Does Republic of Macedonia FYROM has anything more in common with ancient Macedonia than part of the occupied land? From where and when did slavs get here?
Modern day Macedonians have literally notning in common with Alexanders Macedonia
Mainly because those who lived in modern day FYROM were greeks now they are slavs (basically Bulgarians)
Slav migration didn't effect Southern Balkan
Negligible genetic flow in Slavic expansion to the Balcans
A new genetic study comes to confirm what most of us already knew: that Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age.
Alena Kushniarevich et al., Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data. PLoS ONE 2015.people's genetics in a significant way
They are not really Slavs, at least not genetically, they are native Balkanians who just learned a Slavic language. So it's completely possible they were related to ancient Greeks or Macedonians.
t. real Slav
>Slav migration didn't effect Southern Balkan
>Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age
U fucking wot m8?
Alena Kushniarevich is an Estonian evolutionary biologist who sucks EU and NATO dick professionally in that she puts together anti-Russian propaganda and releases it into her field. The only reason these lies are released, especially in 2015, it to provide the "scientific backing" to say that Russia's timeless casus belli (ie. protection of Slavs in Balkans and elsewhere) is bullshit. This is for use against Russia and has nothing to do with the FYROM Russo-Hungaro-Turk rapebabies.
Try again, Alena.
>genetics are American propaganda
Do you fucks ever learn?
The Slavic peoples in the Balkans are mostly pre-Slavic. These are modern slavic-speaking peoples who consist of Y-lineages which are typical to Balkans, and almost non-existant among Eastern or Western slavs
In fact the balkans(including greece) mostly consist of pre indo european peoples(more so than any other part of europe besides finland and basque county)
Here's a map to help you along, no it's not made by Alena Kushniarevich
I was mainly just shitposting, but I do think people need to examine the things they use as sources and look for possible biases from the person writing those sources. If I wasn't shitposting, I wouldn't have used words like "sucking dick" and "rapebabies". But I think what I said represents something lacking. I'm not saying for sure that the person using that source pulled it to justify a preconceived argument or that the person who wrote the source is biased against Russians and Slavs, just that it is possible. Also, it shows how easy it is to put doubt on any source and deconstruct its credibility on an internet forum. If I were challenging the author academically, I would have to provide more substantial evidence of what I say. However, on 4chan, I can just greentext, use some funny words, and people will actually doubt the source. This is something done on all sides of every aisle, and something people need to pay more attention to.
This is very interesting. However, I would like to know why the occupants of the Carpathian basin share no no genetic likeness to those of the area north of the Caucasus and the rest of Central Asia, considering that's where the Magyars came from? If you know, I would like to know. Genetics is not my discipline.
The people who live in the carpathian basis today are most likely the same people that lived there when the magyars came, such invasions(even immigrations) usually don't have much of an impact on the local population, they don't just vanish after the invasion, another example is turkey, of which the population is predominantly anatolian rather than turkic
Yeah well it helps my point and although it's not perfect it gets the predominant population right which is what it tries to do I believe
>For his Hair curled naturally, and was yellow; yet they say there was something stern in his countenance
>For he had the hair of a lion and one eye was blue; the right one was heavy lidded and black, and the left one was blue
>Apelles, however, in painting him as wielder of the thunder-bolt, did not reproduce his complexion, but made it too dark and swarthy. Whereas he was of a fair colour, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face.
That isn't what I was saying at all. Either this is bait, or you have little to no reading comprehension. The point I was making is that the ethos of any source you give can be rapidly deconstructed in the 4chan setting by
>greentexting certain points in the post and correlating them, when there may have been no original correlation, in order to misrepresent the argument you're responding to
>associating the author to political stances, and, therefore, associate their work with that political stance, to show ulterior motives underlying their work
>use humor, memes, or whatever, to distract from the lack of presence of any substantial argument or evidence
>be intentionally provocative in order to facilitate a harsh response to further discredit the person you're responding to
People should be more aware of this. So instead of just posting one source, post three or four. Call out people who do what I demonstrated. /his/ doesn't have to be some inbred /pol/-/lit/ shitpost baby.
Ive also read this was a propaganda element added years, if not centuries after his actual life, and most period depictions of him retain the dark hair. Macedonians at the time also used various dyes and chemicals to change their hair color to match the oral tradition of their gods depictions. It is likely the "blonde" Alexander was constructed work of this variety.
Alexander was a proponent of the "constructed image" and only allowed one person to depict him "lysippos"
No, we have nothing in relation with Alexander The Great or the Ancient Macedonians. They are portrayed as being tall blonde people with white skin. If we make a comparison with those Macedonians and the modern ones, we are just a shit hole that has been raped by numerous groups of people and our culture was long since gone, vanished.
Macedonia now is a partitioned and two sides exist. The first are the nationalists/racists. Those guys are literally scoundrels and dig the hole we're in even deeper. On the other hand, there are the rationalists that know we have nothing in common with anything history teaches us about Macedonians and leave the country because of the former group of people.
t. I am a Macedonian.
Better map of the Balkans (ignore the red box)
Sorry, I have to find maps from memory and by looking at thumbnails.
Here's another map for comparison.
I know what you mean.
Recently I heard about a discussion in my country going on for the past years. You can disregard this since I have no evidence or you can try to do research but I highly doubt you can find anything.
There was an alleged discovery in Aegean Macedonia or Greece. In a mountainous village people found a group of villagers that looked nothing like Greeks nor Modern Macedonians, they fit the description of being tall and blonde/yellow hair. It is possible that because their isolation (they were supposedly deep into the mountain) they were safe from migrations and conquests hence they retained their "purity".
Again, this is all street talk, it might be real or it might not be. Just telling you the story. Personally I think it's possible, people can live in isolation in the modern world (the tribes in South Asia).
Ashkenazi Jews have preserved their religion (an important marker of culture) and identity from ancient times as intact as an ethnic group can though. The genetics is more because they've been accused of not being "real Jews" by the West since supersessionism and later scientific racism came about (and the Arabs joined them recently due to Palestine).
The Macedonians are probably genetically more related to the pre-Slavic inhabitants of the area than Ashkenazi Jews (who are only around half Levantine) are to ancient Palestinian Jews but the Askhenazi ethnic connection is much stronger (well, the Macedonian one is basically non-existent but yeah).
The expansion of the Balkan I2 clades is mostly the result of a relatively recent from-north-of-the-Danube expansion which might mean that it was actually due to the Slavic migrations.
Even then it doesn't necessarily mean much since Y-DNA haplogroups can massively expand without great change in autosomal DNA (I mean look at the founder effect in Bosnia) but we do know that the Slavic migrations did have decent autosomal influence in the Balkans (even Greeks and Albanians were affected). The populations are mostly pre-Slavic (just compare them to East and West Slavs who are much more closely related and preserved proto-Slavic "purity" to a much greater extent), of course.
Yeah man, a single village full of blonde people and particularly tall somehow escaped notice in Greece until some investigative retards from FYROM started talking about it.
My guess is that some retarded egejski (bit of a pleonasm) went back to his dedo's village, got lost and came across some Vlach village and decided he found relict "ancient Macedonians" (actually it's more likely that you're trolling).
I'm not trying to defend FYROM's claim, but present territory held by a nation being different from the territory held in the past doesn't mean that the present nation is not descendant of the past nation.
Modern day Serbia is in large part more to the north and east than the medieval Serbia was for most of its existence, that doesn't mean that the people living in there are not Serbs. People just migrated over centuries.
I support the Macedonians, but your example is not on point. Ancient Macedonia was inhabited by another ethnic group that called themselves Macedonians. If you want an analogy with the Serbs; that's like if Bavarians took over Serbia, assimilated the Serbs and then called themselves Serbs.
That's why I said I'm not defending FYROM claim to be descendants of the ancient Macedonians, but "debunking" their claims by posting a map showing they never held ancient Macedonia doesn't prove anything.
But most descendants of Ancient Macedonians became Slavic speaking after more than 2000 years, if you consider them staying in the same place. The vast majority of the population of Aegean Macedonia became either Turkish or Slavic speaking, with a distinct substratum of indigenous elements in the language that goes back to the Ancient Macedonians. They lost their Greek identity and many of the Slavs later chose to identify as Greeks.
We are talking about Aegean Macedonia, not the presenr day territories of FYROM
We have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians, nobody cares about it, apart from a few rednecks supporting the current government, the current government is the one responsible for the ancient Macedonian bullshit. Calm your autism fags, and just because we aren't ancient Macedonians doesn't mean we can't be named Macedonia.
>But most descendants of Ancient Macedonians became Slavic speaking after more than 2000 years,
Slavs arrived and conquered everything in 1 AD yeah and held it until 1912 then the greeks took it back.
First of all the greek goverment did nothing like that(unless you can cite my knowledge away). The Macedonian Strugle was an ugly war where BOTH Greeks and Bulgarians(their identity hadn't split yet i think) went around forcing schools and churches to teach and use their own language. At the same time both attacked villages of the other populations, no it wasn't a genocide Jesus every guerrilla warfare is genocide now.
No it doesn't you autist, the region was called Macedonia a long time. The Republic of Macedonia is 100% within the geographic region of Macedonia. Even before Tito, the majority of the inhabitants considered themselves Macedonians i.e. as Macedonian Bulgarians. There was always a strong regional identity here.
Oh man you are so smart. I'm just saying what i saw on wikipedia: "In 1894, an organization known as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was founded by Bulgarian anti-Ottoman revolutionaries in Thessaloníki, with the aim of liberating Macedonia and Thrace from Ottoman rule.
Initially IMRO was declared as a Bulgarian organization, but later it was opened to all ethnic groups in Macedonia and IMRO claimed that it was fighting for the autonomy of Macedonia and not for annexation to Bulgaria. In practice, most of the followers of the IMRO were Bulgarians, though they also had some Aromanian supporters, like Pitu Guli, Mitre The Vlach, Ioryi Mucitano and Alexandar Coshca. Many of the members of the organization saw Macedonian autonomy as an intermediate step to unification with Bulgaria, but others saw as their aim the creation of a Balkan federal state, with Macedonia as an equal member."
>Macedonians or Macedonian Bulgarians (Bulgarian: Maкeдoнcки бългapи or Maкeдoнци), sometimes also referred to as Macedono-Bulgarians or Macedo-Bulgarians is a regional, ethnographic group of ethnic Bulgarians, inhabiting or originating from Macedonia.
>while by the Bulgarians the term Macedonian was acquiring the significance of a certain political loyalty, that progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity.
>However, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee stated that the vast majority of the Slavic population in Pirin Macedonia has a Bulgarian national self-consciousness and a regional Macedonian identity similar to the Macedonian regional identity
>"A Manifesto from the Provisional Government of Macedonia". 1881. Our mother Macedonia became now as a widow, lonely and deserted by her sons. She does not fly the banner of the victorious Macedonian army
Pic related, propaganda pamphlets made by the Bulgarian government in liberated Macedonia from the second world war.
It reads "Macedonians" "Macedonian warriors" "Macedonian land"
>Mhm interesting, yeah but things were like still unclear then yeah?That's what i'm getting from venturing deeper into wikipedia at least.
The strong Macedonian regional identity arose from the need for safeguarding Macedonia, the majority of the population was Bulgarian, most Serbs were either colonists or Serbianized Bulgarians, there were Greeks living in Macedonia, but were a minority. IMRO, who's first goal was the liberation of Macedonia from the Ottoman Empire, it acted independently in order to keep its legitimacy as the organization in charge of the protection of Macedonia, because being a Bulgarian tool would discredit it by neighboring countries. There was a "right" wing that wanted unification with Bulgaria and it was operated from Sofia, IMRO fought and allied with the so called "Supremists" on many occasions. The Serbian and Greek propaganda that was dividing the country, and the fact that unification with Bulgaria would lead to war and division, gave rise to a "macedonist" policy, mainly, the preservation of Macedonia (wider region) as a separate and independent country, its inhabitants would be Macedonian, but the term would refer to anyone living there. It was meant to represent a "Switzerland of the Balkans" IMRO thought this was the best option, since the "natural" unity of the land would be preserved, as it was thought that dividing Macedonia would hinder its economic growth. Its a fact that the Slavic population of Macedonia considered itself Bulgarian, but their loyalty was with their land, which was Macedonia. Macedonism was used by the Serbs in order to separate Macedonia from Bulgaria, and Tito and the communists made it a Macedonian national policy, the widespread and strong regional identity is the reason the new national identity the communists imposed was so easily accepted.
IMO they were bound to create their own identity.There is a Greek short story about WWI where a Greek soldier is hospitalized in a slavomacedonian house. The woman then describes the great pressure they had from the bulgarians and the serbians(enemies during the war)both calling them as their own.
Does the Greek province of Macedonia itself have much in common with ancient Macedonia? It was enormously mongrelized under Ottoman rule and a lot of its modern population is descended from Christian Anatolians who were relocated there after the Greco-Turkish War.
>IMO they were bound to create their own identity
This was going to happen, it started to, it was going to take time, but the communists rushed it, and now its a parody because it didn't have time to evolve.
>There is a Greek short story about WWI where a Greek soldier is hospitalized in a slavomacedonian house. The woman then describes the great pressure they had from the bulgarians and the serbians(enemies during the war)both calling them as their own.
There are thousands of anecdotes about Macedonia from the Balkan wars. Ones about one brother being Bulgarian and the other Serbian, and their mother, sick of the division, simply calling herself a Christian, or, there was one in National Geographic, where an old lady is asked what she is, and she just says "im Macedoniam and im sick of war". A personal anecdote, my great grandfather, had his last name changed twice, well the suffix was changed, it ended in "ov" originally, and when the Serbs came they changed it to "ic" and then when the communists came in power it was changed to "ski"
Even today the reason Macedonians get so defensive and absurd when trying to claim ancient history, is to establish a legitimacy in order to survive, because people feel, that without it, we would lose our country, like we lost it before in 1913.
Pic related says: "here lies ??liskovski Risto, a Turkish soldier from 1910-1912, Serbian soldier from 1914-1915, and Bulgarian soldier from 1916-1918"
No, it's even a recent thing in terms of Macedonian nationalism. Macedonia was envisioned as some kind of Switzerland in the beginning, then later as some kind of Bulgarian puppet movement (which they also had in Thrace and Dobruja), and eventually a breakaway communist state during the Greek civil war and balkanizing the Bulgarian nation was also in Titos interest. The name was purely regional until a couple of decades ago.
Macedonian, Spartan, Athenian, etc, identity hasn't existed since Roman conquests. Anyone who claims any of these is memeing on a purely regional basis.
<a id="rc-ba112f660" class="rafl" href="http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/ba112f660/" rel="nofollow">a Rafflecopter giveaway</a>
You can be hospitalized in a house in Alabama, with the woman calling her and her family Southerners and claiming the federal government puts pressure on them to be considered Americans
There is a mosaic from depicting him as brunette, but stomrfront makes him blonde.
For the thread, people living in Macedonia today are no different than Bulgarians. As a Bulgarian, I can understand them completely and other customs, tradition, folklore etc. are absolutely the same. Of course there may be some Serbian, Greek, Albanian leftovers turned to Makedonians, but the mahority of them are Bulgarians, as any map prior to WW1 shows. Heck, we even have national songs for macedonia, we consider it as a region as Thrace or Moesia
Yeah, but 80% of the inhabitants in Aegean Macedonia were Slavic speaking in the late 19th century. Macedonia was created so that that part could be consider rightfully part of Macedon. It's like Germany now taking half of Poland and forcing it's inhabitants to become Polish, because Germanic speakers lived in Poland 2000 years ago.
Rewriting, translation and interpretation is stomrfront. This mosaic is dating from circa 100 BC, what can you say? Its fake?
Aegean Macedonia is rightfully part of FYROM
Greeks are little Turkroach thieves. Greeks (not the ones that were formerly considered Macedonian and slavic speaking that live north) mostly look like Turks