4 ms·

> I don't see any compelling reason to say that the modern Greeks are more entitled to Alexander's legacy than the modern Macedonians, given that neither ethnic

> I don't see any compelling reason to say that the modern Greeks are more entitled to Alexander's legacy than the modern Macedonians, given that neither ethnic group is actually descended from Alexander (his family was all murdered) and neither culture bears any resemblance to the culture of Alexander. So Italians are not any more entitled to Caesar's Legacy than the Japanese because Caesar lived thousand of years ago? Modern Greeks are descendents of Ancients Greeks while modern Northern Macedonians are not. Alexander was an Ancient Greek living in Ancient Macedonia.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zozbot234 2y ago
Demosthenes was an Ancient Greek who called the Macedons barbaroi, as in, not Greek. That's pretty clear-cut. He went as far as to say that Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great "... is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honour, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave".
- d_tr 2y ago
  "Alexander" ("Aleksandros") and "Philip" ("Philippos") are very Greek names though. They are composite words with very clear meanings which any Greek with basic literacy can understand, because they use "αλέξι-", "άνδρας", "φίλος" and "ίππος" every day. This sounds more clear-cut than an instance of Greeks from different regions shitting on each other. In any case, the notion that the people of North Macedonia have anything to do with Alexander is laughable, as Kiro Gligorov himself stated.
- drexlspivey 2y ago
  Macedons spoke the Greek language. Philip's and Alexander's names are Greek. Philip launched a successful military campaign to unite all Greeks. Are you seriously arguing that Philip and Alexander were Slavs?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Are you seriously arguing that Philip and Alexander were Slavs? Could you lay off the straw men and try to address the actual argument?
    - drexlspivey 2y ago
      I just explained why they were Greek, do you have anything constructive to add?
      - quotz 2y ago
        But the ancient greeks considered them not greek. They wouldnt let them compete at the olympics either. However, if we hypothesize that in similarity how the ancient macedonians started becoming roman and byzantine after, the same way they were actually assimilated into being slavs and mixed with them, because the slavs were in fact very open minded who was a slav and who wasnt, then we could say that the genetic line is there and in fact lots of people in the balkans and anatolia and south italy trace greek heritage. The slavs from russia and ural are very different looking than the balkan slavs. In addition, you dont see many ethnic hungarians that look asian, even though the initial magyars were asian nomads. Same with bulgaria, the bulgars were asian nomads from the steppe, but hardly any ethnic bulgarians look asian. Meaning, the initial conquerors were a minority group being overlords or leaders of a majority local natives, who then got assimilated. The mixing of peoples was there. The genetic trace is there. But the political rhetoric is crazy.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        d_tr 2y ago
        > But the ancient greeks considered them not greek. They wouldnt let them compete at the olympics either. Says who? Citation needed.
        2y ago
lolinder 2y ago
> Italians are not any more entitled to Caesar's Legacy than the Japanese If the Japanese settled in Italy in the 500s AD and lived there for 1500 years telling stories about Caesar and spent centuries adopting him as an honorary forefather, yeah, I'd say they were entitled to his legacy. It's not like he's around to mind. The modern French identify strongly with the Gauls (to the point where most Gallic scholarship is in French) even though their language is of Latin descent and they're mostly descended from the Germanic tribes that came later. The modern English identify strongly with the early Britons (to the point where their largest folk hero is the King of the Britons) even though they're mostly descended from the very people who displaced them. This is just a pattern applied across the world every time nations migrate. I'm going to need a better explanation than a Japanese straw man for why the North Macedonians shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of folk-hero appropriation that the English are.
- drexlspivey 2y ago
  Slav's didn't spend 1500 years telling stories about Alexander the Great, they have their own heritage. The first claim to the heritage of Alexander came from Northern Macedonia (formerly a province of Yugoslavia) in the 1990s for the reasons the article states. > This is just a pattern applied across the world every time nations migrate. So then I guess if you were a Native American and modern Americans claimed to be descendents of Geronimo you wouldn't find it ridiculous? It's factually wrong.
  - zozbot234 2y ago
    > Slav's didn't spend 1500 years telling stories about Alexander the Great It seems that they did, as much as anyone else in Europe at that time. Slavic versions of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Romance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Romance (which was the main way the story of Alexander the Great was known in folklore) appear quite early.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

zozbot234 2y ago

Demosthenes was an Ancient Greek who called the Macedons barbaroi, as in, not Greek. That's pretty clear-cut. He went as far as to say that Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great "... is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honour, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave".

d_tr 2y ago
"Alexander" ("Aleksandros") and "Philip" ("Philippos") are very Greek names though. They are composite words with very clear meanings which any Greek with basic literacy can understand, because they use "αλέξι-", "άνδρας", "φίλος" and "ίππος" every day. This sounds more clear-cut than an instance of Greeks from different regions shitting on each other. In any case, the notion that the people of North Macedonia have anything to do with Alexander is laughable, as Kiro Gligorov himself stated.
drexlspivey 2y ago
Macedons spoke the Greek language. Philip's and Alexander's names are Greek. Philip launched a successful military campaign to unite all Greeks. Are you seriously arguing that Philip and Alexander were Slavs?
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Are you seriously arguing that Philip and Alexander were Slavs? Could you lay off the straw men and try to address the actual argument?
  - drexlspivey 2y ago
    I just explained why they were Greek, do you have anything constructive to add?
    - quotz 2y ago
      But the ancient greeks considered them not greek. They wouldnt let them compete at the olympics either. However, if we hypothesize that in similarity how the ancient macedonians started becoming roman and byzantine after, the same way they were actually assimilated into being slavs and mixed with them, because the slavs were in fact very open minded who was a slav and who wasnt, then we could say that the genetic line is there and in fact lots of people in the balkans and anatolia and south italy trace greek heritage. The slavs from russia and ural are very different looking than the balkan slavs. In addition, you dont see many ethnic hungarians that look asian, even though the initial magyars were asian nomads. Same with bulgaria, the bulgars were asian nomads from the steppe, but hardly any ethnic bulgarians look asian. Meaning, the initial conquerors were a minority group being overlords or leaders of a majority local natives, who then got assimilated. The mixing of peoples was there. The genetic trace is there. But the political rhetoric is crazy.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - d_tr 2y ago
        > But the ancient greeks considered them not greek. They wouldnt let them compete at the olympics either. Says who? Citation needed.
        2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

> Italians are not any more entitled to Caesar's Legacy than the Japanese If the Japanese settled in Italy in the 500s AD and lived there for 1500 years telling stories about Caesar and spent centuries adopting him as an honorary forefather, yeah, I'd say they were entitled to his legacy. It's not like he's around to mind. The modern French identify strongly with the Gauls (to the point where most Gallic scholarship is in French) even though their language is of Latin descent and they're mostly descended from the Germanic tribes that came later. The modern English identify strongly with the early Britons (to the point where their largest folk hero is the King of the Britons) even though they're mostly descended from the very people who displaced them. This is just a pattern applied across the world every time nations migrate. I'm going to need a better explanation than a Japanese straw man for why the North Macedonians shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of folk-hero appropriation that the English are.

drexlspivey 2y ago
Slav's didn't spend 1500 years telling stories about Alexander the Great, they have their own heritage. The first claim to the heritage of Alexander came from Northern Macedonia (formerly a province of Yugoslavia) in the 1990s for the reasons the article states. > This is just a pattern applied across the world every time nations migrate. So then I guess if you were a Native American and modern Americans claimed to be descendents of Geronimo you wouldn't find it ridiculous? It's factually wrong.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  > Slav's didn't spend 1500 years telling stories about Alexander the Great It seems that they did, as much as anyone else in Europe at that time. Slavic versions of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Romance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Romance (which was the main way the story of Alexander the Great was known in folklore) appear quite early.