times. While the 1971 OED may regard the use of the word &quot;ethnicity&quot; as obsolete, no adequate substitute for the word exists. Indeed, part of the discussion in my paper will, following the lead of Loring Danforth in his recent The Macedonian Conflict.- Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton 1995), attempt to illustrate some principles by which the &quot;ethnicity&quot; of the ancient Macedonians--and, perhaps, other ancient peoples--can be discussed in a coherent manner. 

Among the questions asked as appropriate to a methodological model of determining ethnicity are: 

I. What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive. On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks.

II. Self-identity: what did the Macedonians say or think about themselves? Virtually nothing has survived from the Macedonians themselves (they are among the silent peoples of antiquity), and very little remains in the Classical and Hellenistic non-Macedonian sources about Macedonian attitudes.

III. What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.

IV. What is the nature of cultural expressions as revealed by archaeology? As above we are blessed with an increasing amount of physical evidence revealing information about Macedonian tastes in art and decoration, religion, political and economic institutions, architecture and settlement patterns. Clearly the Macedonians were in many respects Hellenized, especially on the upper levels of their society, as demonstrated by the excavations of Greek archaeologists over the past two decades. Yet there is much that is different, e. g., their political institutions, burial practices, and religious monuments.

I will argue that, whoever the Macedonians were, they emerged as a people distinct from the Greeks who lived to the south and east. In time their royal court--which probably did not have Greek origins (the tradition in Herodotus that the Macedonian kings were descended from Argos is probably a piece of Macedonian royal propaganda)--became Hellenized in many respects, and I shall review the influence of mainstream Greek culture on architecture, art, and literary preferences. 

Finally, a took at contemporary Balkan politics. The Greek government firmly maintains that the ancient Macedonians were ethnic Greeks, and that any claim by the new Republic of Macedonia (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) to the name &quot;Macedonia&quot; and the symbols of ancient Macedonia is tantamount to an expropriation of Greek history. Moreover, it is claimed that there is no such thing as a distinct Slavic Macedonian identity and language separate from Bulgaria and Serbia. 

I shall review the evidence for the existence of a modern Macedonian ethnicity with reference to my recent work in a Macedonian ethnic community in Steelton, Pennsylvania. Both the gravestones in a local cemetery and U.S. census reports from the early twentieth century provide evidence that emigres from Macedonia who lived and died in Steelton in the early twentieth century considered themselves to be distinct from their Serbian and Bulgarian neighbors. 

I shall conclude with a summary showing how the present conflict between Greeks and Macedonians in the Balkans is characterized by both sides reaching back to antiquity to provide an often false historical basis to justify their respective modem positions: the theme of &quot;reverberations&quot; as mentioned by the organizers of the panel.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>h9ku508ebyn1evp9ji4af0nkjo9mgid</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 9 - From a Majority to a Minority</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2304</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11027</id>
      <parentid>6820</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:42Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="20867" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 9 - From a Majority to a Minority

June, 2006
rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

Despite all the minority agreements and promises of fair treatment for their newly subjugated Macedonian people, the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Governments not only maintained the status quo but began to accelerate the process of expulsion, denationalization and forced assimilation in Macedonia.

Following World War I, Greece and Bulgaria, according to the November 27, 1919 Minority Treaty convention, exchanged populations. Greece expelled some 53,000 (Wilkinson, 1951:262) &quot;Slav speakers&quot; to Bulgaria in exchange of 30,000 so called &quot;Greeks&quot; from Bulgaria.

Then with the breakout of the Turkish-Greek war in 1921 as a result of Venizelo's &quot;Megali Idea&quot; a policy to create a &quot;Greater Greece&quot; and bring together all &quot;Greek peoples&quot; under a single Greater Greek State, the Macedonians in Greece again became victims of yet another war. First it was Macedonian men sent to fight and die in Turkey for the glory of &quot;Greater Greece&quot; and later Macedonian lands were given away as Macedonia became a dumping ground for the Turkish refugees.
Greece launched a major offensive against Turkey in March 1921 and by the end of the summer the Greek armies reached the Sakarya River, about forty miles west of Ankara.

The assault on Asia Minor was an &quot;exclusively Greek initiative&quot; without the blessing of the Entente Powers and as a result the Greeks found themselves alone and running out of ammunition. They knew they couldn't count on Italy or France for help but the realization of their predicament sunk in when Britain also refused to help them. By early autumn the Greeks were pushed back beyond the halfway point between Smyrna and Ankara, reaching an uneasy military stalemate. Realizing that they couldn't possibly win militarily or politically, the Greeks turned to the Paris Conference of March 1922 looking for a compromise. The compromise called for the withdrawal of the Greek armies and placing the Christian population under the protection of the League of Nations. Sensing a victory, Mustafa Kemal of Turkey insisted on an unconditional evacuation of the Greek forces, a demand unacceptable to the Greeks. Still counting on British help, in July 1922 the Greeks unsuccessfully attempted to get permission from their allies to enter Tsari Grad (Istanbul).
Turkey launched a full-scale offensive on August 26, 1922 (a dark day for Greece and its Megali Idea) near Afyonkarahisar and forced the Greeks into a hasty retreat back to Smyrna. 

On September 8th the Greek army was evacuated and the next day the Turkish army invaded Smyrna. The worst came on the evening of the 9th when outbreaks of killing and looting began, followed by a massacre of the Christian population in which 30,000 Christians, perished. As a result of the violence 250,000 people fled to the waterfront to escape the catastrophic disaster.

The Asia Minor campaign was over along with the &quot;Megali Idea&quot; of a Greater Greece. Worse yet, as a result of this catastrophic Greek fiasco, over one million Turkish Christians were displaced; most of them were moved to Macedonia. Their settlement affected the demography of the Macedonian landscape as well as the morale of the Macedonian population. An entire generation of young Macedonian men, who were drafted into the Greek military, were sent to the Asia Minor campaigns and many lost their lives. The Greek authorities never acknowledged their service and no compensations were ever paid to the families of those &quot;breadwinners&quot; who lost their lives. The reason for the omission, according to Greek authorities, those who fought for Greece from Macedonia &quot;were not Greeks but Bulgarians&quot;. How convenient! This is how Greece treated and is still treating its noble citizens of Macedonian descent!

I just want to mention here that many Greeks blame this catastrophe on the Turks and believe the Turks were at fault. How can Turks be at fault when it was Greece that unlawfully and without provocation attacked and invaded Turkey? 

By the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, the Greco-Turkish war came to an end and Greece and Turkey signed a population exchange agreement. 

It is important to understand that the selection criteria for the population exchanges were based strictly on religion. In other words, Greece agreed to accept a Christian population regardless of ethnicity or language. Similarly Greece agreed to expel a Muslim population regardless of what ethnicity it belonged to and what language it spoke. As a result, Greece exiled many Macedonians from Greek occupied Macedonia simply because they were of the Muslim faith.

The November 1925 issue of National Geographic Magazine best illustrates the magnitude of the human wave, the audacity of the Greek and Turkish authorities and the total disregard for human life. &quot;History's Greatest Trek, Tragedy Stalks the Near East as Greece and Turkey Exchange Two Million of their People. ...1922 began what may fairly be called history's greatest, most spectacular trek-the compulsory intermigration of two million Christians and Muslims across the Aegean Sea.&quot; &quot;...the initial episodes of the exchange drama were enacted to the accompaniment of the boom of cannon and the rattle of machine gun and with the settings pointed by the flames of the Smyrna holocaust.&quot; (Page 533, Melville Chater, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;Stroke of the Pen Exiles 3,000,000 People. It is safe to say that history does not contain a more extraordinary document. Never before in the world's long pageant of folk-wanderings have 2,000,000 people-and certainly no less than 3,000,000 if the retroactive clause is possible of complete application-been exiled and re-adopted by the stroke of the pen&quot; (Page 569, National Geographic, November 1925). &quot;Even if regarded as a voluntary trek instead of a compulsory exchange, the movement would be without parallel in the history of emigration.&quot; &quot;One might just add that history has never produced a document more difficult of execution. It was to lessen these difficulties that exchangeability was based in religion and not race. Due to five centuries of Turkish domination in Greece, the complexities in determining an individual's racial status are often such as would make a census taker weep.&quot; (Page 570, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;Greece with one-fifth Turkey's area has 1,500,000 more people. Turkey with a population of 5,000,000 and naturally rich territory contains only 15 people to the square mile...Greece, with less than one fifth of Turkey's area, emerges with a population exceeding the latter's for the fist time by 1,500,000 people averaging 123 to the square mile.&quot; (Page 584, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;History's Greatest Trek has cost 300,000 lives. Conservative estimates place it at 300,000 lives lost by disease and exposure.&quot; (Page 584, National Geographic, November 1925)
&quot;The actual exchange was weighted very heavily in Turkey's favour, for some 380,000 Muslims were exchanged for something like 1,100,000 Christians.&quot; &quot;The total population in Greece rose between 1907 and 1928 from 2,600,000 to 6,200,000.&quot; &quot;After the Greek advances of 1912, for instance, the Greek elements in Greek Macedonia had constituted 43 percent of the population. By 1926, with the resettlement of the refugees, the Greek element has risen to 89 percent.&quot; (Page 121, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece). 

Please note that Clogg uses the words &quot;Greek element&quot; and not &quot;ethnic Greeks&quot; (if there is such a thing?) when referring to the population in Greek occupied Macedonia. What exactly did he mean by &quot;Greek element&quot;?

The &quot;Greek element&quot;, as he calls it is not Greek at all. It consists of Vlachs, Albanians and some Macedonians mainly those affiliated with the Greek Church. There were no &quot;ethnic Greeks&quot; living in Macedonia prior to its colonization by the Turkish refugees.

Many people of Turkish speaking Eastern Orthodox stock were exchanged with Sunnite Muslims of Greece. The Turkish speaking Karamanlides were sent to Greece, while Greek speaking Cretan Muslims were deported to Turkey. The Karamanlides lived in Karaman or Cappadocia and may have been Orthodox Christian by religion but they spoke and wrote Turkish and considered themselves to be Turks. When the time came for them to leave for Greece, they were reluctant and while living in Greece were regarded as &quot;foreigners&quot;.

In 1924, 31 of the 81 orthodox cities and villages in Cappadocia spoke so called &quot;broken Greek&quot; which Greeks from Greece proper could not understand and the other 50 spoke Turkish only. Also, Christians living in the larger cities like Caesaria, Nigdi, Neapolis, Prokopi, etc spoke Turkish only. Christians living in the eastern provinces of Asia Minor like Pamphylia, Isavria, Cappadocia, Kilikea and Lycaonia from whom the Karamanlides originated and were not Islamized, also spoke Turkish only. 

In my estimation it is doubtful that the actual population of &quot;Greeks&quot; present in Greek occupied Macedonia prior to the arrival of the Turkish settlers was 43% as Clogg and others claim. A more accurate estimate would be 3%, representing the new Greek settlers mainly business opportunists already there, the Greek administration, police and military types that arrived and settled in Macedonia between 1912 and 1922. Further proof of the low existence of so called &quot;Greeks&quot; in Macedonia can be found in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica under the heading &quot;The Outline of the Macedonian Problem&quot;. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the total population living in Macedonia was 2.2 million consisting of 1.3 million Christians, 800 thousand Mohammedans and 75 thousand Jews. Among the races [ethnicities probably determined by language] living in Macedonia included are 1.15 million Slavs, 500 thousand Turks, 120 thousand Albanians, 90 thousand Vlachs, 75 thousand Jews, 35 thousand Gypsies and 25 thousand Greeks. If we go by these stats, the so called &quot;Greek speaking&quot; population living in Macedonia in 1911 amounted to no more than 1.1% of the total population. Hardly the 43% presented by Clogg. What Clogg is referring to by this 43% is most probably the Macedonian Christian population affiliated with the Greek Church which by no means was &quot;ethnic Greek&quot; or Greek speaking.

I also do not agree with the idea that the entire refugee population that was settled in Macedonia from Turkey was &quot;ethnic Greek&quot; or &quot;Greek speaking&quot; as Greek authorities would like to portray it. In any case, assuming that the total population of settlers from Turkey (89%-43%) was 46% and that from Greece was 3% then by 1932 there were 49% newcomers and 51% indigenous people living in Greek occupied Macedonia.

I call the settlers &quot;newcomers&quot; because there is no proof that they were in any way &quot;Greek&quot;. Yes, the Turkish refugees were Christians but that does not mean that they were actually &quot;ethnic Greeks&quot;.

&quot;If Greece exists today as a homogeneous ethnos, she owes this to [the Asia Minor Catastrophe]. If the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come to Greece, Greek Macedonia would not exist today. The refugees created the national homogeneity of our country. (Antonios Kandiotis, Metrpolite of Florina, Page 141, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)
Surprisingly (and shamefully) after knowing all this, Greece still claims its population to be homogeneous and directly descendent from the ancient peoples of the ancient City States and of the ancient Macedonians.

According to Karakasidou, almost half of the refugees from Turkey were settled in urban centers and rural areas in Macedonia. &quot;Searching for locations in which to settle this mass of humanity, the Greek government looked north to the newly incorporated land in Macedonia...&quot; &quot;...by 1930, 90 percent of the 578,844 refugees settled in rural Greece were concentrated in the regions of Macedonia and western Thrace. Thus Macedonia, Greece's newly acquired second 'breadbasket' (after Thessaly), became the depository for East Thracian, Pontic, and Asia Minor refugees.&quot; (Page 145, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

If we take into consideration that most of the population imported from Turkey into Macedonia was ethnically &quot;unknown&quot; or non-Greek and the fact that very few so called &quot;Greeks&quot; from Greece proper settled in Macedonia we can conclude that Greek occupied Macedonia was settled by a number of non-Greek ethnicities. 

It is not ridiculous to assume that Greek occupied Macedonia after the settlements consisted of 51% indigenous people, predominantly Macedonians and 49% of newcomer settlers mostly of non-Greek (Turkish, Armenian, Albanian, Vlach, Patriarchic Macedonian, etc) origins. 

In other words the demographic composition of Greek occupied Macedonia after the arrival of the Asia Minor refugees still consisted of a Macedonian majority and a slew of unidentified other minorities. 

A census done by the Greek government in 1928 reported that there were 81,984 &quot;Slavophones&quot; in Greece. Interestingly, the number of Macedonians drastically fell between 1903 and 1928, supporting the idea that Macedonia was being Hellenized.

Bearing in mind the stats presented in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, 1.15 million Slav speakers lived in Macedonia. Since Greece occupied 51% of Macedonia in 1912, 1913 we can safely assume that 51% or more of the total Slav speaking population which lived in Macedonia ended up under Greek control. 51% amounts to approximately 600,000 people. Thus, according to 1928 Greek stats, in less than 30 years approximately half a million Macedonians became Hellenized and made into &quot;pure Greeks&quot;.

I am using the term &quot;Macedonians&quot; instead of &quot;Slavophones&quot;, even though Greece did not recognize them as such and considered them to be Bulgarian speakers, which explains why Professor R. A. Reis, who was commissioned by the Greek government to ethnologically study the new territories, felt compelled to insist that &quot;those you call Bulgarophones, I will simply call them Macedonians&quot; (Reiss, 1915:3). 

The numbers really get confusing when we add the Bulgarian and Serbian views. According to the Bulgarian Rumenov, in 1928 there were a total of 206,435 &quot;Bulgarians&quot; living in Greek occupied Macedonia. The Serb Bora Milojevich pegs the numbers at 250,000 &quot;Slavs&quot;. Belgrade's &quot;Politika&quot; in its 6164 issue published June 24, 1925 gave three times greater numbers for the Macedonians in Greece than official Athens: &quot;The Greek government must not complain that we are pointing to the fact that the Macedonian population of West Macedonia - 250,000 - 300,000 - is the most unfortunate national and linguistic minority in the world, not only because their personal safety is endangered, but also because they have no church or school in their own language, which they had during Turkish rule.&quot;

So the &quot;real&quot; number of Macedonians living in Greek occupied Macedonia in the late 1920's is unknown and to this day remains disputed in Balkan documents. Unfortunately, Greek governments will not allow anyone, including neutral observers to conduct statistical studies. 
If we follow the &quot;Greek example&quot; we will note that according to Greek Stats, Greece is populated by 98% &quot;pure Greeks&quot; and 2% &quot;Muslim Greeks&quot;. In other words Greece, to this day, has no creditable population statistics that are based on ethnic composition. 

Without a clear definition of what a &quot;pure Greek&quot; is one cannot accurately interpret what that means. However, looking at the numbers one can speculate that Greece may still be using religious affiliation to define its demographics. The numbers 98% Orthodox Christians and 2% Muslims most accurately represent Greece's demographics. Unfortunately, religious affiliation hardly speaks of the various ethnicities that make up that population. So, what exactly is the Modern Greek nation made up of outside of Orthodox Christians and Muslims? Who are the &quot;ethnic groups&quot; living in Greece today? 

To answer this question we need to go back to the time before Greece became a State and examine the ethnic composition of the populations living on those lands that now make up Greece.
Before Greece became a State for the first time in 1829, its ethnic composition consisted of a Majority of Albanians, Turks, Vlachs and Slav speakers. If there were any so called &quot;Greeks&quot; they were a small minority. As Greece acquired Epirus and Thessaly, more Albanians, Vlachs, Slav speakers and Turks were added to its Population. In 1912, 1913 as Greece acquired 51% of Macedonian territories, it added a large portion of Macedonians (or Slav Speakers as Greece like to call them), Vlachs, Albanians, Turks, Roma and Jews to its total population. 

Since then Greece expelled a number of Macedonians to Bulgaria because they were affiliated with the Exarchate Church, and imported some so called &quot;Greeks&quot; from Bulgaria. Through the 1920's Greece expelled a sizable Muslim population and added a large number of Christian Turks from Asia Minor and other regions of Turkey as indicated earlier. Thus, ethnically speaking at the end of the 1920's even after all the population exchanges, Greece remained predominantly the same; made up of Slav Speakers, Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, Roma and Jews.

There is no doubt that the Slav speakers in Greece are Macedonian and will declare themselves as Macedonians should Greece allow them to do so under the right conditions. If we examine the situation in the Republic of Macedonia in the 1920's and today we will see that in the 1920's there were no Macedonians registered to live in that territory. There was a large Majority of &quot;Slav Speakers&quot; referred to as &quot;Serbians&quot; by the Serbian Sate and smaller minorities of Albanians, Vlachs, Roma, Jews, etc. The situation however in the 1990's became different. The so called Serbians were not Serbians at all but Macedonians. The only Serbians registered as Serbians in the Republic of Macedonia in 1990 were the Serbian settlers who came with the army and administration in 1912, 1913 when Macedonia was invaded, occupied and partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. All the so called &quot;Slav speakers&quot; of the late 1920's declared themselves as Macedonians in the 1990's. So, if we examine today's demographic statistics of the Republic of Macedonia we will find a large Majority of Macedonians living there with well represented minorities of Albanians, Vlachs, Roma, Serbians, etc., or minorities of the same ethnicities and somewhat same proportions that lived on the same soil in the late 1920's. 

Now if we apply the same conditions to the Greek occupied territories and adjust for the population exchanges of the 1920's we can deduce that the population living in Greek occupied Macedonia is predominantly ethnic Macedonians, Turks, Vlachs, Albanians, Roma, etc. Proportionally, when stacked against the entire population living in Greek occupied Macedonia the Macedonian population may be a minority (30% to 49%) but given the number of other ethnic minorities such as the Asia Minor Turks, Albanians, Vlachs and Roma and their numbers, the Macedonian population may be close to being the majority. In other words, the Macedonians in Greek occupied Macedonia may outnumber all of the other individual ethnic groups.

As I said, the only way to prove or disprove this is by Greece recognizing the various ethnicities living on its soil and by creating the right climate for them to self-declare.
To be continued...

References:

Clogg, Richard. The Struggle for Greek Independence Essays to mark 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence. Archon, 1973.

Karakasidou, Anastasia N. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.

National Geographic, November 1925

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>sl662e9qauhcgf9xi48axygzc7hn9z1</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>The Macedonian question - Petar Rachev Slavejkov</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2306</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11045</id>
      <parentid>5529</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:09:47Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Macedonian_question&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7057" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already exists at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Macedonian_question}}
Petar Rachev Slavejkov

The Macedonian Question

Published 18th January 1871 in the &quot;Macedonia&quot; newspaper in Constaninople


The Macedonian question has at last reached the public and the press. We say 'at last', because this question is not a new problem. We heard it from some people from Macedonia as long as about ten years ago. We first considered the words of those young patriots...[..] of our not so serious disputes. We had also thought so until a year or two ago, when new discussions with some Macedonians showed us that the problem was not only vain words, but an idea that many would like to put into practice. And we were sorry and it was difficult for us to hear such words, because the problem seemed to us a highly delicate one, especially in the conditions in which we found ourselves. 

Now this question has been brought to public attention owing to the carelessness of one of our brothers and now, whether we would like to or not, we have to state our opinion. We should never have spoken out on this question if it had existed in the domain of the textbooks only, because we do not see any harm in the desire of some people to teach their children in their fathers' dialect; on the contrary, we see in this a sign of awareness. Elementary education is fruitful only when it is done in the mother tongue, which the children understand. But the mistake is not to choose a way that would not lead to the, separation of the dialects but to their union and agreement. However wrong it is to teach the little Macedonians in the dialect of the High Bulgarians, it is just as wrong to split the language in the schools into various dialects, everyone following their own dialect and paying no attention to the others. In this case each dialect should have a literature of its own and never attain the stage it should have as the literature of a whole nation. There are differences in the dialects among all the European peoples, even far greater than ours; but not one of those peoples has ever thought of dividing the literary language into many dialects and literature. They have chosen a middle road and have adopted one literary language only, the one which was most advanced among them. We should have done this, too. We should have chosen one middle dialect from all the others, which should be understandable in all the regions, and should have taught our children in it. This would be both just, reasonable and useful, because it would preserve the unity of our people. The latter condition only is sufficient to protect us from splitting our poor literature and to make us rise against those want such a split. But when there are other aims involved as well in the split, aims tending to dismember our still disunified people, then everybody has the right to oppose such evil. It is obvious that some of our Ma- cedonian brothers have such aims, which they hide under the veil of the language and its dialects; that is why we are taking the liberty of saying something about the Macedonian question. We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians, and have always waited to hear some proofs of this, but have never heard them. The Macedonists have never shown us the bases of their attitude. They insist on their Macedonian origin, which they cannot prove in any satisfactory way... 

But in fact the descent of the Macedonians from the Ancient Macedonians is highly unreliable speculation. Their view today can only be defended by the region where they have lived, and this is the most important thing. If the Ancient Macedonians lived in this same region, why should not the present inhabitants be of Macedonian blood? They are real Macedonians, conclude the Macedonists, comforted by their great discovery... We have also heard other arguments. Some Macedonists distinguish themselves from the Bulgarians upon another basis -- they are pure Slavs, while the Bulgarians are Tartars and so on... In order to give credibility to their arbitrary view, the Macedonists point out the difference between the Macedonian and High Bulgarian dialects, of which the former is closer to the Slav language while the latter is mixed with Tartarisms, etc. 

We would not have liked to believe in the seriousness of such attitudes, as the reader would not like to either, but we had to believe when we saw with what persistence this attitude was defended by the Macedonists. Our words that the difference in the dialects proves nothing, that it is a consequence of historical circumstances and not of a different origin, these words were not of any help. The Macedonists strictly adhered to their standpoints. In general, the views of the Macedonists have neither maturity nor reliability. It is desirable to see their doctrine arranged in general form so that we can fully assess its grounds and its consequences. While we are waiting for this, we shall take the liberty of stating here some of the consequences that would result for our people and the Macedonists by the separation... We are convinced that the desire of the Macedonists should have other bases as well, and that there is a confusion about the small inequality between the High and the Macedonian Bulgarians in number and development. Perhaps the Macedonists think that the High Bulgarians will always be prevalent in public affairs as more numerous and, more aware, and the Macedonians will remain second-rate citizens. That is exactly what the following words by the Macedonists mean: we have set ourselves apart from the Greeks, should we now become subjected to others? One simple circumstance, i.e., that the High Bulgarians have up to now written in their dialect without paying any attention to the Macedonian one, is considered by the Macedonians to be a sign of the &quot;highness&quot; of the High Bulgarians and of their tendency to command. But the real problem is far from this suggestion; we write in our dialect because it is what we know, and not out of any lack of esteem for the Macedonian one. Once we strengthen language study in our country and understand the need for a general literary language, we shall write with the greatest gratitude in the Macedonian dialect, if we find it good and useful, or we shall take from it what is necessary as supplementation. As far as the fear of the number of the High Bulgarians and their quicker process of awakening is concerned, it is not even worth mentioning, just as the father should not make any difference between his children. If some brothers should have become aware an hour before the others, it does not follow that they should be privileged. Our conclusion is that there is no reason for separation and that we should not separate if we love our people and what is good for them.

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>cibxxkj7o1wfbpw6krgfhzack9arnc3</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Krushevo manifesto</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2559</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11071</id>
      <parentid>10584</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:21:39Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, already on wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kru%C5%A1evo_Manifesto&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4944" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, already on wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kru%C5%A1evo_Manifesto}}
Krushevo Manifest,

Sent by the Krushevo Republic Rebel Committee

To the Moslem villages around Krushevo,

On Aug 2 1903

Fellow compatriots and dear neighbors! 

We, your perennial neighbors, friends and acquaintances from beautiful Krushevo and its pretty villages, regardless of faith, nationality, sex or conviction, not being able to endure any more the tyranny of bloodthirsty criminals who hunger for human flesh, who would like to lead both you and us to slaughter, to reduce both you and us to poverty, and to turn our dear and wealthy land of Macedonia into a wasteland, we have today raised our heads and decided to defend ourselves with rifles in our hands from our and your enemies, and obtain freedom. 

You know very well that we are not evil and you understand that it is trouble that made us risk our lives, so that we might begin living like human beings or die like heroes! In addition, because since the times of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers we have lived together like brothers of this land, we consider you as our own, and would like it to remain the same forever. 

We have not raised our rifles against you - it would be shameful for us to do so; we have not raised against the peaceful diligent and honest Turkish people who, like ourselves, earn their living through sweat full of blood - they are our brothers with whom we have always lived and would like to live again; we have not risen to slaughter and plunder, to set fire and steal - we have had enough of countless feudal lords pillaging and plundering our poor and blood-stained Macedonia; we have not risen to convert to Christianity and disgrace your mothers and sisters, wives and daughters; you should know that your property, your lives, your faith and your honor are as dear to us as our own. Alas, we have taken up arms only to protect our property, our lives, our faith and our honor. 

We are not criminals of our own land that has given birth to us, we are not robbers and plunderers, but revolutionaries sworn to die for justice and freedom; we rebel against tyranny and against slavery; we are fighting and will fight against converts, against robbers, against oppressors and plunderers, against soiling our honor and faith and against those who benefit from our sweat and exploit our labor. Do not be afraid of us and of our villages - we shall not harm anyone. Not only do we consider you as our brothers, but we also feel sorry for you as our brothers, since we understand that you are slaves like ourselves, slaves of the Sultan and of his appointed rulers, masters and governors, slaves of the rich and powerful, slaves of tyrants and oppressors, who have set fire to the empire from all four sides and have made us rise up for justice, for freedom and for human life. We invite you, too, to join us in our struggle for justice, freedom and human life! 
Come, Moslem brothers, let us together go against your and our enemies! Come under the banner of &quot;Autonomous Macedonia&quot;! Macedonia is the mother of us all and she calls on us for help. Let us break the chains of slavery, free ourselves from suffering and pain, and dry the rivers of blood and tears! Join us, brothers, let us fuse our souls and hearts and save ourselves, so that we and our children and our children's children might live in peace, work calmly and make progress! 

Dear neighbors! 

We understand that you as Turks, Albanians and Moslems might think that the empire is yours and that you are not slaves since there is no cross on the imperial flag but a star and a crescent. You will soon see and understand that this is not so and that you are wrong. Nevertheless, if your honor does not allow you to join us and declare yourselves against the Sultan's tyranny, we, your brothers in suffering and of the same homeland, shall do you no harm and shall not hate you. We will fight alone both for you and us, and if necessary, we will fight to the last man under the banner for your freedom and ours, for your justice and ours. &quot;Liberty or Death&quot; is written on our foreheads and on our bloodstained banner. We have already raised that banner and there is no way back. If you consider us as your brothers, too, if you wish us well, if you intend to live with us again as you have lived up to now, and if you are faithful and worthy sons of our mother Macedonia, you could help us in one way at least - and it would be a great help indeed - do not make partners of the enemy, do not raise guns against us and do not oppress the Christian villages! 

May God bless our holy struggle for justice and freedom! 

Long live the fighters for freedom and all honest and good Macedonian sons! 

Hurrah! For &quot;Autonomous Macedonia!&quot;

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>qle57pxx78voos8yuhx0jak61z9lnjm</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 15 - The Macedonian Revival V</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2638</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11031</id>
      <parentid>6822</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:38:08Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="37398" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 15 - The Macedonian Revival V

December, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

Click Here for More &quot;Recovering Macedonia&quot; Articles


[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

A turn for the worse for the Macedonian people came in April 1897 with the Goluchowski-Muraviev Agreement drawn up by Tsar Nikolas II of Russia and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria. In part, the agreement called for Macedonian territory to be divided equally between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria at some future time.

To take advantage of this, a year later the Bulgarian Exarchate, instructed by the Bulgarian Prime Minister, created a Vrhovist (supremacist) organization and based it in Solun. Known as the &quot;Revolutionary Brotherhood&quot;, it in turn began to form its own insurgent groups while all along pretending to be part of IMRO. Its purpose was to carry out terrorist activities and blame them on the real IMRO. The Bulgarian intention was to provoke a fight between IMRO and the Turkish militia with hopes that IMRO would be destroyed and the Turks would be weakened enough for Bulgaria to invade and permanently occupy Macedonia.

Brigand activities were not exclusive to the Bulgarians, the Greeks too through the Patriarchate Church employed brigands to harass and exact terror on villagers. Their aim was to forcefully Hellenize as many Macedonians as possible to show the world that &quot;Greeks&quot; indeed lived in Macedonia.

The Macedonian freedom fighters or Cheti were undermanned and poorly armed. They were fierce fighters and fought gallantly when it came to protecting their villages but were not prepared for an all out full scale war with the Turks.

The Turkish militia at the time had orders to conduct searches to collect weapons but it did not always operate under the best of ethics. Turkish soldiers discovered that they could make a lot more money by being paid not to punish the individual owning the weapon than to actually punish them. It became common practice to accept bribes. People who could afford to pay bribes were excluded from severe punishments. It was less of a punishment to produce a rifle than it was not to have one at all.

On January 31st, 1903 the Turks declared IMRO illegal and sought ways to destroy it. This created a controversy among the IMRO leadership where one group wanted to take immediate action and another felt they were not ready. The controversy gave the Vrhovists a chance to become a wedge between those in IMRO who wanted an immediate uprising and those who believed that an uprising at this point was suicidal. Gotse Delchev did not want an immediate uprising and was hoping to find a better solution. Unfortunately during a second Congress, mostly dominated by Vrhovists, held in Solun in February 1903 a decision was made to start the uprising early. August 2nd, 1903 was picked as the date to commence the rebellion. Delchev and most of IMRO's loyal supporters feeling it was going to be a disaster boycotted the congress.

To weaken the Turks, the Vrhovists staged a number of bombings and terrorist acts. The Solun to Tsari Grad railway was bombed on March 18th, as was the Solun Ottoman bank a month later. This however, did not weaken the Turks as expected but instead brought more Turkish troops into Macedonia and further escalated the violence against innocent civilians. The sudden rise in violence against Ottoman institutions was not well received by European investors and businessmen, who saw Ottoman Macedonia as a safe place to invest. The few lonely voices in London, who were supporting the Macedonian cause, were quickly drowned out by the many voices of discontent calling for the demise of the Macedonian freedom fighters now labeled terrorists.

A general staff was elected with Damjan Gruev as the head and preparations for the uprising began. In due time plans were made to begin organizing the uprising. The Cheti were armed with the few weapons available and began their training. On July 26th, 1903, by a dispatch to the Great Powers via the British vice-consul in Bitola, the General Staff formally announced the uprising. Then on July 28th, 1903 IMRO dispatched mounted couriers to all the sub-districts with the message &quot;let the uprising begin&quot;. On the same day the General Staff also informed the Ottoman Director of Railways to warn travelers to choose a safer mode of transportation in order to avoid being hurt.

Despite the odds, the brave people of Macedonia heroically rose to the task with valour. They knew well enough that the fight they were about to undertake might not bring them what they desired yet they chose to fight anyway because it was a fight for freedom and freedom after centuries of slavery was valued above life itself. Unfortunately, that did not convince the Great Powers to lend a helping hand.

When the rebellion began, as a precaution, most villages were evacuated. People who left the villages took up residence in secluded places in the mountains. They took whatever they could carry and set up camp in temporary shelters constructed from tree branches and covered with vegetation. Livestock was fenced out of sight in wooded areas and ovens to cook food and bread were constructed underground.

Turkish soldiers had orders to burn down all empty villages, believing them to belong to families of insurgents, and spare the rest. In practice however, that's not how it turned out. Villagers that didn't join the rebellion felt it was unnecessary to evacuate because they posed no threat to the Turks. Unfortunately the Turkish militia did not see it that way. Feeling the rebel sting, angry militiamen turned against all civilians and when they were done with them, they burned their homes down. Neokazi near Lerin was one such village where 60 Macedonian men were captured and placed under arrest. On their way to Lerin the Turks tortured and massacred the men in cold blood. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the Turks lining up the men in rows and firing their newly acquired rifles at them to see how many one bullet could kill.

Three days later it was Armensko's turn. After losing a skirmish to Chakalarov, Haireddin Bimbishi's (the butcher of Smrdesh) troops, defeated, angry and embittered were heading for Lerin when they came across a welcoming committee at Armensko. The priest and villagers went out to greet and welcome the Turks in a peaceful manner but instead became their victims. Bambishi's men turned on the defenseless village; pillaging, burning and satisfying their brutal lust.

As battles raged on throughout western Macedonia, the Cheti put down most of the local Turkish garrisons. They destroyed bridges, railway lines and communications centers, captured most chifliks and briefly liberated regions such as Kichevo, Demir-Hisar, Kostur, Lerin, Klisoura and Neveska. The cities of Kostur and Lerin themselves were not liberated. The most successful and highly celebrated of all battles was the storming of the town of Krushevo. Nikola Karev led the Cheti in the attack and defeated the local Turkish garrison with ease. The Macedonians quickly took over strategic points like the Post Office, Town Hall and local Police Station and declared Krushevo liberated. True to their democratic commitments, the leaders of the liberating force constituted the Krushevo assembly which appointed a committee of sixty members, twenty from each of the community's Macedonian, Vlach and Albanian populations. The committee in turn elected an executive body of six delegates, two from each community, which operated as a provisional government. The government in turn established a financial, judiciary and police force. &quot;At Krushevo, under the rays of temporary liberty, fraternity and equality, national hatreds were dispelled and peace and concord reigned. For eleven whole days Krushevo lived as a little independent state, and although in miniature, clothed with flesh and blood that idea which spurred Macedonians to fight, against tyranny up to the Ilinden rising.&quot; (Page 193, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology)

The &quot;Krushevo Republic&quot;, unfortunately, only lasted two weeks but it was a glorious Republic that will forever remind the Macedonian people of their eternal struggle for independence and thirst for freedom. The liberation of Krushevo imprinted on the new Macedonian generations the legacy of a timeless and irreversible march towards self-determination. Here again we see the Macedonian desire for multiculturalism and for a new multiethnic society waiting to resurface. The Republic was constituted on a multiracial basis in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Macedonian people.

Next to Krushevo, Kostur faired second best in the tactical mobilization of the Cheti, under the command of Lazar Pop Trajkov and Vasil Chakalarov. These brigades staged successful raids, liberating Klisura and Neveska, then returned southward and, with the support of over three thousand villagers, attacked Kostur but without success. In the meantime other Cheti attacked and liberated Ohrid, which remained free for almost three months. The Ohrid attack was the most successful in terms of advance planning and administering the establishment of medical aid, underground workshops, secret bakeries and securing foodstuffs. Ohrid later became the center for establishing refugee camps for many displaced persons.

Uprisings outside of western Macedonia were limited to swift guerilla actions consisting mostly of attacks against Ottoman institutions, bombings of railway lines and the occasional skirmish with the Turkish militia. Many Cheti were successful in capturing important Turkish officials. They hoped to construct dialogue for prospective negotiations but, in actuality, met with little success.

Vrhovist involvement, as expected, was minimal during the uprising and brought to light, once again, the true nature of Vrhovism (Macedonia for the Bulgarians). As the Cheti fought gallantly putting down garrison after garrison in the larger towns, many of the smaller villages were left unprotected and open to Bashi-bazouk (armed Muslim civilians) and Turkish militia attacks. Keeping in mind the Neokrazi and Armensko incidents, many of the Cheta chiefs felt compelled to return home to repel such attacks. Due to this and the fact that the numerically superior Turkish militia overpowered the Cheti, in the short term, a large-scale operation against the Turks never materialized. Unfortunately, as time passed so did the opportunity for a decisive strike, as an even larger Turkish force was amassing.

The initial success of the rebellion was a surprise to the Turks especially since Turkish forces were numerically superior. The Cheti demonstrated their abilities in battle and more than matched the numbers with will. Turkey, unfortunately, was determined to put down the rebellion and amassed additional forces, deploying a total of 167,000 infantry, 3,700 cavalry and 440 pieces of artillery (all cannons). Krushevo alone was surrounded by 20,000 Turkish troops with 18 cannons against an encircled force of no more than 1,200 rebels. The battle to retake Krushevo began on August 12th with the Macedonians crying out &quot;Sloboda ili Smirt&quot; (liberty or death) against the onslaught of Turkish cannon fire. Pitu Guli and his men fought gallantly by providing stiff opposition to the Turkish advance but were no match for General Baktiar Pasha's forces. Baktiar was a skilled war veteran who overwhelmed the Cheti by attacking the entire region simultaneously. The region was surrounded by soldiers, encircled by cannon fire and every Macedonian stronghold within was simultaneously attacked, cutting off all reinforcements.

After the mountains lit up with gunfire and smoke filled the skies, no Great Powers came to the rescue. Macedonians were left alone to feel the full brunt of the Ottoman Empire's army and to pay for all of Europe's sins committed against the Turks.

Once Krushevo fell, one by one other IMRO strongholds began to yield, winding down the ten-week-old rebellion. In Krushevo, Baktiar Pasha allowed his troops to kill, pillage and rape for three days. The town was permanently devastated with 117 civilians murdered, 150 women raped and 159 houses burned.

In the Ilinden aftermath, according to Michael Radin, in total 4,694 civilians were murdered, 3,122 women raped, 12,440 houses burned, 201 villages razed, 75,835 people left homeless and about 30,000 people left the country for good, becoming permanent refugees. (Page 105, IMRO and the Macedonian Question) Besides the atrocities committed against the civilian population in Macedonia, the most significant impact of the uprising was the loss of so many great IMRO leaders.

Despite the negative attitudes of the European Governments, there was much press about the Ilinden rebellion. World opinion was generally sympathetic to the Macedonian cause and highly critical of the Ottoman atrocities. Emigrant Macedonians the world over bombarded the Western Press with scathing attacks on the British, French and Austrian governments for supporting Turkey, militarily and financially. Even emigrants as far as the United States staged large rallies in support of the rebellion. In New York alone more than 100,000 gathered to show support. A Chicago newspaper reported that a Macedonian regiment had formed in that city and was preparing to take part in the rebellion.

Closer to home, south Slav Nations such as Slovenia and Vojvodina held public meetings in support of the Macedonian Revolution. Even the European press featured sympathetic headlines when covering the rebellion. &quot;It was a bitter struggle between the tortured slaves fighting en masse, often without weapons, but on spirit alone, for life and liberty; and the sadistic Pasha and his cohorts, murdering and plundering with rabidity.&quot; (Giorgio Nurigiani) British official policy, however, was less than sympathetic. According to the Daily News September 14, 1903, Prime Minister Balfour told the House of Commons, &quot;...the balance of criminality lies not with the Turks, but with the rebels.&quot; The paper was critical of this attitude and recorded the following editorial: &quot;The balance of criminality is surely here in our own land. Britain had denied Macedonia freedom at Berlin, knowing that (continued) Ottoman rule was synonymous with cruelty and tyranny, and by adopting a laissez-faire attitude at the juncture, Britain is a consenting party to all the ghastly murders and massacres in Macedonia...&quot; (Page 107, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

While there was public outcry in the streets regarding the treatment of Macedonians, the British Government cared less about Macedonia's suffering than about Bulgarian threats to their precious Ottoman Empire. Being weakened by the Macedonian rebellion, the thinking in London was that Turkey was now ripe for a Bulgarian invasion. Balfour used the Macedonian rebellion as a pretext to move Britain's Mediterranean Fleet into the Aegean Sea fearing that war between Bulgaria and Turkey was now inevitable.

At about the same time Greek-Turkish relations began to warm up. The souring relationship between Turkey and Bulgaria was seen as a new opportunity by Greece to accelerate her Hellenization activities inside Macedonia. Making her way to Turkey, Greece had to first prop up her cool relationship with Germany. Her first attempt was initiated by inviting German help to re-organize the Greek military. After that Greece began to grant industrial and commercial favours to German businessmen, including the re-organization of the Greek telegraph.

The Turks, on the other hand, were looking for allies. The loss of Ottoman Crete to the Greeks was only a bruise to the Turkish ego, so the Turks were willing to forgive and forget. Losing Macedonia, however, was serious and bolstering its friendship with Greece was one way of staving off Bulgarian advances.

To preserve whatever they could from a failing rebellion, IMRO turned its attention to diplomacy. In September 1903 Pere Toshev, of IMRO, took a trip to Tsari Grad to elicit some guarantees from official representatives of the Great Powers. Toshev's only request was that Macedonia be given a Christian governor. Unfortunately, his request was rejected in favour of the status quo. Later, however, when statistics of Turkish atrocities started pouring in, the Great Power attitude softened a little. In October the Great Powers reconsidered Toshev's request, but instead of appointing a Christian governor each nation agreed to send a small &quot;peace-keeping&quot; force. This did not help the Macedonian position at all. In fact it hindered IMRO from self-defense initiatives even against bandit attacks.

Turkish atrocities committed against the Macedonian villages, in the eyes of the world, created bad publicity for Turkey and for its allies, the Western Powers. As a result, Turkish popularity started to decline and so did Turkey's favour with the Great Powers. Being financially strapped and having her hands tied, Turkey turned to her neighbours for assistance. By declaring Macedonia a &quot;multi-interest zone&quot; and inviting armed propaganda from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, to counter IMRO insurgence, Turkey was hoping to turn the tide of the rebellion in her favour. Again Great Power inaction put Macedonia and the Macedonian people in peril.

According to Brailsford, the Cheti fought about 150 battles in total with 746 casualties, which amounted to about 15 % of the total fighting force. In most of these encounters the Cheti were outnumbered by at least 10 Turks to 1 Macedonian. (Page 155, Macedonia its Races and their Future) Before it was all over, the Turks were attacking everywhere, even in secluded areas that once were beyond militia reach. To save themselves, many civilians resorted to camping among the fighters and even following them in wild battles. Their only safety was to be with the Cheti. &quot;...Sometimes the battle raged about the lair where the women and children lay, the men fighting with all their manhood to defend some shallow trench, knowing that behind them cowered wife and child expecting massacre if their courage failed or their bullets missed the mark.&quot; (Page 162, Brailsford, Macedonia its Races and their Future)

IMRO leaders, who survived the rebellion, responded decisively to the new crisis by establishing temporary centers where urgently needed food and medical supplies were distributed to the displaced population. While doing that they were also fighting a political battle with the Vrhovists for control of IMRO itself. The Bulgarians had dispatched Komitadjis (assassins) to eliminate the &quot;old guard&quot; but the legendary Yane Sandanski and his Cheta remained active and fought back fearlessly. When word got out that Sandanski was still alive and active, he gained a large following and was able to successfully repel all assassination attempts.

The Ilinden rebellion had no happy ending for Macedonia. The Macedonian people lost their bid for freedom and paid the ultimate price of being again enslaved, in spite of their efforts. The Macedonian rebellion did not succeed because there were too many factors working against it. The Macedonian people showed will and determination and rose to the task in spite of all odds. Compared to the Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian rebellions, the Macedonians were the most determined, well organized and most desperate, but they were not ready. The Serbians, Greeks and Bulgarians had only one enemy, the Turks, but received a lot of help from friends in high places (the Great Powers). In contrast, no one beyond the Macedonians themselves wanted the Macedonians to succeed. The Greeks and especially the Bulgarians went out of their way to create obstacles. The Great Powers, believing that they had nothing to gain, also abstained from helping Macedonia. The Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian struggles for independence prepared the Turks and made them more determined to deal with the Macedonians.

When the conflict was over, the people who returned to their villages were devastated to find their homes destroyed. Added to all their ills, winter was fast approaching and no food or shelter was to be found. To make matters worse, a curfew was placed on travel and those away from home found themselves stranded. Those in need of work were no longer allowed to leave their vilayets. This was the first time in Macedonian history that Macedonians ever considered permanent emigration. Many early Macedonian emigrants to Canada, the USA and Australia were refugees from the Ilinden aftermath.

When reports of the uprising could no longer be contained and filtered out to the foreign media, it became clear that the Turks were not as successful as they had claimed, in keeping peace and maintaining the status quo in Macedonia. The Great Powers, Britain in particular, were disturbed by the atrocities committed by Turkish soldiers. On Britain's insistence the Great Powers recommended European officers take over command of the Turkish gendarmerie. Unfortunately, the European officers were Christians and the Turks refused to take orders from them. The German officers had some success because they had trained the Turks but not enough to make a difference. To prevent the situation from deteriorating further, Britain pushed for high-level reforms which resulted in the appointment of two Turkish inspectors but in the end they did nothing to ease the problems.

As mentioned earlier, determined to eradicate IMRO influence, Turkey turned to her neighbours for help. By declaring Macedonia a &quot;multi-interest-zone&quot; Turkey invited armed propaganda from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia to counter the insurgents. The failed uprising, loss of so many great IMRO leaders, the Turkish backlash and now the foreign influence was too much for IMRO. The close links with the villages and the ideological differences between isolated IMRO branches widened. Although IMRO continued to live, it lacked direction and was on the verge of an ideological collapse. In time, however, it managed to muster two more congresses. With the advent of Krste Misirkov's book, a new tide of opinion was spreading throughout Macedonia. Misirkov warned against falling under the influence of the chauvinistic elements and recommended taking a more nationalistic approach in order to weed out Vrhovist and conservative elements. At the Prilep Congress held in May 1904, IMRO was re-vitalized and its independence reasserted. The most significant developments to emerge from this Congress were IMRO's ability to shed itself of its conservative elements and to adopt a resolution to decentralize the organization and give more power to the sub-districts. This Congress literally split IMRO into two ideologically polarized halves. While leftist IMRO adopted a defensive strategy, the right wing conservative Vrhovists pursued a policy of renewed confrontation. The two factions continued to masquerade under the same banner and were headed for a showdown. The showdown materialized in November of 1905, at the Rila Monastery near the Macedonian-Bulgarian border and took the form of a General Congress. There was a single item of paramount importance on the agenda, to determine the direction of the Organization.

Defeated at the Rila Congress, the Right wing Vrhovists took up permanent residence in Sofia and continued to wage a terrorist war on the IMRO leadership. Both Nikola Karev, in 1905, and Dame Gruev, in 1906, were indirectly eliminated by terrorist acts of the Vrhovists.

Bulgarian interference in Macedonia not only damaged the revolutionary movement but also put fear in the civilian population, ripening conditions for Balkan intervention. Greece and later Serbia were quick to take advantage of a weak IMRO and a frightened population. With the assistance of the Turkish military they were able to step up armed propaganda campaigns inside Macedonia. The aim was to kill two birds with one stone. By being the eyes and ears of the Turks, the Greek clergy spied on the Macedonians and disclosed information to Turkish authorities. The Turkish military in turn, stepped up activities to eradicate the remnants of the Cheti and their leaders. At the same time, in the midst of terror, the same Greek spies who were spying on them were also offering Macedonians Hellenism as a way to salvation. &quot;No one can deny that the Greeks owed much to the Turks. Indeed the victory of the Turks in 1903 was the salvation of Hellenism in Macedonia. From the outset the Greek clergy and notables devised means of passing information to the Turks. The Turkish authorities on their side welcomed this support.&quot; (Pages 118-119, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913)

The most notorious of the Greek clergy was the Metropolitan of Kostur, Archbishop Germanos Karavangelis. Karavangelis was sent to Macedonia by the Patriarch Constantine V who favoured the Athenian (the most nationalist) style of Hellenism and selected Karavangelis as the right man to do the job. Dakin portrays Karavangelis as a charismatic and capable figure of a man that is a credit to the human race. (Pages 119-127, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913) That, however, is far from the truth. Karavangelis was a ruthless killer and a disgrace to the Christian religion. Karavangelis was personally responsible for the assassination of hundreds of Macedonian patriots including priests, notables, teachers and IMRO leaders. He was also personally responsible for Hellenizing hundreds of Macedonian villages, by force and by sheer terror. If you wish to know more about Karavangelis' terrorist actions in Macedonia read his biography (the original version) &quot;Arheio Makedonikou Agona, Pinelopis Delta, Apomnimoneymata, Germanou Karavaggeli, Georgiou Dikonymou Makri, Panagioti Papatzanetea&quot;.

Karavangelis' first priority after accepting the post as Metropolitan of Kostur was to raise an army. He couldn't import one, the Great Powers were watching, so he resorted to purchasing one. The most pliable and feeble-minded man who would sell his soul for gold was the self styled brigand Kote of Rula (&quot;the darling of Athens&quot;). Kote sold out his own people for Greek gold. From being the most revered Cheta leader, Kote became the most hated man in Macedonia. When Karavangelis decided who was to die, Kote became the executioner. In addition to regular pay for murder, Kote and his band of no-goods received additional rewards of gold coins for turning in desired body parts from their victims. While Kote was doing the murdering in the Macedonian villages, Karavangelis, in person with Turkish escorts, was Hellenizing. Nothing and no one could stand in his way. Those who Karavangelis couldn't buy or bribe he had killed. &quot;By containing and fragmenting the Internal Organization in Western Macedonia, Kota (Kote) and Karavangelis not only caused the projected rising to be continually postponed but they also caused it to be undertaken prematurely; and eventually they both contributed towards its defeat and failure. True, most of the recorded action (the arrests, searches and attacks on villages and bands) were carried out by the Turks, but the Turks nearly always acted on information supplied by Karavangelis or his agents. It was Karavangelis again who prevailed upon the Turks to attack Smardeshi (Smurdersh) on 9/22 May 1903.&quot; (Page 132, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913)

&quot;After the Ilinden rising of August 1903, it was Karavangelis who, escorted by 600 Turkish soldiers, visited the villages, celebrating mass, speaking to the villagers and calling upon them to surrender arms. The result was that even such strongholds as Aposkepos (Aposkep), Zagoritsani (Zagoricheni) and Gabresi (Gabresh), which only a few months before had declared themselves Exarchist, now returned to the Patriarchist fold. Without the support of the Turks, it is doubtful whether Karavangelis's work would have been successful. It is equally doubtful, however, whether but for the activities of the Patriarchist counter-movement, the Turkish authorities could have dealt such a decisive blow to the Internal Organization (IMRO).&quot; (Page 135, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913)

The ultimate disgrace for Karavangelis came after the massacre of the village Zagoricheni. Refusing to bend to Hellenism, Zagoricheni, on direct orders from Karavangelis, was massacred to the last person the Greeks could lay their hands on, including the unborn children inside the wombs of pregnant women. Witnesses reported finding bodies of pregnant women with their abdomens cut open. The survivors who escaped the atrocity refused to bury the dead bodies of their neighbours. For days the dead were guarded until the European consuls in Bitola came to witness the atrocities for themselves. Here is what Brailsford had to say. &quot;The chef d'oevre of this Hellenic campaign was achieved at Zagoricheni, a large Bulgarian village (author's note: Macedonian village, there were no Bulgarian villages inside Macedonia) near Klissoura, which, like Mokreni, took a leading part in the uprising of 1903, and like Mokreni was burned by the Turks. A Greek band, which is said to have numbered over two hundred men under three Greek officers in uniform, surprised it by night (April 6-7, 1905) by using bugle calls which led the villagers to suppose that Turkish regulars were manoeuvering in the neighbourhood. They burned ten houses, and twenty-eight of the temporary homes erected amid the ruins of the last conflagration. They wounded seven persons and killed no less than sixty, among them seven women, twenty-two persons over sixty years of age, and five children under fifteen. There was a good deal of evidence to show that the local Turkish authorities were privy to this massacre, and some circumstances seemed to include the Archbishop of Castoria (Kostur). It is quite clear that no conflict or provocation preceded what was simply a deliberate massacre, and the only reason for choosing Zagoricheni was that it was an eager and patriotic Bulgarian center, and that it disobeyed the summons of the Greek Archbishop to return to the Patriarch fold.&quot; (Pages 216-217, Macedonia its Races and their Future) After the massacre when it was discovered that Karavangelis was implicated, to escape punishment, the cowardly Archbishop of Kostur fled to Sveta Gora (Holy Mountain) where he spent two years in hiding before fleeing to Austria. Today, there is a statue of Karavangelis in Kostur to commemorate his great contributions to Hellenism.

Macedonians were well acquainted with the murderous activities of the Bulgarian Vrhovists whose new waves of terrorist bands began to penetrate the eastern borders of Macedonia in March of 1904. Fortunately, Yane Sandanski's forces were still in control of the Pirin district and more often than not, successfully repealed Bulgarian advances. In the west bands of young Turks, who deserted the army during the Ilinden rebellion, joined Albanian gangs, looting and killing indiscriminately. From the north Serbian bands began to penetrate Macedonian territory. By mid 1905, there were eleven bands numbering almost 100 men pillaging, murdering, razing entire villages and wreaking their own special brand of terror. The most violent campaign was waged by the Greek terrorists who penetrated the south-central regions of Macedonia. By 1905 the Greeks imported a contingent of Cretans, a thousand-strong, and reinforced it with Turkish deserters who roamed unhindered razing and slaughtering entire villages. By 1906 eight bands numbering over 400 men were operating in the Solun district alone and another twelve bands of 600 men around Bitola.

Along with the intrusions of armed bands in Macedonia there reappeared the foreign schools and propaganda institutions directed by the Greek and Bulgarian churches. The terrorist bands instilled fear in the Macedonian population and the churches were quick to take on the role of protector, setting the stage for the partitioning of Macedonia.

It was well known that there were no Greek, Bulgarian, or Serbian ethnicities living in Macedonia but that didn't stop the new Balkan States from inventing them. The wheels of the protagonists were turning when they attempted to kill two birds with one stone by cleverly substituting &quot;ethnicity&quot; for &quot;church affiliation&quot;. By the end of the 19th century the Christian Millet of Ottoman Macedonia was already divided into two millets (the Greek Patriarchist Millet and the Bulgarian Exarchist Millet). First, since there was no Macedonian Millet there was no &quot;governing body&quot; to represent a Macedonian religious denomination. Second, since all Christians in Macedonia already belonged to one millet or another, it was easy to make &quot;ethnic&quot; claims on behalf of &quot;church affiliation&quot;. In modern terms, all Macedonians belonging to the Patriarchist fold were considered to be ethnic Greek. Similarly, all those Macedonians belonging to the Exarchist fold were considered to be ethnic Bulgarians. By introducing Serbian churches and schools, Serbia later used similar tactics to claim the existence of a Serbian ethnicity inside Macedonia.

All Macedonians belonging to the Patriarchist church were given Greek or &quot;Hellenized&quot; names. Similarly, all Macedonians belonging to the Exarchist church were given Bulgarian names. In many instances brothers, born of the same parents, were given different last names because they happened to go to different churches. Their choice of church had nothing to do with loyalty to one faction or the other, but rather with the church's location relative to their homes. Each brother attended the church nearest to his house as he had always done. The sad part was that now with every spoonful of religion came a dose of venomous propaganda. Brother was pitted against brother, one fighting for &quot;Hellenism&quot; and the other for &quot;Bulgarism&quot;. At the beginning of the Ilinden rebellion most Macedonian villages belonged to the Exarchate Church. With increased Greek activities through Karavangelis and others like him, the tide was turning. The Greek success was mainly due to the Turkish-Greek alliance and the Turkish militia's assistance. The Macedonian people were frightened to a point of agreeing to anything to escape further punishment.

The alliance, which gave the Greeks the upper hand, did not go unnoticed by the Bulgarians. British fears of a Turkish-Bulgarian war were alleviated when Bulgaria on April 8th, 1904 signed a peace agreement with Turkey. Bulgaria promised to reduce subversive actions in Macedonia in exchange for Turkish promises to implement the Murzsteg Reform Program and to extend it to the Endrene (Dardanelles) region. Russia was not too happy about the agreement, especially since Bulgaria herself was beginning to make moves towards Endrene. Being of strategic importance, Russia was hoping to eventually annex Endrene for itself.

The prospect of declining Bulgarian intrusions inside Macedonia was welcome news for Karavangelis. The Greeks could now import fighters from Crete, to fight the Macedonian Cheti, side by side with their Turkish allies without Bulgarian interference. Unfortunately, while the Bulgarians reduced their military intrusions, they stepped up Exarchist activities creating stiff competition for the Greeks. The clergy on both sides were going after the same flock as both sides appointed themselves protectors and guardians of the people. In the eyes of the world they became ambassadors of the Christian flock in Macedonia. This competition to attract parishioners created friction between the opposing factions. Friction turned to violence in villages where both groups existed and fought for control over the village church. The Turks were indifferent to the squabbling due to its religious nature and remained neutral in church disputes. When fights erupted, the Turks padlocked the church so neither group could use it. As competition for control of the village churches intensified so did brigand warfare. Local squabbling never went unnoticed and both Patriarchists and Exarchists sent their hatchet men to eliminate the so-called &quot;troublemakers&quot;. Many priests, teachers, notables and community leaders lost their lives in this way.

To be continued...

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>ol8h0cwj4xfjztklp8zm5pbcojuojzl</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 13 - The Macedonian Revival III</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2640</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11030</id>
      <parentid>6824</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:38:02Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="37622" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 13 - The Macedonian Revival III

October, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com


[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

The 18th century witnessed renewed conflicts with several new wars breaking out, resulting in more negative consequences for the Macedonian people.

Internally, the Ottoman Empire was plagued with feudal anarchy, perpetrated by the powerful feudal lords. Some were so powerful that they openly defied the central government by not submitting taxes and by using state money to bolster their own private armies and maintain their own independence.

Besides the renegade begs, the 18th century also gave rise to a new breed of bandits who found it easier to rob innocent people than to work. At times these groups numbered as high as five hundred roaming the Macedonian countryside, robbing and looting entire villages at a time. Most of these marauding bandits were of Turkish and Albanian extraction. They often collaborated with the defiant feudal lords and corrupt state officials, doing their dirty work.

By 1715 banditry had become a reputable profession and, for some, robbing and looting became a way of life. When complaints from Turkish merchants and businessmen began to arrive the Ottoman State had no choice but to intervene.

At times even the martolozes, men hired to protect the population, also contributed to the anarchy. Instead of upholding the law, they held up villages, taking food and materials without paying. Some even committed atrocities under the pretext of pursuing outlaws.

During the Ottoman war with Austria and Russia, which lasted from 1787 to 1792, a new group of bandits, known as the krcali, appeared in Macedonia. The krcali were a large group who used various mountains throughout Macedonia for cover. The krcali were organized in bands of about two thousand. Their ranks consisted of peasants, army deserters and women, people of all faiths and nationalities. They rode on horseback and were extremely mobile. They were known for their surprise attacks and lightening fast ability to loot whole villages and towns. Many districts were devastated by the krcali who were hunted down by the Sultan's army for a decade before they were eradicated.

The greatest victims of this anarchy were the defenseless Christians whose only way of getting justice was for themselves to become outlaws. As in the 17th century, outlawry exploded again in the 18th century forcing the Ottoman State into a crisis. Unable to deal with outlawry on its own, the central government made it the responsibility of the general population by imposing additional taxes on them.

Unable to stop the outlaws by conventional methods, the Ottoman authorities proposed various different schemes including employing them as martolozes (protectors) with a regular monthly income. The bands that agreed to the terms were pardoned for their past crimes. Unable to deal with the outlaws on its own was a clear signal that the Ottoman central government was weakening which prompted a further escalation in anarchic activities.

Attacks on the Macedonian peasant population in both villages and towns were carried out on a regular basis. The pressure of violence caused people to leave the dangerous countryside for the safety of larger towns. Macedonians left their rural homes for the urban setting thus opening up opportunities for foreign influx, mostly Albanians, to fill the void. With more Macedonians flooding the towns the economy began to shift from agriculture to craftsmanship and commerce. Also, coincidental with the movement of people, craftsman trades were gradually set free from small individual commissions for local consumption to the large production of goods for export.

With the majority of the trades operated by Macedonians, leadership in the guilds began to slowly change hands. Macedonian merchants began to venture further out to strengthen their links with the outside world. Ohrid merchants began to trade with those of Port Durazzo thus gaining access to cities in Italy. Also merchants from Kostur opened trade with Venice and Austria. Macedonian trading houses were opened in Solun, Kostur, Bansko, Serres, Voden and Ohrid with bureaus in Bucharest, Timisoara, Budapest, Vienna, Livorno, Venice, Odessa and Moscow.

Christians were allowed to trade with the usual restriction both inside and outside of the Ottoman world but Muslims were prohibited to do so by law. According to Muslim law, ordinary Muslims were not allowed to handle money, speak foreign languages, or venture beyond Islamic held lands. Therefore, a select class of Christians known as the Phanariots was appointed by the Sultan to handle official trade, communication and contact with the outside world.

The Phanariots were a group of wealthy Christians who got their name from the &quot;Phanar&quot; or lighthouse district of Tsari Grad where they lived. After the Sultan installed the Patriarch (highest religious leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church) in Tsari Grad (Constantinople), the Phanar became a thriving community of wealthy and educated Christians. The Sultan placed the Phanariot Patriarch in charge of the Christian Millet because he found him more agreeable than his other (poor) Christian counterparts. The Patriarchy functioned like a state within a state with its own administration and services. 

Having the Sultan's favour, the Patriarch took the opportunity to expand his dominion over the entire Eastern Christian Church by replacing whatever legitimate bishoprics he could with his own corrupt people. For example, the Old Serbian bishoprics were abolished as punishment for helping the Habsburgs (Ausro-Hungarian Empire). At about the same time the Macedonian bishopric, including the powerful Ohrid bishopric, was also abolished. After becoming gospodars (lords), the Phanariots replaced all the Romanian bishoprics. As gospodars in Romania, the Phanariots abolished Church Slavonic (Macedonian) liturgy and replaced Macedonian speaking clergy with Romanians. The Romanians however, didn't care much for the Phanariots and pursued Romanian ways. Eventually as more and more bishoprics were shut down the Phanariots redefined the old culture, Christian faith and Christian education to suit themselves and their corrupt ways.

The Ottomans trusted the Phanariots well enough to give them a role in the central Ottoman administration. This included the office of the &quot;Dragoman&quot;, the head of the Sultan's interpreters' service. Phanariots participated in diplomatic negotiations with outsiders and some even became ambassadors for the Ottoman Empire. Phanariots were put in charge of collecting taxes from the Christian Millet for the Ottomans and whatever they could pilfer from the peasants they kept for themselves. Many scholars believe that Romania's peasants have never suffered more than they did during the Phanariot period. Phanariots also secured food and other services for the Ottoman court.

The Phanariots, through the Dragoman, were largely responsible for providing &quot;all kinds&quot; of information to the outside world about the Ottoman Empire, including their own desires to rule it some day. Some Phanariots were educated abroad in London and Paris and were responsible for bringing information into the Ottoman Empire. Towards the middle of the 18th century, the Phanariot dream was to replace the Ottoman Empire with a Christian Empire like the Russian model. In theory, they wanted to re-create a multi-cultural Pravoslav Empire (Byzantine) but with a Patriarch in charge. The Phanariots believed that with Russian or German help it was possible to achieve their goals.

The power and money hungry Phanariots were not content with only running the Ottoman administration but sought to possess all the eparchies of the Pravoslav Churches. Pressured by the Phanariots, the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad increasingly began to interfere in the affairs of the various Archbishoprics including the Church of Ohrid. Using his influence with the Sultan, in May 1763, the Patriarch attempted to appoint a man of his choice, the monk Ananias, as head of Ohrid. Ananias, however, was rejected and the Archbishopric elected Arsenius, the Macedonian Metropolitan from Pelagonia. This unfortunately proved disastrous for the Archbishopric. The Patriarch retaliated and by means of bribery and intrigue, with the aid of the Ottoman authorities and his allies among the higher clergy in the Ohrid Church, he gradually did away with the Archbishopric. 

On January 16, 1767 Arsenius was forced to resign his office voluntarily, recognize the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad and personally request the abolition of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Sultan issued a decree making the abolition legal and annexing its eparchies to the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad. The Ohrid Eparchy itself was abolished and the town came under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Durazzo. Aiming to eradicate every single trace of the once autocephalous Ohrid church, the Patriarchate even changed Ohrid's name to Lychnidos. The local bishops were replaced with Koine speakers throughout Macedonia and new ecclesiastical taxes were introduced.

After the unfortunate loss of the Ohrid Church to the Patriarchate, monasteries were virtually the only cultural centers left in Macedonia. Having a large number of Slavonic (Macedonian) manuscripts in their possession, the monasteries took over the tradition of copying and reproducing liturgical, philosophical, educational and other ecclesiastical documents. Included among the most important of these monasteries were the Lesnovo Monastery near Kratovo, Matejche and St. Prohor Pchinski near Kumanovo, Slepche near Demir Hisar, Treskavets near Prilep, Prechista near Kichevo, John Bigorski near Debar and Polog in the Tikvesh district. The desire to continue in the Macedonian tradition was provided by Sveta Gora (Holy mountain or Mt. Athos) where the Macedonian culture and Slavonic language continued to be cherished and heard in the monasteries of Chilandar, Zograph and Panteleimon.

Among the various documents kept by the clergy in Sveta Gora were monastic records of the names and donations of all visitors to the monasteries. Important documents of Slavonic literacy such as Clement's Charter, the Slepche Letters, the Macedonian Damascene of the 16th century, the Tikvesh Collection of the 16th and 17th centuries and the Treskavets Codicil of the 17th and 18th centuries were also preserved in Sveta Gora.

Monasteries provided shelter for teaching cleric students to read and write in the Macedonian language. During the 17th and more so during the 18th century, Macedonian monks began to open schools in the towns near their churches where they taught basic literacy to willing students. Such schools were also operated in Veles, Skopje and Prilep.

New churches, built mostly by villages in Macedonia during Ottoman rule, were far smaller and more modest than those built in the pre-Ottoman period. Architecturally their form was simple, to make them indistinguishable from the houses in the village. A fresco painting hanging on the interior wall and several icons mounted on wooden iconostases were the only things that distinguished churches from houses.

Icon paintings were still painted in the old style but the quality of the work gradually declined. Original works became a rarity and artistic creativity boiled down to nothing more than imitations and copying the great works from previous epochs. The number of painters, journeymen and apprentices also declined and so did their field work.

During the 18th century several painting studios existed, the most significant being located in the Ohrid and Prespa district, the Treskavets and Zrze monasteries in the Prilep district, Slepche, Lesnovo and the Skopje Tsrna Gora.

Some of the works produced during this and earlier periods were of considerable artistic value and of importance to the churches. Examples of these include the paintings in the Church of the Holy Virgin located in a cave at Peshtani. The snake cross in the Church of St. Demetrius in Ohrid was painted at the end of the 15th century. The monk Makarios, from the village of Zrze, painted the icon of the Virgin of Pelagonia in 1422, and the portrait of Kupen, painted in 1607, was in the Church of the Holy Virgin at Slivnitsa Monastery in the village of Slivnitsa in the Prespa district.

The influence of oriental elements in Macedonian woodcarving also increased during the same period. The double braid, carved in shallow and flat carvings, was a pure and exclusive motif right up until the 17th and early 18th centuries when more intricate carvings began to appear. Good examples of shallow carving are the doors of the old monastery, Church of St. John the Baptist at Slepche. Other exceptionally good pieces of woodcarving are the doors of the Treskavets Monastery, probably carved at the end of the 15th century.

Shallow woodcarvings can also be found on icon frames from the same period. The most interesting is that of the baptism of Christ found in the Church of the Holy Virgin at the Slivnitsa Monastery.

Deep incisions began to appear at the close of the 17th century, showing superior beauty in contrast to the shallow carvings. Good examples of deep carvings are the iconostases of St. Naum Church near Lake Ohrid (1711) and St. Demetrius Church in Bitola (1775).

On the subject of music, the necessary conditions for the development of professional music in Macedonia were not quite there during the Ottoman era. Folk music, however, flourished and was very popular with the Macedonian people, not only for its entertaining qualities but also for its manifestations of soul, spirit, joy, suffering and pain. Most composers, unfortunately, chose to remain anonymous and cannot be credited for their work. Apart from church music, which continued to be sung in the Pravoslav chant style, folk music dominated Macedonian melodies virtually up until the end of the 19th century.

Apart from being conquerors and tyrants the Ottomans also had positive qualities. Turkish literature in Macedonia started as far back as the second half of the 15th century. Skopje, Enidzhe Vardar, and Endrene (Adrianople) were the largest Turkish cultural centers in the European part of the Ottoman State. Literature and poetry were the most valued and cherished aspects of Turkish culture which flourished during the 15th and 16th centuries but began to decline in the second half of the 17th century.

Wherever a sizable Muslim population lived in Macedonia, it left its mark in the form of Islamic temples, either as mosques or as mescids (smaller mosques).

Another form of Ottoman artistic expression was mausoleums, which also left their mark in Macedonia. Distinguished Ottomans were buried in mausoleums. One of the oldest that has been preserved is the mausoleum at Isaac Beg's mosque in Skopje.

Another group of Muslims who left their mark on Macedonian soil were the Dervishes. Wherever dervishes were found, so were their convents and hermitages.

More forms of Ottoman architectural expressions in Macedonia were the medresas, or religious schools which occupied a place of distinction among Macedonia's urban panorama. Isaac Beg built one of the first significant medresas in Skopje in 1445. Other prominent Ottoman buildings included large numbers of imarets, or free kitchens for the poor and travelers. Medresas and imarets usually existed as ancillary buildings in complexes among the larger mosques.

The Ottomans also owned numerous inns and caravanserais, which were built in the more important urban and commercial centers at various intervals along the main traffic routes in Macedonia. One of the finest was the Kurshumli Caravanserai in Skopje.

Covered markets or bezsnes were also popular in Macedonia, built to meet the needs of growing commerce in the various towns. One such place was the Mustapha Pasha covered marketplace in Skopje.

We must not forget the famous hamams or Turkish public baths, which were offered to the public both in towns and villages. Some, like the Daut Pasha Baths and the Cift Baths in Skopje, were immensely large and beautiful structures. Also of importance were the public systems of piped water, drinking fountains and wells.

Turkish educational institutions, which were emphatically religious in nature, in addition to teaching religion, offered students the opportunity to study Oriental languages, Islamic law, philosophy and mathematics. Education was conducted in the medresas (religious high schools) and the mektebs (religious elementary schools). By the 15th century two medresas were operating in Skopje. The Isaac Beg Medresa, was one of the oldest and most famous in the entire Balkans

Books were also important in the cultural life of the Islamic world. Oriental libraries, consisting mostly of religious books, were set up throughout the mosques, medresas and convents all over Macedonia. The oldest, richest and most important of these libraries was the library in Isaac Beg's mosque in Skopje.

Besides the Turks, the Albanians in Macedonia also possessed a rich culture. Life experiences were preserved in calendar songs, cradle songs, wedding and love songs. Some of the oldest and richest epics still exist in the Debar and Kichevo regions and are part of the Albanian mythological heritage. Albanian literature was also rich in folk tales.

With regard to dress, Albanian women wore clothes exceptionally rich in colour with a unique dress design. One could tell to which village a woman belonged by the colours and patterns on her dress. Men's clothing was fairly standard throughout Macedonia.

Unlike Muslim Turks and Albanians, who were free to enjoy their cultures, Christian Macedonians found the Turkish yoke increasingly unbearable, particularly from the Turkish troops who enjoyed abusing, humiliating and harassing them. With bases in Tsari Grad and Solun, troops constantly passed through Macedonia on their way to and from wars. Dissatisfied with their own condition, the soldiers often took their frustration out on the Macedonian population.

There were always Turkish soldiers in Solun so in spite of harsh living conditions no Solunian dared cause trouble unless living conditions became unbearable. In 1712 a plague broke out as a result of poor living conditions and by 1713 over 8,000 people had lost their lives. In 1720 the people of Solun had had just about enough of Turkish rule and took up arms when their wheat supplies were cut and there was no bread to eat. The same happened in 1753, 1758 and again in 1789. According to descriptions of 18th century Solun, the city had not grown beyond the confines of the Pravoslav walls, parts of which still remained in good condition. Solun had four big towers, three of which were rectangular and one circular, (the White Tower still exists to this day) located at the southern part of the fortified walls.

The population of 18th century Solun numbered approximately 40,000 people, most of whom were Turks and Jews. The streets in the commercial district were covered over with boards forming a continuous roof, providing shade for the shoppers on the hot summer days.

On the international stage, the military balance continued to shift away from the Ottomans as they continued to lose their edge in technology and modern weaponry. While western economies continued to improve, Ottoman economic development remained stagnant. A century of military defeats suffered at the hands of the western Europeans devastated the Ottoman Empire. More recently, the emergence of Russia as another powerful Ottoman foe also added to the Ottoman misery.

Ottoman-Russian wars began as early as 1677. Russia attacked the Crimea in 1689 and in 1695 captured the crucial port of Azov. Russia, up to this point, had been completely cut off from the Black Sea and had suffered immensely both economically and politically at the hands of the Ottomans.

Faced with multiple fronts, the Ottoman Empire began to shrink and for the first time since its invasions of Europe it began to permanently lose conquered lands. By the year 1700 the Sultan had surrendered almost all of Hungary, as well as Transylvania, Croatia and Slovenia to the Habsburgs while yielding Dalmatia, the Morea and some Aegean islands to Venice and Padolia and the South Ukraine to Poland. Russia had gained some territories north of the Dniester River, lost them for a while and regained them again later.

Another minor but crucial event for the south Balkans took place in 1711 when one of the Moldavian gospodars (lords) was accused of collaborating with the Russian army and was held responsible for the Russian invasion of Romania. As punishment the Ottomans replaced all Romanian and Moldavian gospodars with Phanariots from Tsari Grad.

Ottoman losses were not limited to Europe alone. On the eastern front, in a series of unsuccessful wars between 1723 and 1736, the Turks lost Azerbaijan and other lands to the Persians. A decade later in 1746, after two centuries of war, the Ottomans abandoned the conflict with Iran leaving their Iranian rivals to face political anarchy.

The agreement signed at Kuchuk Kainarji in 1774 with the Russian Romanovs, similar to the 1699 Karlowitz treaty with Austria, highlights the extent of the losses suffered by the Ottomans during the 18th century. The 1768 to 1774 war, the first with Tsaritsa Catherine the Great, included the annihilation of the Ottoman fleet in the Aegean near Chezme. Russian ships sailed from the Baltic Sea through Gibraltar, across the Mediterranean Sea and sank the Ottoman fleet at its home base. By this victorious engagement Russia forced the Sultan to break ties with the Crimean Khan. Without the Sultan's protection, the Khans were left at Russia's mercy. In a sense, the Sultan too lost out because he could no longer count on the Khans for help.

The 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty gave Russian ships access to the Black Sea, the Bosphorus and Endrene (the Dardanelles). By this treaty Russia built an Orthodox church in Tsari Grad and became the self appointed &quot;protector of Orthodox Christians&quot; inside the Ottoman domain including Wallachia (Romania) and Moldavia. Also, for the first time, the Ottomans allowed Russian (outside) consular agents inside their empire. Russia at the time did not have enough ships to fill the shipping demands so many of the shipping contracts went to Phanariot captains who were on friendly terms with both the Russians and Ottomans.

Russian gains at the expense of the Ottoman's began to raise suspicions with western States, particularly since Russia appointed herself protector of all Pravoslav Christians.

The next event to shake the world was the French revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power. Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798 which marked the end of Ottoman dominion in this vital and rich province along the Nile. The Ottoman central government never regained Egypt, which later emerged as a separate state under Muhammad Ali Pasha and his descendants. After Ali's death his successors kept close ties with the Ottomans in Tsari Grad but remained independent.

Among the many losses the Ottomans experienced also came some gains. In the 1714 to 1718 war with Venice the Turks took back the Morea.

Towards the end of the 18th century and in the early part of the 19th century, Macedonia, like other parts of European Turkey, was a hotbed of unrest. Trouble was stirred up by the military deserters and by local feudal lords who, in the absence of the Ottoman military, had declared themselves independent and were fighting with one another for greater dominion.

The political and economic insecurity created by this anarchy and by the central government's inability to cope, forced another large migration of Macedonians from the villages into the towns. The sudden growth in the urban population caused an increase in the production of crafts and agricultural products, which became trading commodities for the central European and Russian markets. The fairs in Serres, Prilep, Doyran, Struga, Enidzhe Vardar, Petrich and Nevrokop became commercial trading posts for both domestic and foreign trade. The newly created market network enabled Macedonian businessmen to develop trading ties with the outside world. Businessmen from Veles, Bitola, Serres, Bansko and Ohrid set up their own agencies in Vienna, Leipzig, Trieste and Belgrade. Along with trade also came prosperity and exposure to the outside world. Macedonian merchants became the bearers of progressive ideas, education, culture and Macedonian national sentiment.

The Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty bolstered Russian expansionism in the Balkans, which alarmed the western Powers and initiated the &quot;Eastern Question&quot;; &quot;What will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire disappears?&quot; The Eastern Question of the 1800's later became the Macedonian Question of the 1900's.

At about the same time as Russia was making her way into the Balkans, the west was also experiencing changes. The industrial revolution was in full swing, coming out of England and progressing towards the rest of the world. France was the economic superpower but was quickly losing ground to England. The French Revolution (1789) gave birth not only to new ideas and nationalism, but also to Napoleon Bonaparte. As Napoleon waged war in Europe and the Middle East, French shipping in the Mediterranean subsided only to be replaced by the Phanariot and British traders. French trade inside Ottoman territory also declined and never fully recovered. By land, due to the long border, Austria dominated trade with the Ottoman Empire exercising its own brand of influence on the Balkans.

As the turn of the 19th century brought economic change to Europe, the Balkans became the last frontier for capitalist expansion. By the 1800's Europe's political, economic and military institutions were rapidly changing. Western governments and exporters were aggressively pursuing Balkan markets on behalf of their western manufacturers. This aggressive pursuit smothered Balkan industries before they had a chance to develop and compete. As a result, Balkan economies began to decline causing civil unrest and nationalist uprisings. While western countries were left undisturbed to develop economically and socially, external forces prevented Balkan societies from achieving similar progress. Mostly regulated by guilds, Balkan trades could not compete with western mechanization and went out of business. Without jobs, most city folk became a burden on the already economically strained rural peasants. The economic situation in the Balkans deteriorated to intolerable levels and like in the previous two centuries, people began to rebel.

Two overwhelming &quot;forces&quot; came into being in the 19th century, which transformed the Balkans. The first was the 1848 &quot;western economic revolution&quot; which thrust the Balkans into social and economic upheaval. The second was &quot;increased intervention&quot; from non-Balkan political forces. As the century advanced these developments merged, working not for the interests of the Balkan people but for the benefit of Europe's Great Powers.

Turkey's financial collapse opened the door for western governments to manipulate internal Ottoman policies as well as divert needed revenues to pay foreign debts. On top of that the Ottoman Empire was forced into becoming a consumer of western European commodities. While western Europe prospered from these ventures, Ottoman trades and guilds paid the ultimate price of bankruptcy. Lack of work in the cities bore more pressure on the village peasants, who were now being taxed to starvation to feed unemployed city dwellers, as well as maintaining the status quo for the rich. The Ottoman Empire became totally dependent on European capital for survival, which put the state past the financial halfway point of no return and marked the beginning of the end of Ottoman rule in Europe.

For the oppressed peoples of the Balkans, the dawn of the nineteenth century marked the beginning of national struggles for liberation from the centuries-long domination of the Ottoman Empire. The first was the Serbian uprising of 1804 followed by the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Macedonians, in an effort to liberate their Christian brothers from the oppressive Muslim Turk, took part in both uprisings. In the first Serbian uprising a Macedonian named Volche was instrumental in building the Deligrad fortifications and distinguished himself as a great fighter in battle. Petar Chardaklija was another Macedonian who also distinguished himself as a great fighter in the Serbian resistance. Petar Ichko, another Macedonian, led a delegation that concluded the well-known Ichko Peace Treaty of 1806 with the Ottoman government. When news of the Serbian uprising reached Macedonia the Macedonian people were stirred to action. Unfortunately the Ottoman authorities were ready and concentrated large numbers of troops in Macedonia, quelling the rebellion even before it had a chance to start.

Macedonians also participated in the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Immediately after the outbreak of the Morea revolt Macedonians formed their own bands, particularly in the Voden district and joined up with the Morean rebels. Among the band leaders who fought side by side with the Moreans were the brothers Ramadanovi, Dimche Minov, Dincho Drzhilovich and Demir Trajko.

Strongly influenced by the ideals of the Phanariot freedom fighters who were calling on the entire Balkan population to take up arms against the Ottoman yoke, many Macedonians, particularly those in the Voden and Negush districts, did take up arms. In early March 1822, under the leadership of Atanas Karatase and Angel Gacho, a revolt broke out in the town of Negush. In no time the rebels put down the Turks and declared Negush liberated. The revolt quickly spread towards Voden engulfing a large number of villages. Unfortunately, effort and determination alone were not enough to stop the numerically superior Ottoman army. Isolated and besieged from all sides the rebels were suppressed and dispersed. After a fierce battle the Turks recaptured the town of Negush and persecutions and pillaging followed. To avoid further problems, the population of Negush was either enslaved or resettled in other parts of Macedonia.

The following is part of a letter written by Gacho that reveals the existence of the Negush uprising.

&quot;No sooner had I heard the sound of Ares's bugle and the weeping call of my beloved fatherland for the protection of its rights than I scorned my tranquility, wealth and glory, took arms against the tyrants and managed to stay near Negush during the whole war. There I fought long and blood-shedding battles until the destruction of Negush, where my beloved children and my wife were taken, prisoner, but, thank God, they are now alive, although in a hostile country (exposed) to the will of the barbarians.

Patriot, Angel Gacho, 16th September 1824&quot; (Page 183, The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985)

This next letter is from the Sultan to the Kapicibasi, the Solun Mutesellim Jusuff Beg, concerning the uprising in Negush

&quot;...We have heard that the disloyal villains from Negush and the surrounding villages, who rose to arms and for whose destruction we undertook a campaign with a great number of soldiers starting from Solun, built up at the end of the town real and strong redoubts defending the town under the leadership of the repulsive and false captains Zafiraki, Iliamandi, Karataso and others. Although there were a few traveling representatives sent to them from our side who advised them to hand over their arms, promising that they would be pardoned, and that in case they did not do it, they should expect an inglorious end, thus showing them the way to their salvation, they unrepentantly replied with the following curses: 'We do not believe the words of Moslems and shall continue our disobedience and uprising.' Therefore, putting into effect the orders of the declared fetva against them, it was decided that in future their greasy bodies should be erased from the face of the earth. But as for the success of the aforementioned full pressure and complete surrounding of the neighbouring mountains is necessary, you are being ordered to mobilize from among the Moslems in the town (of Ber) 200 young men and distinguished fighters as soldiers, who, having been put under the command of the carrier of his order, our lord privy seal, Abdul Baki-Aga, should form a detachment which should leave for the Negush camp at once. That is why this order is being issued by the Solun divan and the Nengus camp. See that this order will be carried out as soon as possible and avoid any action contrary to it.

Tsari Grad, 3rd recep 1217 (26th March 1822)&quot; (Page 185, The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985)

This next letter is from Naum Ichko to prince Milos Obrenovic.

&quot;To the noble Master Milos Obrenovic, greeting him most kindly, I have received your noble letter of the 17th instant and understood what you are writing to me concerning the horse I bought from your servant and which was put up for sale. The Turks wanted to buy it, and it was good I bought it so that it did not come into their hands. I am most yours and the horse is yours too. I am driving it to pasture in Savamala, in a field; in three days the pasture will be finished. I shall be sending it saddled with the first boy who leaves for your palace. Since you already know about the sufferings in Negush, now I am informing you about my misfortune. A cousin of mine with his whole family happened to be there, fleeing from Katranica to Negush for safety; almost at the time Negush was taken they were taken as slaves: his wife, four girls and three sons. Nobody knows if my cousin is alive or dead. The family was imprisoned there by a bolukbasi from Debar and driven to Bitola in order to sell them to the Christians, because the merchants and craftsmen there bought out many slaves; the bishop only bought 30 slaves. When nobody could buy any slaves any more, the woman said to the merchants that she had a relative in Belgrade; the merchants said this to the bolukbasi asking him not to take them to the Arnautluk, but to wait 25 days until they informed me. The bolukbasi consented but said that he will not sell them for less than 4,000 coins. Then the merchants wrote me to send the money as ransom for those 8 souls. We must, my dear Master, not only redeem our relatives but also every Christian soul should be saved from Turkish hands. But it is difficult for me to find 4,000 coins, since the eparchy is weak; therefore I could only spare 1,500 coins and for the rest to 4,000 I beseech you, kneeling before you, kissing your hands and feet, to help me to save those 8 souls for the souls of your parents and the health of noble Milan. It would be good, my dear Master, if you could intercede in favour and ask some of the voivodes or pig merchants whom God has given wealth to help with 100 or 200 coins, to raise small funds, so that the Christians here can also redeem a few Christian souls from Turkish hands. Do you remember how many Serbian slaves were redeemed from Turkish hands by the Christians down there during the first years? The time has now come for us to pay the debt back. Two or three years ago you made it possible for various people to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem; now the time has come for your face to see that holy place. It is Jerusalem to save the slaves; this letter almost comes to you through commissioner Magus.

Please answer me so that Isaija can bring the answer to me by Friday evening, since the commissioner from Bitola is leaving on Saturday, and I may know what to write to the merchants in Bitola concerning those 8 souls.

I remain your obedient servant.

Naum Ichko

Belgrade, 23rd May 1822&quot; (Pages 185, 186 and 187, The University of &quot;Cyril and Methodius&quot;, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.)

The above letters are proof of the Negush (Nausa) uprising which took place in early March 1822. This is another Macedonian historical event that can no longer be hidden to protect the interests of Macedonia's southern neighbour.

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>baz5phffujiozfd605b43v19ucudhlo</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 12 - The Macedonian Revival II</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2641</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11029</id>
      <parentid>6825</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:53Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="36797" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 12 - The Macedonian Revival II

September, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

The roaring fires which King Samoil of Macedonia ignited in the Macedonian people began to slowly extinguish as Pravoslav control tightened over Macedonia. Economically divided into themes and controlled by foreign hands, Macedonia's capacity to free itself began to slowly diminish.

Tax reforms introduced in 1040 requiring peasants to pay taxes with money were good for the economy and for the tax collectors but bad for the peasants. Feudal lords awarded rights to collect state taxes meant that foreigners in addition to owning the lands were now also in authority to extract not only taxes for the state but whatever else they could for themselves above and beyond what the law prescribed. Besides regular taxes, Macedonians were also obliged to pay various supplementary taxes, like judicial fines, toll tax for crossing rivers, fishing tax, water-mill tax and marriage tax. As a marriage tax the groom was obliged to pay his bishop a gold piece and the bride twelve ells (15 meters) of linen. 

This was too much for the Macedonian people to bear and in their frustration they began to rebel. Leading the rebellion was Peter Delyan, Gabriel Radomir's son by his first wife, the daughter of the Hungarian king. The rebellion, supported by the Hungarian king, began in the regions of Belgrade and Morava near the Hungarian border and soon spread south to Skopje. With popular support and assistance from the local Macedonian population, the rebel army invaded and took Skopje. Tsari Grad quickly reacted by dispatching an army in pursuit. But instead of attacking, the Pravoslav soldiers defected and proclaimed Tihomir, one of their own soldiers, as their emperor. Tihomir unfortunately died in battle leaving his army under Delyan's command.

Delyan immediately began a military campaign to recover his grandfather's (Samoil's) kingdom by sending troops to Dyrrachium and, with the support of the local people, took that theme. He then sent a large army to besiege Solun. At the sight of Delyan's immense army, Pravoslav Emperor Michael IV, who at the time was waiting for him, fled in terror to Tsari Grad leaving Manuel Ivets in command of the Pravoslav army. Instead of fighting Ivets defected to Delyan's side, joining forces with the rebels.

Exploiting the panic which had risen in the ranks of the Pravoslav army, Delyan dispatched his armies in several directions. One, led by Anthimus, made its way south reaching as deep as the town Tiva and spreading the revolt into Epirus and conquering the theme of Naupactos. Another army took Demetrias (Volos in Thessaly) and so on. Soon Delyan was in possession of a large territory encompassing the greater part of Samoil's kingdom.

Unfortunately the rebellion proved futile as the numerically superior Pravoslav army in 1041 engaged and defeated the rebels.

Instead of bringing change for the better, the rebellion brought disaster to the Macedonian people. The Pravoslav army, which consisted mainly of Norwegian mercenaries under the command of Harold Hardraga, devastated Macedonia. They enslaved most of the population and brought new state officials and feudal lords who, together with the army, introduced even more oppressive measures.


Frustration continued to boil in Macedonia and in 1072 the Macedonian people again took to the streets and began another rebellion. Led by George Voyteh a revolt broke out in Skopje and was immediately assisted by Michael, the ruler of Zeta, who was related to Samoil. Michael sent his son Constantine Bodin along with three hundred of his elite troops to join Voyteh and his rebels at Prizren and immediately proclaimed him emperor under the name Peter, in honour of the fallen Peter Delyan.

The rebels descended on Macedonia with two columns of armies and managed to liberate Skopje and Ohrid but received a severe blow while attempting to liberate Kostur. Outnumbered and outgunned, Voyteh agreed to surrender thus ending the rebellion.

In 1073 the Pravoslavs stepped up their campaign in Macedonia and brought additional forces in to rout out the remaining pockets of rebel resistance. Unfortunately that was not all that they did. In pursuit of the rebels, the Pravoslav army destroyed Samoil's imperial palace in Prespa and looted the churches in the vicinity. These acts further inflamed the situation and the rebels continued to resist, forcing the Pravoslavs to bring even more troops and take more drastic measures. Only by burning and razing everything, wherever opposition was offered, did the Pravoslavs succeeded in putting down the rebellion. By the end of 1073 it was all over.

When all else failed the oppressed masses began to express their frustration by joining the Bogomil movement. They became particularly powerful at the end of the eleventh century and even more so during the course of the twelfth century. The struggle of the Bogomils was directed as equally against the feudal lords as it was against the Pravoslav Emperor and his spiritual and ecclesiastical officials. 

The next conquerors to influence the Macedonian people in a negative way were the Seljuq Turks, whose conquests would change the shape of both the Muslim and Pravoslav worlds. In 1055, having conquered Persia, they entered Baghdad and their prince assumed the title of sultan and protector of the Abbasid caliphate. Before long they asserted their authority up to the borders of Fatimid Egypt and throughout Pravoslav Anatolia. They made their first appearance across the Pravoslav frontier in Armenia in the mid-1060's and went as far west as Caesarea in central Anatolia.

By the middle of the fourteenth century, the Ottoman Turks had consolidated their power in Asia Minor and were becoming a threat to the Balkan states. Their first serious campaign for the conquest of Europe began in 1352 when they took the fortress of Tzympe, on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Two years later, taking advantage of a devastating earthquake, they took the fortress of Gallipoli, thus creating a convenient bridgehead for their forthcoming penetration of the Balkans.

Among the first to be threatened by the Turkish forces was Uglesha's rule, a feudal lord in Macedonia. Confronted with danger he persuaded his brother Volkashin to take joint actions. Hostilities broke out in September 1371 near Chernomen followed by a fierce battle on the River Maritsa. The river turned red as casualties mounted, among them the brothers Volkashin and Uglesha. Volkashin's son Marko retained the title of King but had to recognize Turkish authority and pay tribute and rendering military aid to the Turks. The Dragash brothers who ruled Eastern Macedonia with their seat at Velbuzhd also became Turkish vassals. It was a major victory for the Turks and a catastrophe for the Macedonians, not only for the loss of life but for the terrible change of fate.

King Marko, known to Macedonians as Marko Krale, became a legendary folk hero in western Macedonia surrounded by tales and hero stories. In 1365 Volkashin proclaimed himself king (tsar) and became co-ruler with king Urosh. His brother, the despot Uglesha, ruled over the Struma region. Marko inherited Volkashin's throne and title but as part of the treaty with the Turks, whose authority he had to recognize, he had to pay tribute to the Turkish Sultan. It is believed that Marko was born in 1335. His name was discovered in a document establishing him as one of Volkashin's delegates to Dubrovnik. His name was also discovered in some chronicles of his time establishing him as the son of Volkashin and later as Marko the king. In another document dated 1370 Volkashin makes mention of his sons Marko and Andrew and of his wife Elena. 

With its capital in Prilep, Marko inherited a state that lay between the Vardar River and Albania stretching from the Shar Mountain range down to Kostur, excluding the cities of Skopje and Ohrid. After becoming king, Marko minted his own coins and placed on them the inscription: &quot;King Marko faithful to Lord Jesus Christ&quot;. 

Marko Krale was killed on May 17, 1395 in Craiova Romania, during a battle against the Vlach military leader Mircho. Marko was obliged to fight for the Turks as part of his treaty agreement with Sultan Bayazit. Marko Krale, it appears, left no heir. After his death his state reverted to the Turks.

Even though Marko Krale had been a Turkish vassal and fought on the side of Bayazit's army he was a devout Christian and just before he died on his deathbed he begged God for forgiveness and prayed out loud, asking God to help the Christians. And thus a legend was born. Marko Krale, the fearless legend, has been enshrined in the Towers of Prilep where he was born and by his frescoes and paintings in various churches and monasteries.

Life under Turkish rule in Macedonia was harsh. The Ottoman overlords overthrew the Pravoslav administration at the top and continued business as usual economically exploiting the people. Macedonian lands continued to be in foreign hands and the peasants continued to be exploited as before. The new conquerors were only interested in making profit for themselves and to feed their imperial ambitions.

When the Ottomans crossed over to the Balkans and conquered Macedonia the basic state institutions and military organization of the empire were still in a state of development. Built on a basis of feudal social relations the empire was despotic with many elements of theocratic rule. 

After sacking Tsari Grad the Ottomans adapted much of the Pravoslav administration and feudal practices and began to settle the Balkans. The conquered people of the new Ottoman territories became subjects of the empire, to be ruled according to Muslim law. At the head of the Ottoman Empire sat the Sultan who was God's representative on earth. The Sultan owned everything and everyone in the empire. Below the Sultan sat the ruling class and below them sat the Rajak (protected flock). Everyone worked for the Sultan and he in turn provided his subjects with all of life's necessities. The Sultan was the supreme head of the empire and his power was unrestricted. 

The Ottoman legal system was created around the Seriat which had its basis in Islam. The Koran and Hadith were the books from which the ideals and fundamental principles for the construction of the legal system were drawn. No law could be passed which in principle contradicted the Seriat. Only the supreme religious leader, the Sejh-ul-Islam, had the right to interpret and assess the legal norms and only from the point of view of Islamic law. 

The Koran dictated Muslim conduct and behaviour, including punishment for crimes. In the Ottoman mind only religion and the word of God had sole authority over peoples' lives. Religion was the official government of the Ottoman State. Islam was the only recognized form of rule that suited Muslims but could not be directly applied to non-Muslims. So the next best thing was to allow another religion to rule the non-Muslims. The obvious choice of course was the Pravoslav Christian Orthodox religion, which was the foundation of the Pravoslav Empire. There was a catch however. The official Muslim documents that would allow the &quot;transfer of rule&quot; were based on an ancient Islamic model, which denounced all Christianity as a corrupt invention of the &quot;Evil one&quot;. The conservative Turks regarded the Christians as no more than unclean and perverted animals. Also, the ancient documents called for sacrifices to be made. A Christian religious leader, for being granted leadership by the Muslims, was expected to sacrifice his own flock on demand to prove his loyalty to the Sultan. It was under these conditions that the Patriarch accepted his installment as sole ruler of the Christian Orthodox faith and of the non-Muslim Millet.

The Sultans tolerated Christianity as the government of the non-Muslim Millet and sold the Patriarchate to an adventurer who could buy (bribe) his nomination. Once nominated, the Patriarch in turn sold consecration rights to Bishops, who in turn regarded their gain as a &quot;legitimate investment&quot; of capital and proceeded to &quot;farm their diocese&quot;. Under Ottoman rule the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad became a corrupt business, having little to do with faith and more to do with making money. As more and more bishoprics fell into the hands of the new Patriarch, faith at the top began to fade away. This was also the beginning of the end for the Slavonic (Macedonian) Churches in the Ottoman Empire.

In addition to being a religious ruler, the Patriarch and his appointed Bishops became civil administrators of the Christian and non-Muslim people. Their authority included mediating with the Turks, administering Christian law (marriages, inheritance, divorce, etc.), running schools and hospitals and dealing with the large and small issues of life. There were no prescribed provisions on how to deal with criminal matters or the limit of authority on the part of the Bishops. In other words, there was no uniform manner by which Christian criminals could be punished or limits to how far a Bishop could exercise his authority. This opened the way for interpretation, neglect, abuse and activities of corruption such as nepotism, favouritism and bribery. 

In an attempt to create a stable political and social support system in conquered Macedonia, the Ottoman authorities introduced voluntary migration for Turks from Asia Minor. As a result, many Turkish settlements sprang up all over Macedonia and occupied strategic positions like valleys of navigable rivers and coastal plains. This increase in Muslim numbers, particularly in the larger towns, was at the expense of the Macedonian Christian population. The nomads of Anatolia were best suited for such migration because of their nomadic way of life. 

Migration into Macedonia was not restricted to Turks. Late in the 15th century Jews fleeing the western European Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal also settled in Macedonia. These migrations were of particular significance to Macedonia's economic development. Jewish colonies sprang up and flourished in important urban centers like Solun, Bitola, Skopje, Berroea, Kostur, Serres, Shtip, Kratovo and Strumitsa. The Jewish colony in Solun was one of the largest and most significant of all colonies in the entire Ottoman Empire. By the middle of the 16th century Solun was home to more than three thousand Jewish families.

Besides the colonization of Macedonia by foreign elements, there was also the assimilation of Macedonians in the Islamic fold. The process of converting Christians to Muslims began as soon as Macedonia was conquered. At the outset, a fair number of the old nobility converted to Islam in the hope of protecting and even increasing their landholdings. Gradually greater proportions of the population were converted, sometimes whole villages and districts at once. Macedonians living among the Turks, especially in the larger towns, gradually began to assimilate into the Turkish fold. Even though they became Turks, a great majority of the Macedonians retained their mother tongue and continued to speak Macedonian, practicing their traditions and even their religious customs. 

Ever since its inception, the Ohrid Archbishopric extended its sphere of influence and dominated the neighbouring churches. In spite of Pravoslav attempts to curb its power, the Ohrid Archbishopric survived and began its revitalization. By the start of the 15th century it subordinated the Sofia and Vidin eparchies and by the middle of the same century it was in control of the Vlach and Moldavian eparchies. Shortly afterwards it took control of parts of the Pech Patriarchate including Pech itself. Even the Orthodox districts of Italy (Apulia, Calabria and Sicily), Venice and Dalmatia were subordinated to the Ohrid Archbishopric for a while.

Unfortunately the more powerful the Macedonian Church became the more it attracted attention prompting the Sultan to break it up by establishing separate eparchies. In 1557 the Pech Patriarchate was reinstated and took Tetovo, Skopje, Shtip and Upper Ozumaya from the Ohrid Archbishopric. In 1575 the Orthodox Christians of Dalmatia and Venice were taken away from the Ohrid Church and moved under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad. At the start of the 17th century Ohrid lost all the eparchies from southern Italy. After that Ohrid's boundaries remained unaltered until the dissolution of the Macedonian Church in 1767.

As mentioned earlier, the Archbishopric of Ohrid, since its inception, has been an autonomous church headed by an Archbishop who was elected by a Synod. The Synod consisted of archpriests from various eparchies and was summoned on various occasions to deal with the more important matters while the Church Convocation dealt with general matters. The majority of Archbishops who served the Ohrid Church were foreigners and most of them were greedy for money, succumbing to bribery. Some, however, worked hard to raise the standards of the Archbishopric and others including Prohor, Athanasius and Barlaam even worked secretly against the Ottoman yoke. 

Even though the Ohrid Church had lost a great number of its possessions to the Ottomans it still remained a feudal institution and, apart from the returns it received from its church lands, it also received considerable income from various taxes, from performing services and settling disputes. The Ohrid lower clergy were all Macedonian and were scarcely distinguishable economically from the general population. Even though foreigners occupied the leading positions in the church, the church itself supported a unique Macedonian culture and an independent Macedonia.

During the second half of the 16th century there were obvious signs of a weakening Ottoman Empire. The successful campaigns that were waged earlier were coming to an end only to be replaced by a series of military defeats and territorial losses. Unable to expand or even hold onto existing territories, the Ottoman central government began to lose prestige and slowly fell into an economic crisis. The situation worsened when feudal lords decided to replace the Rajak's tax contributions in kind (finished products) with money, most of which they kept for themselves. In time, the feudal lords became less interested in taking part in unsuccessful campaigns and defied the weakening central government by refusing to supply the war effort with men or materials. The central government's inability to exercise authority over the feudal lords created a suitable environment for anarchy. More and more of the more powerful feudal lords began to take advantage of the situation and formed their own small military fiefs.

By the middle of the 17th century life in the chifliks became so harsh that peasants left their villages for larger towns, adding to the influx of Muslims and Jews. Many, who could no longer bear the burden and had nowhere to go, turned to marauding and robbing. Bands of peasants left their hearths and fled to either join outlaw organizations (ajdutska druzhina) or live in larger towns where some of them succeeded in becoming factors of significance in the urban economy.

During the 17th century western Europeans came to Macedonia and procured certain privileges from the Ottomans that allowed them to open consular agencies. In 1685 French merchants from Marseilles opened an agency in Solun and in 1700 they opened another one in Kavalla, through which they purchased cotton and wheat. Later Britain, Venice and the Netherlands also established consular agencies in Macedonia. At that time Solun was the gateway to the Ottoman Empire and the largest port for European goods destined for the Balkans. 

With the ascendancy of the Atlantic trade routes, Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Italian towns began to decline, particularly during the 17th century when western traders were being replaced by local ones, especially in central Europe. 

Catholic influence and propaganda, although somewhat disorganized, was present in Macedonia as early as the 16th century. In 1622 when the Papal Throne came under Jesuit control, a new organization called the Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith was established with aims at controlling all Catholic missionary activities throughout the world. It was not too long afterwards that the Catholic missions infiltrated Macedonia, including the Archbishopric of Ohrid. By the first half of the 17th century four of the Archbishops of Ohrid (Porphyry, Athanasius, Abraham and Meletius) were secretly working for the Catholics. Links were established by eparchies where Church Congregations were discretely approached to switch to Catholicism. The missionaries from Rome were cautious, tactful and did not impose the Latin language upon the population. By doing so and by showing respect for the dogma of the Eastern Church, Catholic propaganda in Ohrid became very effective in gaining ground. In fact it became so effective that in 1630 the Unites attempted to take over the archiepiscopal church of the Assumption of the Virgin but the Archbishop, by handsomely bribing the Ottoman authorities, was able to halt the takeover. That unfortunately did not stop the Catholics from trying and by the middle of the 17th century they created a Catholic Archbishopric inside Ohrid. But as soon as it was created, conditions turned unfavourable for them and it had to be dissolved and subordinated to the Diocese of Skopje. 

In 1661 Archbishop Athanasius took a trip to Rome with a proposal to unify Rome and the Archbishopric of Ohrid. An agreement was reached and a missionary by the name of Onuphrius Constantine was elected as Bishop to serve at the Koine speaking College in Rome. The union, however, did not work out and Catholic propaganda in Macedonia began to lose its effect. A new hope was growing among the Balkan people that Russia, a Christian Orthodox country, would some day liberate them from their bondage.

The Macedonian people were never content with being occupied and showed their displeasure at every opportunity. The first major uprising after the fall of Samoil's empire occurred in the middle of the 15th century in the Debar region, where Macedonians, Albanians and Vlachs lived together. Led by George Castriot, the people rose up against the tyranny of the Turks.

George Castriot, who took the name Scanderbeg after Iskander, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, came from an illustrious feudal family which at the time ruled part of present day central Albania and the greater Debar region in the present day Republic of Macedonia. During the Ottoman conquests in the region, John Castriot, George's father, managed to retain his title and holdings by acknowledging the supreme authority of the Sultan and fulfilling certain obligations as his vassal. As proof of his loyalty, John Castriot surrendered his sons to the Sultan to be held as hostages. One of those sons was George who quickly became fascinated by the energy and vigour of the Ottoman military and could not wait to join them.

Having accepted Islam, George's first act was to change his name to Scanderbeg. Scanderbeg quickly built a reputation as an able commander and gained the confidence of the Ottoman supreme authorities. When his father died in 1437, Scanderbeg took his father's place as governor of the same district. Even though Scanderbeg was an ally of the Sultan, his real loyalties lay with his people. 

When war broke out in the region in 1442 and Janos Hunjadi's armies penetrated the interior of the Ottoman Empire, Scanderbeg decided the time was right to renounce his allegiance to the Sultan and raise a rebellion. 

Scanderbeg was becoming a legend and a serious threat to Ottoman stability so it did not take long for the Ottoman military to amass a large force and after a long struggle, push Scanderbeg into Albania.

Scanderbeg died of illness on January 17, 1468. Ten years later after the fall of Croia, the last bastion of rebel strength, on January 16, 1478 the rebellion was over. This however was not the first or last rebellion. In time, and with the breakdown of Ottoman rule, more and more revolts would take place in the future.

The next local uprising took place in 1564/65, in the Moriovo region and spread to the Prilep plains and from there to the town of Prilep. Dubbed as the Moriovo and Prilep revolt, it is unknown why this revolt began but it is clear that three peasants and two priests from the Moriovo district started it. No sooner had the trouble started than the Sultan, through a decree dated October 3, 1564, ordered that the leaders of the revolt be put to death while the followers were to be sent to serve as oarsmen on Turkish galleys. Before the decree could be enforced however, the perpetrators fled causing the Sultan to order another decree for their capture.

Prilep soon became a hotbed of demonstrations when the Ottoman court ruled in favour of a Pasha in a dispute with the peasants. According to a document dated December 1565 a revolt broke out inside the town of Prilep when the Prilep Court, in settling a dispute between the peasants and Mustapha Pasha, ruled in favour of the Pasha. When the news hit the streets more than a thousand rebels from the surrounding villages, armed with sticks and stones, assembled and stormed the court. It is unknown how this revolt ended.

Since Christians by law were not allowed to carry arms, they had no effective defense against maltreatment, especially from the corrupt legal system. The only recourse available to them was to become outlaws. Although unpopular, outlawry was one of the oldest forms of armed struggle expressed by the Macedonian people, which reached epidemic proportions over the course of the 17th century. The outlaws, or haiduks, lived secret lives known only to other outlaws or trusted friends. When it came to defending their homes and properties, they came together in bands or druzhini of twenty to thirty people. Occasionally, for defensive purposes a number of smaller bands combined together to form a large band usually numbering no more than three hundred people. The band leaders or vojvodi were elected members of their bands and were usually chosen for their military skills and leadership abilities. The ranks of the outlaws came mostly from the feudally tied peasants but it was not uncommon to find priests and monks among them. Women too were known to have joined outlaw bands. The oldest record of a woman outlaw dates back to 1636. Her name was Kira and she was from the village Chapari. Kira was a member of Petar Dundar's band from the village Berantsi, near Bitola. There were also recorded cases of women who led outlaw bands.

The main preoccupation of the outlaws was to defend the oppressed and in times of trouble come to their aid. In retaliation the outlaws were known to attack feudal estates and even burn down Spahi (tax collector) harvests. They also ambushed and robbed merchant caravans and tax collectors. Bands were known to have attacked some of the larger towns. On several occasions outlaws banded together and overran Bitola, Lerin, Ohrid and Resen. Twice they looted the bezesteen in Bitola, once in 1646 and again in 1661. 

To curb outlaw activities, the Ottoman authorities frequently undertook extreme measures by organizing posses to hunt them down, burning down villages that were known to be sympathetic to outlaws and imprisoning and sometimes executing relatives of outlaws. When all these measures failed to stop them, the Ottomans introduced the services of the derbendkis, to provide safe passage through the countryside to important functionaries such as merchants, tax collectors and travelers.

Outlaws who were captured were tortured, sent to prison for life, or executed. The lucky ones were executed outright. Their dead bodies were then impaled on stakes or on iron hooks for everyone to see. Those less fortunate were skinned alive, had their heads split open and were left to die a slow and painful death. Those sent to prison were usually chained to galleys and spent the rest of their lives as oarsmen.

Despite the extreme measures exercised against them, the outlaws were never stamped out and were always a part of every conflict. The outlaws were the nucleus of the armed forces and the experienced leaders and commanders of the revolts and uprisings. They were the first to raise the spirit of resistance and the first to stand up for the people. That is why the outlaws are so widely revered in Macedonian folklore. 

Unwilling to yield, the Ottoman noose continued to tighten on the Macedonian peasants, Christian and Muslim alike. Their moment to strike back, however, came when the Ottomans became entangled with the Austrians in a war during the Austrian invasion of Macedonia. 

What came to be known as the Karposh Uprising, dubbed after its leader Karposh, was a Macedonian people's revolt against the economic, social and political injustices perpetrated by the Ottoman overlords.

In 1683 the Ottomans, for the second time, tried to take Vienna but failed after a two-month siege. The city was saved with the assistance of the Polish army led by King John Sobiesky. The Ottoman army suffered a catastrophic defeat resulting in enormous losses of territory, material and manpower. To prevent further expansion and keep the Ottomans in check, the Holy League of Austria, Poland, Venice and later Russia was created. 

Once they gained momentum the Austrians continued to drive the Ottomans southward reaching the northern boundaries of Macedonia. Led by General Piccolomini, the Austrians entered the Plain of Skopje on October 25, 1689 and were met by a jubilant crowd celebrating their triumphant arrival. 

The Austrians continued to march southward and came upon the town of Skopje only to find it empty. Skopje had been evacuated and left with plenty of food and all kinds of merchandise. Feeling that it may have been a trap, Piccolomini withdrew his forces at once and set the town on fire. The fires raged for two whole days and consumed the greater part of Skopje.

The Austrians continued to move through the Macedonian interior and set camp in the village of Orizari, near Kumanovo. A detachment was sent to Shtip, which arrived there at dawn on November 10, 1689 only to be met with Ottoman resistance. A fierce battle broke out but the Austrians managed to force the Ottomans out, leaving about two thousand of their dead behind. After setting the town on fire, the Austrians left for camp but on their way ran into an Ottoman detachment of three hundred soldiers. Another battle ensued and the Ottomans disbursed. 

The destruction and mayhem caused by the Austro-Turkish War brought a sudden deterioration in the economic and political situation in the region. The need for further military operations forced the Ottoman state to increase its purchases of grain, fodder, livestock, timber and other agricultural products, far below normal prices. Also, to pay for the military campaigns, a host of new taxes were introduced. During this difficult period the Rajak also suffered violence at the hands of deserters from the Ottoman army and from the defectors of the central government. 

The military catastrophe and the chaotic situation inside the Ottoman Empire again created suitable conditions for widespread outlawry in all parts of Macedonia, especially in the Moriovo, Bitola, Tikvesh, Veles, Shtip and Mt. Dospat regions which led up to the famous Karposh Uprising.

Sometime in the middle of October 1689 the famous outlaw Arambasha Karposh led an uprising which broke out in the region between Kustendil and Skopje. Immediately after declaring a revolt, Karposh attacked and captured Kriva Palanka. Kriva Palanka was an Ottoman stronghold built in 1636 to house Ottoman soldiers. After capturing the stronghold, Karposh declared it liberated rebel territory and made it his center of resistance. Among the items captured at the stronghold were six cannons, a real prize for the rebels. After securing Kriva Palanka the rebels built and secured a new stronghold near Kumanovo. 

It is not known whether or not the rebels were assisted by the Austrians but it is possible. According to contemporary Ottoman chronicles and local legends, Karposh was known as the &quot;King of Kumanovo&quot;. This could have been a title conferred upon him by the Austrian emperor Leopold I who sent him a Busby (a tall fur hat worn by hussars and guardsmen) as a gift and a sign of recognition. 

Unfortunately for the rebels, the current situation did not last long and a reversal in military and political events played a decisive role in the fate of the uprising. The Ottomans had by now had enough time to take countermeasures to stop the economic and military decline of their state.

The first step taken in Macedonia was to put down the rebellion and drive the Austrian army out of Macedonian territory. To do that the Ottomans employed the services of the Crimean Khan, Selim Giray, along with his fierce detachment of Tartar warriors. 

The Turkish council of war met in Sofia on November 14, 1689 and decided to attack the Karposh uprising through Kustendil. But before they could do that they had to secure Kriva Palanka. Upon finding that they were about to be attacked, the rebels set fire to Kriva Palanka and concentrated their forces in the new fortress in Kumanovo. No sooner had they prepared their defenses than the Ottoman and Tartar detachments arrived. The rebels stood their ground and fought gallantly but were quickly overwhelmed by the numerically superior Ottoman force. A large number of rebels, including Karposh, were captured at the outset. When the battle was over, all rebels who resisted to the end were slaughtered. Karposh and the others were taken prisoner. After subduing Kumanovo, the Ottomans left for Skopje where they executed Karposh and the others. 

Karposh was brought before Selim Giray who at the time was standing on the Stone Bridge over the River Vardar. Selim used him for target practice and impaled him with his Tartar lances. He then had his body hurled into the Vardar River. Karposh died in early December 1689 and with him died the Karposh uprising.

For the rebels who survived the battles there was no salvation from the Ottoman backlash except to leave Macedonia. Many fled north beyond the Sava and Danube Rivers. Some even went as far north as the Ukraine and Russia and joined the Russian military. There they formed the &quot;Macedonian regiment&quot; which became part of the regular Russian army. The failed Karposh uprising depleted the local population of northwestern Macedonia of people opening the way for large scale Albanian immigration.

Just as the Karposh revolt was winding down in Macedonia, on April 6, 1690, Leopold I issued a manifesto inviting &quot;all peoples of Albania, Serbia, Mysia, Bulgaria, Silistria, Illyria, Macedonia and Rashka to join the Austrians in taking up arms against the Turks.&quot; Then on April 26, 1690 he issued a letter making Macedonia and her people his protectorate. It has been said that Leopold acted on the advice of Macedonians Marko Krajda of Kozhani and Dimitri Georgija Popovich of Solun. Among other things the letter stated that &quot;we graciously accept the Macedonian people, in its entirety in every respect, under our imperial and regal protection.&quot; Another letter was issued on May 31, 1690 extending Austria's protection to Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Unfortunately, all these good gestures were too little too late for Macedonia which by 1690 was back under tight Ottoman control. 

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com

[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>h07pi1rp1ujo2x7ypk2xwgedvnmrww9</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 10 - Denationalizing the Macedonians in Greece</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2643</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11028</id>
      <parentid>6827</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:37:48Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="27493" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 10 - Denationalizing the Macedonians in Greece

July, 2006

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com

[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

Even before Greece invaded, occupied and annexed 51% of Macedonian territories, it had begun its denationalization process converting Macedonians into Greeks. By denationalization I mean, indoctrinating people into believing that they were Greeks related to the so called &quot;Ancient Greeks&quot; the people that live south of Mount Olympus two and a half millenniums ago. Greece was determined to gain Macedonian territories by proving to the world that &quot;Greeks&quot; lived in Macedonia and by rights Macedonian territories belonged to Greece. Unlike today where Greece is indoctrinating people into believing that Greek-Macedonians are related to the Ancient Macedonians. In those days the Greek State was making claims that Macedonians did not exist and only &quot;Greeks&quot;, &quot;Slavs&quot; (Serbians and Bulgarians), Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, Roma and Jews lived in Macedonia.

Before the formation of the Bulgarian state, Greece took it upon itself to view all Orthodox Christians as &quot;Greeks&quot; on account that they all were affiliated with the Patriarch Church. But after Bulgaria became a country in 1878 and established the Exarchate Church it challenged the Greek views and Greece backed off. 

After the establishment of the foreign Churches (Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian) inside Macedonia and in the absence of a Macedonian Church, the three competing states began to divide the Macedonian people by affiliation to their Church. In other words, according to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, ethnic Macedonians affiliated with the Greek Patriarchate Church would be counted as Greeks, ethnic Macedonians affiliated with the Bulgarian Exarchate Church would be counted as Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians affiliated with the Serbian Patriarchate Church would be counted as Serbians. Since there was no official or legal Macedonian Church in Macedonia (the Ottoman authorities on the advice of the other Orthodox Churches inside Macedonia would not approve of one) there were no Macedonians to be counted as Macedonians inside Macedonia. 

It was by this method that the demographic in Macedonia was established and published into various statistics in the late 19th and early 20th century. 

I believe Greece is still using this method to this day to count people in its state. How else does one explain the Greek demographic of 98% &quot;Pure Greek&quot; and 2% &quot;Muslim Greeks&quot;? 

Demographic statistics released by Greek authorities before the invasion, occupation and partition of Macedonia in 1912, 1913, were based exclusively on Church affiliations. All Macedonians affiliated with the Greek Patriarchate Church were counted as &quot;Greeks&quot; even though they were not &quot;ethnic Greeks&quot;. The fact that there were virtually no &quot;ethnic Greeks&quot; living in Macedonia before 1912 did not stop Greece from showing numbers as high as 40% to 50%. Even the massive expulsions carried out between 1912 and 1928 were based strictly on religion and &quot;Church affiliation&quot; and NOT on ethnicities.

During the second Balkan War Greece initiated a massive denationalization program to eradicate everything Macedonian which began with the ethnic cleansing of entire towns and villages in South Central Macedonia (Kukush, Doiran, Demir-Hisar and Serres).

The criminal activities perpetrated by the invading Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian armies were brought to world attention which prompted the Carnegie Endowment Commission to investigate.

Even though all three States, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia committed atrocities against the Macedonian people during the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars, for our purpose here we will only focus on the Greeks. 

The Carnegie Endowment Commission was dispatched from Paris on August 2nd, 1913, shortly before the end of the second Balkan War and returned to Paris nearly eight weeks later, on September 28th. In spite of opposition from the Greek government, the commission arrived in time to witness much of the war's aftermath and record most accounts while they were still fresh in people's minds. The commission's findings were compiled and released in 1914.

In a statement dated February 22, 1914, Carnegie Endowment Acting Director Nicholas Murray Butler said: 

&quot;The circumstances which attended the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 were of such character as to fix upon them the attention of the civilized world. The conflicting reports as to what actually occurred before and during these wars, together with the persistent rumors often supported by specific and detailed statements as to violations of the laws of war by the several combatants, made it important that an impartial and exhaustive examination should be made of this entire episode in contemporary history. The purpose of such an impartial examination by an independent authority was to inform public opinion and to make plain just what is or may be involved in an international war carried on under modern conditions. If the minds of men can be turned even for a short time away from passion, from race antagonism and from national aggrandizement to a contemplation of the individual and national losses due to war and to the shocking horrors which modern warfare entails, a step and by no means a short one, will have been taken toward the substitution of justice for force in the settlement of international differences. 

It was with this motive and for this purpose that the Division of Intercourse and Education of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Constituted in July, 1913, an International Commission of Inquiry to study the recent Balkan wars and to visit the actual scenes where fighting had taken place and the territory which had been devastated. The presidency of this International Commission of Inquiry was entrusted to Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, Senator of France, who had represented his country at the First and Second Hague Conferences of 1899 and of 1907, and who as President Fondateur of the Conciliation lnternationale, has labored so long and so effectively to bring the various nations of the world into closer and more sympathetic relations. With Baron d'Estournelles de Constant there were associated men of the highest standing, representing different nationalities, who were able to bring to this important task large experience and broad sympathy. 

The result of the work of the International Commission of Inquiry is contained in the following report. This report, which has been written without prejudice and without partisanship, is respectfully commended to the attention of the governments, the people and the press of the civilized world. To those who so generously participated in its preparation as members of the International Commission of Inquiry, the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace offer an expression of grateful thanks.&quot; (Preface) George F. Kennan. &quot;The Other Balkan Wars&quot;

The commission reported that the atrocities committed by the Greek army at Kukush took place on July 4, 1913. The town was a flourishing community of 13,000 people, the centre of an exclusively Slavonic-speaking area which the Greek army occupied and burned to the ground.

European observers confirmed that Greek soldiers evicted occupants from their homes which they then looted and burned down. It was estimated that in Kukush alone the Greek army burnt down forty villages and 4,725 houses. The commission's report provides the names of the burned down villages and respective numbers of houses in each that were destroyed. 

The commission was also informed and given the names of seventy-four people, mostly women and eleven children, who were murdered by the Greek soldiers. It was estimated that more than 100,000 Macedonians became refugees and fled the town. No accounts were given regarding their losses of life and property. 

On July 6, 1913 approximately four thousand refugees attempting to flee, accidentally ran into three hundred Greek cavalrymen. Unfortunately, following their surrender, the Greeks picked out sixty men and took them off to a nearby forest and had them murdered. Eye witnesses reported that Greek soldiers were seen the next day running rampant killing, raping and robbing people. The commission was unable to establish the exact number of refugees slain by the Greek army on site but according to witnesses the number was no less than 365 people.

One European eye witness informed the commission that after the Greek army entered Gevgelija it executed two hundred civilians.

Most atrocities committed by the Greek army were corroborated by the soldiers themselves in letters they sent home to their relatives. A captured mailbag revealed the reality of horrors perpetrated against the Macedonian civilian population. According to one soldier's account &quot;This war has been very painful. We have burnt all the villages abandoned by the Bulgarians [Macedonians affiliated with the Exarchate Church]. They burn the Greek villages [Macedonian villages affiliated with the Patriarchate Church] and we the Bulgarian [Macedonian villages affiliated with the Exarchate Church]. They massacred, we massacred and against all those of that dishonest nation, who fell into our hands, the Mannlicher rifle has done its work. Of the 1,200 prisoners we took at Nigrita, only forty-one remain in the prisons, and everywhere we have been, we have not left a single root of this race.&quot; 

One hundred and sixty villages and no less than sixteen thousand houses were burned by the Greeks in the Second Balkan War. No attempt was ever made to find out how many civilians were tortured, raped and murdered and how many thousands were left homeless. 

It is important to note at this point that the Macedonian people did not raise arms against the invading allied armies (Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian). Instead of opposing them, the Macedonians welcomed the allied armies and in fact helped them evict the Turkish forces from Macedonia.

The atrocities committed against the civilian population in Macedonia including the burning of villages was simply a cold act of genocide perpetrated to eradicate the Macedonian civilian population in order to make room for Greek colonization.

Unfortunately for the Macedonian people, this was only the beginning. No sooner than the invading armies established their spheres of influence and partitioned Macedonia with their imposed artificial and illegal borders, the process of denationalization was accelerated. First came the demands for loyalty to the new occupiers. Macedonians affiliated with the Exarchate Church were given twenty-four hours to &quot;take what they can carry&quot; and leave their lands. &quot;This is Greece now and there is no place for Bulgarians here.&quot; Those who remained were forced to swear loyalty to the Greek State. Anyone refusing to take the loyalty oath was either executed, as an example of what would happen to those disloyal, or evicted from the country. To explain the mass evacuations, Greek officials claimed that the inhabitants of Macedonia left by choice or became Greek by choice. The truth is no one was given any choice at all.

Thousands of Greek publicists began to fill the world with their shouting about the essentially Greek character of the populations of their newly occupied territory. The Greek newspapers began to write about a Macedonia entirely populated by Greeks and the fact that no-one spoke Greek was explained by calling the people 'Bulgaro-phone Greeks'. The Greek army when entering villages and encountering Macedonians speaking Macedonian, discouraged them from doing so by crying out. &quot;Why are you talking Bulgarian, this is Greece and you must speak Greek now.&quot; All &quot;Slavic&quot; language schools and churches were closed and teachers and priests were expelled. Use of the Macedonian language and Macedonian names were forbidden and Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Serbians or natives.

After the Treaty of Bucharest was signed on August 10, 1913 Macedonia's partition was formalized and the Greek Government set up a &quot;Military Administration&quot; to govern its new acquisition which Greece named &quot;New Territories&quot;. Then an influx of administrators, educators, police, etc. were sent from Greece to administer it. Among other things, the first order of business was to &quot;Hellenize the New Lands&quot;. 

In 1917 Greece passed LAW 1051 inaugurating new administrative jurisdictions for governing its newly acquired Macedonian lands. 

In 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles, Britain and France ratified the principles of the Bucharest Treaty thus endorsing Macedonia's partition. This gave Greece the signal it needed to pursue forced expulsion, continue its policy of denationalizing the Macedonians and begin a mass colonization of the Macedonian territories by transplanting &quot;potential Greeks&quot;.

What was surprising, especially to the Balkan delegation, was the raising of the Macedonian question by Italy. On July 10, 1919, Italy along with the USA made a proposal to the &quot;Committee for the Formation of New States&quot; for Macedonian autonomy. France flatly opposed the motion while Britain proposed establishing a five-year Macedonian Commissary under the auspices of the League of Nations. Greece and Serbia, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of a Macedonian question, literally killed the motion. 

Another item that came out of Versailles was Article 51, the League of Nations' code to &quot;protect national minorities&quot;. Article 51 of the Treaty of Versailles espouses equality of civil rights, education, language and religion for all national minorities. Unfortunately, article 51 was never implemented by the Balkan States or enforced by the League of Nations which Greece and Bulgaria, to this day, violate and ignore. 

It is interesting to note that on September 29, 1924 Greece signed an agreement with Bulgaria declaring that the Macedonians in Greece were Bulgarians. Not to disappoint the Serbians, when they found out about this, the Greeks changed their mind and on August 17, 1926 declared that the Macedonians in Greece were in reality, Serbs.

In 1920 the Greek Ministry Of Internal Affairs publishes a booklet &quot;Advice On The Change Of The Names Of Municipalities And Villages&quot; in Greek occupied Macedonia.

From 1918 to 1925, Greek authorities changed 76 Macedonian names of villages and towns to Greek ones.

&quot;By law promulgated on November 21, 1926, all place names (toponymia) were Hellenized; that is the names of cities, villages, rivers and mountains were discarded and Greek names put in their place. At the same time the Macedonians were forced to change their first and surnames; every Macedonian surname had to end in 'os', 'es', or 'poulos'. The news of these acts and the new, official Greek names were published in the Greek government daily 'Efimeris tis Kiverniseos no. 322 and 324 of November 21 and 23, 1926. The requirements to use these Greek names is officially binding to this day. All evidence of the Macedonian language was compulsorily removed from churches, monuments, archeological finds and cemeteries. Slavonic church or secular literature was seized and burned. The use of the Macedonian language was strictly forbidden also in personal communication between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and work parties, and in burial rituals.&quot; (Page 109, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

The act of forbidding the use of the Macedonian language in Greece is best illustrated by an example of how it was implemented in the Township of Assarios (Giuvezna). Here is a quote from Karakasidou's book Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood.

&quot;[We] listened to the president articulate to the council that in accordance with the decision [#122770] of Mr. Minister, General Governor of Macedonia, all municipal and township councils would forbid, through [administrative] decisions, the speaking of other idioms of obsolete languages within the area of their jurisdiction for the reconstitution of a universal language and our national glory. [The president] suggested that [the] speaking of different idioms, foreign [languages] and our language in an impure or obsolete manner in the area of the township of Assirios would be forbidden. Assirios Township Decision No. 134, 13 December 1936.&quot; (Page 162, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

By 1928, 1,497 Macedonian place-names in Greek occupied Macedonia were Hellenized (LAW 4096) and all Cyrillic inscriptions found in churches, on tombstones and icons were destroyed (or overwritten) prompting English Journalist V. Hild to say, &quot;The Greeks do not only persecute living Slavs (Macedonians)..., but they even persecute dead ones. They do not leave them in peace even in the graves. They erase the Slavonic inscriptions on the headstones, remove the bones and burn them.&quot;

In the years following World War I, the Macedonian people underwent extensive measures of systematic denationalization. The applications of these &quot;denationalization schemes&quot; were so extensive and aggressively pursued that in the long term they eroded the will of the Macedonian people to resist.

In Greece, in 1929 during the rule of Elepterios Venizelos, a legal act was issued 'On the protection of public order'. In line with this Act each demand for nationality rights is regarded as high treason. This law is still in force.

On December 18, 1936, Metaxas' dictatorial government issued a legal Act 'On the activity against state security' on the strength of which thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned, expelled or exiled (EXORIA) on arid, inhospitable Greek islands, where many perished. Their crime? Being ethnic Macedonian by birth. 

LAW 6429 was passed to reinforce Law 4096 on the Hellenization of toponyms and DECREE 87 was enacted to accelerate the denationalization of Macedonians. The Greek ministry of Education sent &quot;Specially trained&quot; instructors to accelerate the &quot;conversion to Greek&quot; language. 

On September 7, 1938 legal Act No. 2366 was issued banning the use of the Macedonian language. All Macedonian localities were flooded with posters: 'Speak Greek'. Evening schools were opened in which adult Macedonians were taught Greek. Not a single Macedonian school functioned at the time or ever since.

Many Macedonians were fined, beaten and jailed for speaking Macedonian. Adults and school children alike were further humiliated by being forced to drink castor oil when caught speaking Macedonian. LAW 1418 was enacted to reinforce previous laws on renaming peoples' names and toponyms. 

While there were some prospects for basic human rights for the Macedonian people in the Greek State in the early 1920's, those prospects died as Greece tightened its grip on Macedonia by implementing more racist assimilation policies. If that was not enough, on December 18, 1936 the Greek Government issued a legal act concerning, &quot;Activities Against State Security&quot;. By this act thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned and expelled from their homeland.

In 1938 Australian author Bert Birtles in his book &quot;Exiles in the Aegean&quot; wrote, &quot;In the name of 'Hellenization' these people (Macedonians) are being persecuted continually and arrested for the most fantastic reasons. Metaxa's way of inculcating the proper nationalist spirit among them has been to change all the native place-names into Greek and to forbid use of the native language. For displaying the slightest resistance to the edict-for this too is a danger to the security of the State-peasants and villagers have been exiled without trial.&quot; (Page 112, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

In 1940 39 more place-names were Hellenized since 1929. In 1945 LAW 697 was enacted introducing more regulations on renaming toponyms. 

The Greek Government in Greek occupied Macedonia worked closely with local collaborators and enlisted, from the Macedonian population, only those who could be proven trustworthy. The collaborators worked hard to identify all those who were sympathetic to the Partisans and reported on their activities on a regular basis. Anyone reported aiding the Partisans was severely punished and sometimes executed. In the spring of 1947 all those who were blacklisted were rounded up, arrested and locked up in the Lerin jails. Those accused of aiding the Partisans were taken out and executed. The rest, after spending one hundred days in jail without trial, were sent to various concentration camps in the most desolate Greek Islands where they were kept anywhere from 2 to 5 year.

I want to mention something very important here because I believe the Greek Government, even before the commencement of the Greek civil war, had plans &quot;to deal with the Macedonians in Greece&quot;. In 1947, during the Greek civil war, the legal act L-2 was issued. This meant that all those who left Greece without the consent of the Greek government were stripped of their Greek citizenship and banned from returning to that country. The law applied to Greeks and Macedonians, but in its modernized version the act is binding only on Macedonians. It prevents Macedonians, but not former Communist Greeks who fought against the winning side from returning to Greece and reclaiming property. On January 20, 1948, the legal act M was issued. This allowed the Greek government to confiscate the property of those who were stripped of their citizenship. The law was updated in 1985 to exclude Greeks, but still binding on Macedonians

Clearly acts L-2 and M were designed to work against the interest of the Macedonian people. Even innocent Macedonians who left before the Civil War were not allowed to return. The question now is &quot;What was Greece planning to do with the Macedonians?&quot; The way acts L-2 and M were enforced over the years brings another question to mind. If there were no Macedonians living in Greece, as the Greek state claims, then what ethnicity were these people the Greek Government was refusing to allow back? Why is it that Greek law makes the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks when it suits Greece but not when it benefits the Macedonians?

By the end of 1947 battles were raging everywhere in Greece and the war was slowly moving north into Macedonia. Clearly this was a &quot;Greek War&quot;, yet again the Macedonian population was being sucked into it. The heavily armed Greek air force and mechanized artillery gained control of most cities and main roads. The Partisans were literally trapped and continued their strictly defensive campaigns mainly from the mountains Vicho and Gramos. 

As the situation became critical, both sides stepped up their recruitment campaigns and again were drawing from the same population. The Partisans could no longer count on volunteers alone and began to enlist fighters by force and drafted anyone they could get their hands on, male or female. In addition to support roles, women were now armed and given combat duties. They fought alongside the men against the well-trained, well-disciplined and heavily armed Greek Army. Such was the fate of the Macedonian women, most of whom were taken by force to fight someone else's war.

As the war intensified the Greek air force regularly bombed Macedonian villages putting the civilian population, including children, in danger. In the spring of 1948, to save the children, a temporary evacuation program was introduced and implemented on a voluntary basis. It is estimated that about 28,000 children from the ages of 2 to 14 were rounded up and taken across the border into Yugoslavia. From there they were sent to various Eastern Block countries.

Again, I want to point out that the evacuation program was sponsored and organized by the Greek Partisan Leadership which was fully versed in &quot;Greek Law&quot; (act L-2). Yet they carried out the children's evacuation program and lied to the trusting mothers that the evacuation was only a temporary measure. Almost all the Macedonian children who were evacuated in 1948 are still not allowed entry into Greece.

Fearing reprisal from the advancing Greek army, in August 1949 waves of refugees left their homes and went to Albania to save themselves. When the war was over Greece did not want them back. As a result they were sent to Eastern Block countries that were willing to take them.

Years later some tried to return but Greece (act L-2) would not allow it. Even innocent Macedonians who did not participate in the conflict, including the evacuated refugee children, were refused entry (again act L-2). Years passed and still they were refused entry again and again. They were not even allowed to visit ailing relatives. Finally in 1985 a repatriation policy was introduced and amnesty was given but only to those of &quot;Greek origin&quot;. This again excluded the Macedonians.

After the Greek Civil War ended LAW 3958 was enacted to allow the confiscation of property of those who left Greece and did not return within five years. Villages in Greek occupied Macedonia were forced to swear &quot;LANGUAGE OATHS&quot; to speak only Greek and renounce their mother tongue (MACEDONIAN). 

In 1962 DECREE 4234 was enacted to reinforce past laws regarding confiscated properties of political exiles and deny them rights to return. 

In 1968 The EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS accused Greece of human rights abuses and in 1969 the COUNCIL OF EUROPE declared Greece &quot;undemocratic, illiberal, authoritarian, and oppressive&quot;. Greece was forced to resign from the Council of Europe under threats of expulsion. The Military Junta in Greece continued its policy of colonizing the confiscated Macedonian lands and continued to donate Macedonian lands to persons with &quot;proven patriotism&quot; for Greece. 

References:

Clogg, Richard. The Struggle for Greek Independence Essays to mark 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence. Archon, 1973.

George F. Kennan. &quot;The Other Balkan Wars&quot; A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquiry in Retrospect with a New Introduction and Reflections on the Present Conflict. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 1993.

Karakasidou, Anastasia N. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Shea, John. Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. London: McFarland &amp; Company Inc., 1997.

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov publications, 2005

What Europe has Forgotten: The Struggle of the Aegean Macedonians, A Report by the Association of the Macedonians in Poland)

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>3p8i0c6txaeccuslaayczq2qn5zea8t</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 17 - The Macedonian Decline</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2648</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11032</id>
      <parentid>6844</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:38:13Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="36002" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 17 - The Macedonian Decline

February, 2007

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com


[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

Macedonia's division between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria by the Treaty of Bucharest 1913, was devastating for the Macedonian people but surprisingly, there was still hope left in them that this was only a nightmare and one day soon they would awaken and find themselves liberated. Unfortunately with the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and the Great Powers sanctioning the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, the nightmare became permanent.

The jubilance of liberation died down quickly as the fires of burning villages lit the night skies. Macedonia was in flames again. Liberators turned to occupiers and rained havoc on the Macedonian population. The political, economic and ethnic unity of Macedonia was no more. Greek soldiers who came to liberate their Christian brothers from the oppressive Turks and terrible Bulgarians were now burning, torturing and murdering people. In the words of Sir Edmond Grey, &quot;The Balkan war began as a war of liberation, became rapidly a war of annexation, and has ended as a war of extermination.&quot; (Page 294, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology)

The Greek atrocities were revealed to the world when a lost mailbag was discovered containing letters from Greek soldiers in Macedonia to their families in Greece. The mailbag was turned in to the Carnegie Relief Commission and the contents of the letters were made public. Expecting to fight for the glory of the fatherland, the soldiers instead found themselves torturing, murdering, burning houses and evicting women and children from their homes in a most vile way. The letters revealed that the soldiers were acting on direct orders from the Greek authorities and the Greek king himself. Macedonian families of known Exarchists (Macedonians belonging to the Bulgarian Church) were ordered by force to &quot;take with them what they could carry and get out&quot;. &quot;This is Greece now and there is no place for Bulgarians here.&quot; Those who remained were forced to swear loyalty to the Greek State. Anyone refusing to take the loyalty oath was either executed, as an example of what would happen to those disloyal, or evicted from the country. To explain the mass evacuations, Greek officials claimed that the inhabitants of Macedonia left by choice or became Greek by choice. The truth is no one was given any choice at all.

&quot;A thousand Greek and Serbian publicists began to fill the world with their shouting about the essentially Greek or Serbian character of the populations of their different spheres. The Serbs gave the unhappy Macedonians twenty four hours to renounce their nationality and proclaim themselves Serbs, and the Greeks did the same. Refusal meant murder or expulsion. Greek and Serbian colonists were poured into the occupied country... The Greek newspapers began to talk about a Macedonia peopled entirely with Greeks and they explained the fact that no one spoke Greek by calling the people 'Bulgaro-phone Greeks' ... the Greek army entered villages where no one spoke their language. 'What do you mean by speaking Bulgarian?' cried the officers. 'This is Greece and you must speak Greek.'&quot; (Page 104, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to define a new Balkan Nation)

In 1913 Professor R.A. Reiss reported to the Greek government: &quot;Those whom you would call Bulgarian speakers I would simply call Macedonians...Macedonian is not the language they speak in Sofia...I repeat the mass of inhabitants there (Macedonia) remain simply Macedonians.&quot;

History again turned its eyes away from the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian atrocities in Macedonia to focus on new events that were about to unfold and engulf the entire world.

After losing Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria in 1908 and the Albanian territories in 1912 (again because of Austria) Serbia became bitter and resentful. &quot;To the nationalist Serbs the Habsburg monarchy (Austria-Hungary) was an old evil monster which prevented their nation from becoming a great and powerful state. On June 28, 1914, a young Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated the heir of the Habsburg monarchy, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and his wife at Sarjevo.&quot; (Page 104, Felix Gilbert, The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present)

Within two weeks of the assassination the First World War broke out, engulfing all of Europe. It was inevitable and a matter of time before a &quot;world war&quot; would break out in the Balkans. The Great Powers were incapable of exercising diplomacy either between themselves or with the new Balkan States they helped create. Macedonia was sacrificed in order to appease the new Balkan States but that did little to satisfy their ferocious appetites for lands and loot.

While World War I raged on consuming the lives of millions of young men and women, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia were serving their own brand of chauvinism in Macedonia. For the next five years, with the world busy with its own problems, there was no one to hear the cries of the Macedonian people at the hands of the new tyrants. If the gravestones of the dead Macedonians could speak they would tell tales of torture and executions, deception and lies. They would say, &quot;Our Christian brothers came to liberate us but instead they killed us because we were in their way of achieving greatness. We were labeled 'criminals' because we would not yield to their demands. I ask you is it a crime to want to live as free men? Is it a crime to want to be Macedonian? Is it a crime to want to exercise free will? It is they who are the criminals for befouling everything that is Christian, for their lies and deception, and for murdering us to possess our lands. History will record August 10th, 1913 as the darkest day in Macedonia, the day our future died.&quot;

The triple occupation worsened living conditions in Macedonia but the fighting spirit of the Macedonian people continued to live underground and abroad. Three generations of fighting for liberty, freedom and an independent Macedonia came to a close. The Ilinden generation and IMRO were defeated, not by the Turks or Muslim oppression but by Christian cruelty and deception.

Soon after the occupation, underground societies sprang up everywhere urging the Macedonian people to refuse their new fate and oppose the partition. Accordingly, many Macedonians did so by refusing to obey the new officialdom and by not participating in the new institutions. This however did not stop the military regimes occupying Macedonia from systematic denationalization and violent assimilation.

The battle for &quot;dominion of the world&quot;, which started over Balkan affairs, soon took a sinister turn to again involve Macedonia. As the Entente Powers (Britain, France, Russia and Italy) were fighting with the Central Powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary), Bulgaria, smarting from her losses at Bucharest, remained neutral. In a turn of events, to the amazement of the Greeks, the Entente Powers approached Bulgaria with an offer of a substantial portion of Macedonian territory in exchange for her alliance. Bulgaria, however, seemed to prefer the company of the Central Powers, perhaps they offered her a bigger portion, because by late 1915 her armies marched in and invaded Macedonia. To quote the Bulgarian War Minister General Nikolaev, &quot;We care little about the British, Germans, French, Russians, Italians, Austrians or Hungarians; our only thought is Macedonia. Whichever of the two groups of Powers will enable us to conquer it will have our alliance!&quot; (Page 154, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

While the Serbs were being engaged on their northern border, the Greeks were debating which side to take. Their hesitation or &quot;National Schism&quot;, as it was later called, lay in the differences that emerged between the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos and the Greek King Constantine I, over which side to join. Venizelos was a strong supporter of the Entente and within days of the outbreak of hostilities was ready to offer Greek troops to fight alongside the Entente. King Constantine, on the other hand, did not share Venizelo's zeal and believed that Greek policies would be best served by staying neutral. Being married to Sofia, the sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, predisposed Constantine towards the Central Powers. The tug of war between Prime Minister and King divided the people of Greece into two camps and the country slid towards a state of virtual civil war. Having the authority to do so, Constantine replaced Venizelos with a pro-German Prime Minister and called for an election to end the impasse. Unfortunately for the King, Venizelos once again came out victorious with a clear majority. Bulgaria's attack on Serbia, due to a Greek-Serbian treaty, predisposed Greece to offer Serbia assistance. The king's camp refused to comply on the grounds that it was not Bulgaria alone who was committing the aggression and insisted on remaining neutral. Venizelos called on Parliament and won support to send Greek troops to fight alongside the Serbs and to allow Entente troops to land in the Solun region. Venizelos was again forced to resign. &quot;But whatever the constitutional rights and wrongs of the situation Venizelo's second resignation on 5 October 1915 signified a total breakdown in relations between the king and his elected prime minister. Britain and France, however, had not yet given up Greece for lost and held out to Venizelo's successor, Alexander Zaimis, the prospect of the cession of Cyprus to Greece in return for aid to Serbia, whose forces were now under severe pressure.&quot; (Page 109, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece)

Soon afterwards, Zaimis too was forced to resign. New elections were held in December but were boycotted by the Venizelos camp. Events came to a head when the Royalists refused to allow evacuated Serbian troops to cross over from Corfu and join the Entente forces on the Solun front. Backed by the Entente, a group of pro-Venizelos officers launched a coup in Solun against the official government and created a provisional pro-Entente government with its own army. Once again many Macedonians, deceived by Balkan propaganda, joined the war with hopes of being liberated only to end up as &quot;cannon fodder&quot; used by both sides at the front. Macedonian casualties mounted and towns and villages only recently reconstructed were again bombarded to dust.

Soon after establishing the Solun front, the occupation of Greece was complete. France had dispatched 60,000 troops to the Balkans with hopes of safeguarding the Skopje to Solun rail links. By late 1917, Entente troops were emerging victorious over the Bulgarians and Germans in Macedonia. No sooner was the battle over than a problem developed between British and French commands in Macedonia. While the British General, Milne, supported Venizelos and his attempts to constitute a pro-British provisional government in Greece, the pro-Macedonian French General, Sarrail, opposed Venizelos and sought to drive the Greek army out of Macedonia. &quot;The ambitious plan for Macedonian autonomy drafted by the French command in 1915 and 1916 were but mere progressive steps to ensure France a strategic outpost for capital expansion.&quot; (Page 155, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

Once again Macedonians were caught in the middle of someone else's war. To save face France recalled Sarrail and replaced him with a pro-Greek commander, thus avoiding a diplomatic disaster.

After establishing a government in Athens and consolidating his power in Greece, Venizelos committed nine divisions to the Macedonian front to assist Entente forces on the Solun front. To further prove his devotion to the Entente, Venizelos committed two more divisions to fight the Bolshevists in Russia.

When the war was over, on November 11, 1918, a general armistice was signed and a Peace Conference was convened in Versailles, France. Venizelos arrived in Paris as the principle negotiator for Greece, determined to reap his reward for his solid support to his victorious allies. One of Venizelos's objectives was to resurrect the &quot;Megaly Idea&quot; by annexing parts of Asia Minor, Smyrna (Ismir) in particular. He convinced the world that the Christians living in Asia Minor were Greek and should be part of Greece. Unfortunately for Venizelos, Italy had prior claims in Asia Minor (Anatolia) which created a problem for the peacemakers. Greek ambition was viewed with suspicion by Italy so to strengthen her claims, in March 1919, Italy began to build up troops in the region. The Greeks viewed this as a threat to their own claim and before a final territorial solution was reached they demanded concessions. The reasons given were that the Greek people in Asia Minor were endangered by Turkish aggression and needed protection. After much protest on the Greek side, Britain, France and the Americans finally gave them permission to send a small defense force. Under the protection of allied warships, on May 15, 1919, Greek troops began their landing in Smyrna. Instead of staying put however, as per prior agreements, they began to occupy western Asia Minor.

No sooner were the Central Powers driven out of Greek territories than the Greek Government, by passing LAW 1051, inaugurated a new administrative jurisdiction for governing the newly acquired lands in Macedonia.

When it started to become clear that the Entente Powers were winning the war, encouraged by Woodrow Wilson's principles of nationality, many Macedonian lobby groups placed their faith in the Peace Conference in Versailles. Wilson's fourteen principles of nationality implicitly asserted the right of all nations to self-determination.

In his address to the Pan Slavic Assembly in Odessa in August 1914, Krste Misirkov called for achieving autonomy by diplomatic means. An article was written and extensively circulated in May 1915, which specifically dealt with the autonomy call.

The student organization &quot;Independent Society&quot;, in Geneva Switzerland under the slogan of &quot;Macedonia for the Macedonians&quot;, demanded the application of Wilson's principles to create an autonomous Macedonia based on the principles of the Swiss Federative model.

Remnants of IMRO also took action in the rally for an Autonomous Macedonia. After the Bulgarians murdered Yane Sandanski in 1915, his supporters fled the Pirin region to save their own lives and later regrouped in Serres to form the &quot;Serres Revolutionary Council&quot;. &quot;Having noted the impetus for unification of the Southern Slavs against the Central Powers, the Council issued a 'Declaration of Autonomy' in October 1918, in which it appealed for membership of a Balkan Federation on the basis of Macedonian territorial integrity. This plea was ultimately rejected by the ruling cliques of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which later became known as Yugoslavia&quot;. &quot;By striving for political and economic hegemony over the Balkans, Balkan nationalism has thrown the Balkan peoples and states into deep contradictions and conflicts which must be begun by war, and finished by war and always war.&quot; (Pages 158-159, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

Once again the Macedonian people came to the forefront to plead their case and once again they were shut out. How many more wars must be fought and how much more blood must be spilled for the world to realize that there is no end to Balkan conflicts without involving the Macedonian people in resolving the Macedonian question?

The Peace Conference, which was supposedly &quot;the tribunal of international conscience&quot;, had no place for &quot;Wilsonian Justice&quot; or the opportunity for self-determination. Instead of practicing what they preached, the so called &quot;peace makers of Versailles&quot; rewarded aggression in exchange for self-interest.

With the stroke of a pen, in 1919 at the Treaty of Versailles (Paris), England and France sealed Macedonia's fate by ratifying the principles of the Bucharest Treaty and officially endorsing the partitioning of Macedonia. This gave Greece the license she needed to pursue forced expulsion and denationalization of Macedonians and to begin a mass colonization by transplanting &quot;potential Greeks&quot; into the annexed territories of Macedonia. The Neuilly Convention allowed for forced exchanges of populations. About 70,000 Macedonians were expelled from the Greek occupied part of Macedonia to Bulgaria and 25,000 &quot;so called Greeks&quot; were transplanted from Bulgaria to Greek occupied Macedonia.

&quot;Macedonia's fate has been the subject of every kind of political combination, negotiation and treaty since 1912, each more immoral than the last, each ignoring completely the local interests and desires of a population which, with the stroke of the statesman's pen, can be condemned to national dissolution, and denied the right to a free national life while Armenians, Albanians and Jews receive political freedom.&quot; (Page 160, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

The Great Powers did not dare lose the strategic importance and untapped wealth in Macedonia or dare disappoint their trusted allies in the Balkans. Think of the endless bickering and complaining!

What was surprising, especially to the Balkan delegation, was the raising of the Macedonian question by Italy. On July 10, 1919, Italy along with the USA made a proposal to the &quot;Committee for the Formation of New States&quot; for Macedonian autonomy. France flatly opposed the motion while Britain proposed establishing a five-year Macedonian Commissary under the auspices of the League of Nations. Greece and Serbia, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of a Macedonian question, literally killed the motion.

Another item that came out of Versailles was Article 51, the League of Nations' code to &quot;protect national minorities&quot;. Article 51 of the Treaty of Versailles espouses equality of civil rights, education, language and religion for all national minorities. Unfortunately, article 51 was never implemented by the Balkan States or enforced by the League of Nations which Greece and Bulgaria, to this day, violate and ignore. Why is this? Because to this day Greece and Bulgaria claim that &quot;the Macedonian ethnicity&quot; does not exist and has never existed. So what minorities should they be protecting? In response to the Greek claim I would like to ask the Greeks the following questions:

1. To what minorities were you referring, when on September 29, 1924 your Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikolaos Mihalakopoulou signed an agreement with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Kalkoff?

2. To what minorities were you referring, when on August 17, 1926 you made an agreement with Yugoslavia regarding the nationality of the &quot;Slavophones&quot; in Greece? (Pages 159-161,G.A.L. I Kata Tis Makedonias Epivouli, (Ekdosis Deftera Sympepliromeni), Athinai 1966)

On September 29, 1924 Greece signed an agreement with Bulgaria declaring that the Macedonians in Greece were Bulgarians. Not to disappoint the Serbians, when they found out about the Greek-Bulgarian agreement, the Greeks changed their mind and on August 17, 1926 declared that the Macedonians in Greece were in reality, Serbs. As it turned out the loudly proclaimed &quot;Wilson principles&quot; at the Paris Conference were only for show. The real winners at the end of the conference were the &quot;players&quot;, the biggest one of all being Venizelos of Greece. &quot;The entire forum was a farce, and its offspring the Versailles Treaty, the ultimate insult to the dignity and self-esteem (what remained of it after continuous war and bloodshed) of the long-tormented Macedonian people. Those Macedonians prodded by conscience, by the mistrust gained after generations of suffering, and by the desire for freedom, thereafter treated the Versailles Treaty, and all political treaties, with the contempt they deserve.&quot; (Page 166, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

At the conclusion of the Treaty, Greece got back what she had previously annexed and, additionally, received a large portion of Epirus, western Thrace, Crete and the Aegean Islands. It is important to mention here that when Albania's affirmation for independence was signed, at the London Conference in February 1920, more of Macedonia's territory was partitioned. A narrow strip of land running through Lake Ohrid and southward along Macedonia's western boundary was awarded to Albania.

Soon after arriving victorious in Greece, Venizelos, in a speech in Solun, announced his plans for a &quot;Greater Greece&quot; (Megali Idea) and to bring together all &quot;Greek peoples&quot; under a single Greater Greek State.

I remember, as a child, listening to old men in my village, sitting on the porch telling tales of bygone wars when, as young soldiers, they chased the Turks to Ankara yelling &quot;two Turks to a bayonet&quot;. They also told stories of how it took them sixty days to gain sixty miles and how they lost them in one day of retreat. I didn't understand what they were talking about then but it was about the Greek exploits in Asia Minor. As mentioned earlier, after building up a large military presence in Asia Minor, a major offensive was launched in March 1921 and by the end of the summer the Greek armies reached the Sakarya River about forty miles from Ankara.

The assault on Asia Minor was an &quot;exclusively Greek initiative&quot; without the blessing of the Entente Powers and as a result they found themselves alone and running out of ammunition. They knew they couldn't count on Italy or France for help but the realization of their predicament sunk in when Britain also refused to help them. By early autumn the Greeks were pushed back beyond the halfway point between Smyrna and Ankara, reaching an uneasy military stalemate. Realizing that they couldn't possibly win militarily or politically, the Greeks turned to the Paris Conference of March 1922 looking for a compromise. The compromise called for the withdrawal of the Greek armies and placing the Christian population under the protection of the League of Nations. Sensing a victory, Mustafa Kemal of Turkey insisted on an unconditional evacuation of the Greek forces, a demand unacceptable to the Greeks. Still counting on British kindness, in July 1922 the Greeks unsuccessfully attempted to get permission from their allies to enter Tsari Grad.

Turkey launched a full-scale offensive on August 26, 1922 (a dark day for Greece and her Megali Idea) near Afyonkarahisar and forced the Greeks into a hasty retreat back to Smyrna. On September 8 the Greek army was evacuated and the next day the Turkish army invaded Smyrna. The worst came on the evening of the 9th when outbreaks of killing and looting began, followed by a massacre of the Christian population in which 30,000 Christians perished. As a result of the violence 250,000 people fled to the waterfront to escape the catastrophic disaster.

The Asia Minor campaign was over along with the &quot;Megali Idea&quot; of a Greater Greece. Worse yet, as a result of this catastrophic Greek fiasco, over one million Turkish Christians were displaced, most of them into Macedonia. Their settlement affected the demography of the Macedonian landscape as well as the morale of the Macedonian population.

An entire generation of young Macedonian men, who were drafted into the Greek military, were sent to the Asia Minor campaigns and many lost their lives. The Greek authorities never acknowledged their service and no compensation was ever paid to the families of those &quot;breadwinners&quot; who lost their lives. The reason for the omission, according to the Greek authorities, &quot;they were Bulgarian.&quot;

It is, I am told, noble to die for your country. Would it not be &quot;nobler&quot; to die for someone else's country? How did the Greeks repay those, noble enough to die for Greece? They let their widows and children live in poverty. This is how Greece treated its noblest citizens!

By the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, the Greco-Turkish war came to an end. Greece and Turkey signed a population exchange agreement using &quot;religion as the basic criterion for nationality.&quot; (Page 120, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece)

The November 1925 issue of National Geographic Magazine best illustrates the magnitude of the human wave, the audacity of the Greek and Turkish authorities and the total disregard for human life. &quot;History's Greatest Trek, Tragedy Stalks the Near East as Greece and Turkey Exchange Two Million of their People. ...1922 began what may fairly be called history's greatest, most spectacular trek-the compulsory intermigration of two million Christians and Muslims across the Aegean Sea.&quot; &quot; ...the initial episodes of the exchange drama were enacted to the accompaniment of the boom of cannon and the rattle of machine gun and with the settings pointed by the flames of the Smyrna holocaust.&quot; (Page 533, Melville Chater, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;Stroke of the Pen Exiles 3,000,000 People. It is safe to say that history does not contain a more extraordinary document. Never before in the world's long pageant of folk-wanderings have 2,000,000 people-and certainly no less than 3,000,000 if the retroactive clause is possible of complete application-been exiled and re-adopted by the stroke of the pen&quot; (Page 569, National Geographic, November 1925). &quot;Even if regarded as a voluntary trek instead of a compulsory exchange, the movement would be without parallel in the history of emigration.&quot; &quot;One might just add that history has never produced a document more difficult of execution. It was to lessen these difficulties that exchangeability was based in religion and not race. Due to five centuries of Turkish domination in Greece, the complexities in determining an individual's racial status are often such as would make a census taker weep.&quot; (Page 570, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;Greece with one-fifth Turkey's area has 1,5000,000 more people. Turkey with a population of 5,000,000 and naturally rich territory contains only 15 people to the square mile...Greece, with less than one fifth of Turkey's area, emerges with a population exceeding the latter's for the fist time by 1,500,000 people averaging 123 to the square mile.&quot; (Page 584, National Geographic, November 1925)

&quot;History's Greatest Trek has cost 300,000 lives. Conservative estimates place it at 300,000 lives lost by disease and exposure.&quot; (Page 584, National Geographic, November 1925) &quot;The actual exchange was weighted very heavily in Turkey's favour, for some 380,000 Muslims were exchanged for something like 1,100,000 Christians.&quot; &quot;The total population in Greece rose between 1907 and 1928 from 2,600,000 to 6,200,000.&quot; &quot;After the Greek advances of 1912, for instance, the Greek elements in Greek Macedonia had constituted 43 percent of the population. By 1926, with the resettlement of the refugees, the Greek element has risen to 89 percent.&quot; (Page 121, Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece)

After all this, surprisingly (and shamefully) Greece still claims her population to be homogeneous; direct descendents of the peoples of the ancient City States.

&quot;If Greece exists today as a homogeneous ethnos, she owes this to [the Asia Minor Catastrophe]. If the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come to Greece, Greek Macedonia would not exist today. The refugees created the national homogeneity of our country. (Antonios Kandiotis, Metrpolite of Florina, Page 141 in Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

According to Karakasidou, almost half of the refugees were settled in urban centers and rural areas in Macedonia. &quot;Searching for locations in which to settle this mass of humanity, the Greek government looked north to the newly incorporated land in Macedonia...&quot; &quot;...by 1930, 90 percent of the 578,844 refugees settled in rural Greece were concentrated in the regions of Macedonia and western Thrace. Thus Macedonia, Greece's newly acquired second 'breadbasket' (after Thessaly), became the depository for East Thracian, Pontic, and Asia Minor refugees.&quot; (Page 145, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

Even before Greece had secured her grip on Macedonia, officials were sent to administer &quot;the new lands&quot;. The first official Greek administrator arrived in Solun near the end of October 1912, accompanied by two judges, five customs officials, ten consulate clerks, a contingent of reporters and journalists and 168 Cretan soldiers. Among other things, the first order of business was to &quot;Hellenize the New Lands&quot;. &quot;After the Greeks occupied Aegean Macedonia, they closed the Slavic language schools and churches and expelled the priests. The Macedonian language and names were forbidden, and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Serbians or natives. By law promulgated on November 21, 1926, all place names (toponymia) were Hellenized; that is the names of cities, villages, rivers and mountains were discarded and Greek names put in their place. At the same time the Macedonians were forced to change their first and surnames; every Macedonian surname had to end in 'os', 'es', or 'poulos'. The news of these acts and the new, official Greek names were published in the Greek government daily 'Efimeris tis Kiverniseos no. 322 and 324 of November 21 and 23, 1926. The requirements to use these Greek names is officially binding to this day. All evidence of the Macedonian language was compulsorily removed from churches, monuments, archeological finds and cemeteries. Slavonic church or secular literature was seized and burned. The use of the Macedonian language was strictly forbidden also in personal communication between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and work parties, and in burial rituals.&quot; (Page 109, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

The act of forbidding the use of the Macedonian language in Greece is best illustrated by an example of how it was implemented in the Township of Assarios (Giuvezna). Here is a quote from Karakasidou's book Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood.

&quot;[We] listened to the president articulate to the council that in accordance with the decision [#122770] of Mr. Minister, General Governor of Macedonia, all municipal and township councils would forbid, through [administrative] decisions, the speaking of other idioms of obsolete languages within the area of their jurisdiction for the reconstitution of a universal language and our national glory. [The president] suggested that [the] speaking of different idioms, foreign [languages] and our language in an impure or obsolete manner in the area of the township of Assirios would be forbidden. Assirios Township Decision No. 134, 13 December 1936.&quot; (Page 162, Anastasia Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

By 1928 1,497 Macedonian place-names in the Greek occupied Macedonia were Hellenized (LAW 4096) and all Cyrillic inscriptions found in churches, on tombstones and icons were destroyed (or overwritten) prompting English Journalist V. Hild to say, &quot;The Greeks do not only persecute living Slavs (Macedonians)..., but they even persecute dead ones. They do not leave them in peace even in the graves. They erase the Slavonic inscriptions on the headstones, remove the bones and burn them.&quot;

In the years following World War I, the Macedonian people underwent extensive measures of systematic denationalization. The applications of these &quot;denationalization schemes&quot; were so extensive and aggressively pursued that in the long term they eroded the will of the Macedonian people to resist.

&quot;In Greece, in 1929 during the rule of Elepterios Venizelos, a legal act was issued 'On the protection of public order'. In line with this Act each demand for nationality rights is regarded as high treason. This law is still in force.

On December 18, 1936, Metaksas' dictatorial government issued a legal Act 'On the activity against state security' on the strength of which thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned, expelled or exiled (EXORIA) on arid, inhospitable Greek islands, where many perished. Their crime? Being ethnic Macedonian by birth.

On September 7, 1938 legal Act No. 2366 was issued banning the use of the Macedonian language. All Macedonian localities were flooded with posters: 'Speak Greek'. Evening schools were opened in which adult Macedonians were taught Greek. Not a single Macedonian school functioned at the time.&quot; (Page 8, What Europe has Forgotten: The Struggle of the Aegean Macedonians, A Report by the Association of the Macedonians in Poland)

Many Macedonians were fined, beaten and jailed for speaking Macedonian. Adults and school children alike were further humiliated by being forced to drink castor oil when caught speaking Macedonian.

In Vardar Macedonia, the Yugoslav government attacked the problem of denationalization and assimilation by enacting laws, such as the September 24, 1920 &quot;Resolution for the Settlement of the New Southern Regions&quot;, designed to effectively exclude Macedonians from owning any property. The Macedonian language was banned along with cultural institutions through a uniform code known as the December 30th, 1920 EDICT, which was aimed at persecuting all political and trade union associations.

The bulk and most arable of Macedonian lands were awarded to Serbian army officers who survived the World War I Solun front. Land was also awarded to the Serbian administrators of Macedonia including government bureaucrats, judges and the police. The denationalization measures were complemented with aggressive re-education programs producing &quot;little Serbs&quot; out of the Macedonian children. As for the unwilling adults, they were given two options - &quot;live as a Serb&quot; or &quot;die as a Macedonian&quot;!

In Pirin Macedonia, the Bulgarian government enforced compulsory name changes and, through repressive political and economic means, stepped up the assimilation process. Initially land reforms favoured the poor, including the Macedonian peasants. Later, however, that too changed and Macedonians here were exposed to a similar fate as the Macedonians in Greek and Serbian occupied Macedonia.

The Macedonians in Albania posed little threat to Albania's authority and faired relatively better than their kin in Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. The village inhabitants were not persecuted or subjected to any comprehensive denationalization programs. As a result the Macedonian culture flourished, original names remained and the people spoke Macedonian uninhibited.

After the Great War there was peace in Europe. Unfortunately Macedonians continued to endure denationalization, forced assimilation, forced emigration and economic neglect at the hands of the new masters. As time will tell Europe will not have a lasting peace, a new menace with greater ferocity is emerging and will engulf the entire world. Once again someone else's war will be fought on Macedonian soil and once again it will prove even more devastating than any previous war, almost fatal to the Macedonian nation.

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>4zatvacdeyvj6f9rnzsvniidpyovvtm</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 19 - The Macedonian Decline III</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2666</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11034</id>
      <parentid>7038</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:38:23Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="15193" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia

Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 19 - The Macedonian Decline III

April, 2007

As the Greek Civil War was coming to a close western Aegean Macedonia was bombed to dust. Partisans and civilians alike fled to Albania to save themselves. When the war was over many wanted to return but Greece did not want them back. Anyone who voluntarily fled was not allowed to return, regardless of whether they were guilty of any crimes or not. After spending some time in the camps in Albania the people of Macedonia, again victims of someone else's war, became permanent war refugees and were sent to various Eastern Block countries. Before departure the refugees were separated into two groups. One, made up mostly of Partisan fighters, was sent to the USSR. The other, consisting mostly of civilians and Partisan support staff, was sent to Poland. After the groups were separated they were transported to the port of Durasi, loaded onto cargo ships and sent westward through Gibraltar to Poland and eastward via the Black Sea to the Soviet Union. The voyages were long and unpleasant. To avoid detection the refugees were literally hidden inside the cargo and at critical times ordered to remain immobile and quiet for long periods of time. When they landed at their destinations the refugees were stripped and their flea-infested clothes were burned. After being powdered with pesticide and bathed in hot baths they were placed in quarantine where they spent about a month and a half resting idly before being relocated to permanent quarters.

After settling down and securing employment in their new countries, many parents began to look for their refugee children and with the help of the authorities were able to bring them home. As a result many children left their host countries to join their parents in Poland, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.

Refugees with relatives in Canada, the USA and Australia through sponsorship made attempts to immigrate themselves and look for their children or have their relatives look for their children if immigration was not possible. Initially &quot;the iron curtain&quot; was shut tight and made it difficult to make inquiries but as the Red Cross became involved it became easier. In 1953, during a Red Cross convention in Switzerland, the question of the Refugee Children from the Greek Civil War came up and the various Red Cross agencies agreed to cooperate and exchange information with each other. After that anyone requesting help to locate missing persons in Eastern Block Countries was not refused.

By 1950 Greece was taking extreme measures to close her borders with Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Trusted Albanians from Epirus were brought into Macedonia and seeded throughout the border villages to act as eyes and ears for the Greeks. Greek authorities clamped down on the remaining population and no one was allowed to travel without permission. There were strict rules of conduct put into effect, including curfews. Anyone caught wandering outdoors past dusk was shot on sight. Many shepherds quit their jobs for fear of being killed and left their sheep wandering aimlessly. One little boy had an argument with his stepfather and ran away. The authorities were not at all sympathetic and wouldn't allow the family to go looking for him. The boy's mother and sister went looking for him anyway and brought him home safely at great risk to their own safety.

When the violence in Greece subsided, parents and relatives began to inquire about repatriating their children. Those who displayed some loyalty to the Greek cause were told that their children would be allowed to return if decreed by the Greek Queen Fredericka. Unfortunately this process required connections with the local Greek authorities and a lot of money, money that most Macedonians did not have. Those considered for repatriation had to meet a number of conditions including the willingness to accept permanent Hellenization. Children from Partisan families were automatically disqualified. Those who weren't willing to change their names or weren't liked for some reason were also disqualified. As the years passed fewer children were allowed to return and requests for repatriation continued to be ignored. Parents and relatives died and still their children were not allowed to return, not even for a visit.

After travel restrictions to countries behind the iron curtain were lifted, parents, in spite of the expense, old age and ill health, made their way to visit their children.
Many of the people I interviewed don't know why the Greek authorities wouldn't allow the children to return. In spite of pleas, even on humanitarian grounds, the Greek authorities, decade after decade, government after government, maintain the same policy and will not allow the Macedonian refugee children to return home.

After the war was over and all the remaining Partisans were captured or killed, people who were evacuated by the Greek authorities were slowly allowed to go home to their own villages. While many returned to their old homes a few families decided to make the new village their home. Some lost their farm equipment, tools, livestock and personal belongings to looters. For most life had to start all over again. As tensions began to ease, those held in concentration camps were released and began to arrive home only to find their property gone. The Greek authorities, in addition to confiscating the properties of many of those who fled as refugees during the mass exodus of 1949, also confiscated the properties of those held in concentration camps.

In time people became demoralized and lived in constant fear of the authorities and retribution from their collaborators. There was a certain stigma attached to the relatives of Partisans or their supporters that caused them to withdraw from society and keep to themselves. Those who served in the Greek concentration camps were constantly harassed with curfews, restricted mobility and suspicion of espionage. Many were followed by plainclothes policemen and pressured to become informants and spy on their neighbours. Strangers were viewed with suspicion and automatically assumed to be foreign spies.

As radios became affordable people began to purchase them and listen to various programs, including broadcasts from Eastern Europe and the Federal Republic of Macedonia. The Greek police became vigilant and on many occasions were observed outside people's yards listening to hear what programs were playing. Those caught listening to foreign programs were accused of espionage. The Macedonian language was once again banned from use and the &quot;M&quot; word became a dirty word even if it was spoken on the radio. Ever since Greece invaded the Macedonian territory, successive Greek Governments refused to acknowledge the existence of the Macedonian language.

One by one, all those who came back from the Eastern European countries left for Canada, the USA and Australia because they could no longer stand the Greek oppression. They had tasted freedom and wanted more even if it meant abandoning their beloved ancestral homes. They remembered how life was before the latest Greek clampdown and now it was not the same. The people had changed also, they were still courteous and kind but their spirits were broken. Everyone was afraid, careful not to say anything incriminating as if every word was going to be judged and the person punished. Children born during this time were brought up believing that this was how life was and it was supposedly the best life one could have. They were taught to understand that Greece was the cradle of democracy and no one in the world was freer than the Greeks. Those who knew better did not dare speak. There were certain things that could not be done or discussed, especially the Greek Civil War. Children were taught Greek chauvinist songs in school and sang them at home in front of their parents who didn't dare say anything. Even their children could unwittingly betray them. The Macedonian language became &quot;our&quot; language and could only be spoken in secrecy with relatives and trusted friends. The word &quot;Macedonia&quot; or &quot;Macedonian&quot; was banned from the peoples' vocabulary and could not be spoken, especially in public. Pre-school children who learned &quot;our&quot; language at home from their grandmothers spoke Greek with a heavy accent and were constantly teased and scolded for not knowing how to speak properly. If a child was caught speaking &quot;our&quot; language in class or in the yard, punishment ensued which varied from being publicly humiliated and told not to speak &quot;those filthy words&quot; to being given a good dose of castor oil. Sometimes children sang Greek songs about the deeds of the Greek heroes and broke their parents' hearts. Their precious children were unknowingly idolizing the true criminals and murderers; Macedonia's worst enemies. Some parents, when their children were old enough to keep a secret, taught them that they were a different people, that they were Macedonian, not Greek. Other parents, thinking that it was in the best interest of the children not to know their true identity, allowed them to believe that they were Greek. 

Their loyalties however were never rewarded since it was very rare for a Macedonian child to be accepted in Greek society. It was not because Macedonian children were incapable of being intellectual, as the Greeks would have us believe, but because the Greek Government systemically discriminated against Macedonians. Discrimination was common practice especially at the individual level. Macedonians were constantly put down and as a result kept to themselves. Sometimes, however, during heated discussions or unavoidable arguments Macedonians did show discontentment but the arguments always ended with the lethal insult of being called a &quot;Bulgar&quot;, the lowest form of life known to Greeks. The highest level of education a Macedonian child was permitted to achieve was grade six. Junior high was possible only for the children of those who had shown and continued to show loyalty to the Greek cause.

After the fall of the dictatorship in Greece, in the mid-sixties, many Macedonians were publicly encouraged by the Greek politicians to leave Greece because &quot;there was no future for them there&quot;. Many of the empty villages in western Macedonia were filled with Albanians from west central Greece. Vlahs who originally lived in the highlands of Thessaly and spent summers in the Macedonian mountains took up permanent residence there. Many applied for and were granted the properties of post-Greek Civil War migrant families.

Macedonians who immigrated to Canada, the USA and Australia at the start of the 20th century organized village associations to assist fellow immigrants in adjusting to their new countries. As post-Greek Civil War immigration accelerated, these village associations became a haven for new immigrants and their membership grew. Encouraged by their newfound freedoms, many of the new émigrés enjoyed their Macedonian culture and language in the Diaspora. This was perceived as a threat to Greek influence both at home and abroad. As the associations grew in strength so did their threat to the Greek chokehold. To counter this, with help from the Greek Embassies and Consulates, pro-Greek factions began to infiltrate the Macedonian associations. The weaker associations were overpowered and rendered ineffective. Those that resisted managed to survive and preserve their unique Macedonian identity. For the ones that the Greeks could not subdue, parallel and competing pro-Greek associations were formed. The day a Macedonian association held an event the pro-Greek association held a similar event, to divide the people. Macedonians wishing to participate in events and prone to blackmail were discouraged from joining the Macedonian organizations and encouraged to join the pro-Greek ones. This is precisely why the Macedonian community in the Diaspora has become a silent community. This suits the Greeks perfectly and leaves the Macedonians frustrated and disappointed.

The most anti-Macedonian organization to surface from all the Greek associations is the Pan Macedonian Association, which aims to not only divide the Macedonian Nation but also destroy everything that is Macedonian. To this day this organization preys on the weak, innocent, naïve and those who can be bought and continues to spread hatred and lies at every opportunity. The Pan Macedonian Association is a &quot;false organization&quot; fully financed by extreme Greek nationalists and by the Greek taxpayers most of whom are unaware of its discriminatory practices and the friction it creates between fellow Greek citizens.

In addition to disseminating anti-Macedonian propaganda and lobbying for &quot;the Greek cause&quot;, many of these so-called &quot;Greek-Macedonian&quot; organizations spy on Macedonian organizations and individuals, reporting their activities to the Greek authorities. Many activists and supporters of the Macedonian cause, even though they are Greek citizens, are barred from returning to Greece. Their cause is noble if they serve the Greeks at their own expense but as soon as they attempt to serve their own interests they suddenly become traitors.

Macedonians are refused entry into Greece at the border points without any explanation. Without consent their passport is stamped &quot;void&quot; and thrown back at them. They do the same to individuals with foreign passports without respect for the foreign State's property.

The Macedonian Refugee Children wish to express their gratitude to the countries and people who opened their doors to them at a time of their greatest need. They treated them not as strangers or immigrants, but as equals. They also wish to express many thanks to the countries and people for giving them the opportunity of free education in their institutions. Only through their generosity away from Greek bias did the Macedonian children prove themselves equal to all the children in the world. Free from Greek oppression they excelled in education and talent becoming professors, doctors, engineers, poets, playwrights, composers, economists, etc.
Most of the refugee children today are living in the Diaspora. A great number of them have immigrated to Canada, the USA, Australia and the Republic of Macedonia. Some remained in their host countries (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Germany and Russia) and have made them their homes. They maintain contact with each other through associations and clubs and from time to time meet, attempting to gain entry to visit their homeland. Unfortunately to this day they have had no success. Greece, after fifty-five years, still does not want them, not even to visit.

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>ej3torc8ldjgyukgbvkn7x1hl2fjc3h</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Recovering Macedonia 18 - The Macedonian Decline II</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2667</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11033</id>
      <parentid>7039</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:38:18Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="43699" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=english, likely copyvio: https://books.google.com/books/about/Recovering_Macedonia.html?id=1BmTMwAACAAJ}}
Recovering Macedonia
Expiration of the Bucharest Treaty of 1913

Part 18 - The Macedonian Decline II

March, 2007

rstefov@hotmail.com

Website: www.Oshchima.com


[Macedonia will remain occupied as long as the Macedonian people are unrecognized, abused and made to feel like strangers on their own native lands. It is a well known fact that Macedonia was invaded, occupied and illegally partitioned by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1912-1913 against the wishes of the Macedonian people. The Serbian occupied part, now known as the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991 and is today a sovereign state while the parts annexed by Greece and Bulgaria remain occupied.]

After the conclusion of the Great War and the Soviet Bolshevik revolution, the Great Powers were in ruins and began their lengthy process of rebuilding. Russia's desires for imperialist ventures and its obsession with destroying the Ottoman Empire brought immense economic suffering to its people. While the Macedonians in the Balkans were suffering from denationalization and oppression, the world around them was changing.

Lenin's rise to power put an end to Russian imperialist ambitions in the Balkans, especially the Tsarist desires for annexing Tsari Grad and Endrene. Germany, on the other hand, bitter about its latest defeat, began to rebuild is economy. Smarting from their latest bouts with Germany, France and Britain too began to rebuild their economies and military strengths. Germany, as the vanquished party and instigator of the Great War, was forced to pay restitution for damages to the victorious nations.

In spite of all efforts made to recover from the Great War, the economic situation in Europe was worsening and came to a climax in October 1929 when the stock market crashed in the United States. The economic collapse of the 1930's and the &quot;Great Depression&quot; polarized the world into &quot;left and right&quot; economic camps. On the left were the supporters of the working class and Communism, while on the right were the supporters of industry and capitalism. The tug of war between left and right came to a climax when civil war broke out in Spain in July 1936. Germany was in support of the right and sent troops to fight on the side of the Spanish Government. Germany, at the time, was only allowed to have a small army, so to compensate for its limited numerical capability it focused its efforts on producing a superior force. Germany's small but capable army was field-tested and battle hardened in the Spanish conflict. This explains its numerous victories during the course of World War II. Russian and German influences did not escape the Balkan States and they too felt the pull from the two camps.

To maintain control of his kingdom, King George II of Greece made his state a dictatorship. In 1936, after the Greek premier's death, he appointed General Metaxas the minister of war to take charge of Greek affairs.

While there were some prospects for basic human rights for the Macedonian people in the Greek State in the early 1920's, those prospects died as Greece tightened its grip on Macedonia by implementing more racist assimilation policies. If that was not enough, on December 18, 1936 the Greek Government issued a legal act concerning, &quot;Activities Against State Security&quot;. By this act thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned and expelled from their homeland. Among other things, Metaxas on September 7, 1938, by legal act 2366, outlawed the Macedonian language and prohibited people from speaking it by imposing heavy fines and imprisonment.

In 1938 Australian author Bert Birtles in his book &quot;Exiles in the Aegean&quot; wrote, &quot;In the name of 'Hellenization' these people (Macedonians) are being persecuted continually and arrested for the most fantastic reasons. Metaxa's way of inculcating the proper nationalist spirit among them has been to change all the native place-names into Greek and to forbid use of the native language. For displaying the slightest resistance to the edict-for this too is a danger to the security of the State-peasants and villagers have been exiled without trial.&quot; (Page 112, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

Once in control of the Greek State, Metaxas acted against the labour unions and their leaders and declared strikes illegal. He then turned to suppressing all political opposition, outlawed all political parties and imprisoned leaders who would not pledge their loyalty to him. The communist party too was outlawed and driven underground. The press was also heavily censored.

Being a military man, Metaxas dedicated much of the State's finances to modernizing the Greek army in both manpower and military hardware. In the sphere of education, he re-wrote Greek history to support his own ideologies declaring that there were three great periods in history: classical, Byzantine and his own regime, which was then known as the &quot;Regime of the Fourth of August&quot;. He created a National Youth Organization to bring children together from various social classes and provided military training for boys and domestic skills for girls. Even though the Metaxa regime was ideologically similar to that of Spain and Italy, the Greeks were always loyal to Britain.

In Yugoslavia events were progressing in a similar manner to those in Greece. After King Alexander declared himself dictator of Yugoslavia in 1929, he suspended the constitution and subdivided his kingdom in such a way that the Serbs would be a majority in all districts. He also abolished trade unions and removed personal liberties. The Serbian occupied territory of Macedonia was referred to as &quot;South Serbia&quot; and the Macedonian language was forbidden from being spoken in public. The history of the Macedonian people and their surnames were changed as well, to give Serbian emphasis. Place names too were changed and replaced with historically Serbian names. Unlike the Metaxa regime, after the 1930's, the Yugoslav regimes began to relax their tight grip and allowed unofficial and limited use of the Macedonian dialects to be spoken in the streets of Macedonia and in plays and drama clubs.

In Bulgaria events followed a similar course as in Yugoslavia and Greece. A military coup was imposed in May 1934, the 1879 constitution was abolished and political organizations and trade unions were suppressed. In 1935 King Boris III, in a bloodless coup, overthrew the old dictatorship and replaced it with his own Royal one. Bulgarian governments since Bulgaria's inception in 1878 have officially and adamantly denied the existence of the Macedonian ethnicity arguing that Macedonians are Bulgarians. Thousands of Macedonians, who over the years tried to express different views, were jailed or exiled. The attitude that Macedonians are Bulgarians was used to justify violent assimilation acts and to deny Macedonians their basic human rights. Ever since its inception in 1878, Bulgaria has been obsessed with possessing Macedonia and has caused immense suffering for the Macedonian people.

The downfall of the Tsarist Russian Imperial Empire, the break-up of the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire and the demise of the Ottoman Empire removed three of the Great Powers from internal Balkan influence. While Britain played a less active role, France and Italy attempted to form competing alliances in the Balkans but did not have the military might to enforce them. The Balkan governments, on the other hand, for the first time had an opportunity to adjust their relations with each other and form alliances to protect their mutual interests. Unfortunately their hatred for each other and fear of losing Macedonia always prevented such alliances and again allowed outsiders to play a role in their internal affairs.

Germany's humiliating defeat in the Great War, coupled with its economic plight in the 1930's, gave rise to a new kind of German radicalism. Hitler exploited that and turned it to his own advantage. Hitler, in the short term, also gave the German people what they desired most, work and hope for a better future. Unfortunately, in the long term, he delivered disaster not only to the German people but also to many other nations, including the Macedonians.

As a new-world order emerged from the Great War, new alliances began to form. On one side stood the Axis partners, initially consisting of Germany, Italy and Japan. As war broke out, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Thailand joined in. On the other side the Allied partners consisted of Britain, the Soviet Union, the USA and China. As the war progressed more and more nations joined the allies, totaling about fifty before the war was over.

In September 1940 Germany, Italy and Japan signed a cooperation agreement. This basically identified their intentions with respect to each others' spheres of influence, defining their political, economic and defense strategies as well as their obligations to each other. The agreement came to be known as the &quot;tripartite pact&quot;.

After war broke out in the Balkans, the first to fall to fascist aggression was Albania. By an ultimatum delivered to Albanian King Zog, on March 23, 1939, Italian troops landed in Albania and occupied its territory on April 7, encountering little resistance. Soon after consolidating control in Albania, on October 28th, 1940, Italy declared war on Greece. Greece, however, turned out to be tough to defeat and Metaxa's foresight in arming his state paid off.

Official history praises Greece and Greek soldiers for their bravery and fighting spirit but neglects to mention the contributions and sacrifices Macedonians made to keep Greece safe. Macedonians were the first to be dispatched to the front lines in Albania, taking the full brunt of the offensive as well as the winter cold. More Macedonian men suffered from gangrene than from Italian bullets and bombs. Unprepared for the frigid temperatures, many men lost their fingers, toes, limbs and even their lives to frostbite. Food too was in short supply. The brave Macedonian soldiers had to fight off starvation as well as the Italians. They did this to protect a country that refused and still refuses to recognize them.

All their sacrifices were in vain because six months later, on April 6th, 1941, the German army marched into Greece. Again the Macedonians fought bravely but they were no match for the well-trained, well-disciplined German army.

There is a story, I am told, of a Macedonian soldier, a real old coot, who refused to surrender to the invading Germans and continued to fire at them in spite of orders to cease. He held his position until he ran out of ammunition and the Germans practically grabbed him by the neck. Expecting to meet his maker, he stood up and bravely faced his enemy. Instead of killing him, the German soldiers, one by one, shook his hand and praised him for his bravery, then let him go. (I don't want to give you the wrong impression about the Germans. This is how they behaved in the beginning during the Partisan days, later however their policy was to &quot;kill ten innocent civilians for each German soldier killed&quot;.)

When the Germans reached Athens, the Greek government capitulated and the soldiers on the Albanian front were left on their own. Some were told to go to Epirus and regroup, expected to make the long trek on foot. Others were told nothing and were left to roam the countryside. Eventually they were all picked up by German patrols, disarmed and sent home. The returning soldiers were given a hero's welcome. Unfortunately for those who were wounded, losing fingers, toes and limbs to frostbite, there was no compensation or solace for their pain.

The German invasion was a welcome relief for the soldiers from the Italian front, but at the same time it posed an uneasy uncertainty as to what was going to happen next. No one was certain how the new invaders were going to react. The Macedonian people, having ample prior experience with being occupied, were expecting the worst. As time would show the new invaders were a mixed blessing for the Macedonian people.

After war broke out in Europe, Bulgaria allied itself with the axis powers and on March 1, 1941 joined the German led pact. The entry of German troops into Bulgaria put Yugoslavia in a difficult position. To avoid German wrath, on March 25, 1941, the Yugoslav Regent, Prince Paul, also joined the German led pact. This did not sit well with young King Peter who, with the help of the Yugoslav military, staged a coup and deposed the Regent. This meant that Hitler had to negotiate with Yugoslavia again. Hitler was counting on Yugoslavia to allow him passage to attack Greece. The new situation angered Hitler and instead of negotiating he signed directive number 25 declaring Yugoslavia an enemy of Germany and ordered its destruction. Hitler wanted a swift strike so he withdrew troops from the Russian campaign.

It took Hitler's army 12 days to demolish Yugoslavia, a small diversion in his destructive career, but there are those who believe that this little diversion changed the course of history. To begin with it gave the Soviet Union just enough time to adequately prepare for an offensive, which ultimately led to Germany's defeat. Secondly, the violent nature of the attack created the right conditions for a Partisan uprising, which ultimately helped to establish the Republic of Macedonia. The battle for Yugoslavia and Greece was swift and effective. When it was over the Germans, as an ally to the axis powers, allowed Bulgaria to occupy Vardar (Yugoslav occupied) Macedonia and the eastern region of Aegean (Greek occupied) Macedonia. Later, after the Italians left, Germany allowed Bulgaria to occupy western Macedonia as well.

Many Macedonians from the Vardar region who had suffered under the Yugoslav regime welcomed the Bulgarian invaders as saviors and liberators. Their euphoria was short-lived as the Bulgarians quickly began to oppress and forcibly Bulgarize the Macedonian population. If there had been any pro-Bulgarian sentiment before, it quickly disappeared after the occupation. Germany's violent entry into Yugoslavia, coupled with Bulgarian oppressive attitudes towards the Macedonian people, gave birth to an underground Macedonian resistance movement.

In Aegean Macedonia, after the Germans settled in, life for the Macedonian people took on an uneasy normalcy. The Greek police, who had supported the Metaxa regime before the occupation, now cooperated with the German military and again became active in Macedonia. To counter its oppressive tactics the old Komiti (Ilinden revolutionary guard) rearmed and went back to active duty. The &quot;old timers&quot; were angered by Greece's oppressive laws and were spurred back into action by Bulgarian propaganda condemning the oppressive Greek tactics. The Bulgarians were well aware of the unfavourable conditions the Greek Government had created in Macedonia and used the opportunity to agitate the Greeks. Komiti actions were limited at best and were restricted to the Italian zones, as the Germans would not tolerate armed actions in their zones.

The Partisan movement in Yugoslavia was more organized and progressive than in Greece. Led by Tito, the Communist partisans in Yugoslavia organized a war of national liberation in which the Macedonians, led by General Tempo, fought on an equal footing. Macedonians formed their own section of resistance even before they were recognized and accepted by Tito. The first anti-fascist war of national liberation began in the Republic of Macedonia on October 11, 1941. October 11th is the &quot;Second Ilinden&quot; for the Macedonian people. Since 1941 they have celebrated it as &quot;Macedonian Revolution Day&quot;. The Macedonian people by their actions, loyalty and patriotism earned their place in the world. By hardship, determination and the spilling of blood the Macedonian people demonstrated their desire for freedom and the willingness to rule themselves. The Great Powers in 1829 (by the London Protocol) satisfied the Greeks by making Greece a country. Similarly in 1878 (by the congress of Berlin) Russia liberated the Bulgarians making Bulgaria a country. Unlike the Greeks and Bulgarians, however, the brave people of Vardar Macedonia had to fight by themselves, for themselves, to earn their place in the world among the free nations.

For just over a year the Macedonians of Vardar endured enough Bulgarian treachery to last them a lifetime. Then in April 1942 they rose up and demonstrated their displeasure. Macedonian Partisans took up arms against the Bulgarian army but were massacred in a bloody battle. Unarmed Macedonians then took to the streets to protest the massacre and they too were cut to pieces.

To escape persecution, sections of the Macedonian Partisan force in Yugoslavia fled into Aegean Macedonia. Some entered the Italian zones near the village Besfina and the rest penetrated the German zones in the region around the village Sveta Petka and quickly went underground. The Besfina force, before it had a chance to make contact with the local population, was spotted by the Komiti who quickly sprang into action. Seeing uniformed men on the Besfina hillside startled the old Komiti. Thinking that it was a Greek police (Andari) invasion force, the Komiti appealed to the local Italian garrison and were given arms and permission to attack. When the Komiti started the offensive the Partisans backed off and sent representatives to negotiate. They went from village to village and spoke with the local chiefs. The strangers wore handsome uniforms and conducted themselves seriously, with charm and charisma. They spoke long and well about freedom, liberty and the treachery of the Bulgarian Fascists.

When the Komiti found out that the uniformed men were Macedonians they accepted them with open arms, gave them (surrendered) their weapons and many voluntarily joined their cause. The Partisans of Sveta Petka, because of a German presence, had to work under cover but they too succeeded in recruiting volunteers from the local population. After the Partisan penetration, the Macedonian people of Aegean Macedonia learned about Bulgarian atrocities and ceased to believe the Bulgarian propaganda. The old Ilinden guard was demobilized and replaced by a Partisan movement.

Partisan organizers took extraordinary measures to explain to the Macedonian people that they were fighting for the freedom and liberation of the Macedonian people from the tyranny of the oppressive states. The Macedonian involvement in this war, and later in the Greek civil war, was not about &quot;Communist ideologies&quot; or about alliances or obligations to the Great Powers. It was simply the next stage in the long struggle for &quot;liberation from oppression&quot; and to fulfill a longing for freedom, re-unification and self-rule. The Macedonian contribution in fighting against Fascism is not only under emphasized but also misinterpreted by historians. I will once again say that the Macedonian people, during the Second Great War (WWII), rose on the democratic side and fought against fascism for the liberation of the states in which they lived. The Macedonian people, like other people in the Balkans, fought to liberate their homeland and thus earn their place in the world. This cannot be ignored and must be recognized and recorded in the annals of history.

After all the German and Bulgarian occupying forces withdrew from Yugoslavia, the Partisans, numbering about 800,000, were in full control. There were no outside invasion forces (Allied or Russian) inside Yugoslavia, so foreign interference was not a problem. At that time the Macedonian Partisans possessed a sizeable force and wielded considerable influence in the ranks of the Tito regime. The Macedonian people did their share of fighting for the liberation of Yugoslavia from the Fascists and earned their place as equals among the Yugoslav people.

On August 2nd, 1944 Macedonia was officially proclaimed a Republic within the Yugoslav Federation. A Bitola-Lerin dialect was chosen and adopted as the official language of the Republic and the city of Skopje was chosen as the new Republic's capital.

No sooner had the Germans withdrawn from Greece than the British military arrived in Athens. Athens was evacuated on October 12, 1944 and a British occupation force entered the city a few days later. While Britain entered Greece with only four thousand troops, most unfit for combat, ELAS (Greek Partisans) in contrast had seventy thousand men armed and ready for combat. Even the British admit that if the Greek Partisans wanted to, they could have seized power. The conditions were certainly right. The question is why didn't they and what was the Greek Civil War all about? Official history provides no answers, only more questions.

It took the British a couple of months to organize and by mid December 1944 they had fifty thousand soldiers of their own and some loyal Greek troops to back them. The local Greek troops came from the ranks of the Andari (National Republican Greek League), the same men who fought alongside the Germans against they own people. They switched their German gear for British uniforms and were back on the streets again attacking the Partisans.

As Greece started to collapse, before Germany invaded in 1941, King George II fled and formed a government in exile in London, which was recognized by the Allies as the official Government of Greece. Also the British, in advance of the German departure, established a center of Greek activity in Cairo where a Greek army, navy and air force operated under British command.

After the British consolidated power in Greece they were able to support the British appointed Greek Government and ordered the Partisans to demobilize. What is interesting here is that before the British were able to militarily enforce a disarmament they ordered the Partisan forces to disband. What is more interesting and noteworthy is that EAM agreed to demobilize its own forces with hardly any conditions. The only condition worthy of mention is the request for Britain to disarm the &quot;Government support units&quot;; EAM's main opposition. Knowing full well that Britain would never allow communist rule in Greece and also knowing that the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Britain not to interfere in Greece, EAM still believed it could come to power with no outside help.

When the British went ahead with the original plan, ignoring EAM's request to disarm the Government Support Units, EAM withdrew from the government. EAM then protested against British actions by organizing demonstrations and general strikes. When the Athens Square began to flood with thousands of demonstrators the police were ordered to fire on the crowds, killing fifteen people. To make matters worse, Churchill approved a plan for Britain to occupy Athens by any means necessary if required. ELAS still held more than three-quarters of Greece but because it could no longer count on outside (Soviet) support, it had to re-evaluate its own position.

Under these conditions EAM, in January 1945, accepted an armistice trading guns for votes. The Varkita agreement was signed on February 12, 1945 requiring all bands to demobilize and surrender their weapons. The British, once again, confirmed their allegiance to the Greek Government by giving Athens full political and military support, committing their willingness to fight to prevent a Partisan victory. The biggest losers of the Varkita agreement were the Macedonians. As soon as EAM signed the agreement, all anti-Macedonian laws were back in force and the Macedonian people lost all that they had gained during the German occupation. EAM/KKE (Greek Communist Party) made absolutely no effort to safeguard Macedonian rights in the agreements with Britain and as a result began to lose favour with the Macedonian leadership. When the Macedonian Partisan forces were ordered to demobilize, as part of the Varkita agreement, the Macedonian leadership refused. Goche and Titan refused to disarm and disband without guarantees that no harm would come to their men or to the Macedonian people.

The question of &quot;what will happen to Aegean Macedonia under Greek communist rule&quot; was still unclear. Greece was determined to rid itself of the Macedonians one way or another and outlawed the Macedonian forces. A strike force was assembled by ELAS (the Greek Partisans) and sent north to intervene and arrest the Macedonian brigade now considered illegal. But instead of putting up a fight the Macedonian brigades crossed over the Yugoslav border and entered Vardar Macedonia. In Vardar Macedonia they were a welcome addition to existing Macedonian forces fighting the Albanian Balisti (German allies) in Tetovo and Gostivar. The Macedonian leadership could have decided to stay and fight ELAS but it would have made no sense to bring the war home to Macedonia. They knew very well that British troops would soon follow and they would be fighting a senseless, bloody war in their own backyard.

With the Macedonian force out of the way, the Greek police were back and up to their old tricks. This time it wasn't only the Macedonians who were their victims. They hated the Greek Partisans just as much. With practically no one to stop them, the Greek police escalated their terror activities arresting, torturing, and murdering people indiscriminately, including the EAM, ELAS and KE (Communist Party of Greece) leadership. By the time elections were convened most of the Partisan leadership had disappeared. They were either in jail serving hard time on fabricated and trumped up charges or they were dead.

Elections were scheduled for March 31st, 1946. Instead of voting, the Greek Partisans re-armed themselves and rebelled against the Greek Government. The rebellion manifested itself as an attack on Greece in the village of &quot;Lithohorion&quot;, situated east of Mount Olympus directly south of Katerini in Thessaly. Other attacks soon followed and in no time the conflict escalated into a full scale Civil War, engulfing not only Greece but Greek occupied Macedonia as well.

In a bizarre turn of events, ELAS, who less than a year ago turned their guns on Macedonian fighters, now extended their hands in friendship. All was forgiven and forgotten when the ELAS leadership asked the Macedonians for their help. This time they came with offers of &quot;equal rights&quot;, &quot;recognition&quot; and even possibilities of &quot;re-unification with Vardar&quot;. Now tell me what Macedonian could resist that?

Many Aegean Partisan fighters who had crossed over to Vardar Macedonia only the year before came back. On their return they organized themselves under NOF, the Macedonian National Liberation Front, and fought side by side with ELAS. Many were well aware of the saying &quot;beware of Greeks bearing gifts&quot; and knew that the Greek offer was too good to be true. But there was always that small ray of hope that perhaps this time the outcome for Macedonia might be different. Besides, their families, homes and lives were in Aegean Macedonia. What other choice did they really have? They returned because they were lonely, loved their families and because they had to live with the guilt of leaving their loved ones in dire straits. Every Macedonian born in Macedonia, even in the most desolate places, knows the feeling of homesickness and yearns to return.

By early 1947 the Partisan force was showing real strength in military capability and promise for delivering on its commitments to the Macedonian people. About 87 Macedonian schools were opened in the Lerin and Kostur regions. A record number of students (10,000) were reported attending school. Macedonian literature and culture seemed to flourish. The Greeks, unfortunately, were never at ease with the Macedonian gains and there was visible resentment and mistrust between the two peoples. Greek chauvinism seemed to flourish even at the best of times. Macedonians, on the other hand, were never at ease about revealing their real names or identities, especially to the Greek Partisans. One Macedonian explained it to me this way, &quot;If they knew that you were Macedonian then you had to watch both your front and back, because you never knew where the next bullet was going to come from.&quot;

In Macedonia the ranks of the Partisans were swelling mostly with volunteers from the patriotic Macedonian villages. Some who had combat experience were promoted to the rank of officer. The Greeks were hesitant and careful not to promote Macedonians to high ranks. Those they reserved for Greeks only. In addition to enlisting men, the Partisans also drafted women as nurses, field medics, tailors, menders, launderers, cooks, supply organizers and even armed combatants. For a while the Partisans grew their own food in donated and abandoned fields. The workforce, managing the harvests and delivering food to the Partisan camps, was made up mostly of women volunteers.

Both the Greek Government and the Partisans were recruiting fighters from the same population. While young men were drafted to fight for the Greek Government, their wives, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers were drafted to fight for the Partisans. There were heavy propaganda campaigns conducted on both sides poisoning the minds of the young and impressionable, dividing and tearing the community apart and pitting brother against brother.

This was the Greek legacy passed on to the Macedonian people for offering their help. This was the &quot;Greek curse&quot; that many Macedonians must bear for partnering with the Greeks. To this day many Macedonians harbour hard feelings and struggle to make amends. To this day the Macedonian community remains divided on this issue.

From the day the British set foot in Greece they were adamant about ridding themselves of the Partisans by any means possible, even condoning acts of violence and terror. From mid-1945 to May 20th, 1947 the Partisans reported that &quot;in Western Macedonia alone, 13,529 Macedonians were tortured, 3,215 were imprisoned, and 268 were executed without trial. In addition, 1,891 houses were burnt down and 1,553 were looted, and 13,808 Macedonians were resettled by force. During the war, Greek-run prison camps where Macedonians were imprisoned, tortured, and killed included the island of Ikaria near Turkey, the Island of Makronisos near Athens, the jail Averov near Athens, the jail at Larisa near the Volos Peninsula, and the jail in Thessaloniki. Aegean Macedonian expatriates claim that there were mass killings on Vicho, Gramos, Kaymakchalan, and at Mala Prespa in Albania.&quot; (Page 116, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

The Greek Government in Macedonia worked closely with local collaborators and enlisted, from the Macedonian population, only those who could be proven trustworthy. The collaborators worked hard to identify all those who were sympathetic to the Partisans and reported on their activities on a regular basis. Anyone reported aiding the Partisans was severely punished and sometimes executed. In the spring of 1947 all those who were blacklisted were rounded up, arrested and locked up in Lerin jails. Those accused of aiding the Partisans were taken out and executed. The rest, after spending one hundred days in jail without trial, were sent to various concentration camps in the most desolate Greek Islands.

I want to mention something very important here because I believe the Greek Government, even before the Greek civil war, had plans &quot;to deal with the Macedonians in Greece&quot;. &quot;In 1947, during the Greek civil war, the legal act L-2 was issued. This meant that all those who left Greece without the consent of the Greek government were stripped of Greek citizenship and banned from returning to the country. The law applied to Greeks and Macedonians, but in its modernized version the act is binding only on Macedonians. It prevents Macedonians, but not former Communist Greeks who fought against the winning side from returning to Greece and reclaiming property. On January 20, 1948, the legal act M was issued. This allowed the Greek government to confiscate the property of those who were stripped of their citizenship. The law was updated in 1985 to exclude Greeks, but still binding on Macedonians.&quot; (Pages 116-117, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)

Clearly acts L-2 and M were designed to work against the interest of the Macedonian people. Even innocent Macedonians who left before the Civil War were not allowed to return. The question now is &quot;What was Greece planning to do with the Macedonians?&quot; The way acts L-2 and M were enforced over the years brings another question to mind. If there were no Macedonians living in Greece, as the Greeks claim, then what ethnicity were these people the Greek Government refused to allow back? Why is it that Greek law makes the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks when it suits Greece but not when it benefits the Macedonians?

By the end of 1947 battles were raging everywhere and the war was slowly moving north into Macedonia. Clearly this was a &quot;Greek War&quot;, yet again the Macedonian population was being sucked into it. The heavily armed Greek air force and mechanized artillery gained control of most cities and main roads. The Partisans were literally trapped and continued their strictly defensive campaigns mainly from the mountains of Vicho and Gramos.

As the war intensified the Greek air force regularly bombed Macedonian villages putting the civilian population, including children, in danger. In the spring of 1948, to save the children, a temporary evacuation program was introduced and implemented on a voluntary basis. It is estimated that about 28,000 children from the ages of 2 to 14 were rounded up and taken across the border into Yugoslavia. From there they were sent to various Eastern Block countries.

Again I want to point out that the evacuation program was sponsored and organized by the Greek Partisan Leadership which was fully versed in &quot;Greek Law&quot;(act L-2). Yet they carried out the children's evacuation program and lied to the trusting mothers that the evacuation was only a temporary measure. Almost all the Macedonian children who were evacuated in 1948 are still not allowed entry into Greece.

By the spring of 1949 the Greek Civil War became a &quot;killing field&quot; consuming the Macedonian population. Some of the children who were previously evacuated were brought back to fight against the battle hardened Greek army. Children who were strong enough to carry a rifle, regardless of age, were snatched from the child refugee camps in Romania and brought back to Greece. Two of the three groups that were brought back were instantly massacred upon engaging the Greek Army. They were all under the age of fifteen, had no combat training and no idea of what to expect. The third group was spared only because mothers protested against such barbaric acts. The Partisans demobilized the third group before it reached the battlefields and sent the children home.

By the twisted hand of fate, Zachariadis, the supreme commander of the Partisan forces and his cronies, in their wisdom, decided to make a final stand against Greece that would make or break the Partisan movement. Their rationale was that the Partisans needed to occupy a large town or city to serve as their base. This would make them worthy of consideration and perhaps gain the attention of the Great Powers, especially the Soviet Union. There are many who share my belief that the Partisan attack on Lerin on February 12, 1949 was nothing more than an attempt to exterminate the Macedonian fighting force and terrorize the rest of the Macedonian population into leaving Greece. I can say that with certainty now because that is exactly what happened.

In one last-ditch attempt to gain composure and legitimacy, the Partisans attacked the city of Lerin, attempting to create a base of operation and show the world that they were a force worthy of recognition. Their effort however was not rewarded. They didn't capture Lerin and lost most of the force in the attempt. Seven hundred young Macedonian men and women died on that fateful day, their bodies buried in a mass grave. The Partisan leadership waited until dawn before ordering the attack. Wave after wave of innocent young men and women were slaughtered, cut down in their prime by Greek machine-gun fire. The horror of the slaughter became visible at dawn when the first light revealed the red stained terrain. The fresh white snow was red with the blood and bodies of the fallen.

To this day opinions are divided on the rationale for attacking Lerin so late in the war. The war was almost over and the Greek Army, supported by Britain, was unstoppable. In retrospect, some believe that gaining control of Lerin would have given the Partisan leadership a bargaining chip for surrender. Looking at the facts, however, reveals a more sinister plan. By now it was well known throughout the world that Britain would not allow a communist influence in Greece. Britain's decision was supported by the Soviet Union and by Stalin himself. The Partisan leadership was well informed that it could no longer depend on support from the Communist Block countries, under Soviet influence. Relations with Yugoslavia had broken off and the Greek-Yugoslav border was closed. The Communist Party, which promised Macedonians human rights and freedoms, slowly began to distance itself from its commitments. Most of the Partisans who fought in the battle for Lerin were new recruits and inexperienced fighters. Most of the force was made up of Macedonian men and women under Greek leadership. The Partisan command hesitated when it was time to launch the offensive, thus giving the enemy extra time to prepare its defenses. The hesitation demoralized the Partisan combatants who were not prepared for the prolonged outdoor winter cold.

A cursory analysis of developments prior to the Lerin assault and a post-mortem of the aftermath led to one inescapable conclusion. The assault on Lerin was designed to destroy the Macedonian Partisan force. By offering the Lerin offensive instead of surrendering, the Partisan leadership &quot;sacrificed its own force&quot;. By accident or by design the assault on Lerin contributed to the demise of many Macedonian fighters and to the mass exodus of the Macedonian population. Many believe that the Greek civil war succeeded in &quot;ethnically cleansing&quot; the Macedonian people, where many years of assimilation had failed.

Fearing reprisal from the advancing Greek army, in August 1949 waves of refugees left their homes and went to Albania to save themselves. When the war was over Greece did not want them back. As a result they were sent to Eastern Block countries that were willing to take them.

Years later some tried to return but Greece (act L-2) would not allow it. Even innocent Macedonians who did not participate in the conflict, including the evacuated refugee children, were refused entry (again act L-2). Years passed and still they were refused entry again and again. They were not even allowed to visit ailing relatives. Finally in 1985 a repatriation policy was introduced and amnesty was given but only to those of &quot;Greek origin&quot;. This again excluded the Macedonians.

As the Macedonian terrain was rained upon by bombs from the air and from cannon fire, the frightened Macedonian people, mostly old men and women and mothers with young children, took with them whatever they could carry and left their homes for the safety of the mountains. From there they were told to go to Albania and meet up with their relatives.

&quot;One such group left the village of Kolomnati and was headed down the mountain towards Rula when it was spotted by a young Greek officer. The young man immediately telephoned his general and informed him of the situation. 'Should we intercept?' inquired the young officer. 'No, let the troublemakers go, we don't want them here,' replied the old general.&quot; (Story told by the general's assistant who asked to remain anonymous)

When the Greek Army broke the Lerin Front, the Partisan force that survived the onslaught fled for Albania. The fighters closest to the city were captured and imprisoned. Those who confessed to having voluntarily joined the Partisans were all executed. The others were either exiled in the Greek Islands or released after serving their sentences in local jails.

In its pursuit of the fleeing Partisans, the Greek Army managed to cut off the escape route of a group of Partisans who were manning the cannons and artillery fire at Bigla (the cannons after the war were put on display in the city of Lerin). Being unable to flee to Albania, the Bigla group attempted to cross into Yugoslavia near Prespa Lake. At the Yugoslav border they were stopped by the Yugoslav army, which agreed to allow them passage only if they voluntarily disarmed. Expecting to continue the war from Albania, the Partisans were reluctant to disarm and chose a different escape route. Unfortunately, they attempted their escape during the daytime and were spotted by the Greek Air Force. Many were killed by machinegun fire from above and some drowned attempting to swim across Lake Prespa. Only a small group made it to Albania.

When they arrived, to cover for their own blunders, the leaders of the Bigla group concocted stories claiming that Tito's forces attacked them and would not allow them entry into Yugoslavia. Later the same men changed their stories and told the truth about what happened. Unfortunately by then Greek Partisan and Yugoslav relations had deteriorated. Even though Yugoslavia was one of EAM's strongest supporters, the Greek Partisans used this story in their propaganda campaigns to discredit Tito in the eyes of the Soviet Union.

When the Greek Civil War was over the Partisan leadership assembled in the abandoned Italian camp of Bureli, Albania, to assess what went wrong and why they lost the war. After some deliberation they came to the conclusion that it was Tito and Macedonian collaboration that sabotaged the war effort. The failure was blamed on the Macedonian Partisan leadership for co-operating with Tito's Partisans. Seven of the most loyal Macedonian leaders were accused of sabotage and sentenced to death. Fortunately Enver Hodzha (Albania's highest State Leader) did not want atrocities committed in his country and would not allow the executions to take place. The men were taken to the Soviet Union, tried for treason and sentenced to life imprisonment, to be served in the prison camps of Siberia. After Stalin's death Krushchev re-opened their cases and found the men innocent of all charges and released them.

After the Greek Civil War was over life in Aegean Macedonia was no longer the same. The smaller villages were evacuated (some permanently) and the people were relocated to the larger towns under the watchful eye of the Greek police. The familiar joy and laughter that once filled the streets was gone and the streets were barren of children. The proud Macedonian people, who only a few years before had reveled in life, were once again joyless.

References:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com


[[Категорија:Историја на Македонскиот народ]]
[[Категорија:На англиски јазик]]</text>
      <sha1>rywlubpf08egrp6edmwwqj1csjo7d5t</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>The Missing Credits</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>2876</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11036</id>
      <parentid>7331</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:40:16Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="123" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language}}
[[About the Author]]

[[About the Creative Team]]

Acknowledgments]]

[[The Missing Manual Series]]</text>
      <sha1>biutglpepj9mi07gfec6nkqgb161hsr</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Викикниги:Портал на заедницата</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>3092</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11096</id>
      <parentid>10994</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T19:55:31Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>bot policy</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="69478" xml:space="preserve">{{Портална навигација}}
&lt;br&gt; __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__
{| cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa;&quot;
|-
| colspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;padding-left:5px; background-color:#fcfcfc; text-align:center;&quot; |
&lt;h1 style=&quot;margin:.5em; margin-top:.1em; border-bottom:0; font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;
Портал на заедницата
&lt;/h1&gt; 
Добредојдовте на '''порталот''' на [[Викикниги]] на македонски јазик, проект којшто овозможува создавање на слободни книги со примена на вики-софтверот. Ова е местото каде што можете да се дознаете што е овој проект и како да се вклучите во него, да видите што е ново и што треба да се сработи и да пронајдете помош или да поставувате прашања на кои ќе добиете одговори. Секој којшто сака да се приклучи во работата на проектот е добредојден.
----
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;&gt;
'''''Можеби барате...'''''
* Помош за некој аспект на Викикниги: ''видете ја [[Помош:Содржина|страницата за помош]] за документација, или [[Викикниги:Прашања|поставете прашање]] за асистенција.''
* Одговори на прашања за најразлични факти и податоци (кои не се поврзани со Википедија): ''посетете го [[Викикниги:Биро за консултации|бирото за консултации]].''
* Место за дискусија со другите корисници: '''''[[Викикниги:Селска чешма|селската чешма]]''' е главниот форум за дискусија на Википедија, поделен на посебни секции за [[Викиизвор:Селска чешма (Техника)|технички прашања]], [[Викикниги:Селска чешма (Новости)|новости]], [[Викиизвор:Селска чешма (Идеи)|идеи]] и [[Викикниги:Селска чешма (Критики)|критики]], прашања поврзани со [[Викикниги:Селска чешма (Википолитика)|принципите и напатствијата]] на Викиизвор и за помош со [[Викикниги:Селска чешма (Правопис и граматика)|правописни и граматички ревизии]].''
&lt;/div&gt;
|}
&lt;!--------------------------------------СВЕТЛОСИНА ТАБЕЛА---------------------------------------&gt;
{| id=&quot;Collaborations&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;width:100%; margin-top: 1em; border:2px darkblue solid;&quot;
|-
| colspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;background: lightblue;text-align:center;border-bottom:1px #BFB1A3 solid;&quot; |
&lt;!-- &lt;h2 style=&quot;margin:.5em; margin-top:.1em; border-bottom:0; font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;
Почеток
&lt;/h2&gt; --&gt;

|-
| colspan=&quot;2&quot; valign=&quot;top&quot; style=&quot;background:#DDEEFF; padding:1.2em; border-bottom:1px #BFB1A3 solid;&quot; |

Ако веќе не сте го сториле тоа, можеби би сакале да '''[[Special:Userlogin|отворите сметка]]''' (Прочитајте [[Викикниги:Почетен курс (Регистрирање)|зошто е подобро да се регистрирате]]).
----
=====Како да помогнам?=====
* [[Помош:Како да започнам книга|Започнете книга]].
* Не помалку важно е да учествувате во промовирање на Вуикиизвор како слободен проект и да знаете кои се предностите на истиот во однос на другите слични проекти на Интернет. Вашите придонеси се добредојдени и може да ни помогнат да се искачиме на повисоко место на [http://meta.wikibooks.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias листата на Викикниги на другите јазични изданија].

Доколку сте решени да станете дел од проектот Викикниги на македонски јазик, тогаш Ви го препорачуваме [[Викикниги:Почетен курс|почетниот курс]] или едноставно обидете се да направите нешто во нашиот [[Викикниги:Песок|песок]].
|}

&lt;!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&gt;

[[Категорија:Викикниги]]

&lt;!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important note about this page: This is the &quot;Community portal&quot;, not the &quot;Village pump&quot;. The Village pump is located at [[:mk:Википедија:Селска чешма]], so be careful with the iw links.
(Ова е за порталот на заедницата, а не за селската чешма, па внимателно со интервики врските)
-----------------Интервики под оваа линија//Interwikis below this line----------------------&gt;

[[da:Wikibooks:Forside]]
[[de:Wikibooks:Portal]]
[[en:Wikibooks:Community Portal]]
[[eo:Vikilibroj:Komunuma portalo]]
[[es:Wikilibros:Portal de la comunidad]]
[[fr:Wikilivres:Accueil]]
[[he:ויקיספר:שער הקהילה]]
[[is:Wikibækur:Samfélagsgátt]]
[[it:Wikibooks:Portale Comunità]]
[[ja:Wikibooks:コミュニティ・ポータル]]
[[nl:Gebruikersportaal]]
[[pl:Wikibooks:Portal wikipedystów]]
[[simple:Wikibooks:Community Portal]]
[[sv:Wikibooks:Portalen]]
[[tr:Vikikitap:Topluluk portalı]]
[[vi:Wikibooks:Cộng đồng]]
[[zh:Wikibooks:社區主頁]]

== Announcing Wikipedia 1.19 beta ==

Wikimedia Foundation is getting ready to push out 1.19 to all the WMF-hosted wikis.  As we finish wrapping up our code review, you can test the new version ''right now'' on [http://beta.wmflabs.org/ beta.wmflabs.org].  For more information, please read the [https://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.19?view=markup release notes] or the [[mw:MediaWiki_1.19|start of the final announcement]].

The following are the areas that you will probably be most interested in:
* [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33711#c2 Faster loading of javascript files makes dependency tracking more important.]
* New common*.css files usable by skins instead of having to copy piles of generic styles from MonoBook or Vector's css.
* The default user signature now contains a talk link in addition to the user link.
* Searching blocked usernames in block log is now clearer.
* Better timezone recognition in user preferences.
* Improved diff readability for colorblind people.
* The interwiki links table can now be accessed also when the interwiki cache is used (used in the API and the Interwiki extension).
* More gender support (for instance in logs and user lists).
* Language converter improved, e.g. it now works depending on the page content language.
* Time and number-formatting magic words also now depend on the page content language.
* Bidirectional support further improved after 1.18.

Report any [http://labs.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Problem_reports problems] on the labs beta wiki and we'll work to address them before they software is released to the production wikis.

'''Note''' that this cluster does have SUL but it is not integrated with SUL in production, so you'll need to create another account.  You should avoid using the same password as you use here.  — [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] 17:23, 15 јануари 2012 (CET)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0145 --&gt;

== MediaWiki 1.19 ==

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to its latest version this month. You can help to test it before it is enabled, to avoid disruption and breakage. More information is available [[:mw:MediaWiki 1.19/Deployment announcement|in the full announcement]]. Thank you for your understanding.

[[:m:user:guillom|Guillaume Paumier]], via the [[:m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery system]] &lt;small&gt;([[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|wrong page? You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;. 16:10, 12 февруари 2012 (CET)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0154 --&gt;

== Update on IPv6 ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it, as well as '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement on Meta]]''') 

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to do limited testing of IPv6 on June 2-3. If there are not too many problems, we may fully enable IPv6 on [http://www.worldipv6day.org/ World IPv6 day] (June 6), and keep it enabled.

What this means for your project:

*At least on June 2-3, 2012, you may see a small number of edits from IPv6 addresses, which are in the form &quot;&lt;code&gt;2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334&lt;/code&gt;&quot;. See e.g. [[w:en:IPv6 address]]. These addresses should behave like any other IP address: You can leave messages on their talk pages; you can track their contributions; you can block them. (See [[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement]] for notes on range blocks.)

*In the mid term, some user scripts and tools will need to be adapted for IPv6. 

*We suspect that IPv6 usage is going to be very low initially, meaning that abuse should be manageable, and we will assist in the monitoring of the situation.

Read [[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement]] on how to test the behavior of IPv6 with various tools and how to leave bug reports, and to find a fuller analysis of the implications of the IPv6 migration.

--[[m:User:Eloquence|Erik Möller, VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation]] 03:12, 2 јуни 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0201 --&gt;

== 2011 Picture of the Year competition ==

&lt;small&gt;[[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/mk|{{#language:mk}}]] • [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/no|{{#language:no}}]] • [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/pl|{{#language:pl}}]]&lt;/small&gt; 

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the ''2011 Picture of the Year competition'' is now open. We are interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the ''Picture of the Year 2011''. Any user registered at Commons or a Wikimedia wiki SUL-related to Commons [//toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&amp;wiki=&amp;event=24 with more than 75 edits before 1 April 2012 (UTC)] is welcome to vote and, of course everyone is welcome to view!

Detailed information about the contest can be found [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Introduction|at the introductory page]].

About 600 of the best of Wikimedia Common's photos, animations, movies and graphics were chosen &amp;ndash;by the international Wikimedia Commons community&amp;ndash; out of 12 million files during ''2011'' and are now called ''Featured Pictures''.

From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons ''Features Pictures'' of all flavors.  

For your convenience, we have sorted the images [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries|into topic categories]]. 

We regret that you receive this message in English; we intended to use banners to notify you in your native language but there was both, human and technical resistance.

See you on Commons!
--[[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Committee|Picture of the Year 2011 Committee]] 20:30, 5 јуни 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0205 --&gt;

== Mobile view as default view coming soon ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it, as well as the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Mobile Projects/Mobile Gateway/Mobile homepage formatting|instructions on Meta]])'' 

The mobile view of this project and others will soon become the default view on mobile devices (except tablets). Some language versions of these projects currently show no content on the mobile home page, and it is a good time to do a little formatting so users get a mobile-friendly view, or to add to existing mobile content if some already exists.

If you are an administrator, please consider helping with this change. There are [[m:Mobile Projects/Mobile Gateway/Mobile homepage formatting|instructions]] which are being translated. The proposed date of switching the default view is July 5.

To contact the mobile team, email &lt;tt&gt;mobile-feedback-l[[File:At_sign.svg|17px|link=]]lists.wikimedia.org&lt;/tt&gt;.

--[[m:User:Pchang|Phil Inje Chang, Product Manager, Mobile, Wikimedia Foundation]] 06:51, 29 јуни 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0217 --&gt;

== Help decide about more than $10 million of Wikimedia donations in the coming year ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)''

Hi,

As many of you are aware, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees recently initiated important changes in the way that money is being distributed within the Wikimedia movement. As part of this, a new community-led &quot;[[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC|Funds Dissemination Committee]]&quot; (FDC) is currently being set up. Already in 2012-13, its recommendations will guide the decisions about the distribution of over 10 million US dollars among the Foundation, chapters and other [[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Eligible_fund-seeking_entities|eligible entities]].

Now, seven capable, knowledgeable and trustworthy community members are sought to volunteer on the initial Funds Dissemination Committee. It is expected to take up its work in September. In addition, a community member is sought to be the [[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#FDC_Ombudsperson|Ombudsperson]] for the FDC process. If you are interested in joining the committee, read the [[m:Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for Volunteers|call for volunteers]]. Nominations are planned to close on August 15.

--[[m:User:ASengupta_(WMF)|Anasuya Sengupta]], Director of Global Learning and Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation 22:16, 19 јули 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0223 --&gt;

== Request for Comment: Legal Fees Assistance Program ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''I apologize for addressing you in English. I would be grateful if you could translate this message into your language.''

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a [[:m:Request_for_comment/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|request for comment]] on a [[:m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|proposed program]] that could provide legal assistance to users in specific support roles who are named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of those roles. We wanted to be sure that your community was aware of this discussion and would have a chance to participate in [[:m:Request_for_comment/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|that discussion]]. 

If this page is not the best place to publicize this request for comment, please help spread the word to those who may be interested in participating. (If you'd like to help translating the &quot;request for comment&quot;, program policy or other pages into your language and don't know how the translation system works, please come by my user talk page at [[:m:User talk:Mdennis (WMF)]]. I'll be happy to assist or to connect you with a volunteer who can assist.)
 
Thank you! --[[:m:User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]]04:05, 6 септември 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0245 --&gt;

== Wikidata is getting close to a first roll-out ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) 

As some of you might already have heard Wikimedia Deutschland is working on a new Wikimedia project. It is called [[m:Wikidata]]. The goal of Wikidata is to become a central data repository for the Wikipedias, its sister projects and the world. In the future it will hold data like the number of inhabitants of a country, the date of birth of a famous person or the length of a river. These can then be used in all Wikimedia projects and outside of them.

The project is divided into three phases and &quot;we are getting close to roll-out the first phase&quot;. The phases are:
# language links in the Wikipedias (making it possible to store the links between the language editions of an article just once in Wikidata instead of in each linked article)
# infoboxes (making it possible to store the data that is currently in infoboxes in one central place and share the data)
# lists (making it possible to create lists and similar things based on queries to Wikidata so they update automatically when new data is added or modified)

It'd be great if you could join us, test the [http://wikidata-test.wikimedia.de demo version], provide feedback and take part in the development of Wikidata. You can find all the relevant information including an [[m:Wikidata/FAQ|FAQ]] and sign-up links for our on-wiki newsletter on [[m:Wikidata|the Wikidata page on Meta]]. 

For further discussions please use [[m:Talk:Wikidata|this talk page]] (if you are uncomfortable writing in English you can also write in your native language there) or point [[m:User_talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|me]] to the place where your discussion is happening so I can answer there.

--[[m:User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher]] 15:29, 10 септември 2012 (CEST)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0248 --&gt;

== Upcoming software changes - please report any problems ==

[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
&lt;div dir=ltr&gt;
''(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)''

All Wikimedia wikis - including this one - will soon be upgraded with new and possibly disruptive code.  This process starts today and finishes on October 24 (see the [[mw:MediaWiki_1.21/Roadmap|upgrade schedule]] &amp; [[mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf2|code details]]).

Please watch for problems with:
* revision diffs
* templates
* CSS and JavaScript pages (like user scripts)
* bots
* PDF export
* images, video, and sound, especially scaling sizes
* the CologneBlue skin

If you notice any problems, please [[mw:How to report a bug|report problems]] at [[mw:Bugzilla|our defect tracker site]].  You can test for possible problems at [https://test2.wikipedia.org test2.wikipedia.org] and [https://mediawiki.org/ mediawiki.org], which have already been updated.

Thanks!  With your help we can find problems fast and get them fixed faster.

[[mw:User:Sharihareswara (WMF)|Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager]] ([[mw:User talk:Sharihareswara (WMF)|talk]]) 05:05, 16 октомври 2012 (CEST)

P.S.: For the regular, smaller MediaWiki updates every two weeks, please [[mw:MediaWiki_1.21/Roadmap|watch this schedule]].

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0278 --&gt;

== Fundraising localization: volunteers from outside the USA needed ==

''Please translate for your local community''

Hello All,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Fundraising team have begun our 'User Experience' project, with the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries outside the USA and enhancing the localization of our donation pages. I am searching for volunteers to spend 30 minutes on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile. 

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real-time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. ''All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed'' (and they will be low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. Please sing up and help us with our 'User Experience' project! :)
If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!

Thanks!&lt;br /&gt;
[[wmf:User:Ppena|Pats Pena]]&lt;br /&gt;
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]], 19:10, 17 октомври 2012 (CEST)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0280 --&gt;

== Be a Wikimedia fundraising &quot;User Experience&quot; volunteer! ==

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages. 

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile. 

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!!

Thanks!

[[m:User:Ppena (WMF)|Pats Pena]]&lt;br/&gt;
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

: Sent using [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]], 22:06, 8 јануари 2013 (CET)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 331 --&gt;

== Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected. ==

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Wikimedia+data+center+migration&amp;iso=20130122T17&amp;ah=8 other timezones] on timeanddate.com). More information is available [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/ in the full announcement].

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider [[m:Tech/Ambassadors|becoming a Tech ambassador]] and [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors joining the ambassadors mailing list]. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

[[:m:user:guillom|Guillaume Paumier]], via the [[:m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery system]] &lt;small&gt;([[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|wrong page? You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;. 16:31, 19 јануари 2013 (CET)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0338 --&gt;
== Започна I коло од гласањето за Слика на годината ==
Драги викимедијанци,

Ризницата со задоволство ве известува дека конкурсот „Слика на годината“ 2012 веќе започна. Ве повикуваме да го искажете вашето мислење - која слика сметате дека треба да стане Слика на годината 2012. Право на глас има секој корисник од Викимедиините проекти што ги задоволува следниве услови:

:# Да има сметка на било кој Викимедиин проект што ја регистрирал '''пред 1 јануари 2013, 00:00 ч.''' (UTC).
:# Сметката мора да има повеќе од '''75 уредувања''' на '''било кој поединечен''' Викимедиин проект извршени '''пред 1 јануари 2013, 00:00 ч.''' (UTC). Проверете дали ги задолувате условите [//toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&amp;wiki=&amp;event=27 со оваа алатка].
:# Да гласа со сметка што ги задоволува горенаведните услови на Ризницата или на друг Викимедиин проект врзан со SUL (ако е на некој друг проект, тогаш таа сметка треба да е поврзана со оваа на Ризницата преку [[meta:Help:Unified login|SUL]]).

Во конкурсот влегоа стотици слики што добиле статус на „избрана слика“ од меѓународната заедница на Ризницата во текот на изминатата година. Тие се најразновидни и со секој можен предзнак. Имаме професионални снимки на животнии и растенија, восхитувачки панорами, реставрирани слики од историско значење, архитектонски знаменитости, карти, амблеми, дијаграми изработени со најсовремена технологија, па сè до впечатливи портрети на поединци.  

За да ви олесниме, сликите ги подредивме во тематски категории. Гласањето ќе се одржи во две кола: во првото можете да гласате за неограничен број на слики. Потоа, победниците од првото кола и десетте општо најдобри влегуваат во финалето. Во второто (финално) коло ќе мора да се одлучите за само една слика - онаа што сметате дека треба да биде Слика на годината.

За да ги разгледате предложените слики, појдете на [[commons:Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2012|страницата на POTY 2012]].

Со овој конкурс, Ризницата ги чествува избраните слики за 2012 г. Вашиот глас одредува кој ќе биде победник, па затоа не заборавајте да гласате на I коло, најдоцна до '''30 јануари 2013'''

Ви благодариме,&lt;br /&gt;
конкурсната комисија за „Слика на годината“&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;small&gt;This message was delivered based on [[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery]]. Translation fetched from: [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/mk]] -- [[Корисник:Rillke|Rillke]] ([[Разговор со корисник:Rillke|разговор]]) 00:53, 23 јануари 2013 (CET)&lt;/small&gt;

== Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab ==

&lt;div class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;
[[File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.''

*Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
*Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
*Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the [[m:Grants:IdeaLab|IdeaLab]], an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG for more information.

Thanks!  --[[m:User:Sbouterse (WMF)|Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation]] 21:40, 30 јануари 2013 (CET)

&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Correct it here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0344 --&gt;

== Convert complex templates to Lua to make them faster and more powerful ==

&lt;small&gt;(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians)&lt;/small&gt;

Greetings. As you might have seen on the [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/11/lua-templates-faster-more-flexible-pages/ Wikimedia tech blog] or the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-March/000171.html tech ambassadors list], a new functionality called &quot;Lua&quot; is being enabled on all Wikimedia sites today. [[mw:Lua|Lua]] is a scripting language that enables you to write faster and more powerful MediaWiki templates.

If you have questions about how to convert existing templates to Lua (or how to create new ones), we'll be holding two support sessions on IRC next week: [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=02&amp;min=00&amp;sec=0&amp;day=20&amp;month=03&amp;year=2013 one on Wednesday] (for Oceania, Asia &amp; America) and [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=18&amp;min=00&amp;sec=0&amp;day=22&amp;month=03&amp;year=2013 one on Friday] (for Europe, Africa &amp; America); see [[m:IRC office hours]] for the details. If you can't make it, you can also get help at [[mw:Talk:Lua scripting]].

If you'd like to learn about this kind of events earlier in advance, consider becoming a [[m:Tech/Ambassadors|Tech ambassador]] by subscribing to the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors mailing list]. You will also be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

[[:m:user:guillom|Guillaume Paumier]], via the [[:m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery system]]. 21:09, 13 март 2013 (CET) &lt;small&gt;([[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|wrong page? You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0379 --&gt;

== [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders|Request for comment on inactive administrators]] ==

&lt;small&gt;(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Summary|the proposal]].)&lt;/small&gt;

&lt;small&gt;[[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message|Read this message in English]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/ast|Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/bn|বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/ca|Llegiu aquest missatge en català]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/da|Læs denne besked på dansk]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/de|Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/egl|Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/es|Leer este mensaje en español]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/fi|Lue tämä viesti suomeksi]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/fr|Lire ce message en français]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/gl|Ler esta mensaxe en galego]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/hi|हिन्दी]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/hr|Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/id|Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/it|Leggi questo messaggio in italiano]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/kn|ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/mt|Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/nb|norsk (bokmål)]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/nl|Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/pl|Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/ro|Citiți acest mesaj în română]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/ru|Прочитать это сообщение на русском]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/so|Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/sr|Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском)]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/th|อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/uk|Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/vi|Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt]] / [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message/zh|使用中文阅读本信息。]]&lt;/small&gt;

Hello!

There is [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders|a new request for comment]] on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a [[m:Talk:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders|list of projects]] with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, [[m:User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] &lt;small&gt;(thanks to all the [[m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message|translators]]!)&lt;/small&gt; 07:01, 24 април 2013 (CEST)
:&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|You can fix it]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0430 --&gt;

== [en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming ==

&lt;div class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;
Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. [[m:Single User Login finalisation announcement|More details on Meta]].

&lt;small&gt;(Distributed via [[m:global message delivery|global message delivery]] 05:55, 30 април 2013 (CEST). Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Correct it here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0437 --&gt;

== [en] Change to section edit links ==

&lt;div class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;
The default position of the &quot;edit&quot; link in page section headers is going to change soon. The &quot;edit&quot; link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

[[m:Change to section edit links|Detailed information and a timeline]] is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

&lt;small&gt;(Distributed via [[m:global message delivery|global message delivery]] 20:45, 30 април 2013 (CEST). Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Correct it here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0438 --&gt;

== Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions ==

&lt;div style=&quot;width:auto; padding: 1em; background:#fdf6e3;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot; &gt;&lt;big&gt;Latest '''[[m:Tech/News|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#268bd2;&quot;&gt;Tech news&lt;/span&gt;]]''' from the Wikimedia technical community.&lt;/big&gt; ''Please inform other users about these changes.''&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;width:auto; padding: 1em; border: 2px solid #fdf6e3;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot; &gt;
;Recent software changes: ''(Not all changes will affect you.)''

* The latest version of MediaWiki (version [[mw:MediaWiki 1.22/wmf4|1.22/wmf4]]) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 13, and to the English Wikipedia (with a Wikidata software update) on May 20. It will be updated on all other Wikipedia sites on May 22. [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=commitdiff;h=ed976cf0c14fa3632fd10d9300bb646bfd6fe751;hp=c6c7bb1e5caaddf7325de9eef0e7bf85bcf5cc35] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* A software update will perhaps result in temporary issues with images. Please [[m:Tech/Ambassadors|report any problems]] you notice. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* MediaWiki recognizes links in twelve new [[:w:en:URI scheme|schemes]]. Users can now link to [[:w:en:SSH|SSH]], [[:w:en:XMPP|XMPP]] and [[:w:en:Bitcoin|Bitcoin]] directly from wikicode. [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=mediawiki/core.git;a=commitdiff;h=a89d623302b5027dbb2d06941a22372948757685]
* VisualEditor was added to [[bugzilla:48430|all content namespaces]] on mediawiki.org on May 20. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* A new extension (&quot;TemplateData&quot;) was added to all Wikipedia sites on May 20. It will allow a future version of VisualEditor to [[bugzilla:44444|edit templates]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* New sites: [[:voy:el:|Greek Wikivoyage]] and [[:wikt:vec:|Venetian Wiktionary]] joined the Wikimedia family last week; the total number of project wikis is now 794. [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=commit;h=5d7536b403730bb502580e21243f923c3b79da0e] [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=commit;h=43c9eebdfc976333be5c890439ba1fae3bef46f7]
* The logo of 18 Wikipedias was changed to [[w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_logos#The_May_2010_logo|version 2.0]] in a [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-May/125999.html third group of updates]. [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=commitdiff;h=4688adbe467440eea318eecf04839fdd9ffa0565] 
* The [[:commons:Special:UploadWizard|UploadWizard]] on Commons now shows links to the old upload form in 55 languages ([[:bugzilla:33513|bug 33513]]). [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=commit;h=4197fa18a22660296d0e5b84820d5ebb4cef46d4]

;Future software changes:
* The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* An updated version of [[mw:Echo (Notifications)|Notifications]], with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069458.html]
* The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Single User Login finalisation announcement|final version]] of the &quot;single user login&quot; (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-April/000217.html automatically rename] some usernames. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-May/000233.html]
* A [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Flow|new discussion system]] for MediaWiki, called &quot;Flow&quot;, is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, [http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/flow/ test the prototype] and discuss the interface. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-May/069433.html].
* The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-May/000245.html]
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;font-size:90%; font-style:italic; background:#fdf6e3; padding:1em;&quot;&gt;'''[[m:Tech/News|Tech news]]''' prepared by [[m:Tech/Ambassadors|tech ambassadors]] and posted by [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] • [[m:Tech/News#contribute|Contribute]] • [[m:Tech/News/2013/21|Translate]] • [[m:Tech|Get help]] • [[m:Talk:Tech/News|Give feedback]] • [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors|Unsubscribe]] • 22:55, 20 мај 2013 (CEST)
&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;div style=&quot;float:left; background:#eee8d5; border: .2em solid #dc322f; border-left: .7em solid #dc322f; padding: 1em; &quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#dc322f;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;Important note:&lt;/span&gt; This is the first edition of the [[m:Tech/News|Tech News]] weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

'''If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week''', please '''[[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors|subscribe to the newsletter]]'''. You can  subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be [[m:Tech/News/2013/21|translated into your language]].

You can also [[m:Tech/Ambassadors|become a tech ambassador]], [[m:Tech/News|help us write the next newsletter]] and [[m:Talk:Tech/News|tell us what to improve]]. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. [[m:user:guillom|guillom]] 22:55, 20 мај 2013 (CEST)&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0455 --&gt;

== Trademark discussion ==

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the [[:m:Trademark practices discussion|Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki)]] for more information. Thank you! --[[:m:User:Mdennis_(WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] ([[:m:User talk:Mdennis_(WMF)|talk]])
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0473 --&gt;

== [[:m:Requests_for_comment/X!'s_Edit_Counter|X!'s Edit Counter]] ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
&lt;small&gt;(Sorry for writing in English. You can [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Requests_for_comment/X!%27s_Edit_Counter/Summary|translate the proposal]].)&lt;/small&gt;

Should [[tools:~tparis/pcount|X!'s edit counter]] retain the opt-in requirement? Your input is strongly encouraged. [[:m:Requests_for_comment/X!'s_Edit_Counter|Voice your input here]].—[[:m:w:User:Cyberpower678|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green;font-family:Neuropol&quot;&gt;cyberpower]] [[:m:w:User talk:Cyberpower678|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:purple;font-family:arnprior&quot;&gt;Chat]]&lt;sub style=&quot;margin-left:-4.4ex;color:purple;font-family:arnprior&quot;&gt;Automation&lt;/sub&gt; 06:46, 23 јуни 2013 (CEST)
:&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[:m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0505 --&gt;

== Universal Language Selector will be enabled on 2013-07-09 ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
On July 9, 2013, [[mw:Universal Language Selector|Universal Language Selector]] (ULS) will be enabled on this wiki. The ULS provides a flexible way to configure and deliver language settings like interface language, fonts, and input methods (keyboard mappings). Making it available here is the last phase of making ULS available on all Wikimedia wikis.

Please read the announcement on [[m:Announcement Universal Language Selector|Meta-Wiki]] for more information. [[m:User_talk:Siebrand|Siebrand]] 14:44, 4 јули 2013 (CEST) &lt;small&gt;(via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]).&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0515 --&gt;

== Pywikipedia is migrating to git ==

Hello, Sorry for English but It's very important for bot operators so I hope someone translates this.
[[mw:PWB|Pywikipedia]] is migrating to Git so after July 26, SVN checkouts won't be updated If you're using Pywikipedia you have to switch to git, otherwise you will use out-dated framework and your bot might not work properly. There is a [[mw:Manual:Pywikipediabot/Gerrit|manual]] for doing that and a [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/23/pywikipediabot-moving-to-git-on-july-26/ blog post] explaining about this change in non-technical language. If you have question feel free to ask in [[mw:Manual talk:Pywikipediabot/Gerrit]], [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l mailing list], or in the [irc://irc.freenode.net/#pywikipediabot IRC channel]. Best [[mw:User:Ladsgroup|Amir]] &lt;small&gt;(via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]).&lt;/small&gt; 15:32, 23 јули 2013 (CEST)
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0534 --&gt;

== HTTPS for users with an account ==

Greetings. Starting on August 21 (tomorrow), all users with an account will be using [[m:w:en:HTTPS|HTTPS]] to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. More information is available at [[m:HTTPS]].

If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org on bugzilla], [[m:IRC|on IRC]] (in the &lt;code&gt;#wikimedia-operations&lt;/code&gt; channel) or [[m:Talk:HTTPS|on meta]]. If you can't use the other methods, you can also send an e-mail to &lt;code&gt;https@wikimedia.org&lt;/code&gt;.

[[m:User:Greg (WMF)|Greg Grossmeier]] &lt;small&gt;(via the [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] system)&lt;/small&gt;. 21:26, 20 август 2013 (CEST) &lt;small&gt;(wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0560 --&gt;

== [[:m:Community Logo/Request for consultation|Request for consultation on community logo]] ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;

[[File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg|thumb|Request for consultation on this community logo]]

First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.

The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the &quot;community logo&quot; (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. [[:m:Community Logo/Request for consultation|Your input would be invaluable]] in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.

Thank you! --[[m:User:Mdennis|Mdennis]] ([[m:User talk:Mdennis|talk]]) &lt;small&gt;(via the [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] system)&lt;/small&gt;. 04:52, 24 септември 2013 (CEST) &lt;small&gt;(wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0590 --&gt;

== [[mw:Echo|Notifications]] ==

[[File:Notifications-Flyout-Screenshot-08-10-2013-Cropped.png|thumb|300px|Notifications inform you of new activity that affects you -- and let you take quick action.]]
''(This message is in English, please translate as needed)''

Greetings!  

[[mw:Echo|Notifications]] will inform users about new activity that affects them on this wiki in a unified way: for example, this new tool will let you know when you have new talk page messages, edit reverts, mentions or links -- and is designed to augment (rather than replace) the watchlist. The Wikimedia Foundation's editor engagement team developed this tool (code-named 'Echo') earlier this year, to help users contribute more productively to MediaWiki projects. 

We're now getting ready to bring Notifications to almost all other Wikimedia sites, and are aiming for a 22 October deployment, as outlined in [[mw:Echo/Release_Plan_2013|this release plan]]. It is important that notifications is translated for all of the languages we serve.  

There are three major points of translation needed to be either done or checked:
*[https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3AMessageGroupStats&amp;x=D&amp;group=ext-echo#sortable:3=desc Echo on translatewiki for user interface] - you must have an account on translatewiki to translate
*[https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3AMessageGroupStats&amp;x=D&amp;group=ext-thanks#sortable:3=desc Thanks on translatewiki for user interface] - you must have an account on translatewiki to translate
*[[mw:Help:Notifications|Notifications help on mediawiki.org]].  This page can be hosted after translation on mediawiki.org or we can localize it to this Wikipedia.  You do not have to have an account to translate on mediawiki, but single-user login will create it for you there if you follow the link.
:*[[mw:Echo/Release Plan 2013#Checklist|Checklist]]

Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or comments about this new tool. For more information, visit [[mw:Echo_(Notifications)|this project hub]] and [[mw:Help:Notifications|this help page]]. [[m:User:Keegan (WMF)|Keegan (WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:Keegan (WMF)|talk]]) 20:58, 4 октомври 2013 (CEST)
:&lt;small&gt;(via the [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] system) (wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|You can fix it.]])&lt;/small&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0597 --&gt;

== Speak up about the trademark registration of the Community logo. ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;

Hi all, 

Please join the consultation about the Community logo that represents Meta-Wiki: [[:m:Community Logo/Request for consultation]].

This community consultation was commenced on September 24. The following day, two individuals filed a legal opposition against the registration of the Community logo.

The question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation should seek a collective membership mark with respect to this logo or abandon its registration and protection of the trademark. 

We want to make sure that everyone get a chance to speak up so that we can get clear direction from the community.  We would therefore really appreciate the community's help in translating this announcement from English so that everyone is able to understand it.

Thanks, 
[[m:User:Geoffbrigham|Geoff]] &amp; [[m:User:YWelinder (WMF)|Yana]] 22:33, 8 октомври 2013 (CEST)
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0601 --&gt;

== Introducting Beta Features ==

&lt;div lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;
''(Apologies for writing in English. Please translate if necessary)''

We would like to let you know about [[mw:About_Beta_Features|Beta Features]], a new program from the Wikimedia Foundation that lets you try out new features before they are released for everyone.

Think of it as a digital laboratory where community members can preview upcoming software and give feedback to help improve them. This special preference page lets designers and engineers experiment with new features on a broad scale, but in a way that's not disruptive.

Beta Features is now ready for testing on [[mw:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|MediaWiki.org]]. It will also be released on Wikimedia Commons and MetaWiki this Thursday, 7 November. Based on test results, the plan is to release it on all wikis worldwide on 21 November, 2013.

Here are the first features you can test this week:
* [[mw:Multimedia/About_Media_Viewer|Media Viewer]] — view images in large size or full screen
* [[mw:VisualEditor/Beta_Features/Formulae|VisualEditor Formulæ]] (for wikis with [[mw:VisualEditor|VisualEditor]]) — edit algebra or equations on your pages
* [[mw:Typography_Update|Typography Refresh]] —  make text more readable (coming Thursday)

Would you like to try out Beta Features now? After you log in on MediaWiki.org, a small 'Beta' link will appear next to your 'Preferences'. Click on it to see features you can test, check the ones you want, then click 'Save'. Learn more on the [[mw:About_Beta_Features|Beta Features page]].

After you've tested Beta Features, please let the developers know what you think on [[mw:Talk:About_Beta_Features|this discussion page]] -- or report any bugs [http://wmbug.com/new?product=MediaWiki%20extensions&amp;component=BetaFeatures here on Bugzilla]. You're also welcome to join [[m:IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours|this IRC office hours chat]] on Friday, 8 November at 18:30 UTC. 

Beta Features was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation's Design, Multimedia and VisualEditor teams. Along with other developers, they will be adding new features to this experimental program every few weeks. They are very grateful to all the community members who helped create this project — and look forward to many more productive collaborations in the future.

Enjoy, and don't forget to let developers know what you think!  [[m:User:Keegan (WMF)|Keegan (WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:Keegan (WMF)|talk]]) 21:19, 5 ноември 2013 (CET)
:&lt;small&gt;Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] (wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Correct it here]])&lt;/small&gt;, 21:19, 5 ноември 2013 (CET)
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0622 --&gt;

== Call for comments on draft trademark policy ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
Hi all, 

The Wikimedia legal team invites you to participate in the development of the new Wikimedia trademark policy.

The [[:wmf:Trademark policy|current trademark policy]] was introduced in 2009 to protect the [[:wmf:Wikimedia trademarks|Wikimedia marks]]. We are now updating this policy to better balance permissive use of the marks with the legal requirements for preserving them for the community. The new draft trademark policy is ready for your review [[:m:Trademark policy|here]], and we encourage you to discuss it [[:m:Talk:Trademark policy|here]].

We would appreciate if someone would translate this message into your language so more members of your community can contribute to the conversation.

Thanks, &lt;br /&gt;
[[:m:User:YWelinder (WMF)|Yana]] &amp; [[:m:User:Geoffbrigham|Geoff]]

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- EdwardsBot 0657 --&gt;

==Vector Wikibooks Logo==
Hello, I am vectorizing Wikibooks logos for Google Code-In.

I need a translation of the Wikibooks slogan (&quot;Open books for an open world&quot;) so I can complete my Macedonian Wikibooks logo (without slogan: [[:File:Wikibooks-logo-mk-noslogan.svg]].  Any help is greatly appreciated!  Please contact me at [[w:en:User talk:Sn1per]]

Thanks, [[Корисник:Sn1per|Sn1per]] ([[Разговор со корисник:Sn1per|разговор]]) 18:34, 27 декември 2013 (CET)
:Resolved at [[w:en:User talk:Sn1per#Slogan translation to Macedonian]] [[Корисник:Sn1per|Sn1per]] ([[Разговор со корисник:Sn1per|разговор]]) 02:44, 28 декември 2013 (CET)

==IMPORTANT: Admin activity review==
Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of &quot;advanced rights&quot; (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was recently adopted by [[:m:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders|global community consensus]] (your community received a notice about the discussion). According to this policy, the [[:m:stewards|stewards]] are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing &quot;advanced rights&quot; from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the new [[:m:Admin activity review|admin activity review]] here.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):
#Misos (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the [[:m:Stewards' noticeboard|stewards on Meta-Wiki]] so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, '''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:23, 14 август 2014 (CEST)

== Invitation to participate in the UCoC conversation ==

&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks mw-content-ltr&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;
''{{int:Hello}}. Apologies for cross-posting, and that you may not be reading this message in your native language: translations of the following announcement may be available on '''[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review/Invitation (long version)|Meta]]'''. {{int:please-translate}}. {{Int:Feedback-thanks-title}}''

We are excited to share '''[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review|a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct]]''', which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.

The UCoC Drafting Committee wants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?

Please join the conversation and share this invitation with others who may be interested to join, too. 

To reduce language barriers during the process, you are welcomed to translate this message and the [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review|Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review]]. You and your community may choose to provide your opinions/feedback using your local languages.

To learn more about the UCoC project, see the [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct]] page, and the [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ|FAQ]], on Meta.

Thanks in advance for your attention and contributions, [[:m:Talk:Trust_and_Safety|The Trust and Safety team at Wikimedia Foundation]], 17:55, 10 верасня 2020 (UTC) &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review/Invitation_(long_version)/List&amp;oldid=20440292 --&gt;

== Дознајте како доделбите за спроведување на Стратегијата на движењето можат да ги поддржат вашите планови за него ==
&lt;section begin=&quot;announcement-content&quot;/&gt;Доделните за спроведување на Стратегијата на движењето сега нудат преку 2.000 долари за спроведување на стратешките планови на дело. Сознајте повеќе за [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Grants:MSIG/About|доделбите, нивните услови и како да поднесете барање]].&lt;section end=&quot;annoumcent-content&quot;/&gt;

[[Корисник:MNadzikiewicz (WMF)|MNadzikiewicz (WMF)]] ([[Разговор со корисник:MNadzikiewicz (WMF)|разговор]]) 10:38, 24 октомври 2021 (CEST)

== Отворен повикот за мислења за изборите за Одбор на доверители == 

:''&lt;div class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Board of Trustees elections/Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open/Short|{{int:interlanguage-link-mul}}]] • [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&amp;group=page-{{urlencode:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Board of Trustees elections/Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open/Short}}&amp;language=&amp;action=page&amp;filter= {{int:please-translate}}]&lt;/div&gt;''

Повик за мислења: Изборите за Одбор на доверители се отпочнати и завршуваат на 7 февруари 2022 г. 
Со овој Повик за мислења, екипата „Стратегија и управување со движењето“ применува поинаков пристап. Во него се вклучени мислењата на заедницата од 2021 г. Наместо со предлози, повикот е срочен околу клучни прашања поставени од од Одборот на доверители. Тие прашања дојдоа од одѕивот за изборите за Одбор на доверители во 2021 г. Намерата е да се поттикне колективна дискусија и заедничка разработка на предлози по овие клучни прашања. 

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections Придружете се на разговорот].

Срдечно,

Стратегија и управување со движењето 
 
[[Корисник:AAkhmedova (WMF)|AAkhmedova (WMF)]] ([[Разговор со корисник:AAkhmedova (WMF)|разговор]]) 08:07, 13 јануари 2022 (CET)


== Работното тело за развој на водство: Ве молиме за мислење ==

Почитувани членови на заедницата,

Екипата за развој на заедницата при Фондацијата Викимедија го поддржува создавањето на глобално Работно тело за развој на водството со учество на заедницата. Замислата за телото е да има советодавна улога во работата кон развојот на водството.

Екипата бара мислења за надлежностите на Работното тело за развој на водството. &lt;br&gt;
На страница на Мета ќе го најдете предлогот за [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Leadership Development Task Force|Работно тело за развој на водството]] и ќе дознаете [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Leadership Development Task Force/Participate|како можете да помогнете]]. &lt;br&gt;
Мислењата за предлогот ќе се собираат од 7 до 25 февруари 2022 г.&lt;section end=&quot;announcement-content&quot; /&gt;

Срдечно,&lt;br&gt;
Бранимир Пипал --[[Корисник:BPipal (WMF)|BPipal (WMF)]] ([[Разговор со корисник:BPipal (WMF)|разговор]]) 20:28, 8 февруари 2022 (CET) &lt;br&gt;
Фасилитатор за Југоисточна Европа,&lt;br&gt;
Стратегија и управување со движењето

==Bot policy==
Hello. To facilitate [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Stewards|steward]] granting of bot access, I suggest implementing the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Bot policy|standard bot policy]] on this wiki. In particular, this policy allows stewards to automatically flag known interlanguage linking bots (if this page says that is acceptable) or bots that fix double redirects. The policy also enables [[m:Bot policy#Global_bots|global bots]] on this wiki (if this page says that is acceptable), which are trusted bots that will be given bot access on every wiki that allows global bots.

This policy makes bot access requesting much easier for local users, operators, and stewards. To implement it we only need to create a redirect to this page from [[Project:Bot policy]], and add a line at the top noting that it is used here. If you use or prefer to use a dedicated project page for handling bot flag requests, that is also acceptable. Please read [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Bot policy|the text at Meta-Wiki]] before commenting. If you object, please say so; I hope to implement in two weeks if there is no objection, since it is particularly written to streamline bot requests on wikis with little or no community interested in bot access requests. Thank you for your consideration. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 21:55, 31 јули 2022 (CEST)</text>
      <sha1>3kh8708ikv3w96epoz4l0xhga0rnqlc</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  <page>
    <title>Republic of Macedonia</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>3659</id>
    <revision>
      <id>11006</id>
      <parentid>8869</parentid>
      <timestamp>2022-07-31T16:27:17Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Rschen7754</username>
        <id>1420</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Requesting speedy deletion with rationale &quot;wrong language, looks like copy-paste from Wikipedia&quot;. (TwinkleGlobal)</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1548" xml:space="preserve">{{Db|1=wrong language, looks like copy-paste from Wikipedia}}
Macedonia, or officially the Republic of Macedonia, is a country located on the Balkan Peninsula. The country is one of naslednichkite states of the former Yugoslavia, which declared independence in 1991. Republic of Macedonia occupies about 38% of the total area of ​​the region of Macedonia. Geographically the country bordering with Serbia (and Kosovo) to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south and Albania to the west. The relief of the country is mainly mountainous. Although continental state, it has more than 50 lakes and sixteen mountains higher than 2,000 meters.
Macedonia is a sovereign [4], independent [5] [6] democratic [7] [8] and the welfare state [9] [10]. State capital is Skopje, with a population of 506, .926 citizens (проц. 2004). Other major cities are: Bitola, Kumanovo, Prilep, Tetovo, Veles, Stip, Ohrid, Gostivar, Strumica, Kičevo, and Kocani. Macedonia has a total of 25,713 square kilometers inhabited by approximately 2,114,550 inhabitants (проц. 2009), the majority of whom are ethnic Macedonians. The official language is Macedonian language as the official currency is the Macedonian denar.
In 1993, Macedonia became a member of the United Nations, but because of the name dispute who runs with Greece, the application is under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia is a member of the Council of Europe. Since December 2005, is also a candidate for joining the European Union and has applied to join NATO.</text>
      <sha1>ba7nivr9o1boy29rgc1chnham2eu1he</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
</mediawiki>