Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 2

Template:WP1.0 for older discussions, see Talk:Macedon/Archive 1

International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles.

I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html

ancient macedon

Macedonia ... Established as a kingdom, according to some authors, by Caranus or Gavanus, descendant of Temerus, son of Hercules; but, according to Herodotus and Thucydides, by Perdiccas, another of the Temenidae of Argos. The name, traditionally derived from Macedo, son of Jupiter or Osiris, at first designated only the district of Macednon, near Pindus mountain. one source.

Macedon son of Zeus and Thyia, brother of Magnes, according to other source. MATIA 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the image

the black-on-white Vergina Sun looks sort of like the Black Sun. I suppose the image is ok on Vergina Sun, but for this article, I would prefer an image of an actual artefact, maybe Image:Vergina sun.jpg, or a coin or something. dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a picture of the larnax, but I've got something like coins. I'll have to find them. MATIA 11:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are some external sources for the proofs that the ancient Macedonians were considered Greek, naturally. I suggest you learn HISTORY and not conform to pseudo-science (remember that Genetics paper in the journal published by some Spanish and Macedonian (sic) - slavonic nationals claiming the Macedonians as a separate ancient entity?). Well regarding such pseudo-science, the paper was published in an impact factor journal of just under 1.5 (meaning it's impact is akin to wiping one's bottom after relieving themselves). In addition, the paper is extremely flawed, considering it's implication is to say that Macedonian-slavs are different from Greeks... point taken, ofcourse they are... but purporting (by Slav nationals) that therefore the genes of the modern Macedonian(sic)-slavs means that they are the descendants of the ancient Macedonians. Where were those ancient genes obtained (Oh I know... they weren't as the researches DID NOT have access to ancient DNA from the ancient Macedonians so comparing Slavic Genes to Greek Genes is ofcourse going to be different). Ergo sum totali crappus!!!

Read these in ancient Hebrew... if you can then see what the ancient Hebrews thought. Books: Daniel (chap.8, 1-22 chap.2 para.39 4-13, 26-28, 31, 38 chap. 7, 2-7) Isiaiah chap. 19, 20 chap. 19,23 Joel chap.3 v.6, Jeremy, Habacoum chap.2, v.5 and the books of the Maccabees (1st book chap. 1, v.1 & 10 chap. 6 v.2, II 8, 20 III 8)

Shalom l'olam.

Sanser ha-Maqdon ha-Yewanit ve-Melekh Yewanim.

I actually feel sorry for you.

11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)~

I believe the picture of Macedonia in the time of Peloponnesian War isn't accurate. Because it is said in historic books that the Macedonians were mountain people who descended in the plains of Vardar valley and Solun field. So the original kingdom spreading was from north to south. From the mountains of todays north Republic Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia to the fields of Vardar and Solun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.9.137 (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Military

Whew, after the war over "Greek"/"Not", I'm almost afraid to mention weapons... :I Still, given Alex3, & the influence of Phil2's phalanx on the Roman manipular legion, IMHO the article should mention it... Also mention the gastrophetes (crossbow). Trekphiler 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)~~

Macedon as part of Greece

This is the definition as it is stated in Britannica:

• ancient kingdom centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai. In the 4th century BC it achieved hegemony over Greece and conquered lands as far east as the Indus River, establishing a short-lived empire that introduced the Hellenistic Age of ancient Greek civilization. [1]

Hence I'm editing according to a sourced version. Miskin 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia or Republic Of Macedonia

This is a contraversial issue in the hands of politions. I will note that as of January 1, 2004 it is internationaly recognized as the Republic of Macedonia, especially by the United States of America.

Please lets not make this into a propaganda site were Greek nationalist write history their own way and Macedonian nationalist write history their own way.

Note: Just like Greeks think Macedonians are stealing Greek history, Macedonians think Greeks are stealing their history. So lets not be ignorant, nationalistic, and "haters", and lets accept both views.

Thank you for your input, but are you sure this is the right page to post this? This is the article about the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, not the modern country. Secondly, in my view, it is perfectly legitimate for nationalists (and anyone else) to write history in their own way, as long as sources are provided and valid arguments are made. If you believe that there is a connection between the modern country and the ancient kingdom, then you should provide some evidence. Last, please remember to sign your contributions to the talk pages (You can do this by typing four consecutive ~). All best, TheArchon 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An obvious connection would be that Ancient Macedon and the present-day Republic of Macedonia are located in the same place, plus or minus some territories that belong to their neighbors. Also I would like to note that history is written by the winners and who won during the Balkan Wars and even the Cold War.

I will also attach a link of a genetic study done by the National Geographic Channel, a unbiast source, and other organizations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11260506&dopt=Abstract https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Please see Macedonia (terminology), especially the maps. Ancient Macedon was in present day Greek/Aegean Macedonia. The (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia used be Paionia, and was inhabited by Paionians, a people of Thraco-Illyrian (i.e. Albanian) ethnicity. Also, that genes "research" was widely discredited and ridiculed by the scientific community as lacking scientific merit (click here), apparently, according to that, the Japanese also have sub-Saharan origins. If you are into genes research, try reading this. --Telex 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of where ancient and modern Macedonia was/is located, it is a matter of the people living there. The Slavs entered the Balkans at 600 A.D, whereas Ancient Macedon ceased to exist as an independent nation at around 200 B.C. It is about 800 years difference there, pal. And let me remind you that the Greeks has more evidence on their side, for example, you do know that all macedonian texts found is written in Greek? You do know that the Macedonian culture was Greek? You do know that the ancient Macedonians worshipped Greek gods? You do know that all macedonian names but one is Greek? Not one has Slavic roots. The only arguments the modern macedonians has is some words of Demosthenes and their location. That is about it. Not to mention that ancient macedon was closer located, no, actually it practically was exacly the greek province of Makedonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beares (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).Beares 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To add on, that link of yours appears to have a lot of faults in it. The Turks entered Asia Minor at ~1000 A.D, Medieval times. How can they be of the "oldest Mediterannean people"? Not to mention the French, which actually has Germanic roots. Is Germany located around the Mediterannean? No. And last of all, the Slavs. It is widely known that they lived in Russia, and did not enter the Balkans before 600 A.D. And ah yes, the Greeks were Indo-Europeans.Beares 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The study attached by the anonymous user is quite interesting. However, it is scientifically questionable for a number of reasons. First, there is no reference to the size of the sample and the selection process, or the methodology used. Therefore it is impossible for us to form an independent judgement re its validity. However, a clue may be found in the fact that it was published in a relatively obscure journal, and that it has not been cited in any other research ever since (Entirely as an aside, please note that a large number of authors is often a warning sign for bad science, because it hints at mass production of articles.) Even if the extraordinary suggestions in the article are taken at face value, all that the study claims is that the inhabitants of the RoM are genetically closer to the Basques, the Jews and the Iranians, among others, than to the Greeks. There is, in other words, no reference whatsoever to Ancient Macedon. As to the National Geographic site, I cannot understand what it is supposed to show, because it works at a scale of tens of thousands of years. Perhaps you could enlighten us? (Please remember to sign the post.) TheArchon 07:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• WOW, i didnt know people actually BELIEVED that study with the sub-saharan origin of the Greeks. All other studies done on the Greek population find that they are no different from other native european groups- all native europeans are very closely related since all europeans expanded out of the refugia of Ibera, Italy, and Greece after the last glacial maximum-they were all one population-the variation seen know is only a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Not to mention that the Greeks speak an INDOEUROPEAN language and phentoypically dont look like sub saharan africans (i know phenotype doesnt dictate genotype-but there would be SOME resemblence if that were true). In short that study has been debunked and it is probably financed for politcal reasons-its pseudoscience and its been debunked >>http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/study-clarification-ii.html. If you want to know about genetics, rely on information from a person with a reputation and respected in the field like Cavalli Sforza >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg .and LOOK, another study that that found similar results!>> http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article mentions Borza, Hammond and Fox in its sources. Even though the two latter are widely considered as experts, 99% of the article's content reflects the views of Borza. Borza is one of the scholars who have extreme opinions on the subject and are not in agreement with the wider academic community. I know this because I have a Classics-related degree, and I find it strange that he was chosen as the primary source for this article. I corrected the Macedonia (region) link to Macedonia (Greece) because the original territory of Macedon was only a sub-region of the current Greek Macedonia. The central-Northern parts of the modern region were purely non-Macedonian, non-Greek lands. Anyway I think the article should be subject to large rewrite. anon

Borza becomes a source in the language/Hellenic controversy section, not a source in the other sections. And so many people wrote this article, without Borza as a reference; Borza is not overrepresented, and in fact Borza is only vital for one or two sentences. This article is constantly in the process of being rewritten, and I'm certainly not satisfied with it. The French Wiki has an article that focuses on the Macedonian army which alone is better than this article. Bottom line for now however: the Ancient Macedonian language is of unknown/disputed classification at the moment, and Borza or no Borza, a Wikipedia article can only promote the completely Greek theory to a certain point. About the wider academic community, read this, a fine, neutral-minded essay by Ernst Badian, professor emeritus of History: [2]. This Wikipedia article should be along those lines when it comes to the Hellenic controversy. Alexander 007 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asking myself if we shouldn't remove the "Hellenic controversy" section and transfer it to Ancient Macedonian language. I have a feeling that we give to much importance to linguistics and ethnic questions, while we are not giving enough importance to political and social history. To be honest, I have a feeling that most of the article is a mess. Opinions? Aldux 16:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Language and Hellenic controversy would have its best place in Ancient Macedonians, an (as yet non-existent) article specifically about the ancient people (including the Macedonian people before unification under Macedon), and not about the kingdom, which was, after all, a kingdom, an empire, not an ethnic group or language. And the article has needed a fix since it was created, but writing/rewriting Macedon was never a priority for me. Alexander 007 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the discussion of the Macedonian calendar would be better in its own article, as in Attic calendar. Alexander 007 16:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I have neither the knowledge to start such an article myself, nor the courage: an article like Ancient Macedonians would be subject to constant attack from Greek and Macedonian nationalists, transforming it into a battlefield. But Ancient Macedonian Calendar, seems easier to do, and I may do it myself when I get a new computer; the one I've got now is literally disentegrating ;-) Aldux 16:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ancient Macedonians will not be easy, and many references will be needed. I've been putting off the article since back in August 2005, when I think I first thought of it. Alexander 007 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is based entirely on theoretical views, most of them are wrong in the light of new evidence from archaeology. One has to consider those evidence in order to create, or recreate, a correct image of ancient Macedonia. Archaeological research shows us that Macedonia was a part of ancient Greece, of course with many differences (just like Sparta or Epirus). As for the language dispute, look up the newest publications about new inscriptions that came to light. We now have a more correct image of Macedonia, than that of Demosthenes or Polybios, whose ideas have to be examined with much caution, since they were political adversaries of the Macedonians.

Disputed Content

Is it not obvious, by this page in and of itself, that this content is disputed? The name Macedonia and anything related to it is internationally disputed. Thus, it needs to be placed in the article. Not to do so, would unethically and illegaly mis-represent information. I will be adding it in. Thanks -

Have you read the article lately? The controversial stuff has been removed to a new article. The policy is to specify the "totally disputed" content, otherwise I can place the tag on any article I want. Alexander 007 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, is this (from the Columbia Encyclopedia) internationally disputed as well, because it is pretty much identical to what is mentioned in the article? Latinus 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (it mentions Greece - oh, how bad!)

External links

The external links that have been restored or introduced all represent nationalistic POV, either Greek or Macedonian, and I feel we don't need to stuff the External links section with nationalistic propaganda. Aldux 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the respected Dutch lady read Herodotus? I'm talking about Alexander I. talk to +MATIA 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And where did Hammond go? Is he a less respected classicist? talk to +MATIA 12:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Hammond at Ancient Macedonian language either. Can someone clarify what is going on around here? talk to +MATIA 12:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matia. The controversy section has been moved to a new article recently written by Alexander007, titled Ancient Macedonians. The transfer of this section had been first discussed in Talk:Macedon#Rewrite. Ciao! Aldux 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aldux. I'll try to catch up. I've restored at first the external links, and then removed two. talk to +MATIA 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek propaganda about Macedonia

If you feel intelligent and want to know the truth about Macedonia then go to page: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/

Greek propaganda lies flourish on the internet. It's shame Greeks want to steal our history. But we won't allow it.

not at all, if you feel intelligent, you should by all means visit http://www.geocities.com/stojangr/ , where you will find unrefutable proof of the Macedonicity of the Macedonians, carved in Macedonian stone. dab (ᛏ) 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

@Dieter Bachmann ( Pan-Slavism Fan )

Have you big Fantasy???...

... See: ( stojanov = bulgaro-macedonian propagandist links from Bulgaria!!!

and hear is... made in Soros propaganda...

• I think you are intelligent...! :) --Asteraki 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Asteraki, one link: sarcasm (making fun of the kooky nationalists on one side of the fence, only to be applauded by the kooky nationalists on the other... by those perceptive enough to even recognize their nemesis are made fun of at least... if nationalism is the measles of mankind half of the Balkans should stay in bed) dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greeks is not trying to "steal your history", it is actually the other way around. I am really annoyed when persons such as you comes in here and begin talking about things, whom which you know nothing. For instance, as I have said: The Slavs entered the Balkans at 600 A.D, the ancient Macedonians was conquered by Romans at around 164 B.C. That is 764 years difference, and we already know that the Ancient Macedonians existed way before that, the first reference to a macedonian state was at 700 B.C. 1300 years difference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beares (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).Beares 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many of those customs applies to ancient Greeks too. How do explain that you talk slavic, whereas it is clear that the ancient macedonians spoke greek? And just because a people existed in that region before you, it does not make you that people. Is the modern americans descedants of the native americans? No, of course not! The same thing applies to you, the Greeks on the other hand has been there since around 1500 B.C., they have several proofs that they existed there at the same time as the ancient macedonians. Not to mention that many ancient macedonian customs was influenced by the Myceaneans. If they would not have been greeks, they would not have anything to do with the Myceaneans because there is a 300 years glap between them (Myceaneans being destroyed around 1000 B.C. and the first Macedonian state being created at 700 B.C.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beares (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).Beares 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a city on the bank of the Tigris. It was one of the many cities that received their Greek names Seleukeia from Seleucus I. Nicator. In Aramaic language Seleukeia was called Salwakia. Isn’t it strange that a resemblance is clear to modern Slovakia?

Here is an example of how ‘l’ and the vowel switch places in a word that contains the ‘s-l’ syllable. The Latin word for sun is ‘sol’, and in Russian it is called ‘solnce’ (солнце), while in Polish language ‘słonce’. Similarly the vowel disappears in the Russian noun ‘posol’ (посол), meaning ambassador. Who is? Posol. Who is not? (Кого нет?) Posla.

In ancient Noricum there was a settlement called by the Romans ‘Flavium Solvense’. Who were its inhabitants, these Flavio-Solvenes, if not Flavio-Slovenes? Kelts? C’mon. Flavium Solvense stood on the locality of modern ‘Zollfeld/Gosposvetsko polje’, which - after the fall of Western Rome (and with it Noricum) - from the early medieval period onward was the center of Slovenian kingdom called Karantanija (Carinthia/Kärnten/Koroška).

There are ancient toponyms of Slavic origin! Three are clearly Slavic in the gulf of Trieste alone: Tergeste, Gradus, Timavus. Tergeste comes from ‘trg’ (pronounced terg, tərg) or ‘tržišče’ (both meaning market), Gradus comes from ‘grad’ (city, castle), Timavus, a subterranean river, from ‘tema’ (darkness) just like ‘Temenica’ (also a subterranean river) in Dolenjska region of modern Slovenia. Three Slavic ancient toponyms in a relatively small area of the gulf of Trieste! There are others in other regions.

Slavs arrived in 6th century?! Are you kidding? Where did they come from? Fell from the sky? Perhaps they came from planet Venus? Genocide of pan-European proportions not noticed and recorded by one ancient or medieval historic source??????? Some Slavs might have arrived in sixth century. Some northern Slavs, that is. This, however, says nothing about preexisting Slavic populations in areas south of the Danube. The fairy tale about Slavic arrival in 6th century was introduced into historiography by German nationalistic historians to legitimate a process of germanisation in Habsburg Empire and in other so called ‘German’ states. ‘We were here first’ the argument subsequently was. These nationalists were ideological predecessors of Nazism and its Lebensraum eastern policy. It is very sad to see their racist story repeated over and over again in 21st century. However, this preposterous story will not last forever. The Berlin Wall has fallen. It will not be the end of the world when the story of ‘Slavic arrival in 6th century’ falls also, nor will it be the end of Greece. Just a better understanding of our past and the culture we all share. Borders are set by binding international treaties. No need to change them.

Macedonian aristocracy took Greek language as their lingua franca. In the south this language prevailed in ancient times already. In Paionia and Moesia the sloven language, general Philotas would not learn, prevailed. I wrote this comment in English. Nevertheless I am (besides being a European, and most of all Human) a Slovenian. It is as simple as that.

In a way the Greeks have a point though. Macedonian aristocracy was ‘stealing’ Greek cultural heritage. Not 50 years, but 25 centuries ago. It is clearly seen in the description of the trial against general Philotas by Quintus Curtius Rufus (book VI) that not all Macedonians approved of this.

Seleucos I. Nicator? Or was he Nikoslav? Nikoslavko? 211.41.232.108 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? German propaganda? Nazists? I am talking about Procopius, do you know WHO that was? Do you know when he lived? Do you know that you just said something ignorant? You have no evidence that the ancient Greek was like french to the Macedonians, on the other hand, 6000 texts refering to that subject in that region (Macedon) has been found, ALL WRITTEN IN GREEK. The ancient coins of Macedon is not written in Slavic, they are written in GREEK.

Herodotus, the father of history, calls the Ancient Macedonians greek. The cities of which you are talking about (Tergeste etc...) might have changed name over the years, as has many cities. New Mexico was founded over Tenochitlan, and its name is not the same at all. And as for the Roman settlement, the area around was called Slovenia because of that city, the Romans did not call the area "Flavium Solvense" because of the Slovenians, the Slovenians are called Slovenians because of that province. The people which lived at that point before the Slavs was called Illyrians and Dacians, the biggest Dacian tribe beeing the Getai (Getae). To add on, why does no slavic macedonians live in what was Ancient Macedon? Because you do know that ancient Macedon was located further south? Modern Macedonia is mainly located at ancient Paionia. And I have never heard of the Greeks chasing away the Slavs from what was ancient Macedon... strange, isn't it? Beares 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seleukeia was the citys name, not Salwakia. The city was enlarged by Seleukos I Nikator, but its original name was not only Salwakia. And just to add on, that proves nothing, he renamed the city after himself, what has that to do with Salwakia? Also, how do you explain that they (The Macedonians) where allowed to participate in the Olympic Games, whereas the Thracians, which we know was hellenized barbarians, was not, even before Alexander III (The Great)?.Beares 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicator means Victor, practically: The one who wins. It comes from the Greek word "Niki", ancient "Nike". The Greeks had a godess named "Nike"; the godess of victory, "Victoria" in latin. Nikoslav or Nikoslavko is something that has evolved from Nicator or Nike. Also, try not to insult me, I know that the Slavs does not come from Venus or outer space, they originally came down from Russia in the 6-7th century A.D. as Procopios says. Did I tell who it was? A Byzantine historian. Living at that time, maybe a little later, although I am quite sure he lived at that time, under Emperor Justinian, who was the emperor by then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beares (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC).Beares 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that wikipedia is not meant to be a discussion forum, however, for several reasons I must reply. First of all, no need to SHOUT. I did not edit the main page, nor will I. I recognize it reflects the mainstream historic interpretation. My initial comment was a response to a statement above, that it is ‘widely known’ how Slavs arrived in 600 AD. This is known widely only by those, who are ignorant of the existence of ancient Slavic toponyms. Such ignorance will not last forever, if people are allowed to respond. Thank you Beares for reminding me what Victory is and who Procopios was. Perhaps next I need to be informed of who Homer was? Do you know who Jordanes was? And what he wrote about the relationship between the names ‘Sloveni’ and ‘Veneti’ in his Getica, the history of Goths? According to him the two names are synonyms. He lived in 6th century so he probably knew what he was saying about Slavs. You must know what Tit Livy says about Veneti in the first paragraph of his history of Rome. I apologize if the phrase 'from planet Venus' offended you. Some Slavic nations are called Wendi by Germans and Vendi by Hungarians. It offends most of them also. Yes, I know the ‘mainstream’ scientific explanation. Slavs ‘stole’ the name from non-Slavic Veneti after ‘The arrival’. From this ‘mainstream’ explanation it would appear the common Germans (and Hungarians) were so ignorant they didn’t even notice this arrival, not until some twelve centuries had past, and thus kept calling some of their newly arrived Slavic neighbours Veneti, Venedi, Vendi as if nothing had happened.

Secondly, that Slovenia received its name from non-Slavic ‘Flavium Solvense’!? One giant problem with this interpretation is that the word ‘Sloveni’ is the original Slavic name for all Slavs, not just for Slovenes. Why are the people of Russia then Slavs (Sloveni)? They live thousands of miles away from this settlement and in all likelihood the great majority of Russians never even heard of this ‘Flavium Solvense’, which by the way stood in southern Austria and therefore did not give name to Slovenia. Think of the implication. If some Slavs supposedly settled in Noricum in 6th century and ‘stole’ the name ‘Sloveni’ from these non-Slovene Solvenes or from their region, the conclusion can only be that Slavs didn’t even have a name prior to 6th century. So why is it then, that you feel offended when I ask, if the Slavs, who, according to implications of your own explanation of ‘Flavium Solvense’, didn’t have a name before 6th century, fell from Venus? Shouldn’t Slavs be offended by your explanation? Isn’t it typical that Slavs are always ‘stealing’ names from extinct non-Slavs? And in this case even from non-Slovenes whose settlement was called ‘Solvense’. Are you even suggesting seriously that non-Slavic Slavs existed in the antique? I’m sorry. It doesn’t hold water, this explanation. ‘Flavium Solvense’ was so named by Romans, because of Slovenes, who lived there. Pliny the Elder wrote ‘Solvense’ because a Roman would break his tongue trying to pronounce ‘Slovense’. To this day most Italians cannot help themselves and pronounce ‘Zlouenia’, while the Spanish help themselves by adding a vowel and call the country ‘Eslovenia’. If someone was to claim that Greeks are called Greeks after the name of the region known as Greece, from the now extinct non-Greek ancient Greeks, who were genocided by newly arrived modern Greeks, in my opinion, the Greeks should rightfully consider such a claim a tasteless joke. When speaking of Slavs such tasteless jokes are considered ‘mainstream science’ in 21st century.

Thirdly, you speak of Illyrians. You are aware I suppose that ‘de facto’ first Yugoslavia was created by France in 1809 but was not called Yugoslavia? It was called ‘Illyrian provinces’. Rest assured that the people of the time did not have Albanians in mind. It was so named for a simple reason. Prior to Napoleon’s defeat (and the rise of German nationalism) nobody seriously believed in the ‘Slavs-arrived-in-the-6th-century’ mantra. Such an interpretation had not yet become ‘the mainstream’. Illyrian meant South Slav in general and Serbo-Croat in particular. The term Illyrian was used in this meaning until about 1848, when it was eventually abandoned, mainly (but not exclusively) because it could not have ever been reconciled with German nationalistic interpretation of early medieval Byzantine historians. Namely, how could the first historically known Slavs (the emphasis on the phrase ‘the first historically known’) have attacked Byzantium in 6th century from their ‘motherland’ in the north, if Illyrians were obviously present in the Roman Empire centuries sooner? Today, when Illyrians are no longer considered to be Slavs by the ‘mainstream’, this is no longer a problem, but there is another one. How to call the common language of those Southern Slavs, who live southeast of Slovenia and northwest of Bulgaria and Macedonia, if not Illyrian? So nowadays there is no choice but to use ‘coined’ words such as Serbo-Croat, Croato-Serbian, Serbo-Montenegrin, Bosano-Croatian, Serbo-Bosnian, Croato-Montenegrin etc. Don’t say Serbo-Croats were called Illyrians because the Illyrian provinces were created on the territory of non-Slavic ancient Illyricum. Not true. They were called Illyrians centuries prior to the creation of Illyrian provinces, for example in the Republic of Dubrovnik, for the territory of which it could hardly be claimed that it extended over ancient Illyricum. They were called Illyrians, because outside ‘the arrival’ fairy tale they are Illyrians.

Fourthly, Tenochtitlan is no longer called so, because it was destroyed by the Spanish invaders and the whole culture has changed. Of the three above-mentioned toponyms only Tergeste changed its name. It is now called ‘Trieste’ and ‘Trst’, its region, however, is called ‘Tržaško’. The name is derived from Slovenian noun ‘tržišče’ or, if one insists, from Bosano-Croat-Montenegrin-Serbian noun ‘tržište’, both meaning market. Timavus (Timau in Italian; Timav in Slovenian), and Gradus (Grado, Gradež) still carry their ancient names. So if there are ancient toponyms of Slavic origin in an area extending from the city of ‘Brigantium’ (Bregenz) in Rhaetia towards the northwest to the city of ‘Bylazora’ (Veles) in Paionia towards the southeast, how could the Slavs have only arrived in 6th century??? The sole answer can be: some Slavs (northern) invaded in 6th century. Procopios, among others, speaks of them. Other Slavs (southern) were already present centuries sooner.

Fifthly, why are the inscriptions, coins etc. all written in Greek? If they are indeed Greek, all, each and every one of them, without exceptions, this must be the case, because Greek language prevailed in Macedonia ‘proper’ and for this reason in Macedon kingdom officially, but not among the people living in Paionia. Mind you, however, that linguists are trapped in ‘6th century arrival’ fairy tale like everyone else and cannot simply depart from it, without having the backing of credible historians. Therefore when interpreting inscriptions (anywhere, not just in Macedonia) they don’t even consider the possibility that some inscriptions might be Slavic, because they know ‘a priori’ that Slavs arrived in 6th century. One must admit at least hypothetically that outside the framework of ‘6th century arrival’ the term ‘foreign language’ used by Rufus, when speaking of Greek language in his description of the trial against Philotas, allows for the original ancient Macedonian language to be viewed as proto-Slavic and not simply as a northern Greek dialect. Why did Philotas need interpreters if ancient Macedonian was a northern Greek dialect? Were interpreters used for other Greek dialects also?

Lastly, I didn’t claim the name Nike is of Slavic origin nor that Seleukeia was a Slavic city. I made a hypothesis on what Seleukos might mean in Slavic languages, based on the Aramaic name of the city. To the best of my knowledge Targum was written after and not prior to the reign of Seleucos I. Nicator so I don’t really see the relevance of an argument that the city was renamed by him. Although the similarity between Salwakia and Slovakia is obvious, I put a question-mark behind the hypothesis. Generally, any hypothesis may survive a scrutiny or it may not. That Seleukeia was called ‘Salwakia’ in Aramaic, however, is not my idea, the information comes from the following source. I consider it credible, if someone does not, the task of arguing, why the particular statement of this encyclopedia is not to be considered credible, rests on him.

h**p://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=451&letter=S&pid=0

(change ** with tt)

I will try not to make further comments. Please do not delete. The two comments were meant to remind people of the ideology on the basis of which the story of 6th century Slavic arrival was introduced into historiography, and are based on the awareness that some toponyms of Slavic origin were recorded in ancient times, of which some are preserved to this day, as well as on historic sources such as Getica. If interested, the following link leads to a discussion on the issue of Slavic origin from the point of view of a very, very controversial proto-indoeuropean researcher, who is certainly not some Slavic ultranationalist, but rather a non-Slavic professor at the University of Utrecht. No need to take every statement as pure gold, but he is certainly not an amateur. Obviously his work is considered controversial, like every discussion outside the ‘Slavs-arrived-in-6th-century’ framework necessarily will be, after listening to one and the same fairy tale for almost two centuries.

h**p://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf

If any of the statements in my comments offend someone, I apologize. On the other hand many feel offended by ‘mainstream’ interpretation concerning the origin of Slavs. Nobody ever apologizes to them. 220.117.172.198 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I did not really shout, I more or less highlighted the words, I did not mean to offend you. Second, I did not inform you what Victory is, I informed you that calling Seleukos I Nikator Nikoslav is wrong, as Nikator is entirerly Greek. Neither did I mean to offend you by talking about Procopius, I was merely responding to your theory about Germans and Nazism. Also, Procopius is known as the last really serious historian of ancient times, I think we should trust him.

Third, yes, the Germans and Hungarians might have been ignorant, that was your point earlier on, "We was first", why are you changing your arguments? Fourth, of course they where called "Illyrian Provinces", that place should by right be called Illyria. Because it was Illyria, just because the Slavs live there it does not make it less Illyrian, lets take Italy as an example, if the French would invade Italy and eventually populate it, so that the Italians became a minority or did not even exist anymore (It is just an example, folks!), would Italy be called something else? No, it would still be Italy. If the Slavs arrived at that time, they might have been accepted as Illyrians, and thus they was called Illyrians, still, it does not make them Illyrians. Also, the Illyrians was called Illyroi by the Greeks, while you clearly state that the Slavs was called something else, not to mention that the place where F.Y.R.O.M is located now was Paionian, no one mention Slovenians there, the place over that was Dacian, populated by Dacians, mainly Getai, no mention of Slovenians, thus, all the areas even close to Makedonia was not Slavic. And there is no mention of Slavs in Makedonia, but there is clear mentions that they where Greeks and spoke Greek.

About the topic "How could the Slavs attack the Byzantines...", maybe because Illyrians and Slavs was not the same people? Or even if they originally where, was not called that? I seriously do not understand that, and I doubt that was your point. Fifthly, even if your point about Tergeste etc...is right, it does not prove anything about Makedonia, merely that Slavs might have lived there at the same time, BUT those where clearly called Illyrians, not Macedonians, so the only mentions about them is that they were Illyrians, and thus it has nothing to do with this discussion.

All the coins, texts inscriptions is clearly Greek. Herodotus says that they spoke Greek, Thucydides says that they spoke Greek, there is no mention that they spoke any other language, merely an other dialect, which is obvious, seeing as how they where separated by the other Greeks (Mountains). Now to answer your point. Makedonia was isolated and was at that time no important area, so it had little contact with other Greeks, so their dialect remained more Doric than that of other Greeks. The ancient Macedonian royalty claimed Agread descentantship, while the people was Doric. They spoke Greek, we have not found any texts or coins in other languages because there were no other languages there. Not to mention that the Persians named the Macedonians Greeks with sunhats. The Persians had several Greeks at their courts, some knew Greek, which means that they know what they are talking about. And they do not mention any other people living there.

I hardly understand your fifth point, but I will answer from what I understood. I know that Seleukeia was called Salwakia, what I meant was that Salwakia was renamed by Seleukos and can not have anything to do with Salwakia, as it came from the name Seleukos. And what does it prove? Nothing, just because an other people called the city another thing which sounds like Slovakia, it does not make the people renaming the city come from that place, because Seleukos renamed it Seleukeia, not Salwakia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.217.145.164 (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Addition/reversion of templates?

I'm not much of a fan of these massive navigation templates. That said, it is not clear to me why Template:Ancient Greece topics and Template:History of Greece were removed from this article. User:Aldux states that it was for the same reason that the Greek language template was removed from the Ancient Macedonian language article. As I understand it, there is some uncertainty about whether or not the Ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek or not, and there is not enough information available to settle the issue. However, there really isn't any dispute about whether or not Macedon (the Kingdom) is an important topic in the study of Ancient Greece or Greek History. I'd like to ask Aldux to reconsider that edit. Jkelly 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly. I've restored the Template:Ancient Greece topics, as you're probably wright that whatever language was spoken in the country, Macedon is an important topic for Ancient Greece. But I maintain my objections for the Template:History of Greece. This template is part of the History of Greece series, and Macedon is already covered in Ancient Greece, which is in the series (while Macedon is not). Also, one template seems to me to be enough.--Aldux 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jkelly 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

STEALING YOUR HISTORY!!???? What audacity you have my friend!!! Heraklios 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The burglar screams to scare-off the landlord! (Very appropriate Greek proverb -fits like a glove!)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Niko! its amazing how ancient knowledge pertains to now! lets not forget this Greek proverb either "There is no success without hardship" I just wish the hardship of defending my Makedonion heritage was over! Heraklios 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thought of that too, but it didn't have the "SCREAMS" part... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

True! ;) TO ALL SKOPIANS, Still waiting for Ancient Macedonian in a slav script and "Solun" reference. Heraklios 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

"Macedonia is one of the greek states back in the ancient times, and still stands in modern times(not f.y.r.o.m.)"

I took the liberty to delete this sentence for several reasons:

• It is clearly POV
• Ancient Macedon doesn't stand today
• There are no more greek states, only one united Greece
• Macedon was a kingdom
• It clearly states at the top that it is in Northern-most Greece, so the (not in Republic of Macedonia) part is pretty much useless

Zaebangad 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its "point of view" (POV?) but the rest of your arguments stand. Also, the situation of (ancient) Macedonia as 'Greek' was a question itself of the ancients. Those of the Greek city-states to the south of Macedonia considered it only semi-civilized and therfore only semi-Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ordinary Name for the Ancient State is "Macedonia"

Calling this article "Macedon" is somewhat bizarre and possibly occurring under the influence of Greece/FYROM politics.

The standard term for the ancient state in English today is "Macedonia". "Macedon" is an older and poetic term. And when "Macedon" is/has been used, it has/has had equal application to the modern region as to the ancient kingdom.

This article should be titled "Macedonia (ancient state)" if it is to be separate from a general article on the history of the Macedonian region. -- 64.175.66.2, 01:36, 15 September 2006

I have some sympathy for this argument. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to use the same approach that distinguishes ancient Rome from the modern city; in other words, have the article at Ancient Macedonia, similar to how ancient Rome is at (surprise!) Ancient Rome. I'd be interested to know what other editors think of this suggestion. -- ChrisO 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd be ok with all Macedonia (ancient), Macedonia (ancient state) and Ancient Macedonia. In fact, all of these should be redirects, regardless of the final name. •NikoSilver• 10:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While Ancient Macedonia isn't bad, a better solution could be Kingdom of Macedonia; but I agree that the present Macedon isn't fully satisfying.--Aldux 10:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the dictionaries cite the ancient Kingdom as 'Macedon'. The article Macedonia (terminology) explains clearly how the term "Ancient Macedonia" can have many interpretations. Miskin 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Aldux, about Kingdom of Macedonia, though IMO Ancient Macedonia would be the best for the article's title (but in this case, we would have a problem on which 'Ancient Macedonia' we are refering to: the early kingdom? Philip's kingdom? Alexander's empire or the Roman province? or maybe all?-in any case still they have nothing to do with FYROM;-)...). Hectorian 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom or not, it has to keep its simple name (like Greece vs Hellenic Republic, Germany vs Federal Republic of Germany etc). Everybody used to call that thing (and still often does) simply Macedonia. So we must do the same and simply call it Macedonia, but since that one is taken as a dab page, we'll add the parentheses: Macedonia (ancient). This is the simplest way of referring to it, and helps with the pipe trick too. •NikoSilver• 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that parenthesis are IMO quite ugly, and, when possible, should be avoided. After all for the article on modern Greece's monarchy the article is titled Kingdom of Greece, not Greece (kingdom). Also we should keep in mind this is an article on the ancient Macedonian state, and ancient Macedonia, as Hectorian noted, tends to indicate the territory and would extend also to Roman Macedonia.--Aldux 18:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Suppose there was no contemporary:

• Macedonia note, I just wrote [[Macedonia (region)|]]
• Macedonia note, I just wrote [[Macedonia (Greece)|]]
• Macedonia note, I just wrote [[Macedonia (country)|]], or any
• Macedonians note, I just wrote [[Macedonians (Greek)|]]
• Macedonians note, I just wrote [[Macedonians (ethnic group)|]], or there was no reason for
• Macedonia note, I just wrote [[Macedonia (terminology)|]]

How would you call the article? Wouldn't you just call it Macedonia? That's why we have the parentheses, and that's why we have the pipe trick! I didn't use to like the parentheses either, but that is their purpose, and Fut.Perf. convinced me about it instantly. When you type an ancient-related article, you will be just using [[Macedonia (ancient)|]] and you'll be done with it! •NikoSilver• 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this is not an article on the Macedonian region in antiquity, but of a definite political entity that ended in 167 BC (or 148 BC, if one prefers). To this entity, much of what we call today Macedonia was not truly part. Also, the modern republic is called Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia (country); and as for Macedonia (Greece), Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (Greek), we could easily remove the parenthesis, and in my opinion should.--Aldux 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How are you going to remove both parentheses from Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greek)? The parentheses signify that the second part is redundant, and that the name should be that, and only that, which is before the parentheses. The Kingdom was (and mostly is) simply called plain Macedonia. If there were other Macedonias too, simply called as such, then let them have their parentheses also! Also, remember this? (<-posted only for the content of the discussion -not as a precedent) •NikoSilver• 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article states: "Macedon or Macedonia (from Greek Μακεδονία; see also List of traditional Greek place names) was the name of an ancient kingdom in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordering the kingdom of Epirus on the west and the region of Thrace to the east." I believe that stating Macedon was part of Ancient Greece is a Greek biased opinion and that both sides should be represented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82FirebirdTA (talk • contribs)

This is taken from the head of the Britannica article, so it's as neutral as it gets. Miskin 12:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does it matter what Britannica says when the views are clearly not represented properly?? --B. Jankuloski 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica is one of many good tests for what the mainstream view of the subject is. The only real question here is whether "Macedon was not part of ancient Greece" is a significant minority viewpoint worth mention, or a fringe one that isn't. I suspect it is the latter. Jkelly 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica could write "at the northern-most edge" just as well as "in the northern-most part", it's a distinction only sad nationalists with their heads up their bottoms will ever even care about. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If we were to state each state whose ultranationalism claims or claimed macedon it would be tragic.Albaniam,Fyrom once Bulgaria and others.It was greek and thats it.Thousands of evidence of their Greeknes against historic spam fit for the circus from post-communist countries.This is getting old. Megistias (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Modern nationalism and prejudices aside, I will draw something I remember having read long ago in a history book. (something like this): those of the Greek city-states to the south of Macedonia considered the kingdom only semi-civilized [and therefore only semi-Greek]. Now, I could spend a full day trying to look for this claim and maybe provide you with a useless citation for a book that you could probably only get at the Library of Congress, or I can hope somebody will have heard the same thing as I and has a credible online source. I choose the later option. (I have not read the Britannica article)--208.102.210.163 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedon today

Hi. Does anyone know what percentage of ancient Macedon corresponds to each of the present day Greek Macedonia, FYROM and Bulgaria? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helladios Helladios 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Macedon approximately coincides with Macedonia (Greece). Compare the images:

Ancient Macedon

Modern Macedonia (Greece)

See also the featured article Macedonia (terminology)#In history. NikoSilver 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What Macedonians probably were

In my view, Macedonians were different to the Greeks and the newly emerged Slavic speaking Macedonians. Greek is also an incorrect name to use for any of the Hellenic city states, as it is a term used much later in history. These cities were known as Hellenic and their population as Hellens. I believe Macedonians were a mixture of tribes that lived on the outskirts of the Hellenic world (Thracians, Illyrians, etc) who eventually became Hellenised. This also excludes the claim of FYROM in the sense that Macedonia is a name of a region that only came back into use in Modern history. Furthermore, Ancient Macedonians were not Slavic speaking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

How big exactly was alaxzander's empire?

First of all, the word Greek derives from the word Jraikoi (Read: Greki/Grekoi). This word is older than the word Hellenes, and was later used by the Byzantines to distinguish between the Olympic Greeks and the Christian Greeks. Second, if your statement is that the Macedonians was Illyrians and not Greeks, then they where also the first and ONLY people to adapt the Greek language and alphabet. Other "barbarians" (Non-greeks) copied the alphabet, but wrote with their own language (Wrote with Greek letters but their own words), an example being this: Egw grafw me ellinikes lekseis, saying: I write with Greek words. See the difference? An other thing which certainly would dismiss your theory about the ancient Macedonians being "Illyrian tribes" is that the first time the Athenians and Macedonians met, (practically the first time southern Greeks and Macedonians came in to contact), the Macedonians spoke Greek, though a bit different from that of the Athenians, especially considering that the Athenians spoke Ionic Greek, whereas the Macedonians Doric Greek.

This means that the ancient Macedonians was Dorians (Greeks) that did not leave Macedon, one of the Dorian main settlements before they arrived to southern Greece, and instead preserved their original language as they did not "mix it" with Ionic Greek.

Also, I think that there is a map showing the full extent of Alexanders empire. But I will still say approximately how big it was by saying it in modern nations. Alexanders empire held: (Modern)Greece, F.Y.R.O.M., Bulgaria, Serbia (Up to the Danube), Montenegro, Albania, Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tadzjikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Of course, that is in modern nations, peoples is a different matter entirely, as several of them had not migrated to their modern "positions" yet, and more had not been "destroyed".Beares 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Split up?

Question: Anybody think it is worth creating a separate article for the "Macedonian Empire" and reducing this article to the history before Alexander's time (or else making the Alexandrian period be a brief description here with the Empire article listed as "main"). I suggest this because

• Although the Empire was technically short-lived it was nevertheless very significant.
• The importance of the Empire is distinct from the longer history of Macedon (in the same way that there are separte articles for the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire).
• There are cases in other articles where it is convenient to be able to link to the Macedonian Empire as the reason for later historical trends but linking to this article in those cases is a little strange.

Comments?

--Mcorazao 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We also have to sort out the articles after Alexander's death. See Hellenistic Greece and Hellenistic civilization (aka Hellenic Empire). Also, Macedonian Empire redirects here... NikoSilver 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know "Macedonian Empire" redirects here. That's the issue. There is not even a clear section on the empire in the article (the "Expansion" section could be said to be that but that is somewhat vague). --Mcorazao 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map

The map included is not very clear in delineating the boundaries of ancient Macedonia. I have found a better one

Additionally the map CREATED by Niko Silver in this discussion page (which he used in the naming dispute article re: modern macedonia) is false and incorrect. The ancient macedonian borders went further north and not so much east into lower thrace.

I am sure this is merely an oversight on Niko's behalf, and not a blatant attempt to falsify history.

Hxseek 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User 86.138.5.134 is reverting proper cited references without reason. You will be blocked if you continue Hxseek 09:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

it is not possible to give a "clear in delineating the boundaries of ancient Macedonia". It is correct that the Ancient Macedonians were not considered Hellenes until the 5th or 4th century (but they were hellenized by the time of Alexander), but that point should be made on Ancient Macedonians, not here. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

your map was a blatant ripoff of [3] (you didn't even bother to convert it to png). There is no book by George Rawlinson called "History of Macedonia". I suppose you mean Ancient History of Chaldaea, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Lydia, Phoenicia, Syria, Judaea, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome, The Colonial Press, New York, (1899) 1899 isn't exaclty the bleeding edge research, but it's certainly a respectable source. Too bad the web page where the map was taken from makes no claim that the map has anything to do with that book. These tactics will not help you build a reputation as a useful or conscentious editor, Hxseek. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No one said that it is possible to clearly delineate the boundaries. Obviouly there were no fixed borders in the ancient world. The map I found merely attempts to display the rough territories of the poeple of the area (with the bolded line representing todays region of Macedonia).

You will find that you are contradicting yourself because the original map used here attempts to place a border of ancient macedon. There is no reason for the map to be false. (I will try track down the hard copy and check). Yes the name of the book is as you say, but the name of the relevant essay is History of Macedonia.

[I'm not sure about your technical complaint about converting it to PNG, it looked fine)Hxseek 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

that's alright. Once you manage to find a copy of Rawlinson's 1899 map, please do upload it. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm sorry, but this infobox is embarassing, and with this I don't intend to offend the editor who inserted it. As I said in the edit summary it is full of anachronisms, and seems to rehash the material already in the text for weird asertions. To begin with: 1) "conquered into the Roman empire"; apart that that there wasn't a Roman Empire in 168 BC, no it wasn't conquered; it was divided in four republics, and only in 148 it became a Roman province. 2) the period span is absolutely grand: "359BC-168BC"?! And I who thought it originated in the archaic age! Oh, and BTW, After the argead dynasty there isn't the antigonid, but the antipatrids, and only after those arrive the Antigonids 3) from what said before, the kingdom doesn't start whith Philip II 2)Sigh. The Vergina thing back again. There is not the minimum proof that it ever was the symbol of Macedon, and it is essentially when the RoM affaire exploded that everybody thought it was the symbol of Macedonia. 3)the map is a problem; most of this territory was not part of the Macedonian state, but of Alexander, and the same regards the League of Corinth, that was submitted to Alexander, but not to Macedonia; and more important, these borders survived in the dimension indicated in the map for just three years, making highly arbitrary putting it an infobox that pretends to cover the whole kingdom; and best of all this is even added in the "area"! Something that survived less than 2% of the history of the Macedonian kingdom! And remember Alexander, after the battle of Gaugamela, assumed the title of "King of Asia" (Plutarch), as a successor of the Achaemenids, meaning he was king of Macedonia by heritage, of Asia by conquest, and made distinctions between these titles.4)language. This may sound harsh, but putting Ancient Greek is a form of pov-editing, as it deliberately ignores all elements in the language debate, and while I do believe they spoke a form of Greek, it's not up to us to impose our opinions: for this we've got an article called Ancient Macedonian language which takes in account all possibilities. Also, it doesn't give any indication of koiné. In general this is a mortal problem of these infoboxs applied to ancient history: they're hopelessly static. 5)As for the "legislature" part, I'll just avoid comments, as I don't want to be sarcastic; but without this is what I meant with "naive anachronism". 6) no the period, as said, is much longer than the hellenistic period. And as for "Macedon is split into four separate Empires", honestly it doesn't result to me that Seleucus, or Ptolemy ruled as kings of part of Macedonia, nor have I ever heard of any of the Macedonian institutions anywhere except that in Macedonia (and not only me). With all these inaccuracies, the infobox can't be kept so I'me removing it.--Aldux 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexanders Empire lasted for all of seven years and should not be considered "Macedon". Macedon survived Alexander for almost two centuries, and was conquered by Rome in 148 BC, long after the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt had split off again. To say the Seleucid Empire was a successor state of Macedon is like saying that Vietnam and Germany are successor states of the USA because they were briefly under US occupation. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Dab. I only maintain one objection: in what sense can the Synedrion be called a "Legislature"? I think it would be better to call them just "Institutions", remove mention of lower or upper house, and add the Koinon Makedonon (i,e. the General Assembly).--Aldux 20:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So we just forget Alexander the Great ever existed? He was the Macedonian Empire at it largest extent. And his empire after he died did break up into 3 succession states and Macedon itself. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Aldux that your national hatry blinds your judjment and your perception about reality.

If you visit the page of ancient macedonian language-I do not want to make it any more difficult for you and invite to read some books- you will see that irrispectively of any speculations concerning this language the fact remains and universally recognised that the ancient macedonians have adopted the attic greek from the 4th century BC and never used any other language. Thus before the creation of Alexandrine Emprire. As such the language of the hellenistic world was Ancient Greek and ancient greek only-please ask whatever classic dept in the world. I CHALLENGE you openly for that. The religion of hellenistic world was the ancient greek religion, Zeus , Hermes, Apollo, Hera etc. I CHALLENGE you openly to bring proofs for that from any University on the world showing written proofs in your so called Macedonian language.

If you cannot bring any proper references for the existence of the so called macedonian language during the hellenistic period then there is nothing more to discuss about and please go read some books before mess any other article with your irrational and illiterated forgeries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Italiotis, please spare yourself the attacks. You are certainly not in a position to teach people like Aldux or dab about ancient history; before you make arrogant accusations like the above you'd better make some effort at understanding what people are telling you.

As for the rest, I keep saying here as elsewhere: "Infoboxes" are an over-used feature of Wikipedia, and most of the time they are crap. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there's a reason serious encyclopedias are written in prose, not in the form of tabulated data sheets. Just scrap anything and everything from the infobox that isn't absolutely unambiguous, straightforward and uncontentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohh yes I think I am FP. As any person on earth is in such position with basic knowledge of classical history . And its not arrogant accusations to request for proofs of ones unsupported sayings. Please let me adress the challenge to you as well as you felt the need to defend your countrymen. Bring me one single proof of the so called ancient macedonian language during the hellenistic times other than classical Greek. Please. I openly challenge you and the rest two of your countrymen that you so highly appreciate for their "exquisite" historical approach ( it is the first time that i see history to be written with forgeries without a single piece of proof and yet accepted and defended as genuine and authentic work. In my country we call it propaganda) The infobox doen t suggest anything more than the reality. It simply facilitates the reader to understand the subject.

The Alexandrian empire was preceded by argead dynasty and greece and suceeded by the hellenistic states and latter by the roman empire. During the life time of the Hellenistic world the language was Greek Koine the language in which the gospels are written ( if you are not aware the gospels are the four books written by the four evangelists which are part of the so called new testament which all is written in Greek koine. I trust you know what new testament is about). Till Christianity become the dominant religion , the Hellenistic East was dominated by the greek pantheon with synchretic elements of the local religions. I CHALLENGE you openly for proofs. You also FP. You also. And if you cannot get any because non exist please think why? Is this may be because ancient macedonians where simply Greeks and you desperately chasing your Chimairas? Have a lovely day. Italiotis 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Italioti. Personally I am having difficulty understanding how Macedon could possibly have been preceded by the Argead dynasty, let alone ancient Greece. Macedon was not founded by Philip II, and we've already estabished that it was part of ancient Greece, so your left arrows make no sense at all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

um, why was this left standing? edit summaries like this make me wonder whether Italiotis should still be with us at this point. This page has seen enough trolling, and I'm not interested in prancing around with yet another outraged young patriot. Macedon neither started nor ended with Alexander. Alexander is extremely notable in his own right, but this isn't the Alexander the Great article. "Macedon" refers to the Balkans kingdom, not to Egypt, or Persia, or Bactria. dab (𒁳) 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

for the record, I agree with FutPerf that infoboxes are mostly more trouble than they are worth. Anything that cannot be presented in tabular form should not figure in the infobox at all. The full information is in the article body, and it is pointless to try and stuff it all in the infobox on top of that. dab (𒁳) 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you reinstated the entries for "legislature" that still come out as "Upper House" and "Lower House". Surely that's a glaring anachronism, right? Was that intentional? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, no, sorry, I didn't mean to do that. dab (𒁳) 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Two small objections: shouldn't we put Koine Greek rather than Attic? The original court language was certainly Attic, but Koine appears the dominant dialect i the area since the close of the 4th century.(A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, by A-Ph. Christidis) Obviously, it can be argued that Koine is essentially an evolution of Attic, but we do keep them in distinct articles, as already in antiquity Atticists saw them as being different. Also, Pella was raised to the status of capital in the 4th century. As for awnsering Italiotis, I only accept to discuss with persons who avoid personal abuse, and being called a Greek-hater is something I can't tolerate. If you intend to have people speak with you, learn not to be abusive, and remember of WP:CIV and WP:NPA.--Aldux 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, since the kingdom spans 600 years, we'll need to list several languages and capitals. I suppose "language" is XMK (800-500), Attic (500-300) and Koine (300-end). I also suppose it is fair to list Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Empire as successor (or rather, spin-off) states. I further suggest we lift protection, since this is a case of a single edit-warrior, not a genuine content dispute. --dab (𒁳) 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

have a look at Macedonian Empire. This seems to be a valid term for the period 359-323 BC. It could either be a separate article (1911 Britannica has a full article called "Macedonian Empire", but this includes coverage of the Wars of the Diadochi[4]), or we could have a section titled "Empire" here, and redirect Macedonian Empire to that section. dab (𒁳) 08:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud the inclusion of an infobox, one way or the other, and I'm really glad we are seriously working on it. I agree with dab with a minor difference: since Macedonian Empire is a disambiguation page, we should direct the respective bullets of that dab-page here; not the whole thing (as it is a valid fact that "Macedonian Empire" is used to refer to the irrelevant First Bulgarian Empire in the historiography of former Yugoslavian states and academia). NikoSilver 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you. First Bulgarian Empire could be linked as a single line disambiguation note from the top of a full Macedonian Empire article, or there could be Macedonian Empire (disambiguation) separate from Macedonian Empire. The question is: do we want a separate "Macedonian Empire" article, or do we just want to treat the "imperial decade" of 333-323 as a section in this article? dab (𒁳) 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the former Yugoslavian view is marginal, so I'd go for your second proposal (add a {{otheruses}} in this article and redirect Macedonian Empire here). As for a separate article, we can always decide later if we need to {{main}} it out, but I doubt that would be useful for now. NikoSilver 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

right, I created an "Empire" h3 section to serve as redirect target. Feel free to fiddle with this. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is this page protected? I think we need to work on it, and I don't see any serious signs of edit-warring anymore. Can we have it back please? I was about to add also Pella in the "capital" field, per Aldux's comment. NikoSilver 09:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- protection over a single trolling user is premature. I'll lift it, hoping this will not construed as "wheel warring". If anybody disagrees with this, let me know and I'll re-protect, but I don't believe in following too much red tape in cases like this. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just just notify Majorly first. I agree with dab that the only reason for the edit war was a single rather clueless user against informed consensus (although, since I was the other party to the edit-warring, I shouldn't be talking too much). Niko, if you could help getting Italiotis back on track if he decides to return, that would be a great help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best, since I value his original contribution (which is the infobox -regardless of content). He has a strong chance of becoming productive and collaborative. BTW, nobody has officially "{{welcome}}d" him yet. NikoSilver 09:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

by all means, if you can talk him into civilized contribution, that will be far preferable over 3RR bans or article protection. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was El Greco who first did the infobox. Italiotis hasn't done much except edit-warring so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to El Yunani (:-)), thanks for setting the record straight, and I'll still try to help Italiotis. NikoSilver 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

move, mergefrom?

btw, could we rename this to "Kingdom of Macedonia" (fr:Royaume de Macédoine, el:Μακεδονικό βασίλειο; compare Kingdom of Armenia)? Gets rid of the archaic "Macedon" and is still unambiguous. Also, can we merge Ancient Macedonians into a "Population" section? That article seems to exist purely for pov-pushing reasons, rehashing material covered at the xmk article. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Macedonia" is fine by me, although I'd prefer "Macedonia (ancient)". "Macedonia" is by far the most common name in my view, and the qualifier used should be in parentheses, according to the frequency of use of the term in academia. The merger also finds me agreeable, with the original titles preserved as redirects to the specific sections. NikoSilver 10:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonia" is the region. "ancient Macedonia" is simply the region in ancient times. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia is [present tense] the region, it wasn't, it was just the kingdom/empire. Plus, our earlier comments about merging the empire section here make the "kingdom" description addressing only part of the scope of the article. I still think that "Macedonia" (-period) is the most frequent term in academia (English or otherwise), and the qualifier "(ancient)" definitely serves the purpose of covering both the kingdom and the later empire. What do you say? NikoSilver 10:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think for reasons of convention we should stick with the name Macedon. Philip, Alenander etc. are listed as "NN of Macedon" globalwise, in all museums and bibliography of the world.

I will include some examples: Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26524/ancient-Greek-civilization British museum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/c/copy_of_a_gold_stater_of_phili.aspx I think that we are safer to keep in as is. Italiotis 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Macedon" isn't terrible, and this isn't a very urgent move request. It's a question of English stylistics really. "Macedon" has an antiquated ring to it, say, of posh English grammar schools. Even the OED has "Now arch. and hist.". It isn't wrong, it's just very old-fashioned. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I also would prefer Kingdom of Macedonia; it puts emphasis on the state, gives the name used by most sources and clearly defines time span and borders. Macedonia (ancient), apart from a personal antipathy for using parenthesis, could include in such a name all antiquity, and in its borders cover also the independent maritime poleis. Also, upper Macedonia for several centuries was independent, even if apparently inhabited by tribes closely related to the Macedonian state ones.--Aldux 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Macedon" is more professional, but I think I can also warm up to "Macedon". We might revive this obsolete form as the "Wikipedia solution" to the "Macedonia" terminological confusion. I usually like old-fashioned terminology, so I won't be too outspoken against it: I just draw your attention to the problem :) dab (𒁳) 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just leave it where it is, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sun (and my unawareness of previous debates on it)

Why is the Vergina Sun not included as a "probable" or "uncertain" or "debatable" or even "disputed" symbol? I read the original article, and the prevailing theories I understand include such a possibility. Is it that remote? I really am not aware of any previous debate on it. NikoSilver 10:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Things that are "probable" or "uncertain" or "debatable" or "disputed" should generally not be in infoboxes. If it needs disclaimers of any type, it's better served further down in the text, where it can have a suitable caption including whatever hedging or explanation is needed. There's nothing that would make it more informative up in the infobox than where it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but from my previous experience, I was under the impression that uncertainties (if noted so) are included in infoboxes. I remember the XMK infobox, for example. Where is the relevant debate that results in the conclusion of your first sentence? BTW, I'm certainly not willing to edit-war over this. NikoSilver 10:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement is my own, personal, strongly held, well-considered editorial opinion, arrived at after observing dozens of unnecessary edit-wars. It is always the case that if you try to press a piece of uncertain or potentially controversial information in an infobox, you end up with more trouble than if you just include it in the text. Infoboxes should be crispy, short, clear, otherwise they are not worth it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[earlier comment by dbachman moved here from other section] I am sorry, but treating the Vergina Sun as the "coat of arms" of Macedon is silly, and frankly a troll magnet. This is an issue of modern Greek/Macedonian nationalism. We have to avoid red herrings that attract patriotic trolls to this article. Discuss the "Sun" as an archaeological artefact. "Coats of Arms" are an anachronism in Classical Antiquity. We have no "coat of arms" at Roman Empire either, and that's how it should stay. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do have coats of arms in all relative articles except the Roman Empire. Check the last fields of the infobox there. Indeed, descriptions like "coat of arms" or "flag" are anachronisms, but those descriptions do not appear in the infobox. Plus, there is a field called "symbol", and I find this quite descriptive. As for the "troll magnet", I doubt any Greek or ethnic Macedonian troll would dispute this. They both worship it. NikoSilver 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

the field in the infobox is intended for flags or coats of arms of former states. It is neither "probable" nor "disputed" that the Vergina Sun was such. There were no national flags at the time, period. This insistence on graphic elements in infoboxes is clutter, needs to be couteracted if we do not want Wikipedia to look like Disneyland. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hah, very descriptive! How about "symbol"? It would definitely match the description. NikoSilver 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Vergina Sun" is speculated to be a "symbol of the Macedonian kingdom" by nationalist historians. That such suggestions have any value whatsoever would first have to be established at Vergina Sun. "national symbols" were completely unknown at the time. What was the national symbol of the Athenians? Of the Spartans? Of the Thracians? Come on, this is such an obvious construct of current day Greek nationalism that I doubt it's even worth mentioning the "hypothesis" in the article, let alone in the infobox. This simply isn't serious. Ancient polities had patron deities, and deities had attributes. To claim that, say, the owl was the "Symbol of Athens" and to slap a giant owl in a "former state" infobox at Delian League or Classical Athens on such grounds would be childish spamming. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So you suggest that it is a remote marginal opinion. I thought that would be the case initially (when I asked "is it that remote?"). Ok, if it is so, then I suggest we make this evident (and properly sourced) in the relevant article. I wouldn't have jumped to include the symbol if it was cited as "such an obvious construct of current day Greek nationalism" by other academics. I see, though, that your 'citation needed' tags in your last edit at Vergina Sun are aimed to the other theories, rather than to Andronikos's hypothesis. BTW I don't find Andronikos a nationalist, but his being Greek definitely doesn't help much. NikoSilver 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to keeping it around in the article body. But we need a WP:RS for "has been interpreted as a symbol of the royal Macedonian dynasty of the Argeads". I am sure Andronikos is perfectly respectable at a source, but we'll still need to name him as the proponent (or others, such as there are). It is not impossible that there were "symbols" for ruling dynasties. There certainly were seals of individual rulers, and if a design element was inherited in a dynasty, you might argue it had become a "symbol of the dynasty". That would probably still be an anachronistic concept. I doubt that any BCE polities should have their infoboxes graced with "national symbols". The earliest bona fide "state symbol" might be the Byzantine double-headed eagle of the High Middle Ages (11th century?). For any earlier "symbols", you'll have to roll in heavy academic references to convince me. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

alright, there is the Pschent of Egypt. It would still be silly to give that as the "national flag"/"national coat of arms" on Ancient Egypt. the context is just too different. Now, if "Roman Empire" can do without the eagle, and "Ancient Egypt" without the double crown, the "Macedon" infobox can sure as hell do without the speculative "Vergina Sun". --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is mistake to treat the Vergina Sun as a national symbol. National symbols with the modern interpretation of the symbol were not introduced till the early middle ages. Symbols in antiquity were mostly related to religious cults. We cannnot be sure what the use of this symbol was about. What we are sure though is that it is a solar symbol which was simply covering the remanings of Philip. It is a symbol of significant importance but from scientific point of view we cannot be sure about anything further to that.

I suggest the following wording to be put as the description of Vergina Sun. 'Vergina Sun, the 16-ray star covering the royal burial larnax of Philip the II of Macedon(Vergina , Greece)' I will include in the box for the star if no objections.Italiotis 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Diadochi

Hi guys. Should we include also a link to Diadochi. As the Diadochi Wars gave birth to all the subsequent states after the death of Alexander? I will include a link under the section: See Also. Italiotis 10:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

the Diadochi should certainly be (and are) referenced from the "Empire" section. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dab we should put a more specific reference in the infobox for the attalid dynasty around Pergamon. Pergamon was as important centre of hellenistic culture second only to Alexandria. So I think the Attalid kingdom should be regarded as of equal importance along with the two larger states and included in the notable successor states. CheersItaliotis 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

please feel free to edit the article: it is only after you run into opposition and are reverted that you should come to talk and explain yourself. I am not opposed to linking the Attalid dynasty as a "spin-off state" of the Macedonian Empire on a par with the Ptolemaic Empire. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedon project

Hi guys. I would like to make a proposal. As Wikipedia succesfully kept Macedon away of Athens-Skopje name conflict i would suggest to do the same with the rest of Macedon s deriving words. So i suggest for the people to use: Macedon and Macedones and for the language: Macedonic and Ancient Macedonic Language. We should henceforth referred as Macedonia/Macedonian only to the region after being conquered from the roman empire and named in Latin oficially as Macedonia(roman province). In that way we will avoid confusion with the use of the word Macedonian/s that today may mean ethnic macedonians, (modern) greek macedonians, etc and we will obtain a higher flexibility to effectivily ameliorate the article without having any disruption or having to use long ineffective description such as ancient macedonian language etc. I will start giving it a go if no objections. Please list your thoughts. Italiotis 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You cannot just begin to call things "Macedonic" because you feel like it. There is an entire (long) article about Macedonia (terminology) -- so if you want to contribute anything to "Macedonian" as a term, you want to try Talk:Macedonia (terminology). Be aware that the present situation is the result of much discussion. --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Italioti, no-can-do. WP uses the most frequent names in academia, it doesn't try to solve problems that exist in the world. More in your talkpage shortly. NikoSilver 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just going to open a pandora's box. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reinsert

Please reinsert the Greek in the Macedon article before the kingdom and put these references in it.

• The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: Revised Edition by Colin McEvedy,ISBN-10: 0140513485,2003 ,Page 62,"... demon strate that not even the forces of nature could thwart the advance of the Great King. The most northerly Greek state, the Kingdom of Macedon, had already submitted to Xerxes' envoys: Thessaly did not resist either. ..."
• The Art of War in Western World by Archer Jones,ISBN-10: 0252069668,2000, Page 21,"... King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon perfected this system,and his son, Alexander the Great, used it to conquer Greece and the Persian Empire. ..."

Megistias (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly good references. Should be reinstall. The vast majority of the historians agree that ancient Macedon and ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Few were skeptic. (Like Borza) By the way Borza has not excluded the fact that ancient Macedon was Greek.He was skeptic in his book “in the Shadow of Olympus” where we can see exactly what he thinks especially about the language: “Whether it was a rude patois that was the dialect of farmers and hillsmen or a style of speaking (like “Laconic”) is impossible to know from this scant, late evidence. In any case we cannot tell if it was Greek.” E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)page 93

It is only to say that there is an insufficient sample of words to show exactly what the macedonian language was. It must also be emphasized that this is not to say that it was not Greek; It is only to suggest that, from the linguists’ point of view, it is as yet impossible to know E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)page 93

But in the same book Borza says: “The Macedonians themselves may have originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples. “ E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), page 84

There is no doubt that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was widely believed by the Macedonians[...] There was a persistent, well attested tradition in antiquity that told of a group of Greeks from Argos -descendants of Temenus, kinsman of Heracles- who came to Macedonia and established their rule over the Makedones, unifying them and providing a royal house. "In The Shadow of Olympus", p. 80, Princeton University Press

"There is no reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migration of the Macedones[..] The basic story as provided by Herodotus and Thucydides, minus the interpolation of the Temenid connections undoubtedly reflects the Macedonians' own traditions about their early history. "In The Shadow of Olympus", p. 84, Princeton University Press

So as you can see Borza was skeptic but not against the Greek origin of Macedon. That changed! in his book “Makedonika” Borza is no more skeptic! He finally agrees with Hammond about the Greek character of the Ancient Macedonians. “Our understanding of the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of Proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country... First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion (though not the details of his arguments) that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Greek speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age, is acceptable. h Eugene N. Borza, ‘Makedonika’ Regina Books, Claremont CA

So as we can see Borza agrees that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin. Thus Macedon was an ancient Greek kingdom. The majority of the modern historians agree that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. All the archaeological evidences are the strongest support of the Greek origin. Therefore Megistias references are correct. And the Greek character of the Ancient Macedon should be mentioned. Seleukosa (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Selective quoting is one's friend. I don't care enough to remove (or discuss) it again, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss. How is this pagage selective : The "highlanders" or "Makedones" of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earlier time may have migrated south to become the historical "Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. It is crustal clear. Seleukosa (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reinsert the Greek, we have more sources here to fill the obelix's stomachMegistias (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The kingdom

The kingdom was Ancient Greek this is not an article about the specifics of linguistics.Megistias (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link which is quite interesting. We have a clear reference about what modern historians think about the subject. This is important because it is not what I believe but what scholars say.

• Hermann Bengtson, ‘History of Greece’

Translated and updated by Edmund F. Bloedow, University of Ottawa Press, 1988. Chapter 10 Philip of Macedonia, pgs 185-186. “The theory, therefore, advocated by the student of Indo-European linguistics, P.Kretschner , that the Macedonians were of Graeco-Illyrian hybrid stock, is not to be regarded as very probable. So the majority of modern historians, admittedly with the noteworthy exception of Julius Kaerst , have argued CORRECTLY for the Hellenic origin of the Macedonians. They should be included in the group of the North-West Greek tribes” Seleukosa (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They dont care about sources they want to be politically correct.Megistias (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

to the contrary, I think this is quite a quotable source. It appears that there is something like an emerging consensus that the Macedonians were marginal NW/Doric Greeks, perhaps with an Illyrian adstrate. If academic consensus tilts this way, we can certainly reflect that, but we'll obviously continue to indicate that this is a topic of controversial debate. Greek nationalists who have of course "always known" the "Macedonians were Greeks" anyway are of little interest here, or anywhere else. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thracians/phrygians were in mostly contact with them and it was thracians/prhygians that were thrown "out" .How could the adstrate be Illyrian? They would have perhaps a phrygian lingual adstrate since they were in contact with phrygians for a great while before the phrygians migrated. Megistias (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Kretschmer (May 2, 1866 – March 9, 1956) is kind of old.All the finds in spanning 52 years were not used in his theory.Megistias (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And "Geschichte des Hellenismus Zweiter Band: Das Wesen Des Hellenismus

by Julius Kaerst"Publisher: Teubner (1926).Is 82 years old. Megistias (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is quotable to attest the fact that 50-100 years ago the predominant theories were that Macedonians were mixed(thracoIllyrophrygo)-Hellenes and now that they were not.Megistias (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.The kingdom was ancient Greek they were ancient Greek and we are wondering about language and that alone.This is not the language page.Megistias (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We need an RFC here.We have the sources and you are just ignoring them on a whim.Megistias (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be forgetting about what WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view requires: "that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Wikipedia isn't in the business of judging whether or not the Macedonians were Greeks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The predominant view should be pointed out i am not saying that the other views be excluded, thy can be included just fine.The fact is that this is about the kingdom and not the language.The above written sources are pretty clear.Megistias (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There aren’t any "multiple or conflicting perspectives" about the ancient Macedonians. The majority of the historians agree that they were Dorian Greeks. To give equal room to a view of a small minority is against any reason and against WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view. Which is clear “dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.” There arent any other reliable or even at list eaqually “many” prespectives (Especially when the only respectful historians are from 19th century, and some Slav nationalist but I don’t think that anyone will quote Donski.) The minority view should be mentioned. Nobody has argued against that. And that applies only to ancient Macedonian language. Not to the ancient Macedonians and not to ancient Macedon. Since there is a perfectly good source that suggests that ancient Macedon was considered a Greek state by the majority of the historians it should appear. Ancient Macedon is described by the majority (the vast majority) of the historians as a Greek kingdom. Nobody denies that. the fact that Borza agrees should have been enough) Yes, some have questioned their origin (very few actually, and as more and more archaeological discoveries are published they becoming fewer) but still the kingdom is considered as an ancient Greek one. I can’t understand how a state that is considered almost unanimously as ancient Greek, we decide to hide it and to give equal room to minority/margin room in an attempt to keep a “neutral point of view”. Seleukosa (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The kingdom that started the Hellenistic age was hellenic and the people hellenes.The sources are there.Megistias (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was removed again are you guys playing here?The references are clearMegistias (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The real controversial thing here is how come after removing sourced material for so many times and promoting your own opinions based on your imagination since no sources agree with you guys arent banned yet.This wiki is your personal playgound?

• And the first king is Karanus not Perdiccas.Megistias (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We have 100 sources for this article and for this as well [5] and they are been ignored against wiki rules just because some of you have certain "political beliefs".Megistias (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What I have seen is a substantial amount of material presented by Seleukosa and Megistias so far that is really adding in the structure of the article and if you want to its accuracy. I have furhter seen 3dalcove getting in a edit warring without providing not even a single document to support his views. I would thought that 3dalcove should provide evidence for his points of view in this web page, and if the information provided doesn t prove itself to be circumstantial or isolated without being of a universal acceptance, then to accept his opinion and adjustments. Otherwise plain edit warring against strong presented evidence doesn t add at all to the mission of Wiki to provide essential information to the public. By accepting arguments that are no rigidly stemmed but based on circumstential and/or personal points of view does not help wiki to claim that it is an unbiased but at the same time objective source of information. It rather appears that moderators simply ignore the basics of historiography and accomodate whatever options disregarding the way evidence must be produced and presented. As such I would like to see more evidence than plain war editting. Thank you Melathron (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like other articles its admins abusing power and/or adhering to their personal beliefs instead of wiki rules and sources.Megistias (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources say ancient Greek out it back in.This is against the rules.Megistias (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, while other people try to present a case, can you really do no better than sound like a broken record? dab (𒁳) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The references are being ignored.Where is the supposed opposition? This is not about the language specifics.Megistias (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

Map

I have reverted the last revision from to the older one from future perfect at sunrise. The map used here shows how ancient Macedon is split within the modern states in the area which I concider irrelevant. Such maps are relevant in the page of Macedonia name dispute and not in the actual historical site. The older map is far more detailed and accurate sholwing the provinces and important cities of the kingdom of Macedon, and it is far more neutral as it really focuses on the historical facts without any other implementations. Melathron (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Online

I added Britannica Online link (Macedonia: Hellenism in Macedonia) at the external links section, will someone merge the video info in the article since my knowledge in English is not enough for me to do it? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref

From The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot, Penguin 1996, page 72.

In the years of Macedonian expansion under Philip II, (359-336 BC) the Athenian orator Demosthenes referred to Greece's northern neighbours as "barbarians, claiming that they had only recently ceased to be shepherds. Certainly the Thracians and Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the Northwest, the peoples of Molossis, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is now accepted that the Maceodnians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially "Greeks". The main difference between Macedonia and the city states of the south was that it was ruled by a king and powerful nobility

Reliable, contemporary and secondary. I am adding it to the intro. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, the recent dump of thirteen references, most vague references to entire books, into the introduction is not. When I came across this article (through a link from elsewhere) I immediately could tell it had been edited by a Greek-nationalist partisan, which is not how Wikipedia articles should read (and I'm ethnically Greek myself!). --Delirium (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, since I edited this article I suppose you are referring to me when saying “I immediately could tell it had been edited by a Greek-nationalist partisan”, which allow me to assume you think you got super- duper “I know everything” powers (hmm... perhaps hence the name “Delirium” :)), as I actually respected WP:RS so I provided reliable sources on Macedon. Now, to get serious, there are far many articles in wikipedia using a lot sources at their intro without annoying anyone. And per NPOV: Why don't you provide reliable sources which actually state Macedon was not Greek? Add them in the article too. That would cover all POVs, wouldn’t? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

References say they were Greek.Megistias (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they weren't: the scholarly consensus is tentatively that they probably were, with a few significant dissenters. I'm arguing that the way it's presented in the intro, as a baldly stated fact and with 13 references, is not neutral. As for references saying that it was not Greek, several of The Cat and the Owl's own references discuss the controversy, and mention dissent in the classical-scholarship community (Julius Kaerst is a notable scholar who thinks Macedon was not Greek). --Delirium (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Julius Kaerst, Gesch. d. hellenist. Zeitalters (Band ii., publ. 1909).Since he is from the 1900's you have made a mistake in mentioning him since we are discussing about modern scientists and not those who could be a an archaeological find themselves(a little joke).The position today is and not a surprising on that they were a marginal ancient Greek tribe.Megistias (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, anything before the 1950s is not considered a contemporary source. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaerst is not a "signifigant" or any other type of "dissenter" since he is from 1900's and the finds of the last 30 years have changed all assumptions to a direction of certainty.Modern political issues are irrelevant and should not effect the articles or create some sort of "neutrality" issue.This is on antiquity not on today.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its Greek and this removal should be reverted.diff.This little argument is ridiculous.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Even sources were removed.Its pov not to mention they were ancient Greeks.Megistias (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, it is evident that you are a Greek nationalist because you seem to think it is important whether the Macedonians were "Greeks". That's a red herring of contemporary nationalism.This is a joke. The question of "Greekness" of the Macedonians is both difficult and marginal. A neutral editor would refer to it in passing, saying that it sort of depends on terminology, and perhaps that mainstream opinion appears to be swinging towards a "yes, plausibly". The end. Stashing a dozen soundbites containing the word "Greek" into the intro is puerile, and falls under WP:POINT. You are interested in modern nationalism? Go edit Macedonia naming dispute, Greek nationalism or Macedonism but don't take it out on this article. WP:DUE. By contrast, this and [6] is responsible editing, and it should go without saying that any mature and grown-up Wikipedia editor would endorse 3rdAlcove's and Delirium's position here. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please unlock page.

This is the worst kind of pseudo-history and myth dissemination: the one performed under the veil of freedom of speech and opinion. Locking the page does lift slightly the veil and gives us (readers) a glimpse of what is behind it: a propaganda machine puppeteered by Greek agenda. Be historically responsible, give Wikipedia back to the public.

Ilidio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you begin by reading the Wikipedia article, and then perhaps WP:5P in order to get a rough idea what we are doing here. dab (𒁳) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"For a brief period it became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East after Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of Greek history."

The word "state" in this sentence implies that Macedonia was part of a group of states. I would dispute that. Ancient Greece was conquered by the Macedonian Kingdom (Macedon). This is unlike a state that takes hegemony of a group of states that is part of. Alexander's conquests were part of the Macedonian Empire and are, first and foremost, part of Macedonian history. They changed the face of the World and are a part of the World history that we should respect as such. We should also acknowledge that this great feat is due to Macedonia and to the Macedonians. If such catalyzed the dissemination of Ancient Greek language and culture, that's a secondary effect that should not be noted in the introduction of the "Macedon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ahem, Alexander's empire lasted for less than forty years. Your "secondary side effect" has shaped Europe-as-we-know-it. The article is fine as it is. It mentions Alexander and his conquests in a brief section, because these are not the main scope of this article. The scope of this article is the period 800 to 146 BC. In a first period, say 800-450 BC, there was no "Classical Greece", and Macedon was a petty kingdom like all the others. In the second period, say 450-146 BC, Macedon had been Hellenized and was clearly part of the Greek/Hellenistic world. You may want to study the history of this talkpage in order to avoid rehashing topics that have already been discussed to death. dab (𒁳) 16:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are doing is to place the Macedonian Empire under the diverse and ill defined space covered by the "Ancient Greek" umbrella. Such is an historical inaccuracy and should be corrected. At the very least, once the article is under dispute it should display the appropriate sign. Instead has a lock, which only means CENSORSHIP.Ilidio.martins (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

the article isn't locked. You can edit it while logged in. But I do suggest you make a coherent suggestion as to what you want to change first, ideally backing up your case with academic references (see WP:RS). Yes, the 4th century BC Macedonian Empire certainly does fall under "Ancient Greece", more precisely "Hellenistic Greece". dab (𒁳) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still cannot edit the page! This article lacks key references to present day Macedonia (for ex. in territorial terms[1]) and has a strong emphasis on what is called "Greek history" and Greek references. I have several alterations that would like to enact. [User:Ilidio.martins|Ilidio.martins]] (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Macedonian Center for Archaeological Research. The Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia in the Republic of Macedonia. http://www.macar.org/projects/projects_kingdom_intro.html

South of present day Macedonia was part of the Macedon.

Ref.: Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon".

Please leave the text corrected as I suggested. Ilidio.martins (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That was after the expansion of 359 BC. The original core of the kingdom was located entirely within Greece as you can see here [7]. We have to stick with the pre-expansion version, because otherwise we have to include all of Alexander's empire as well, which would be ridiculous. Heracleia Lyncestis (laughably referred to as "Lynk" in your source), was a colony, not a core city. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Borza's. He was President of the Association of Ancient Historians. I think that your opinion and the shape of this article as you composed are extremely laughable when compare to his authority on the subject.Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Borza? The only source you have provided is some random website that can't even spell correctly. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________________

Can you give me your credentials? Did you look at the list of references in the main article? Did you compared with the references presented in the talk page? Maybe then you will understand why people think this page is not historically accurate. This looks like part of Greek propaganda... the article shows bias!

"Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Key_policies_and_guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What bias are you talking about? There is no bias in the article. Only in your imagination, it seems. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not a very well constructed argument. Sounds more like a non-rational cry.Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me where there is "bias" in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Territorially, there is only mention to Greece (several encyclopedias/dictionaries use Greece/Macedonia/Bulgaria as present day countries where Macedon territory, not to mention more specialized sources...). 2. Is only mentioned "Greek history" when clearly this is part of "Macedonian history". 3. Ancient Macedons where clearly distinct ethnicity from Ancient Greeks.

I've proposed and enacted several changes that would reduce the bias/emphasis on Greek references. Those where undone.Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That is because the kingdom was initially located entirely within Greece prior to its expansion under Philip II. I'm getting tired of repeating this.

2. There is no such thing as "Macedonian histroy". The Hellenistic Age is a period of Greek history. After the Roman conquest, Macedonia became a geographical expression. The Slavic Macedonians have no connection whatsoever to the ancient Macedonians.

3. The ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and were considered Greeks by their counterparts.

Thus, there is no bias anywhere in the article.--Tsourkpk (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. REF? And I mean, archaeological evidence, not a map that anyone can draw (certainly Nicolaides knew how to draw...).
2. You make an affirmation like this and you are writing an article about "Macedon"? This clearly shows your bias. You talk in "ancient Macedonians" but deny their history? And then you try to make an ethnical divide based on nowdays terms and extrapolate to the past? Do you know how dangerous and irresponsible is such attitude? Do you know how many people suffer because of people that think like you? Do you know how wrong you are? Just give a thought to what you call "Greek history" in ethnical/historical terms. I do not think you are reasoning clearly and I am sure that you should not be responsible for any content of this article.
3. REF? Eugene Borza (a renowned historian) in "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon" clearly argues against that based on historical evidences.
Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The map is sourced, and you can also look up the Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, by Robert Morkot, Penguin Books, 1996, page 72.

2. If by "Macedonian history" you mean the history of the modern Slavic Macedonians, then there is nothing to talk about, as this ethnic group has zero connection to the ancient Macedonians. There is a gap of about 23 centuries there. It seems you are the one who is not reasoning clearly.

3. From The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot, Penguin 1996, page 72.

In the years of Macedonian expansion under Philip II, (359-336 BC) the Athenian orator Demosthenes referred to Greece's northern neighbours as "barbarians, claiming that they had only recently ceased to be shepherds. Certainly the Thracians and Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the Northwest, the peoples of Molossis, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is now accepted that the Maceodnians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially "Greeks". The main difference between Macedonia and the city states of the south was that it was ruled by a king and powerful nobility.

This is also posted on this article's talk page, which you obviously haven't bothered to read. Please read the article's talk page and stop wasting everyone's time. This issue has been discussed to the death in the past, and the current version of the intro is take from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and represents the consensus version. Your accusations of bias only prove that you are a nationalist from FYROM. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

You cannot seriously use this book as a reference ("The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece" by Morkot). I mean this is clearly not the kind of source that you should use to clarify a deeply debated subject. It is superficial and the author places an obvious Egyptian history perspective on the book. It is not focused on the subject at hands. Please use your references/sources wisely. There is renowned author on the subject that says differently based on historical evidence. What more is necessary to make a change in a Wikipedia article? You brought the subject of what you called "Slavic Macedonians", as before I recommend caution in talking about ethnical groups the way you are doing. It seems to me that the one who's speaking like a "nationalist" is you and I must say that your accusations are false. I am just one more person tired of seeing the obvious and historical accurate being obliterated by political reasons. I tought that would not happen in a "free" environment like wikipedia. I was wrong.
For and by the truth, act on Wikipedia!Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, typical nationalist: When presented with a source he doesn't like, he just says "This source is invalid". The source is from a reputable publication house with a reputation for fact-checking and reviews all the academic literature. Talking to you has obviously been a total waste of time. Your rants about "bias" and "obvious and historical accurate" reveal that you are just a nationalist troll bent on disruption. Goodbye. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only one criticizing that reference. Even sympathizers of what it seems to be your cause say so: http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Historical-Atlas-Ancient-Greece/dp/0140513353.
The way you completely disregard the information and reference that I placed forward seems to me very biased and narrow-minded. Particularly since a reference from the same author is already being used in the article.
Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A review on Amazon.com? LOL! That is completely worthless. Did you write it yourself maybe? Like I said, waste of time. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to repeat this: The way you completely disregard the information and reference that I placed forward [Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon"] seems to me very biased and narrow-minded. Particularly since a reference from the same author is already being used in the article. Such demonstrates the lack of coherence, consistency and fair evaluation of evidences/references. I think this should be enough for anyone to be disqualified from contributing to an article.Ilidio.martins (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Macedons were not considered "Greeks" by The Ancient Greeks.

The proof comes from the use of the word "Philhellene" to refer to Ancient Macedonians and from a very likely distinct origin for Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks. Hence the tone of the article must be kept away from the "ancient greeks" and "Greek history".Ilidio.martins (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Ref.: Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon"

Shouldn't that be Ilithio? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Key_policies_and_guidelines Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilidio, just to inform you, the term "Philhellene" in antiquity also meant "patriot"[8]. Cheers! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Typical of POV-pushers to twist and distort the meaning of things. In this case he substituted the modern European meaning for the original ancient Greek meaning. Good call. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is inaccurate! Was normally used to refer to non-Greeks. In addition to the different origins of the two people (Macedonians and Greeks). Another example of the way this page is being managed/constructed. Just look up the dictionary.Ilidio.martins (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Or are we supposed to take your word for it? Your simple denial, without anything to back it up, is proof of your desperation and the fact that you are only interested in inserting your own bias in the article. The word "Philhellene" in this context is used in the ancient sense, which meant "Greek patriot", and not in the modern sense. You just prove my point when I say that you are twisting and misquoting sources, because in this passage, we have Borza himself explicitly state that the ancient Macedonians were in fact Greek:

Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon, p. 78, ISBN 0691008809. "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians.

So clearly, he could only have meant "Philhellene" in the "Greek patriot" sense. Like so many other POV-warriors I have seen before, you deliberately misquote sources to push your POV, and when confronted, you just deny it without any arguments to back up your denial. In any case, this is off-topic as it has nothing yo do with your proposed modifications to this article. Case closed. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any quote from this in-dept historical account will appear out of context and biased. For this reason I choose to quote the summary in the back cover: "In tracing the emergence of the Macedonian kingdom from its origins as a Balkan backwater to a major European and Asian power, Eugene Borza offers to specialist and lay readers alike a revealing account of a relatively unexplored segment of ancient history. He draws from recent archeological discoveries and an enhanced understanding of historical geography to ofrm a narrative that provides a material-culture setting fro political events. Examining the dynamics of Macedonian relations with the Greek city-states, he suggests that the Macedonians, although they gradually incorporated aspects of Greek culture into their own society, maintained a distinct ethnicity as a Balkan people" Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon

I hope this is clear and succinct enough to convince anybody without an agenda... I do not expect to convince the curators of this Wikipedia article!
In the name of History, Act on Wikipedia!Ilidio.martins (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A trivial argument, and a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When confronted with something you don't like, you dismiss it as "out of context" without presenting any detail as to how it is out of context. When you were preciously quoting Borza, that was THAT out of context? What part of the quote I supplied from Borza don't you understand? Resorting to quoting the blurb is also trivial, as Borza did not write that. Focus on the source itself. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ilidio...

If you want to present evidence in any form that might be acadedmically interesting then do it right. If you want to propose that E. Borza does not consider the ancient Macedonians Greeks then refer to his text and not to some "unbiased?" summary or reference. Just state the text and then make your proposal / assumptions.

GK1973 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way this article is being managed completely discredits Wikipedia

Enough said! Here, I found people that:
1. Do not present rational and clear arguments; 2. Do not present reliable references; 3. Treat my comments with satire; 4. Are not able to reach a compromise/midpoint; 5. Promote ethnical/racial divides; 6. Make false accusations; 7. Show complete disregard and disrespect for different opinions/points of view;
You can take a look for yourself in previous sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilidio.martins (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough already.

What freakin' specific claims are made in this article about the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians? The only strong claim refers to their CERTAIN Hellenization from the 4th century onwards. Dbachmann above has answered you. Kindly stop it. If you have any legitimate concerns, please discuss. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) <br\ >

Thank you for your question since it directs the ongoing discussion on a more objective route. <br\ >

A. Defining the Macedonian territory as located in northern-most part of "ancient Greece" is not accurate. The territory occupied by "ancient Greece" is ill defined and was under continuous change (aside from the fact that implies that Macedon was part of ancient Greece). The location should be defined in current terms (which are more precise) as the north part of Greece, south of Macedonia and Bulgaria. These territories where under stable Macedonian rule for a significant period of time (Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon; Gandeto, J. S. G. Ancient Macedonians: Differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks). The country tag should also be changed accordingly or left in blank. <br\ >

B. Alexander the Great conquests' are part of (ancient) Macedonian History. I agree that the Hellenization catalyzed by expansion of the Macedonian Empire is a relevant historical event. Nevertheless, I see the mention to "Greek history" controversial in the introduction of an article about Macedonian (or ancient Macedonian, if you prefer) Empire and history.<br\ > At this point you can probably see why "the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians" becomes a central dispute and why this is a question that repetitively appears in this and other articles. I would say that "inaugurating the Hellenistic period of Greek history" is not critical to introduce the definition/description of the "Macedon". Due to it's controversial use and questionable pertinence I would suggest to erase it.<br\ >

__Ilidio.martins (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So, your problems are with the location of the kingom as described? I don't quite understand what you're implying by the rest: Alexander's conquests did "inaugurate the Hellenistic period of Greek history" as well as the "Hellenistic period of the history of the various lands he conquered", of course. It -is- important to mention that Macedon had an important role in that; remember that the intro is a summary so its use is not controversial and pertinence is not questionable at all. Perhaps describing exactly what you want changed is better ie "I want this changed to this and that changed to that". 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but not I am not implying anything. I am explicitly saying and explaining why the reference to "Greek history" is controversial and uncertain. I made a suggestion to deal with the issue, I am not imposing it. Nevertheless, I would like to understand why is important to keep such a controversial affirmation? <br\ >

An alternative would be to add an explicit mention to "ancient Macedonian history" and changing "Greek history" to "ancient Greek history". The sentence would read: "For a brief period it became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East after Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world, attaining the pinnacle of ancient Macedonian history and inaugurating the Hellenistic period of ancient Greek history. <br\ >

Also, I wish to add another suggestion:

C. The word state, especially in this context, might have a dubious interpretation. "Macedon" was unlike an ancient Greek city-state and for that reason I propose to always use "kingdom" (which is more accurate) when referring to "Macedon".

__Ilidio.martins (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

State = clearly kingdom in this case (why the scare quotes around Macedon btw?). So, would you be fine with changing "Greek history" to "ancient Greek history"? That was your concern? 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Relative to point B, adding a mention to "ancient Macedonian history" and changing "Greek history" to "ancient Greek history" would satisfy my concerns.<br\ >

If state=kingdom, why not use just kingdom (which is more precise)?

I would like to hear your opinion relative to A.Ilidio.martins (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Better change "Greek history" to "inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history", then, since the empire, as well as those of the Diadochi included a good chunk of the known world. As for point A, well, I guess in modern terms we could say "centered in what is today Greek Macedonia with parts lying in what is today Albania and the Republic of Macedonia". 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, world history seems like a good compromise. My only concern is that it will sound a bit pretentious, but due to the wide range of cultures/territories involved I think is adequate. Relative to the second change may I suggest a stylistic improvement: "centered in what is today Greek Macedonia and extending to what is today Albania and the Republic of Macedonia". The country tag should be changed accordingly or left in blank.129.112.109.253 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)<br\ >

I was just re-reading some passages of "Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" trying to find the best way to define the territory of "Macedon" in today's terms. The most concise and clear setence that I recall is the following: "At its zenith Macedonian influence prevailed in an area that includes virtually all of modern Greek Macedonia and much of Yugoslav Macedonia, including territory not drained by the Haliacmon-Axios. Macedon must then be defined as the Balkan region where Macedonians ruled." This is to say that I am not sure about the pertinence of mention the territories of modern Albania and Bulgaria as defining the ancient Macedon... what do you think?Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence is just fine the way it is, and vote for keeping it that way. It is directly taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, and was suggested as a neutral compromise a long time ago. The article has been stable ever since, and saying it was centered in the northernmost part of ancient Greece does not in the least imply that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. It would be a different case if it said "was a Greek kingdom...", but that is not the case. Your stylistic improvement is not stylistic at all and makes the opening sentence long and awkward. The kingdom from the 7th century BC up until 359 BC (i.e. for most of its history) was located entirely within Greek Macedonia, and even then only a very small component was located outside the borders of Greek Macedonia. Furthermore, the opening sentence says "centered around the northernmost part of ancient Greece", so it leaves open the possibility that not all of it was located within Greek Macedonia. Bottom line, if the opening sentence is good enough for Britannica, it is good enough for Wikipedia. As for your sentence from Borza, not only is it long and clunky, but it also doesn't make sense, because at its zenith, the kingdom of Macedon stretched all the way to India. It seems your sole intent is to find a way to insert "Republic of Macedonia" somewhere in the intro (as evidenced by your desire to leave out Bulgaria and Albania), which is frivolous, considering only a very small and outlying part of the original kingdom of Macedon extended there. As for "world history", I think that's fine and that it is more accurate. If you check the wikipedia article for Hellenistic age, you will see that it is described as a period of "world history" as it covered a rather large area. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe our disagreement has deeper roots than just this article about Macedon, and is a question of what Wikipedia is and should be. I completely disagree with "if the opening sentence is good enough for Britannica, it is good enough for Wikipedia". <br\ >

I explained the reasons for why the opening sentence should be corrected and I must say that a compromise that is not accurate is not a good compromise. I have no problem in placing or taking any country in the description as long as it is accurate. If we need to name four countries to accurately describe the territory so let's do it. The key word that you are missing in order to understand the passage from Borza's book is prevailed. I think the passage is clear an succinct enough and comes from one of the experts in the subject. Hence, I do not understand how and why you jump to conclusions about my motives and I think that attitude does not contribute to the discussion. Therefore, for educational proposes, I will repeat one of the principles in Wikipedia: Assume good faith.129.112.109.251 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we'll just have to disagree. I still don't think there is anything wrong with the opening sentence. It does not make a judgement on the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians and only describes the kingdom geographically. It is also concise and elegant, while the proposed alternatives are not. I also think that modern countries and boundaries should be left out of this article, as ancient Macedon had nothing to with them. Arbitrarily drawn modern borders are utterly irrelevant in discussions on states that existed thousands of years earlier, as they are drawn solely considering the political realities of the day without any regard for history. That's why the sentence says "ancient Greece" instead of just "Greece" (which technically would still be accurate). Mentioning the Republic of Macedonia in the opening sentence may also lead some readers to conflate the two, even though they have nothing in common and are thousands of years apart. Finally, just because a sentence does not seem accurate or a good compromise to you doesn't mean it seems that way to others. This sentence was chosen as a compromise after much discussion (see talk page archives) and reflects the consensus view of the Wikipedia community. I am strongly in favor of keeping it as is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Tsourkpk, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the "Wikiproject: Greece" and only using the "Classical Greece and Rome" one or even adding (to "ancient Greece"; let's keep that) "centered in what is today Greek Macedonia and extending westwards to what is today Albania and north to what is today Republic of Macedonia" and adding the two more relevant wikiproject tags. "Greek history" can change to "world history" per above. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe such proposal constitutes a middle ground. Appreciate your mediation and balance, 3rdAlcove. I could not agree more with the "Wikiproject" changes, they are very fit. I wish to remind everyone about the "country" attribute in the "Infobox former country" (which is now, just Greece) and I would like to know what you think about the state question (point C). My impression is that 3rdAlcove thinks that state and kingdom mean the same but has a preference for maintaining the current nomenclature. I did not hear Tsourkpk opinion... @Ilidio.martins (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think replacing the Greece tag with the "Classical Greece and Rome" is an excellent idea, because like I said earlier, I really feel we should leave modern countries and borders out of this article. Contemporary states (Greece, RoM, Albania) have nothing to do with ancient Macedon and mentioning them in the article might lead readers to conflate them with each other. However, that is also why I insist on keeping the lead sentence in its current form. The border between Greece and RoM is an arbitrarily drawn line by contemporary statesmen and politicians and does not take history into account. Whether or not ancient Macedon extended on either side of this arbitrary border is irrelevant. Also, saying "centered" is not the same as saying "located entirely within", and leaves open the possibility of extending elsewhere, and is moreover in keeping with the notion that the boundaries of ancient kingdoms were fuzzy in the first place. As for kingdom vs. state, while I do think that kingdom is more precise, in this instance it would be more appropriate to mention it as a state, because the goal of this sentence is to convey the notion that Macedon's power at its zenith was supreme over all other states. Mentioning it as "most powerful kingdom" leaves open the possibility that there existed other states that weren't kingdoms that were potentially more powerful. That is not the case, as Macedon was the most powerful state of its day, regardless of the type of government. Besides, it is quite obvious that it was a kingdom, as that is repeated throughout the article. There's really no need to mention it as a kingdom every single time. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, a Wikiproject banner does not propose ownership of the article to that Wiki Project. It is just a mere banner that states that "this" article falls under the scope of that Wiki Project. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good comments, Tsourkpk. I'll be changing "Greek history" to "world history" and removing the banner then. This should allay any fears Illidio has. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say that what drives my comments is not fear, but a desire for accuracy and clarity. Is following these principles that I conclude that the opening sentence is misleading, since it implies that Macedon was part of Ancient Greece. Macedon was unlike an ancient Greek state (I've named and quoted several references to support it). By using both means of describing the territory I think we achieve both accuracy and clarity (there is no way one would confuse them with today's states, especially when the names are different). If the concern is elegance, I must say that is secondary! We should agree first on the content (3rdAlcove and myself both agreed on the description using current sates) and I am sure we will come up with an elegant way of presenting it. Content first and foremost! <br\ >

Also, what is not only misleading but incorrect is the "country" attribute in the "Infobox former country" being "Greece".Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You say the Macedonians were unlike Greeks as if they were aliens from outer space or something. While there were differences to be sure, they also had much in common. Like you, I could quote numerous sources, as well as countless quotes from ancient sources to that effect. Macedonian kings were allowed to participate in the Olympic games, for one. The ancient Macedonian language was related to Greek (the debate concerns only the degree of relatedness). The fact that ancient Macedon was a kingdom does not mean it was unlike any other Greek states, because most Greek states were in fact kingdoms before adopting other systems of government. Being on the fringes of the Greek world, the Macedonians simply retained the original system of government, and thus they were regarded as "backward" by the Greeks of the south. The neighboring Molossians of Epirus, undeniably Greeks, had a very similar regal system. Moreover, the coasts were heavily colonized by Greeks from the south, and by the 5th century BC the Attic dialect was universally used throughout. I could go on and on, and we've been there before. Thus, there is nothing inaccurate with saying the kingdom was centered in the northernmost part of ancient Greece, because that area was culturally part of the Greek world in many ways. Ancient Greece is first and foremost a culturally defined region (in contrast to modern states, which are defined by rigid political boundaries), and ancient Macedon unquestionably falls in the cultural region that was ancient Greece. The statement is moreover well-sourced. It's as if you're saying the scholars who contribute to Britannica have no idea what they are talking about and you somehow know better. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"in the northern-most part" doesn't even necessarily imply that it was a part of it, rather that it lay on its fringe (though it most obviously was later on, like Tsourkpk said). Greek history -> world history. "former country: Greece" was removed from infobox since it'd be anachronistic anyway. What else? Your desire for accuracy and clarity must be fulfilled now, I suppose? What modern states it covered could go in a note, perhaps. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to insist since this is obvious: "in the northern-most part of ancient Greece" does imply that Macedonia was within the limits (the north limit) of ancient Greece which is, at the very least, controversial. So why not say: "was the name of a kingdom located north of ancient Greece" (with a note presenting exactly where is located, using today's countries, for example)? I would also ask, why not quote World Encyclopedia (2005): "Macedon Ancient country in se Europe, roughly corresponding to present-day Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, and Bulgarian Macedonia."? Isn't this simple and elegant? Isn't clear?<br\ >

Believe me, I hate to do this, but again I must point my finger to Tsourkpk, and ask why did you change something against our apparent consensus? "Greek history" should be replaced by "world history". For someone that easily jumps out to call "nationalist" and "POV pushing" to everyone that has a different opinion, you simply do not set a good example, Tsourkpk!Ilidio.martins (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, even if it does imply that, it's not controversial at all as far as "cultural sphere" goes (especially after a period). In any case, simply world history is good enough for me. "World Encyclopedia" seems to use the present-day definition and ("roughly") project it into the past (any part of Bulgaria would have been included after the expansion by Philip II, most likely). If you really insist on including modern countries, then my wording above ("centered in present-day Greek Macedonia and extending west to Albania and north to the Republic of Macedonia") should be fine. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, that sounds fine to me. May I go ahead and enact these changes (including deleting "Greek and" from "Greek and world history"?129.112.109.252 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at History of Greece, the Hellenistic period is listed as one of the main periods. It is universally acknowledged as a period of both world history and Greek history. While I hate to backtrack on our consensus, this seems more accurate to me. As for the lead sentence, I still think it doesn't make sense to describe the location in terms of modern states and borders. The borders of ancient Macedon were not only fuzzy, but also changed with time. Which time period are would we be talking about? The founding of the kingdom? The time of Alexander I? Before the ascent of Philip II? The death of Philip and the ascent of Alexander? After the death of Alexander? You see the problem with this. Which modern countries we include depends on which time period we're looking at. Saying something along the lines of "centered in present-day Greek Macedonia and extending west to Albania and north to the Republic of Macedonia" creates the impression that those were its borders for all time, which is certainly not the case. It's also vague, since its not clear how much of the Republic of Macedonia or Albania it includes. All of it? Most of it? Just a tiny little bit. That's the problem with getting involved with modern borders. By contrast, saying "Centered in the northernmost part of ancient Greece" resolves this problem. Doubtless this is why Britannica chose it. This is neutral and avoids modern politics, as ancient Greece≠modern Greece. Ancient Greece was first and foremost a culturally defined region, and Macedon certainly falls into that cultural region, as I've explained previously. Therefore there is nothing inherently inaccurate about the statement. Saying "north of ancient Greece" automatically implies that MAcedon was entirely outside the zone of Greek cultural influence (such as Illyria or Thrace), which is not true. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it (implemented the parenthesis too). Hope you find it ok, now. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an ultimate compromise, I would suggest it would be ok with "World history" only (even though I'm still not happy with that), but that we keep the lead sentence as is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Though, perhaps mentioning what modern states it roughly corresponds to, gives the reader a general idea. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is claimed by several experts on the subject that Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks have different origins, while others say the former was related to the latter. I agree that is apparent that ancient Macedonians became closer to ancient Greeks, but that is also not the same as to say that they where substantially different? <br\ >

I do not expect to reach consensus over a subject debated by scholars. I expect, tough, not to show certainty where it does not exist really. I think we can reach a middle ground where both perspectives are represented.Ilidio.martins (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Tsourkpk simply said that Macedon was culturally related, especially in later times. In any case, this is the article on "Macedon", not "Ancient Macedonians" (that article has its fair share of problems, a merging like the one proposed in that talk page might be a solution in the long run), so don't get put off by the use of "northernmost part of ancient Greece". So, "Greek history" is removed, what else? 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilidio, I don't see you addressing either the compromise I suggested or any of my previous points as to why the lead sentence should be left as is. As far as I know, there is no debate that they were culturally related to each other, forget "origins". The only debate concerns the degree of relatedness. Thus, there is nothing inaccurate or misleading about the lead sentence in its current form, since "ancient Greece" is a cultural term and has nothing to do with origins. The points you raise about origins are valid, but they are discussed, and belong, in the article on ancient Macedonians, not here. This is the article on the ancient kingdom of Macedon, and the debate here strictly concerns how to describe location. Since as I've said previously, its borders were vague and fluctuated with time, it doesn't make sense to describe it in terms of modern state boundaries. I don't see you addressing my points above, so I don't know if there is much left to discuss. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All of Illidio's concerns seem to have been allayed. Well, if he insists on using modern states, we can adopt the solution offered above. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But who makes, disseminates and practices culture? People! If the ancient Macedonians where different from ancient Greeks, there is no doubt that also their culture. Once that is controversial, that means that the treatment of ancient Macedonians and obviously their country, Macedon, as of only ancient Greek culture is inaccurate or at least not representative of Macedon's people, history and culture as whole. This is the reason why I am opposed to use ancient Greece in the short definition of Macedon. All my other concerns were adressed. Thank you. <br\ >

Please expand on the possibility of merger. How likely is that. Are we working on a page that will be completely redone?Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you say different as if they were aliens from outer space. You completely ignore that they also had much in common, particularly culturally. In fact, they had much more in common than otherwise. They even worshipped the same gods. Thus, because they were similar, ancient Macedon falls into the zone of ancient Greek culture. A group does not have to be identical to, let's say Athenians, in order to be included under the umbrella term "ancient Greece". The Epirots were also "different", but because they had much in common, they are also included under "ancient Greece". As for a merger, there is zero possibility of that. It was discussed previously and got nowhere. The consensus was to keep the articles separate, and I see little possibility of that changing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is logically possible to insist on mentioning modern states in the intro, when the same user insisted on removing the WP:GREECE (a modern state) tag. We have to be consistent here. If we only include it under Wikiproject Classical Greece, then we only mention classical Greece in the intro. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's be logical: one thing has nothing to do with the other. The present states only offer a clear way of defining territory. The tags imply association a different levels.Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you say "different" as if they were aliens from outer space. You completely ignore that they also had much in common, particularly culturally. In fact, they had much more in common than otherwise. They even worshipped the same gods. Thus, because they were similar, ancient Macedon falls into the zone of ancient Greek culture. A group does not have to be identical to, let's say Athenians, in order to be included under the umbrella term "ancient Greece". The Epirots were also "different", but because they had much in common, they are also included under "ancient Greece". As for a merger, there is zero possibility of that. It was discussed previously and got nowhere. The consensus was to keep the articles separate, and I see little possibility of that changing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already mentioned why it is inappropriate to mention modern states (namely, the fact that Macedon's border changed with time, so which states we include depends on which time period we're looking at). However, you completely ignore my points and just keep on repeating yourself. Insistence is not an argument. I have not heard any convincing arguments as to why the lead sentence should be changed to include modern states (particularly as it represents the current consensus). I'm therefore starting to get the impression that this debate is going nowhere and we are going to have to agree to disagree. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one practicing insistence and stubbornness and because of that sabotaging the whole conversation. Please look at point A. on top of this topic.129.112.109.250 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained to you why mentioning modern countries is inappropriate and why the lead sentence in its current form is both more accurate and more appropriate. But you ignore my points instead of addressing them. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to enter into this debate, as I don't really see any real compromise being possible, as long as people are involved that see the discussion under any sort of nationalistic point and IMHO the best thing for this debate would be to remove any Greek or Macedonian nationalist from it and let people without any emotional baggage discuss it. <br\> But now my rant is over and let me hopefully add something constructive.<br\> I'm not really too up-do date with the Macedonia issue and have 2 exams coming up this week, so I don't have the time to go to the library and look it up. So I just going to base my comments on the text that is available in the article.<br\> First thing to mention here is that the text under dispute is not found anywhere in the main body, where it should be first, before being entered into the lead section.<br\> I also want to add that I think it's a good idea to add modern boundaries (state regions or whatever), as this gives a better understanding on where the ancient state was located.<br\> When I look at 1.2 Atticisation and expansion I see that ancient Macedon was more or less located in the modern Greek province of Macedonia for the first 300 or 400 years of its existence (from the 8th to the 5th/early 4th century). Only then did it expand for around 70/80 years and collapsed again until it became a Roman province. (I can't see anything about the size after Alexander and before the Roman conquest. If anyone can find anything about this, it would be helpful).<br\> Seeing this to me would suggest that for most of its time, Macedon was located in the modern Greek province of Macedonia, not in RoM or Albania or elsewhere. Its expansion later on is important, but only a small part in its history.<br\> I would suggest the following text:

Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of a kingdom, located in the modern Greek province of Macedonia. It was bordered by the ancient kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east. For a brief period in time it expanded beyond its heartland and became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East after Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history.

I'm open to correction, if the text in 1.2 Atticisation and expansion is not correct. If this is the case, we should however discussing changing this text first, before changing the lead section. --Mdebets (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The template of Wikiproject Greece lists the article within the scope of this wikiproject. Its use doesn't imply any nationalistic view and it cannot be replaced.... This is ridiculous. - Sthenel (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree about that. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just responding to Tsourkpk's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

• I don't see a problem including this in WP:GREECE: ancient Macedon, whatever its ethnic origins, was a major part of Greek history in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, and belonged to Greece from that point on.
• on the "Hellenistic period of..." question, why not just rephrase as "Hellenistic period of history", or "Hellenistic period"? Or explore other wordings entirely. For example, we might say that Alexander's conquests spread Greek culture and Greek rule over the Near East, and began the Hellenistic era.
• I don't have a real problem with using modern political boundaries to tell the reader where ancient Macedon was, but I have no objection to saying that Macedon was in the northernmost part of ancient Greece (or whatever the wording is). This fight seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP:GREECE should be included, but for other reasons. Your reason is the point for the inclusion in WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. It should be included in WP:GREECE, because it lays in parts of modern Greece --Mdebets (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(un)"This fight seems like a tempest in a teapot to me." Yes, thank you, that's exactly what it is! Still, attempts at rewording what seems POV to new users (who read the article with a fresh eye) is in good faith!

As for the "ancient Greece" part, I personally wouldn't mind adding the current borders to it, as well (though Tsourkpk makes some good points) since it gives readers a better idea of its location. Akhilleus' description is still accurate, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Borza places it well, when discusses how previous work of Hammond (on Epirus) influences is perspectives on the geography of the Macedon (according to Borza emphasizing a Balkan perspective of the territory). Borza defines his own work as oriented towards more "on central areas and on the region east of the Axios" (in p28 of In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon, Borza, E. N.). Nevertheless, the most general and clear affirmation about the Macedon territory is: "At its zenith Macedonian influence prevailed in an area that includes virtually all of modern Greek Macedonia and much of Yugoslav Macedonia, including territory not drained by the Haliacmon-Axios. Macedon must then be defined as the Balkan region where Macedonians ruled." (p.29). I bring your attention to the importance of the word prevailed in this sentence.<br\ >

In what relates to territory it's most intuitive to look at maps. Those that UT Austin provides online (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html) are accessible to all of us involved in the discussion. The maps elaborated under study on an "ancient Greek" dimension show clearly that the Macedon land of the time (for example at 450BC) is not enclosed by today's Greek Macedonia. That becomes more evident on those elaborated under a Balkan historical perspective (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/macedonia_1849.jpg).<br\ >

It's clear to me that accounts of Macedonia throughout the ages by different authors are not very harmonious and, sometimes, even contradicting. It's hard to know exactly the contributions of "ancient Greek" and "ancient Balkan" influence on their prodigious son, the Macedon. What I think is clear is that Macedonian land and history feeds from both and that should be apparent in this article.Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Btw, the map of the ancient kingdom, before the expansion under Philip II, as shown on the website you posted seems to back up the wording I offered above ("roughly centered in what is today Greek Macedonia and extending west to Albania and north to the Republic of Macedonia"). If the rest (since you already accepted it) of the users agree, we can go with that and be done with it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would make some small changes to your wording to "roughly centered in what is today Greek Macedonia with small extensions west to Albania and north to the Republic of Macedonia". Just too make it clear that the main part was really in today's Greek Macedonia and the parts in Albania and RoM were really only some small extensions, but nothing big. Your wording could be misinterpreted as large parts of ancient Macedon being in todays Albania and RoM, what really wasn't the case. --Mdebets (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Least of my worries ("extending partly" would be even better btw). ;) Let's see if Ilidio agrees. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"extending partly" it's fine!Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Mdebets relative to the point that the main text should be changed accordingly. So, "approximately corresponding to the province of Macedonia of modern Greece" in "Atticisation and expansion" could be replaced by a similar version of the sentence in the introduction. Again, although I do not feel strongly about this change, I do agree that will bring more coherence to the article.Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I still object to that, because for most of its history, Macedon was located entirely within the Greek province of Macedonia, as Mdebets correctly pointed out. If we are to include modern borders, we should stick with that. That's why I prefer the lead sentence in its current form. It circumvents the whole controversy over which time period to chose. "Extending partly" will not do, as it it way to vague. what's partly? Half? Less than half? Most? A little bit? --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other map of ancient Macedon (preferable online) that goes back before the 431 BC one shown above? As far as I can see, this map fits to the description as mainly Greek Macedonia plus a little bit on the side. If you have any older map that show that this little bit on the side was only added a few years before 430 BC, I'd be fairly happy to accept a different wording.

I'm not too happy with the "extending partly" bit, as it is a little bit too vague for my liking, but I would accept it unless someone comes up with a different wording that makes it more clear and don't sound too awkward. I think the last wording shows that it was mainly located in modern Greece, but also had some small parts in neihgbouring countries. --Mdebets (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/athenian_empire_450.jpgIlidio.martins (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd_1911/shepherd-c-012.jpg Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the maps. The second one is a little bit vague on the borders. This map with borders would be optimal. The first one however shows (together with 1.2 Atticisation and expansion) that this border probably was the border of Macedon for some time (at least as far as borders went at that time). So I would see no reason why not to go with the last wording. --Mdebets (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The second map shows "Macedonia" extending well into Bulgaria. Since there is no way that Macedon extended that far as early as 550 BC, it can only mean "Macedonia" in the sense of the modern, geographical sense of the region of Macedonia. Both maps are also quite dated, almost 100 years old. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Tsourkpk, your insistence is becoming really non-productive. As explained and demonstrated previously, the exact borders of ancient Macedonia are not an unanimous theme among experts (depending on their perspective, for example). Even using maps from scholars that see Macedon in the context of ancient Greece, one can readily observe that present day Greek Macedonia does not enclose ancient Macedonia. Given the controversy and the uncertainty, all that is being asked is to achieve a balance, an equilibrium, a compromise. Please be sensible.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that most experts do not agree on the exact borders of Macedon is all the more reason to leave the opening sentence as is and not describe it in terms of modern borders. Even so, the map you have provided shows that the portion of Macedon that lies outside of Greece is minimal. I don't see how mentioning irrelevant modern states, a tiny portion of whose territory happens, by an accident of history, to include a portion of ancient Macedon. Unless of course you are using geography to somehow imply that these states are somehow related to Macedon, which is certainly not the case. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well "partly" implies that. It corresponded to central Greek Macedonia, as well. Not -all- of it. Hmm? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, "partly" is far too vague. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that the map in the infobox gives a pretty good (well roughly) approximation of it, at least, and leave it at that? Comments? 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The map in the infobox is fine, except A) it doesn't show modern boundaries or B) specify the time period it covers. Thus my argument to leave the lead sentence as is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What about building an anachronistic map on top of a map with the current borders. Many other "empire" pages have it, so why not the Macedon? The only problem that I foresee is to reach an agreement about which maps to use as source. If that's the case why not use the map of the first figure to make a map of the Macedon on top of the current country limits?129.112.109.251 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I will be willing to do it.Ilidio.martins (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah man, I could even tell what the current borders are, going by the Prespa lakes. ;) If you can do it, go ahead. The easier way would be to find an empty map showing the borders of the area THEN impose the map we have in the infobox on them. Why do you care so much about the current borders, anyway? Tsourkpk has a point when he says that they are kinda arbitrary. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why the obsession with modern borders? To show that at least some tiny bit of Macedon lay within RoM? So what? Why is that of any importance? The only people who I think would care about such things are nationalists from RoM. This is not what wikipedia is about. The map in the infobox is just fine, as is the intro. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Forget the map.<br\ >

I would remind everyone that per above we agreed (3 out of 4) to describe the territory as suggested by 3rdAlcove.129.112.109.250 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Again, Tsourkpk, you are jumping to conclusions. The behavior that you displayed during this discussion easily falls under non-constructive. I would suggest you to tone down your discourse.Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the only one who is insisting on changing the lead sentence is you, Ilidio. The other users are fine with leaving it as is. It represents the consensus for several years now. The only reason this debate is still on-going is because of you. So if anyone is behaving "non-constructively", it's you. And please do not patronize me like that. The article is perfectly fine as is. I just don't see the value of mentioning modern states, maybe 1-2% of whose territory, may include ancient Macedon, in the lead sentence. Everyone is fine with the lead sentence as is. If you insist on changing it, then burden is on you to provide compelling arguments as to why it needs to be changed. So far as I can tell, I have yet to hear any such arguments (platitudes about "balance" notwithstanding). --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsourkpk's got a point. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the maps again and the two maps that are further down in the article. It seems the 450 BC map linked above, looks like the 336 BC map in the article. The 431 BC map in the article on the other hand looks much smaller and has Macedon only in modern Greece. I would therefore suggest to leave the lead article like it is (only change the infobox, to include from what time the borders are. --Mdebets (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Just because something has been stable for a while it does not mean that it is correct or that displays fair and balanced perspective. This is definitely not the way Wikipedia works.<br\ >

2. Relative to the description of the territory, the various periods of the Macedon history need to be considered: before, during and after expansion. As well as different historical perspectives (as I explained above).<br\ >

3. What is the source of the maps used here in the article?129.112.109.253 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)<br\ >

Got the answer to point 3. Although the author (E. Levy) seems to be an expert on the field, these maps do not represent the most consensual view of Macedonia throughout the ages. I can always scan several maps from different authors that demonstrate it. Another critic to the maps (and this is just a question of presentation) is the fact that they are in French (is there even an English version of this?).Ilidio.martins (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is a summation @ (2). About (1), ALL modern states (even the one(s) that include a part of what was ancient M.) are irrelevant but I honestly don't have a problem with using modern geographical terms to give readers an idea, though the map might cover that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is no mystery as to what the ancient Macedonian Kingdom's borders were and throughmost of its existance it was well within what is now Greek territory. It actually was mostly only a small part of current Greek Macedonia. If, for some political reasons you insist on mentioning that at some time part of what is now FYROM was Macedonian land it can be done if we just add the correct date. But then, why not also adding any country (up to India) that was incorporated into Macedonia? And of course many questions should then be posed and answered... "Should we consider semi autonomous states under Macedonian rule Macedonia or not? (like Paeonia for example)", "Should we consider the Empires of the Diadochi Macedonia or not?" etc. But in strict terms of archaeology and history, if we are talking about Macedonia before Phillip II then the land is very small and actually only a small part of what is called Greek Macedonia nowadays...

GK1973 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing.

I would like to inquire the opinion of the curators of this article about it's use of references. I think referencing is scarce and of dubious quality/pertinence in some cases. As a primer I would point to the previous discussion topic where we mentioned several references that seemed to bring some deepness and range to the debate.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not too many footnotes used, that's true. What do you propose? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedon's Territory

This section is a spin-off from Talk:Macedon#Enough_already.

I collected material supporting my claims in User_talk:Ilidio.martins#Macedon:_Literature_Quotes_and_Maps. I am sure these are from reliable sources and I hope they are "compelling" enough to convince you that my claims are reasonable. In short, I suggest to describe more clearly the territory of Macedon (for example, using today's territorial referencials). Such will improve the article, lending it more objectiveness and clarity (in what is a much debated and controversial subject).<br\ > Relative to the maps used in the article, I think they are not adequate due to language discrepancies (some in French) and conflicting content. The last point is quite important and I shall substantiate it. Several sources display Macedon territory "before Philip II"(359BC) being much larger than the area shown in [9]. For example, and in addition to the materials in my talk page, the map in pages 72-73 of 'The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece' (Penguin 1996)[10] by R. Morkot (a reference that seems to be trusted by some of the participants in the discussion) shows a map of Macedonia c. 512-490BC that covers a greater area than is apparent from the article at this point. Based on these grounds I request a reassessment of the maps used in the article (particularly the ones in French, that, coincidently, seem to be less consensual). Also, it would be good to know which period the map in the infobox corresponds to.Ilidio.martins (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a few points. The one that mentions regions such as "Moesia Inferior" and "Moesia Superior" seems to be based on the later, Roman designations. One is of the empire at its full extent (no argument about adding India, correct?). The others seem to support my wording offered above and I'll repeat that, personally, I'm indifferent to using or not modern territories -but you'll have to convince the other users. However, it honestly seems like the other users are not as clueless as you might think in your attempt to 'convince' them one way or another. Maybe they simply disagree with you? Maybe they are being neutral (and accurate) in the same way you think you are? Is a fuss being made about nothing? 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And those claims (from other users) are based on what? Are we subduing history to an opinion poll?<br\ > Most of the argumentation is opinionative in nature. If they are not clueless they should demonstrate it.Ilidio.martins (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the procedures but I believe you can make a "Request for Comment" (at least you'll get to hear more opinions that way). You should ask an admin, preferably. Dbachmann, who seems to also have experience with this subject (a plus), as far as I can tell -based on this talk page and his general contributions-, would be a good choice. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

all I can say, Ilidio.martins, if you come up with a better map, all referenced to sources like the Penguin atlas, we'll be sure to thank you. At present, the one we show seems to be the best one we have. dab (𒁳) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand Ilidio's points. The intro- whilst very good- does make an assumption by stating that Macedonia was in northern part of Ancient Greece. That assumption is that Ancient Macedonians were originally Greek. This is a big assumption, and although many lay people think such as connection is natural, the matter is far more contentious. I suppose the matter can be viewed either way. We have to clarify: what defines the "ancient greek world" ? If we are talking about linguistics and ethnographics, then many scholars beleive that macedonians were more Thracian, etc ( i will not re-open the whole debate).Are we talking pre- or post- Phillip and after Macedonia conquered Greece? If we define Ancient Greece as the collection of city-states, then macedonia was rather seperate.

Anyway, i found this map by Shepherd. It is in English, for a start Hxseek (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And that map looks just like every other one that Ilidio doesn't seem to like. Also, no, the wording doesn't exactly make that assumption as I stated above but then again I'm not exactly looking for POV in every simple statement. Hell, there's a whole article on wiki discussing what XMK might have been... In any case, I offered a solution using modern boundaries above; Ilidio liked it, others not so much. If you think there's a solution that'd please everyone, please please tell us so we can get over this, already. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this map depicts that Ancient Macedon actually included regions of Modern RoM up to lake Prespa, whereas the current map lmits it more southward.

I have been rather absent from the last few debates, but if your solution (in modern terms) was something like 'Ancient Macedon was situated in what is present day Greek macedonia and southern RoM', then i would subsribe to such a description. Hxseek (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much; it simply included Albania as well (westernmost part). Some people felt that modern states shouldn't be mentioned at all. Too much fuss over nothing, generally. If someone can come up with an elegant solution acceptable by all... 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i don;t see the big deal. It is just an easy way to describe the extent of its original territory. Hxseek (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite that simple. The main problem is that the sources are not in agreement on the borders of Macedon, and the concept of "borders" in ancient times needs to be treated with caution. Borders back then were far more vague than they are now. Another problem is that the extent of Macedon with respect to modern borders depends on which time period we're looking at. If we look at the period before 359 BC, Macedon was located entirely within the modern Greek province of Macedonia. If we look at the period at the death of Philip II and the ascent of Alexander, it included parts of RoM, Albania and Bulgaria, as well as maybe Turkey. That's the main problem I have. If we state "Macedon stretched over country X Y and Z", that would imply that it did so for all time, which is not true. The lead sentence in its current form neatly circumvents this problem. Saying that Macedon was "centered" in the northernmost part of ancient Greece leaves open the possibility that parts of it were outside of the ancient Greek cultural area and does not at all imply that the Macedonians were identical to Greeks. Nevertheless, they had enough in common culturally speaking to be included in the general area of "ancient Greece", which was an area primarily defined by a common culture. They spoke a related language (the debate concerns the degree of relatedness only), worshiped the same gods, participated in the Olympic games and maintained the old regal system that was used throughout Greece in earlier ages. These similarities more than justify the current description of Macedon as "centered in the northernmost part of ancient Greece", while leaving the precise borders deliberately vague. As far as the maps, those provided by Ilidio are rather dated, and the current ones are based on more recent sources as well as being more visually pleasing. They may be in French, but they're the best we have for now. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I find that with such historical maps of this region, often constructed maps are the best, becuase 'published' maps often miss the details. Hxseek (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is several reasons why the current status does not work (some exactly because of arguments used by Tsourpk):<br\ >

1. It's inaccurate. Centered during which period? If the territory changes so it's center. Also the geographical center is sometimes meaningless;<br\ >

2. The maps used to illustrate the territory are an exception and are not consensual with related literature (I am working on this);<br\ >

3. "northernmost part of ancient Greece" implies that Ancient Macedon was part of Ancient Greece. I think we can at least agree that is debatable. The degree of Ancient Greek influence will also depend to which period we refer to.<br\ >

It's more objective to describe the area in current terms (based on a consensual map) and mention, that is before the expansion initiated by Philip II. As alternatives we can also use it's location in the context of the Balkans#Balkan_Peninsula. And even using rivers as a reference (eg. sorrounding the Vardar-Axios and Haliacmon). Any of these (or their combination) is based on a purely geographical reference, devoiced of political charge. Please let's not concern as much with elegance as with content, at this point. Once we agree with the later we will deal with the former.

129.112.109.253 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

People... the Macedonian borders did not really change. What changed was the borders of the annexed or tributary states under Macedonian rule. It is wrong to say that in the borders of Phillip's Macedonia Paeonia, for example, is included. We can see it included in maps that try to show us the dependencies of Macedonia but it was not Macedonia. The same applies to Alexander's conquests. Although we see maps of Macedonia reaching India and Libya, these lands were not Macedonia but dependencies, conquered lands, annexed or semi independent. If we wish to define Macedonia, we have to seek where the Macedonian (Argeade, Mygdonians, Lyncestians etc)tribes dwelled and choose to either count their total area as (ancient) Macedonia or just count the land of the Argeade (Strabo explicitely states that the Argeades were a whole people and not just the royal family), who were the ones to unite the Macedonians under one rule. Whichever method we use, the Macedonian lands cannot encompass Paeonia, Epirus, Dardania, Thessalia, Chalcidice or Thrace just because these are areas later conquered by Amyntas, Phillip or Alexander nor because the Romans, the Byzantines or anybody else chose to form provinces bearing that name. I also find the introduction lacking and believe that it should determine its purpose, which is to introduce an article about the Macedonian Kingdom as was recognized by the Greeks and the barbarians alike. If this is the purpose of the article (which I find appropriate), then we should concentrate on the Argead Kingdom alone mentioning the existance of neighboring Macedonian tribes that although they kept their independence (for example during Alexander I's reign) and ties with the Argeads, they nonetheless were not what the ancients called "The Macedonian Kingdom". In this case the borders can be given if not in strict geographical terms (modern methodology) then by the mentioning of the neighboring tribes / states (ancient methodology, more appropriate here since a strict geographical determination cannot be given). Of course to help readers an approximate area should be given, a matter of no real difficulty, if we first agree on what is the Macedonian Kingdom we are writing about in this article...

GK1973 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand how can you be so sure about the ethnographics and demographics of the ancient Macedonian. Can you backup you arguments with references?

I agree that we should reach a consensus about what we are describing first. I believe the article is about ancient Macedonia and the Macedonian Empire. Due to the dynamical character of the Macedon's people and lands is hard to find a good criterion to determine what is Macedon itself. Seems to be accepted to describe the territory before Philip II expansion. In several maps that I've looked the territory marked as "Macedonia" does not change significantly from 450BC to 359BC. The maps in my talk page and in the "Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece" are in good agreement with each other and with that view. I do not mind to follow a different criterion to determine what is Macedonian territory, but I would like to be confident that is better than what "experts" used so far.129.112.109.251 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all I would appreciate some name or nick, so that I do not have to talk to an IP number. As to the questions now.

We can be very positive as to the ethnography of the ancient Macedonians if we use the existing sources. Strabo, Herodot, Thucidydes, there are many references as to the ethnography of the Macedonians, which were the Macedonian tribes, where they lived etc. We also have literary evidence as to who was not Macedonian as well as where they resided. Archaeology also serves as a proof. So, I do not see the problem you are referring to. If we conclude what we want to describe in this article I will bring forward direct texts. So the answer is yes,I can produce the needed texts. Is there any objection as to the existence of independent Macedonian tribes as the exact parallel of the Boeotian, Achaean, Acarnanian, Thessalian even Attic (before Theseus)political entities?

So if we choose to refer to all Macedonians as a whole, we will have to first state that at first the Macedonian tribes were a number of independent kingdoms, the Argeads being the most prominent, the one that the ancient Greeks referred to when they talked about Macedonia. So, even though Macedonia was not the only Macedonian Kingdom, it actually was what the Greeks called Macedonia. See the problem here? Macedonia was the name of the Argead Kingdom of Macedonia, although there were other kingdoms made up of macedonian populations which, though, had other names (their tribal names). This kingdom later subjugated the rest of the Macedonians (as did the Thebans with the rest of the Boeotian cities, the Athenians with the rest of the Attic penninsula etc.). So, as I see it, here we are only talking about Argead Macedonia, also known as the Macedonian Kingdom or Macedon, the kingdom which later on subjugated the rest of the Macedonian tribes and extended its rule unto Istros (Danube) and India. I know it is a little peculiar when one encounters this for the first time, but a little discussion and looking up will make it clear. In conclusion, Macedonia had two meanings in the antiquity. The first was the kingdom of (the Argead) Macedonia and the other was the name given to the total area where the Macedonian tribes dwelt

(So, that there are no political questions, I am of the opinion that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, but in this article our job is to write about their Kingdom and their Greekness or not is of little importance at the moment)

GK1973 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The parallel of the Athenians may serve as a good example. The word Athens is plural although few know of this. The name of Athens in Greek was not Athina but Athinai, which meant "many Athinas". Although the city of Athens existed, it was the sum of many ancient independent settlements. And of course an Athenian citizen was not only the one who lived in Athens but he also who lived in the other Demes. Peiraius and Acharnes for example had populations very close to the population of the city of Athens, they also were cities themselves with walls, amphitheatres etc. And of course there were many more walled settlements of various sizes. So, should we comment on the history of Athens before Theseus (the hero who brought all Attica together under one King), we would not talk about Eleusis or Acharnes but only of the people around the city of Athens. This is exactly what happened in Macedonia.

GK1973 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer (and patience), your point is clearer now!<br\ >

Regarding what tribes one should consider as Macedonians, I would say that we should be inclusive. For several reasons: 1. Taken that different tribes had contributions to Macedon's history and people, I think is hard to determine what is insignificant enough (to not consider them Macedonians); 2. I do not believe that the question of the origins of the Argead dynasty is settled (is there a consensus among "experts" that I am not aware of? If yes, could you reproduce it?). 3. A kingdom represents rulers and populations under their rule.<br\ >

My apologies for not noticing that I was not logged in while signing the former comment.<br\ >

Ilidio.martins (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everybody that this article is about the Argead-ruled state of Macedon, not the Ancient Macedonians in general. In this article we should focus on the state. The info about the various tribes really belongs in Ancient Macedonians. As far as I can tell, most sources are in agreement that the Argead kingdom was restricted to Lower Macedonia and specifically the Haliakmon-Axios area until the 4th century BC. They were in alliance with the tribes of Upper Macedonia to the west, but this area did not come under Argead rule until Philip's immediate predecessors. With this in mind, the current maps in make sense. Older maps might not make the distinction between areas under Argead rule and tribal areas in alliance but not under direct Argead rule, which is why they show Macedon as being much greater than the current maps. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, but I would like to point that the title of the article is Macedon (or Macedonia), not Argead Dynasty. We also need to take into account the controversial/debated aspect of certain claims.

I will quote, yet another, well established and encyclopedic-type source. In "The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World", Macedonia is defined as following: "Macedonia links the Balkans and the Greek peninsula. Four important routes converge on the Macedonian plain. Hesod considered the 'Macedones' to be an outlying branch of the Greek-speaking tribes, with distinctive dialect of their own. He gave their habitat 'Pieria and Olympus'. A new dinasty, the Temenids, ruling the Macedonians, founded their capital at Aegae c. 650 BC, and thereafter gained control of the coastal plain as far as the Axius. The Persian occupation of Macedonia 512-479 BC brought benefits. Xerxes gave Alexander I control over western and upper Macedonia; and after Xerxes' flight Alexander gained territory west of the Strymon."

The maps in French (based on E. Levy, 1995) have several problems. They are conflict with the map in the infobox and with the 'The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece' (Morkot, 1996). All the sources (in the form of maps or quotes) that I've used so far seem to be consensual and are not in agreement with the maps from Levy 1995.129.112.109.251 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Tsourkpk on this. I also think that this particular article has to do with the Argead tribe (and not the Argead dynasty, Ilidio, this is another story for another article), which later united or conquered the rest of the Macedonian tribes on its way to hegemony and excellence. It is not about all Macedonians. But I also have to point out that at least since the time of Phillip II, the other Macedonian houses (tribes, ex kingdoms etc) played a major role that could be considered really important, agreeing here with Ilidio. In my opinion, we should clearly state that it was the Argead House (tribe) that was at first called Macedonia by the rest of the Greeks, an independent kingdom, and take its territory as the craddle of the kingdom of Macedon. Then we should mention that union of the Macedonian tribes finally was achieved and that from this point on the territory of the Macedonian kingdom also included these areas as well. But here is where we should place the limit as to where the actual Macedonian kingdom stretched to. All other dominions, regarless of how close they were to Macedonia culturally or geographically cannot be included in the region, although they could / should be mentioned as dominions. These were Macedonian lands only in terms of conquest and political control.

To clarify that the Argeads were not just the Temenid rulers of the Macedonians but a tribe in itself I will give you this extract.

" But of all these tribes the Argeadae, as they are called, established themselves as masters, and also the Chalcidians of Euboea; for the Chalcidians of Euboea also came over to the country of the Sithones and ..." Strabo, Geography, Book VII, fragment 11. Although Strabo mostly talks about Macedonia as perceived in Roman times he gives a lot of historical evidence as well, that can be used here.

GK1973 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who/what is Ilinden? At times it seems like you are referring to me... if that was the case, you can call me by my user name or just Ilidio.<br\ >

Relative to what is Macedon's territory, I think otherwise and, apparently, so the authors of the sources that I made reference to. I think we should display Macedon as it seems to be the more consensual view among the literature (see materials in User_talk:Ilidio.martins#Macedon.27s_Territory:_Literature_Quotes_and_Maps and the Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece).<br\ >

Ilidio.martins (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the maps you posted are a bit old (~100 years), ilidio. We have learned a LOT about Macedon since then. Thus, if there is disagreement between these maps and others, then it is more likely that it the old maps that are "wrong". --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have the maps from Morkot, 1996 Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, the Brittanica Map, the Shepherd (old) maps, all of them are in agreement and in conflict with the maps based on Levy 1995.Ilidio.martins (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mixup of your name I fixed that!

As far as the origin of the Temenid dynasty (or Argead tribe) is concerned its Argead (= argive, from Argos) origin is not disputed by anyone as far as what the ancients supported to be the truth. For them it was crystal clear that the Argeads were Greeks from Argos (which is of course the meaning of the word Argead). Assumptions that they did not mean the Peloponnesian Argos but Argos Orestikon instead are totally unsupported and have nothing to do with the study of ancient literature. The ancients were clear about this. Keeping in mind that this is not the purpose of this article, I would suggest to write for the Argeads, that "according to ancient literature, they were the descendants of Temenus and originated from the city of Argos in Peloponnesus" This phrasing still leaves space as to other theories but also denotes the certainty of the ancients. But Ildio, in this case, the debate is not about what the ancients believed and claimed but what some modern scholars suggest after taking for granted that the Macedonians are not Greeks, their sole argument being that the ancients were wrong, a very weak argument indeed as to the dispute of the Argead name, the origin of the Macedonians still being another story.

Some sources :

"Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood, and allies and dependants of their kindred, still have their own separate governments. The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos. This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon (indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian Gulf); of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbours of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians. From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia. These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirs--Anthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander's son, was the reigning king."

Thucydides Book VII, ch VIII

“Now you will realize that it is not becoming in you to disregard any of these cities if you will review their conduct in relation to your ancestors; for you will find that each one of them is to be credited with great friendship and important services to your house: Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors; the Thebans honor the founder of your race, both by processionals and by sacrifices, beyond all the other gods;”

Isocrates, to Phillip 5.32

" Now that the men sprung from Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves affirm, is a thing which I can declare of my own knowledge, and which I will hereafter make plainly evident. That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. For when Alexander wished to contend in the games, and had come to Olympia with no other view, the Greeks who were about to run against him would have excluded him from the contest- saying that Greeks only were allowed to contend, and not barbarians. But Alexander proved himself to be an Argive, and was distinctly adjudged a Greek; after which he entered the lists for the foot-race, and was drawn to run in the first pair. Thus was this matter settled."

Herodot Book V

Again, these extraxts are not shown to show the Greekness of the Macedonians but of the fact that the ancients considered the Temenid bloodline Greek Argive.

Ilidio can you tell me what the meaning of the extract you posted is? What controversy is it denoting?

As for your last comment about kingdoms, you are partially right. As is (for example) the case with the British Empire, when describing what the boundaries of Britain are you will of course not say Canada, India and Australia. You will though clearly state that at one time the empire encompassed these regions as well. So, when we will describe the area of the Macedonian Empire we will state that it encompassed each land at its proper date but as far as the initial Macedonia is concerned, what they called Macedonia throughout the Imperial years, this is the lands of the Macedonian tribes.

GK1973 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilidio, what do you mean by "Relative to what is Macedon's territory, I think otherwise and, apparently, so the authors of the sources that I made reference to."? What authors and what sources? And what Macedon? This of Archelaos, of Alexander I, of Perdiccas, of Phillip II, of Alexander the Great, of Perseas?

GK1973 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess these are your sources :

Quotes:

A. World Encyclopedia (2005)[1]: "Macedon Ancient country in se Europe, roughly corresponding to present-day Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, and Bulgarian Macedonia."

Too vague... what Macedonia, at which time period?

B. Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The Emergence of Macedon[2] p28."At its zenith Macedonian influence prevailed in an area that includes virtually all of modern Greek Macedonia and much of Yugoslav Macedonia, including territory not drained by the Haliacmon-Axios. Macedon must then be defined as the Balkan region where Macedonians ruled."

Better, but still according to the Borza's own words "At its zenith...", clearly not proper as to the initial extents of Macedon

C. Grant, M. A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names[3] p367."Macedonia Makedonia The central part of the Balkan peninsula, north of Greece, west of Thrace, and south of Illyrian and the Danubian territories."[4]

Too vague, no value... The Paionians are considered Illyrians, the Dardanians too. Thrace was also a very broad term at the time and of course no mention to Epirus and Thessaly. Again no timeframe too. This could actually mean a much smaller area than you think, thanks to its vagueness...

D. Robert, J. (editor) The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World "Macedonia links the Balkans and the Greek peninsula. Four important routes converge on the Macedonian plain. Hesod considered the 'Macedones' to be an outlying branch of the Greek-speaking tribes, with distinctive dialect of their own. He gave their habitat 'Pieria and Olympus'. A new dinasty, the Temenids, ruling the Macedonians, founded their capital at Aegae c. 650 BC, and thereafter gained control of the coastal plain as far as the Axius. The Persian occupation of Macedonia 512-479 BC brought benefits. Xerxes gave Alexander I control over western and upper Macedonia; and after Xerxes' flight Alexander gained territory west of the Strymon."

This is actually a very small area that although very clumsily and vaguely described corresponds with what I proposed.

So where is your problem? You gave four individual modern sources with four independent descriptions as to what was the Macedonian Kingdom, all of which are vaguely described and real different as to size...

GK1973 (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will leave a comment to your argument about ancient Macedonians to its proper place. On with Macedon for now...<br\ >

It seemed like we where lost in this now "Herculean" discussion, till you came back and placed the right question: "And what Macedon?". <br\ >

I will reply to you what I've tried to say earlier, that was agreed (apparently way before this discussion) that Macedon's territory should be introduced as the Macedon not only before the Empire phase but even before it's Expansion (under Philip II). I think this is debatable, but might the possible compromise. Now, what I am claiming is that the description was made based on a map that is not the most representative of what is described to be Macedon (among the encyclopedic-type literature). The description in dispute should be based on a more consensual source, such as The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece. I also propose to use the maps from this reference to elaborate new maps for the article.Ilidio.martins (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again the solution is easy. No such article would be correct without stating the first steps of the Macedonian Kingdom and of course no such article would be complete without mentioning the conquests of Phillip II, Alexander and the unfortunate demise of the later years. So the question is not really "what Macedon?" but "All Macedon but in what order?" And of course the only coherent answer would be "in chronological order". So, first we state what the area of the kingdom of Perdiccas before the union of the Macedonians under the Argead tribe was while still referring that more Macedonian tribes existed, then we say what the kingdom's extent was with the rest of the Macedonian lands and afterwards we add the dominions of Phillip and Alexander, the formation of the kingdoms of the Diadochs and Epigons, which stopped being part of the Macedonian Kingdom and the final reduce by the Romans...

GK1973 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, how to deal with territory description in the introduction?Ilidio.martins (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction reads :

"Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of a kingdom centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east.[1] For a brief period it became the most powerful state in the ancient Near East after Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history."

My initial proposal would be :

"Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of an ancient kingdom roughly located within the borders of what is nowadays called the Greek district of Central Macedonia. For a brief period, under the rule of Alexander the Great, it became the most powerful state in the ancient world extending its dominion well into India, Libya and as north as the Danube, in many ways consisting a successor to the Achemenid Persian rule. After Alexander the Great's premature death and the absence of a strong heir, rulership of the Asian dominions of the Kingdom of Macedonia was divided among some of his most prominent companions, resulting in long wars that shaped some of the most powerful and well known Empires of the time, culturally charcterized by the spreading of the Hellenic civilization, thus inaugurating what is universally known as the Hellenistic period of world history."

In this text the word "roughly" allows for small areas of the Macedonian kingdom actually being located outside what is "the Greek district of Central Macedonia", whether these lands are in currently Greek or non Greek soil. Furthermore, it does not mention ancient Greece thus making it neutral as to whether these lands were Ancient Greece or not (at leat in the introduction). Another reason for this is that Northern ancient Greece, regardless of what the Macedonianw were, also comprises many lands of nowadays Eastern Macedonia (that were clearly not Macedonian), Byzantium etc.

Moreover, the mention that the Macedonian kingdom actually at a point reached its dominion to the Danube and India, clearly shows that at times (however short), it comprised a huge stretch of lands, the fact that makes us all proud alike.

Additionally, the mention of Hellenic culture is also better describing the cultural role of Macedonia in hellenistic times, since the text does not claim anything about the Greekness of the Macedonians, instead is just telling that the Hellenic culture is what was eventually spread.

More details, such as names of hellenistic kingdoms, companions etc could be added if deemed necessary, but we should be careful as to the amount of information given in the introduction to protect its briefness, as we should.

Further details on the area covered by the Macedonian kingdom should be treated in a separate chapter in the article, so as to have the space needed to well describe its territorial history.

So this is currently my proposal as to how the introduction should sound like. I hope you all find it to your satisfaction to use as a basis for a better introduction.

GK1973 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent start where you dealt with issues that I thought were unsurmountable. Maybe we can make it a bit shorter?

I still have some questions about the territory summary. If the description is to be rough then why not use geological/hydrological references, such as rivers (that intrinsically have a rough quality to it)? If it's going to be precise we shall choose and mention a period (eg. before Philip II expansion) and a reference map and then, yes use current borders. The problem with the current version is that roughly contrasts in precision level with nowadays called the Greek district of Central Macedonia. I know that this is not your intention, but it almost feels like you are trying to squeeze in ancient Macedonia into todays' Central Macedonia district of Greece. At this point, after seeing such a diverse array of perspectives on the matter, I am willing to compromise precision by using terrain references. These are more neutral and often used by historians.

I do not want that these critics cast a shadow on what I think was a great effort from GK1973 part. The introduction as proposed is much improved in terms of content and semantics. Thank you.Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...

the use of "roughly" is unfortunately difficult to omit, since it has the advantage of not being precise and as a result allows for fluctuations in territory. If we try to describe it with geographical terms, these will be definite and as such will correspond to certain time periods only, while this wording "roughly" describes it regardless of timeframe. For more precision I urge you to read further on in my post where I say :

"Further details on the area covered by the Macedonian kingdom should be treated in a separate chapter in the article, so as to have the space needed to well describe its territorial history." Here we should start from the Argead territory and include all expansions as you propose, with the use of geographical terminology or any other terminology that could undisputably be used.

You say :

"you are trying to squeeze in ancient Macedonia into todays' Central Macedonia district of Greece." Actually, this is for the ancients to blame since the kingdom itself was "roughly" squeezed into todays' Central Macedonia district of Greece. It is also a Greek error to think that ancient Macedonia was what is today called Macedonia, a huge mistake too, which would lead to a much more POV wording, since it is usually proposed as "Greek Macedonia" only, a wording I think you would find much more aggressive. It is very hard to argue that the Macedonian dominions were a part of the Macedonian Kingdom since they were tributary states however strong the dependance (as for example Dardania and Paionia). Anatolia, Armenia, Messopotamia, Egypt, etc were never considered part of the Macedonian Kingdom but were considered "under Macedonian rule". We could though add a "before the reign of Phillip II" to account for those who (however disputably) regard these lands as parts of Macedonia. THis could be "squeezed" in, since later I present the great extent of the Alexandrian dominions of Macedonia. You have though to admit that this is a very long shot on semantics, but I would not argue since the general meaning remains unchanged and the difference in wording too academic. I know that your main problem for you is the mention of "Greece" in the wording, but you should also understand that this is the best way to achieve a compromise in what is undisputably right. Later on we could add (when completely defining the territory ascribed to all Macedonian tribes), that part of FYROM (however small) also consisted a part of Macedonia.

As for briefness I will work on it a little bit later.

Thx

GK1973 (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this need for cataloging an individual's opinion. Makes one feel comfortable? Is that it? To place a person in a box with a label on it. This is very annoying and even disrespectful. Please do not try to point one's motives if you do not understand his/hers statements. I do not have any problem with Greece. I accepted your words and arguments and tried to discuss them at a logical level. Why betray that?

With fair and personal dialog poisoned by personal agenda, preconception and prejudice, I propose to use the territorial concept(s) that scholars adopt. Borza, a renowned expert on the field, states: "To sum up: "Macedonia" is a geographical term, and Hammond's conception of Macedonia as being the territory of the Haliacmon-Axios watershed will be enlarged to include areas further east and south. For present purposes "Macedon" will mean the area within that geographical entity that was ruled directly and traditionally by Macedonian kings, but not including Greece, Asia, and Balkan imperial acquisitions. The definition of Macedon will enlarge along with the territory ruled by its Monarchy; so that the concept of a "greater Macedon" will emerge as the Macedonians establish them selves as the Balkans major power. This larger Macedon included lands from the crest of the Pindus range to the plain of Philippi and the Nestos River. Its northern border lay along a line formed by Pelagonia, the middle Axios valley and the western Rhodopi massif. Its southern border was the Haliacmon basin, the Olympus range and the Aegean, with the Chalcidic peninsula as peripheral." in p29 of The shadow of Olympus: The emergence of Macedon.

I guess we are divided between the use of the Macedon "primer" or the "greater" Macedon. I opt for the later due to several reasons, the most important of which being that is the only territorial concept that modern scholars dare to describe in objective terms (using geological/hydrological references or maps). If a compromise cannot be reached the introduction should not present any territorial definition and/or the article be labeled as This article or section may present a limited or distorted point of view by covering certain aspects to the exclusion of others.Ilidio.martins (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

"To sum up: "Macedonia" is a geographical term, and Hammond's conception of Macedonia as being the territory of the Haliacmon-Axios watershed will be enlarged to include areas further east and south."

What do you make of this statement? That Borza is disagreeing with Hammond? No he does not. He just enlarges Hammond's conception to suit his scholar purposes for the analysis he is ready to give.

"For present purposes "Macedon" will mean the area within that geographical entity that was ruled directly and traditionally by Macedonian kings, but not including Greece, Asia, and Balkan imperial acquisitions."

What are the "present purposes" and what does "directly and traditionally by Macedonian kings" mean? It is evident here too that Borza does this "enlargemnet of Hammonds conceptions" not because he deems them wrong but because he needs it for "present purposes", a phrase that clearly states that he finds his conception lacking for "normal purposes", as will also be evident by his own testament given later. He clearly sates that his definition is not about the Macedonian Kingdom but about the lands traditionally and dirtectly ruled by any Macedonian king (non Argead included). And he states that this definition is not political (which is the case here, since we are only talking about one Macedonian kingdom) but geographical...

"The definition of Macedon will enlarge along with the territory ruled by its Monarchy; so that the concept of a "greater Macedon" will emerge as the Macedonians establish them selves as the Balkans major power. This larger Macedon included lands from the crest of the Pindus range to the plain of Philippi and the Nestos River. Its northern border lay along a line formed by Pelagonia, the middle Axios valley and the western Rhodopi massif. Its southern border was the Haliacmon basin, the Olympus range and the Aegean, with the Chalcidic peninsula as peripheral."

What does this description have to do with Borza's own words? Was Chalcidece "traditionally" ruled by the Temenids or any other macedonian royal House? How about the Phillipi, a town founded by Philip II himself? How can this be "traditional Macedonian rule"? No... it has to do with the "present purposes" of his analysis only. And even his proposal is very close to what we are talking about, while he himself admits that this conception is not what the kingdom of Macedonia was at leat until Philip II. And of course in case somone misunderstands Borza, he places Pelagonia not as a macedonian frontier but outside Macedonia.

Ilidio the matter here is not to insult you and I am very sorry if I did that. It was not my purpose. But in order to be able to come to a conclusion, we have to talk sincerely and pinpoint the real problems here. As I have already stated I believe that the Macedonians are a Greek tribe but I try to be as objective and at the same time as unaggressive as possible. You can clearly see that I am no schoolboy and I know very well of what I am writing and I would never sacrifice historicity to political agendas whether they be Greek or FYROMian. Unfortunately, politics play a major role here and this is because your only effort seems to be the avoidance of any mention to Greece as a toponyme. If you want to leave this introduction as stands because of inability to reach a consensus I have no problem, the discussion will go on and at a later date we might come to a conclusion, but if you really want to make it better then stop avoiding what matters and try to describe the Macedonian Kingdom as "traditionally" encompassing territory it didn't, "because Borza proposed so...".

Borza also says :

"The argead Macedonians were now in contact with some of the macedonians of the western mountains, who were forced to accept a vassalage with which they never were comfortable. It is clear that these tribes retained their own royal houses and considerable local autonomy…..But for at least the next century and a half, the links between lower and upper Macedonians were tenuous at best."

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 124

Despite the fact that Thucydides (2.99.3.6) could now call the whole area “Macedonia” the Argeads were not able to integrate their highland kinsmen into the kingdom until the reign of Philip II, and even then with only mixed success.

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 124

Whatever the case, there is insufficient information to know whether the army of Alexander I, who was the first king tentively to attempt an unification fo the Macedonians

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 126

Philip managed to incorporate the cantons of western macedonia into the greater Macedonians kingdom on a permanent basis. These mountainous regions had been virtually independent - and often hostile - until Philip’s reign, and it was among his first necessities to stabilize the frontier.

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 135

As for the rivalries among Macedonian families, these are unclear until the time of Philip II, and even here most of the evidence points to a hostility between the houses of western Macedonia and the Argeadae.

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 237

Of course Macedonian Kings after Alexander were agents for the spread of the Greek culture and Institutions throuht the Eastern Mediterreanean

E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus”, page 230

This goes as to the hellenization of the East arguments...

You see Ilidio, I could post extracts from numerous historians and archaeologists but this is not the point here. The point is to make this article better without cutting on its historical value. As you yourslef can see even Borza's definition cannot be used here and contains a lot of irregularities as to our purpose. He himself accepts that the Argeads did not "traditionally" rule over the other Macedonian kingdoms, so how can they be included in their kingdom as you would like them to? I already told you that the truth is that Macedon in its entirety was "traditionally" located within Greece, a wording that I tried to change to make it more appealing to you without distorting the facts. This "Greater Macedonia" had nothing to do with the kingdom of Macedonia up until Phillip II and thus cannot be included as such. One should list the rest of the macedonian kingdoms separately and there define their own geography. He even incorporates Thracian lands and Chalcidice in this "Great Macedonia", which he obviously uses as a reference for his historical analysis and clearly states that these have nothing to do with traditional Macedonian lands...

And by the way, Hammond is also a renowned expert on the field...

You said :

"I opt for the later due to several reasons, the most important of which being that is the only territorial concept that modern scholars dare to describe in objective terms (using geological/hydrological references or maps)."

What do you mean with "the latter"? Describing a place with toponymes has nothing to do with us determining the territory of "primer" or "greater" Macedonia.

As to not mentioning any geographical description in the introduction, I clearly disagree with this, since the purpose is not to avoid completing the article but complete it in a manner as correct historically as possible.

Again I am sorry if I insulted you in any way, but if we are to reach an agreement we should be frank and open to each other.

GK1973 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My purpose with citing that passage from Borza was to place in words of a scholar a summary of what is our different perspectives here. You seem to prefer to define Macedon has the initial territory occupied by the Argead (the Macedon "primer"). I have a more inclusive perspective, and opt to define Macedon as the territory at a latter stage, where the evolving relationships between the the House of Argos and other Macedonian tribes have matured and the Kingdom acquired a relatively defined configuration (the "greater" Macedon, in Borza's words). This stage corresponds to the time preceding Philip II expansion. I explained that using the view of the "greater" Macedon has several advantages:

1. This is the territory that most scholars feel comfortable in describing in precise terms (maps, terrain references, current borders etc). The Macedon primer is only seldom described and even then using vague statements and uncertain references;

2. It seems to be the most consensual criterion to define the territory, since is widely referred by other participants in this discussion and scholars;

3. I prefer to err on the inclusive side since those territories/tribes were critical for the expansion to the Greek city-states and to build the Macedonian Empire. Plus, there is less margin of error by accepting the perspective of the "greater" Macedon (as explained in point 1).

In short, introducing the territory before the expansion of Philip II in order to define Macedon will be more precise, consensual and representative. To realize this perspective, I proposed a text lacking references with political charge, lending it a neutral character. Altogether, I believe this proposal represents the best solution for this highly debated and controversial subject.

Ilidio.martins (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why we have to limit this article on Ancient Macedon to the lands of the Argeads, since other Macedonian tribes existed and they too were incorporated into the Kingdom. As long as we mention this in the text, then there should be no issue. As illido points out, prior to the consolidation of the Argead rule, was their kingdom, and their role in history any more significant than their neighbouring Macedonian tribes ? Hxseek (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on people, for the (n+1)th time, this is because this article is about the state of Macedon, not the ancient Macedonians as a whole. And the state of Macedon is the Argead state. Tribal areas were not part of this state. Therefore info about tribes belongs in the article on ancient Macedonians, not here. I'm getting tired of repeating this. "I prefer to err blabla bla" is not an argument, just a preference. The maps are just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are the best we got and that's what the consensus is. Please leave them alone now. And for the record, the role of the Argead state was far more significant than that of the tribal areas, as in the Persian Wars. If people don't even know that much history, how do you expect their arguments to be taken seriously by others. Enough with interminable, nonsensical discussion all because of one user's strange preferences. --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, Tsourpk, let's then change the name of the article to the "Argead state" and I will stop arguing. History of a kingdom cannot limit itself to the history of it's ruling dynasty or dynasties. I will gladly contribute to a new article about the Macedon or Macedonia. This article will define the Macedon or Macedonia in its whole, as is know today by historians. The greatness and the impact that Macedonians had in history shall not be treated as a part of political agenda.

One more piece of advice, meditation and introspection will do you good, you seem confused.Ilidio.martins (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets make a conmparison. The article on the Frankish Empire is not limited to the region of Ille-de-France just because that is where the ruling dynasty ruled from. Nor is the article about the Persian Empire, nor the Hapsburg Empire, nor any other empire/ states/ kingdom. So Tsourkpk, I really cannot see any sense in your reasoning i'm afraid. Why limit the article ?Hxseek (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us leave it as it is then.... If you want to say that the kingdom of Macedon, which had only the Argead lands in its territory for 450 years and then expanded for about 150 more years to much more than your proposal was "traditionally" what Borza describes not as traditional but as what suits him for his particular analysis (he even feels compelled to justify his assumption clearly stating that what he is doing he is doing "for present purposes")then there is no real need to change anything. The text as stands is closer to the truth than what you propose since the word "centered" is more abstract. To present as traditional what was the area of Macedonia for less than 20 years (since Philip expanded his kingdom much more than just subjugating the rest of the Macedonian kingdoms) is clearly wrong.

GK1973 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see that this is not just Borza and not only "for present purposes". Read the texts in my talk page, see the maps, etc. The current state of the article is an exception to the norm and definitely not a "traditional" way of portraying the Macedon.Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"The greatness and the impact that Macedonians had in history shall not be treated as a part of political agenda." Come on guy, you first started a section with the title of "Give Macedonian history back to Macedonians". One can easily realise that the only way you'll be satisfied is by mentioning RoM right in the intro, so cut the crap about 'political agenda'. On a similar note, it's sad to see this is still going on. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, better said the ancient Macedonians. Here you have an article about a kingdom that fails to highlight it's people. This is outrageous. Can you imagine any Empire without it's people? Can you realize an Empire without it's people?

Instead, you have an article that highlights the most controversial aspect of a kingdom, in particular, the origin of the Argead and the relationship with the Greek city-states, for which until now I only saw clues of mythological nature or dubious sources. It is unfair, historically, what you are doing to the people that fought and supported the (short-lived) greatness of the Macedonian Empire, that as said, "shaped the face of the world as we know".

I presented proofs for my claims and provided an apolitical way of presenting them. Based on this, 3rdAlcove, I see your comments as offensive, especially when what I am trying to do is exactly the opposite of "squeezing" any country or current political view in the article.129.112.109.252 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Honesty is overrated, I agree. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to add. The weighting of the 'Greekness' of ancient Macedon relies heavily on the accounts of ancient Greek writers, who were very inconsistent with their appraisal of Macedonian's relationship with Greeks. No doubt that these accounts are flawed, and changed from day to day, suiting the (undoubtedly) politically -biased writers whims at the time of writing. We cannot deny that the article has been in the past very pro-greek, written by Greek authors who (understandibly) wish to keep the ancient Macedonian-Greek connection mainstream. However, for every account quoted here referring to Macedonians as Greeks, there is another excluded quote stating they are not. This is not in the spirit of academia, and is unfortunately skewing the information to suit a prticular writer's intentions. I am sorry to bring this whole politics thing up, but unfortunatley it is present Hxseek (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what, how can you or anyone talk about honesty or transparency when hiding behind a fake name? Here I do not care about honesty because I cannot access it. Here, I care about facts, references, things that I can cross check. Present me those, prove me wrong because I really do not appreciate you kind of honesty.Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove you wrong about what? I was the one who actually supported your changes, remember? It's getting ridiculous, though. It's become pretty clear (well, it was from the very beginning really) what you're here for. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder: I collected material supporting my claims in User_talk:Ilidio.martins#Macedon:_Literature_Quotes_and_Maps. I am sure these are from reliable sources and I hope they are "compelling" enough to convince you that my claims are reasonable. In short, I suggest to describe more clearly the territory of Macedon (for example, using geological/hydrological references). Such will improve the article, lending it more objectiveness, clarity and neutrality (in what is a much debated and controversial subject).

Relative to the maps used in the article, I think they are not adequate due to language discrepancies (some in French) and conflicting content. The last point is quite important and I shall substantiate it. Several sources display Macedon territory "before Philip II"(359BC) being much larger than the area shown in [11]. For example, and in addition to the materials in my talk page, the map in pages 72-73 of 'The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece' (Penguin 1996)[12] by R. Morkot (a reference that seems to be trusted by some of the participants in the discussion) shows a map of Macedonia c. 512-490BC that covers a greater area than is apparent from the article at this point. Based on these grounds I request a reassessment of the maps used in the article (particularly the ones in French, that, coincidently, seem to be less consensual). Also, it would be good to know which period the map in the infobox corresponds to. Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and implement the changes (perhaps not maps yet). You might be reverted but at least users will be able to better evaluate your changes. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice.

Note: no one answered the question about the map in the infobox or provided other independent sources to support the maps used here. As I pointed earlier, GK1973, had a quite good alternative to the introduction. My only objection to his text refers to the summary of the territory since seems to be based on the current maps of the article.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the author of the maps on the French wikipedia, and he said he was going to translate them [[13]]. He furthermore confirmed that they are from reliable, contemporary sources. So I think the map issue is closed. We will replace the maps in French with their equivalents in Engligh when those become available, and that's that. No way we are going to replace them with 100-year old ones just because one user doesn't think they are "consensual" (whatever that even means). As for your "compelling" arguments, they just consist of irrelevant and out-of-context quotes. The current intro is as neutral as can be, and it represents the current consensus. Unless there is a consensus in favor of changing it (so far there isn't. A single user's objections, no matter how vociferous, do not constitute a consensus), it stays the way it is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you divulge the exact references used for the maps?Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we cannot find suitable maps, I will be happy to make some - once we reach a concensus on the territories. I have done quite a few maps already for wiki. What is wrong with the shepherds map i suggested a few paragraphs up ?? Hxseek (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that one. Is very similar to maps present in recent historical atlases, like the 'The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece' and similar to the map currently in the infobox. I cannot understand why people keep insisting on describing an under representation of the Macedon's territory. If it helps, I can send to you digital copies of the Penguin maps (which I own).Ilidio.martins (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "If we cannot find suitable maps"? The current maps are perfectly suitable. Just because they do not suit ilidio's political agenda doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" with them. No way we are replacing them with re-drawings of 100-year old antiques. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Tsourpk, early in the discussion you cited "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", so I hope you are familiar with the contents of this book. If you feel confident enough to cite it, you need to confront yourself with the facts: the maps in the article are in obvious conflict with what you think is a reliable source (and a very recent one too). How can you go around repeating that everything is fine with the article? The maps are not fine and you know it and still you deny it.Ilidio.martins (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to remind you that that source also states unequivocally that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek-speaking people. But of course, you already knew that. You just cherry-pick what ever happens to suit your POV, and ignore the rest. I'm not interested in discussing the maps anymore with you. There is clearly no point in doing that, and that issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. I would just like to remind you that the current consensus is in favor of keeping the current maps. Your continued insistance on changing them even though not one user has agreed to such a thing is starting to resemble disruptive editing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsourpk, can you at least once answer directly to questions? Is this a "yes, I know that I am wrong, but just because I am stubborn I will now change the subject completely". The maps are in conflict or not?

Quoting other users (if I am permitted):

1. "all I can say, Ilidio.martins, if you come up with a better map, all referenced to sources like the Penguin atlas, we'll be sure to thank you. At present, the one we show seems to be the best one we have. dab (𒁳) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

2. "I understand Ilidio's points. The intro- whilst very good- does make an assumption by stating that Macedonia was in northern part of Ancient Greece. That assumption is that Ancient Macedonians were originally Greek. This is a big assumption, and although many lay people think such as connection is natural, the matter is far more contentious. ... Anyway, i found this map by Shepherd. It is in English, for a start Hxseek (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Ilidio.martins (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilidio, I have already commented on your sources. So if you have new sources for me to comment on please inform me but as far as these are concerned my opinion was and is as already mentioned some posts earlier :

I guess these are your sources :

Quotes:

A. World Encyclopedia (2005)[1]: "Macedon Ancient country in se Europe, roughly corresponding to present-day Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, and Bulgarian Macedonia."

Too vague... what Macedonia, at which time period?

B. Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The Emergence of Macedon[2] p28."At its zenith Macedonian influence prevailed in an area that includes virtually all of modern Greek Macedonia and much of Yugoslav Macedonia, including territory not drained by the Haliacmon-Axios. Macedon must then be defined as the Balkan region where Macedonians ruled."

Better, but still according to the Borza's own words "At its zenith...", clearly not proper as to the initial extents of Macedon

C. Grant, M. A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names[3] p367."Macedonia Makedonia The central part of the Balkan peninsula, north of Greece, west of Thrace, and south of Illyrian and the Danubian territories."[4]

Too vague, no value... The Paionians are considered Illyrians, the Dardanians too. Thrace was also a very broad term at the time and of course no mention to Epirus and Thessaly. Again no timeframe too. This could actually mean a much smaller area than you think, thanks to its vagueness...

D. Robert, J. (editor) The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World "Macedonia links the Balkans and the Greek peninsula. Four important routes converge on the Macedonian plain. Hesod considered the 'Macedones' to be an outlying branch of the Greek-speaking tribes, with distinctive dialect of their own. He gave their habitat 'Pieria and Olympus'. A new dinasty, the Temenids, ruling the Macedonians, founded their capital at Aegae c. 650 BC, and thereafter gained control of the coastal plain as far as the Axius. The Persian occupation of Macedonia 512-479 BC brought benefits. Xerxes gave Alexander I control over western and upper Macedonia; and after Xerxes' flight Alexander gained territory west of the Strymon."

This is actually a very small area that although very clumsily and vaguely described corresponds with what I proposed.

So where is your problem? You gave four individual modern sources with four independent descriptions as to what was the Macedonian Kingdom, all of which are vaguely described and real different as to size...

GK1973 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough

This is pure WP:POINT. All this bickering about the map thinly disguises the actual motivation, which is the boring old Macedonain nationalistic pissing contest. You have a better map? Let's see it. You don't? Then please go away. The phrasing that "Macedonia was in the northern part of Ancient Greece" in no way prejudices from what point Macedonians were considered "Greeks". You might also say that Macedonia was in the south of Ancient Thrace. Why do we not say that Macedonia was in the south of Ancient Thrace? Because all we know about Macedonia is from Greek, not Thracian sources. If you can cite one encyclopedic source that describes Macedonia as situated in the south of Thrace, I'll be happy to include that in the lede. Now can everyone please find something constructive to do with their time (such as actually improving an article. Ideally an article that does not catch your patriotic fancy). Case in point, ancient Macedonia in the Britannica is treated as a section of the "ancient Greek civilization" (not Thracian). If that's good enough for EB, it should be good enough for us. It is legitimate to have doubts whether Macedon should be considered "Greek" in the 6th century BC. It is beyond question that Macedon was part of Hellenistic Greece in the 3rd century BC. We've been through this countless times. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but endless pettifoggery won't change anything. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well. "North of Ancient Greece" is very different to "northern part of ancient GReece"Hxseek (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I find your words disturbing and in a tone that serves only to ignite the kind of debate that you seem to condemn. Paradox! A paradox that I found countless times during this discussion...

Also, I would not believe everything that is told you User_talk:Dbachmann#Macedon.2C_still.

Actually, I found under WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system which is the perfect way to describe how certain users avoid questions and disrupt the discussion. If you have time take a look above.

Ilidio.martins (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"If you can cite one encyclopedic source that describes Macedonia as situated in the south of Thrace, I'll be happy to include that in the lede....--dab (𒁳) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)"

Here is an encyclopedic source dedicated to Classical History that uses not only Greece and Thrace but the other surrounding areas as reference:

Grant, M. A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names[14] p367."Macedonia Makedonia The central part of the Balkan peninsula, north of Greece, west of Thrace, and south of Illyrian and the Danubian territories."

I will get the maps ready too!

Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, i am volunteerin to construct a map. The current map, apart from being in French, is unsourced. If we could reach a concensus as to from which period we want a map, and the extent of the territory i will be happy to submit it to the talk page, If like we can add it, if not- no hard feelings. GIven that the borders are not known with surety, and in all likelihood were not set anyway, i can illustrae the core territory and surroundung areas of influence, other macedonian tribes, areas of dependence, etc. Hxseek (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? What do you mean the maps are unsourced? Have you looked at them? Not only are they very well sourced, but it seems like they are also going to be translated. So, if you ask me, I think you will be wasting your time. On a purely aesthetic note, I do not particularly care for those fuzzy maps such as this one. No hard feelings, but I am against such a move. Enough with this charade already. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. The 'fuzziness' (as yout put it) depicts the fact that territories are approximate and not set. In fact, I find it rather artificial to set fixed boundaries (which are obviously debatable and often arbitrary) when depicting ancient states and tribal lands. I am not alone im depicting maps in such a way. But each to their own. Hxseek (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That wording seems fine to me (it's one of a few you could choose, I guess), though being so anal about changing the current wording under spurious claims...well, ok. What's the problem with the map, though? 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the map is that depicts the Macedonian territory as no other source to my knowledge does.Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could adopt a more detailed description along the lines of "north of Greece, west of Thrace, and south of Illyrian and the Danubian territories", although "Illyrian and the Danubian territories" is so fuzzy as to be useless. "Between Epirus and Thrace" may do the trick. dab (𒁳) 15:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the modification.Ilidio.martins (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The maps you posted above, a while ago, seem to -generally- support the current map. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Which "current map"?Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I missed some episodes. So, does "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece" give the size of the kingdom during Alexander I's reign? 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It has maps of Macedonian Kingdom c. 454, at the time of the Peloponnesian war (431-404BC), and a map about the northern kingdoms (433-364BC). If you want I can send them to you.Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote provided by Ilidio from the dictionary will not do, because it refers to the modern-day definition of the Balkan region of Macedonia as a whole, not the ancient state of Macedon. It is a (deliberate?) misquote. I also do not think that "Between Epirus and Thrace" is such a good idea, since readers who do not know where these are located would have to look them up, whereas most people are much more familiar with "ancient Greece". --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this? Did you even take a look at the title of the book? This guy must be out his mind...Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is what? It's pretty clear it refers to the region of Macedonia, and not the state of Macedon, because it calls it says "the central part of the Balkan peninsula", and not a "state located in...". Saying "North of Greece" is furthermore inaccurate because it implies that Macedonia is not at all part of Greece, which is not true. The reason the lead sentence in the current form, is because we have a reliable source that describes Macedon in those terms. It really is that simple. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there is several people that see it differently. Don't you think that due to the controversy and debate this a better and more conciliatory territorial summary?Ilidio.martins (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the current lead sentence, "inflammatory" or something? And who "is" the "several people"? Seems to me like you're the only one who objects to it. It's sourced. Deal with it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you decide to ignore the opinions of other people in the debate, I cannot do anything else beside ignoring yours. You keep turning the discussion in less constructive paths.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)