User talk:GK1973: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:42, 27 April 2010

Welcome!

Hello, GK1973, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the appropiate article

Hello there. Just one question to clarify one post. About your comment on Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#About_the_.22wider_geographical_region_of_Macedonia.22. Looking at your post, it's not clear to me which article is the one with that wording. I suppose other editors will have the same problem. Can you you post there which is the exact article that has that wording so other editors can check it out? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedon

Please have a look at Talk:Macedon#Enough_already. Your input is appreciated. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman infantry tactics

Is your edit in Roman infantry tactics on the frontline sourced by what currently appears to be its citation? If not I have to revert your edit because they create a pseudocitation. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the problems of the quote, but it's a quote, you can not change it into something that is not sourced. I revert it. If you have enough time try to find out yourself what was that long. Wandalstouring (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you wheteher your edit was sourced. That meant, provide a source for your edit. I know that the section is problematic and would not oppose a sourced rephrasing. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Hi, I accidentally removed your edits in Talk:Alexander the Great, will you pls add it back? Thanks The Cat and the Owl (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did it, sorry again. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Macedonia (Greece) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punic military forces

You refer to Polybius stating something about Hannibal's infantry. Please provide a reference to it, or it wil be challenged and removed. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced! Peter Connolly, "Greece and Rome at War" and John Warry also suggest that the Carthaginians of Hannibal were armed with the pike.

GK1973 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, however your other edits also need sources. I wrote the first chapter of this article. Take it as an example that all material needs sources. Unsourced material will always be challenged and removed. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES

Every edit needs sources, especially concerning disputed numbers like in velites. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it, but I had to revert several of your edits today. You really learn the hard way. You see a sourced text, you change a number, you need a source. WP:Verifiabilty should explain that concept to you. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What number? That the 2nd Punic War was not in the 2nd but in the 3rd century BC? That the Velites were 1.200 in a legion and not 1.000 as the author says further on? We cannot source each little edit, especially when it is wrongly sourced! What you ask is irrational. Why don't you just tell me where your objections lie and I will be happy to provide more info and sources. But adding that elephants of the smaller African stock were used by the Carthaginians or that the hasta was not a "short spear" but a "spear", that the velites harassed the enemy as well as protected the hastati and that they sometimes were used outside of battle as in Cannae are minor edits that add to and not change what is given. Most of my additions are in the already given sources.

OK, if you have the sources and see that it's quoted wrong correct it and write that in the edit summary, no big deal. However, adding facts needs sources. Please read WP:Verifiabilty. You could for example wait with an edit until you have the source. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise...

1) Please join the ongoing "debate" between a lot of editors vs. FutPerf in Talk:Greece, about another linguistic map. 2)There's an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check it out... and notify anyone interested. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yo, what do you mean "non-archaic forms of ancient Greek" ? 150.140.227.238 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some help in Xyston

Hi, i've noticed you have a strong interest in ancient Greece related topics. Can you keep an eye in Xyston also ? A POV-pushing user keeps on adding the Slavomacedonian name , he's trying to push his arguements on a more even level exploiting the fact that very few editors check with the article. Thanks.--Zakronian (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK!

GK1973 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander

I most certainly will be engaged in rewriting this article because I want to bring it least to B if not A-class. At the moment I'm busy, but I'll try to organize help. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Alexander didn't cross into modern India

Hi,Beas River originates in India and meets Indus river in pakistan. Today half of it is Indian and rest in Pakistan. During Alexanders time it was completely in India. --Suyog ^{talk to me!} 07:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Macedonians

I noticed the gateway page makes no mention of Macedonians(Greeks). Apparently we no longer exist (only the region seemingly). The human right to self-identify no longer appears to apply for us it seems. I was thinking perhaps you could somehow add a reference so 2.5 million Macedonians could exist once again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.224.102 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five pillars summary

Thank you for the summary of the pillars, and how they were or were not adhered to, at Talk:Macedonia. I sincerely hope that we can in time undue the damage done by this action, even if it takes some time. And, after this, I'm fairly sure it will take some time. Unfortunately. But, with any luck, the rest of us will, I hope, realize that if we can't agree with each other, with any luck we will be able to at least trust each other. I hope. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

In addition, I moved the text from your request for clarification to your statement section. A request for clarification is unnecessary when the request for arbitration is pending.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia etymology

Good work on the etymology, thank you! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle^{email me} 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have been enjoying our little discussions in A.M page. If you'd like to see how a thoroughly explorative, non-biased and academic investigation on ethnology should read like, see the Early Slavs article which I wrote. Its a bit lengthy, but whenevr you have some spare time, check it out, so you'll see where my enlightened approach is coming from Hxseek (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking Greece

What you say in [1] is true. I believe the proper way to do it is to request via Talk:Greece that User:Horologium lowers the article's protection level to semi-protection. Just as User:Rlevse suggested [2], this would be the first step. If you can't reason with him, and I don't see why that would happen, but I'm saying if... I am sure there will then be other to turn to, without this being considered forum shopping, but I am not experienced enough to know what they are. Perhaps one of the older users can advise on that. --Radjenef (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium has made it rather clear that he is not willing to consider unprotection at this stage, and he has Rlevse's explicit backing for that. Perhaps the easiest way out would be if we just did what the "Stalemate resolution" proposal envisages we should do: ask a referee, and agree to stick by whatever he decides. Perhaps Horologium himself might even be willing to play that role? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a misunderstanding, maybe. I think we still need to be talking about what to do with the R.o.M. references. It's fine if you and I agree that they be left alone, but do others agree? The point is, as matters stand, we do not (yet) have a definite binding injunction that they be left alone. Arbcom hasn't given us such a ruling; they have only said we could ask for such a ruling from a neutral referee if we can't agree otherwise. As long as we don't have some formal kind of decision stating clearly and for everybody to see that this or that will be the agreed solution, Horologium is right in his concern that edit-warring might immediately resume, and we'd be back at square one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not get confused here. There are two distinct issues at hand; one is about lowering the article's protection level to semi-protection, the other is about how the Republic should be referred to in the various articles. GK1973 made a perfectly valid point arguing that full-protection of an entire country's article is an extreme measure to take for the problem at hand. My view is that administrators should use full-protection sparingly (i.e. as a measure of last resort). We have seen the words "Former Yugoslav" appended in numerous articles so far; this trigger-happy approach towards full-protecting articles would imply that we should put half of wikipedia under full-protection. This is an inherently poisonous course of events for the "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit"! If we can't reason our way through this, then perhaps we could ask a few independent referees to decide whether the article should be unlocked or not. Rlevse said he agrees with Horologium while the arbitration case is on-going. I don't see why that would be the case after 1RR is in place. As far as your proposal for "stalemate resolution" with respect to referring to the Republic in other articles; I do not think we are meant to go directly to "stalemate resolution" anyway. That is why I suggested discussing the issue of referring to the Republic in tandem with the naming issue when the time comes. --Radjenef (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radjenef, we did all the debating there was to be done, just before you turned up. The latest round of debating alone now fills three archive pages at Talk:Greece. We went to the arbitration after all debating and dispute resolution failed. What realistic prospect is there that any more debating could possibly change the situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters there's this. I think that if both sides start an honest policy based discussion on a blank slate, showing willingness to compromise, with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement, it might be worth a try. If things don't work out, then sure, stalemate resolution it is... --Radjenef (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did seek neutral outside opinion, didn't we? That's what the poll was. What makes you think more neutral outside opinion would be available anywhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your proposal would be to keep the Greece article locked until "the community decides" maybe in a year or two... I do not really find this position very constructive. There are solutions that work and others that disrupt. Where is the difference here in regard to any other Macedonia-relate article? Or maybe can it be that you see it as an opportunity to "punish" a Wikipedia community? GK1973 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I want the article to be opened for normal editing as much as you do. And, personally, in my view, it could happen today, because the community has in fact already decided. The poll we had in March has, in my opinion, created a valid enforceable consensus. It's a matter of the remaining opponents accepting this fact or not. If they don't, then the only recourse we have is the neutral referee. That too can happen quite quickly. The only thing I do not want is yet more empty debating, because we know in advance it's not going to produce anything new (at least not on the Greece article itself; there are other aspects elsewhere that do require more discussion). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do agree that the article should be unlocked and that the reasons stated for its protection do no longer justify its full protection? GK1973 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If and when all users have been made aware that a firm rule exists that admins are actually willing to enforce, yes. Right now, it is my opinion that we ought to already have such a rule, but unfortunately, formally, we don't (yet). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... if there is never a firm rule over this specific issue (as is the case in this and ALL other similar cases in Wikipedia), noone will again edit Greece... Isn't it obvious that there should be another way to address this problem? It is better to say that this article will be locked for the next 2 years than that it will be unlocked only when the community will have firm rules as to how to name RoM... chances are that such a decision will take much longer than that. Does it only sound absurd to me?GK1973 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your double post

I think you posted your piece of text twice at the PD talk page (edit conflict mess?). Please remove one of the posts. By the way I sympathize with the difficulty of being brief about the issue :)

Sock?

Just out of interest, GK1973, are you User:Hectorian? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Actually I have never heard of the guy. Don't worry... I do not have any double accounts nor do I edit through IPs. GK1973 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is strange then, because your edit times show quite some evidence of coordination and you behave very similarly. Anyway, if you are Hectorian, I don't think you've been doing anything much in the way of forbidden sockery, so I guess it's no big deal. Except perhaps that you joined the Arbcom case as GK, when you had previously been involved in the Greece dispute as H. If that's the case, if I were you, I'd go and privately clarify that with the arbs. I don't think they'll kill you for it but I guess it would be better to come clean with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting... yet, I have nothing to do with the said editor. Do you? GK1973 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the dates, he seems to have stopped being very active when I became more active, yet we have a very different profile. He is more political, I am more of a military historian. GK1973 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Macedonian phalanx training.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Macedonian phalanx training.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Macedonian phalanx battle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Macedonian phalanx battle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

preferential voting at Macedonia

Like I also called BalkanFever to do (a users I don't agree with), I will say to you (to whom I agree very much): You should include some "second choices" in your vote. Like Radjenef said I hope we don't end up with a voting paradox :-) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argeads

Have a look at the article! I tried to add the source you provided. I hope we will eventually agree.
Seleukosa (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article again.I I rewrote the paragraph and tried to make it closer to what the source say! Have a look and change it if you like! We are very close to reach to an agreement Seleukosa (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GK1973. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander the Great#First draft using MFBT's suggestions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You two were great . . .

I have to tell you, this past week has dramatically changed my outlook on Wikipedia. The work done on Alexander the Great has got to be the model for how editors should work together. And you deserve some recognition for your efforts.

		The Half Barnstar
		To GK1973, for demonstrating incredible knowledge, patience, and most of all, an abundance of apparently innate good faith while working on the lead section for Alexander the Great with MinisterForBadTimes, I award you this Half Barnstar, as a demonstration that the two of you together constitute one truly outstanding resource for this encyclopedia. Un school 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am truly grateful that the you two let me participate. My knowledge of Ancient Greek history is so deficient that I could have spent ten times as long working on it, with books and books to look at, and my lead could never have been as good as what was accomplished with the knowledge you two brought to the page. I hope you're proud at what you've done, you deserve it. Best wishes you two, I hope we meet up again someday. Un school 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menaulion

Well, there are a number of arguments for the move: the -ion form is used more often in relevant books (in my experience, I had only seen the menaulon form once or twice up until now), not only in English, but also in French or German. Also, since this is an internet encyclopedia, and most readers will search it by what they've seen on the internet, the -ion form also predominates there. Now, for the u or v issue, transliteration from Byzantine Greek is a very odd and inconsistent issue. Both forms are used almost equally frequently in my experience. I do however prefer the -u- form to be consistent, since we do not usually transliterate Kekaumenos as Kekavmenos etc. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone

Προσωπικά θεωρώ ότι έχει αξία να γίνει γνωστό ότι υπάρχει αυτή η θεωρία.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please write in English? GK1973 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now can we discuss this on the articles talk page? Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Magnesia

Battle strength

Battle strength

Moving this to your talk page as the discussion may go off topic. You did indeed help me with your excellent answers. I'm now looking further into this allegory I found. It turns out to have been written in English. Good thing too, as I do not know any other languages. I'm just following up on what I see when I find the deciphered message. The numbers were already written centuries BEFORE Grainger came to the same conclusion. It is NOT based on Grainger, however the information Grainger researched came to the same numbers, hundreds of years later. This is because BOTH authors used Livy as their basic same source. Here are some examples that also backs up what answers you gave me:

Livy 37.39 says ... there were two Roman legions and two of Latins and allies, each containing 5000 men. I see this as 4 times 5,000 that equals 20,000.
Yes, I do believe this other author was talking ONLY of the Battle of Magnesia. Another reason I believe this is because I have NOT studied this that you say of ...Antiochus' phalanx at Raphia against Ptolemy (217 BC). So based on that I could NOT have mixed the two up, since I have no knowledge of the second. However I am probably mixed up someplace, now that I am looking it over closer.

While I do not want to reveal this author at this time, I'll give you some information of what he wrote and perhaps you can help me or correct where I went wrong. The Renaissance author used "coded" words that happen to equal the EXACT number of letters of the word really meant. It is obvious this author is really writing about the Battle of Magnesia since Marcus Baebius Tamphilus comes into play. Notice "Marcus" has 6 letters. I believe "Antiocho" with 8 letters comes into play. I'll give you what he wrote and maybe we can figure it out correctly - since you have way more knowledge on this than I do. His wording is this way where I left out the coded word and put in the number of letters instead.

(coded---) Also for (----8------), who was writing at that same time in (--------------------------6-------------------------) as some think of 25,000 and also 1,000 of (-------6-------) and 6,000 of (---7---) for (---6----) and 3,000 on the life of (-------9-------) and other light works on the soldiers.

(decoded) Also for Domitius who was writing history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus as some think, 25,000 and also 1,000 horses and 6,000 of Italian for Scipio and 3,000 on the life of mercenary and other light works of the soldiers.

I am going to also further analyze it to see if I can figure out the sturcture as related to the Battle of Magnesia. I am pretty sure the first (8) is Antiochus. The next (6) is Marcus Baebius Tamphilus. The 25,000 is speaking of Antiochus' army and where I am a little confused on the EXACT number IF 25K or 26K or it may be approximated thereabouts. His source was Livy, therefore I know where to look IF I can get the 25K correct. It is probably from Livy 37.40 or in that area. The 1,000 is probably from These were supported by the "agema," another body of cavalry numbering about 1000... The 6 numbered word I figure is "guards." The 6,000 of (7) is for "cavalry" for (6) is "armour." The 3,000 is "Galatians" of 9 letters. Interesting puzzel, wouldn't you say?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a little more of the allegory on the Renaissance author. Another part of this is that he also uses opposites under certain conditions.

(coded) ...Some learned (-------12-------) on 100,000 and 50,000 (---6--) and many others killed.

(decoded) Some learned calculations on 100,000 with 50,000 killed and many others killed.

(coded) (---------- 14 ---------) of the (--- 6--) 20,000 with (--------12--------) for the (--6---) 15,000 (------9-----) 5,000 (----6---) historically 10,000.

(decoded) Administration of the legion 20,000 with recruitments for the legion 15,000 volunteer 5,000, legion historically 10,000.

(coded)-----Also ( ------12 ------) between the ( ---7--- ) of the ( ---7--- ) 10,000.

(decoded) Also professional between the legions of the shields of the Greece troops (in two corps) 10,000.

(alternate) Also argyraspides between the legions of the shields of the Greece troops (in two corps) 10,000.

Hope this all helps in showing you what I am doing in trying to decode this Renaissance author's manuscript. I am NOT writing another paper based on Grainger's information, but only trying to decoded this Renaissance author's allegory. To me it looks way close to Grainger's information, only this author already wrote this information and numbers up several hundred years ago - in the early Renaissance period. This very well known Renaissance Italian author is known to have used Livy for his main source for many famous works he did. This manuscript however, is unknown to the world as being an allegory or even written by him. The manuscript is well known however and the British Museum has a copy that is at least four hundred years old. I just happened to have stumbled upon it online and am now working on the decoding. You are seeing 1% of what I have already decoded. I am now trying to figure out the decoded information on this of the Battle of Magnesia. Basically you seem to agree with the information, as it is backed up by Grainger. There was in fact 100,000 involved and 50,000 killed and 20,000 for the size of the legion and volunteer of 5,000. The professional were the guards (agema) that were the argyraspides (12). Each Roman or Italian legion was normally 10,000. Do you not agree with the basic material, especially IF referenced back to Livy as a source only? What country are you from? ---64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a mistake I made and some additional clues pertaining to the 25,000. First is the mistake in that "Antiochos" is 9 letters, NOT 8 - so then I have the wrong name there in the decoded part. It should be Domitius consisting of 8 letters. He was the one making history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus. This is shown by Grainger on page 165 along with 25,000 and 1,000 horses. I have made the corrections above on my decoding. Pretty sure "Origen" is for "Scipio" as that is what it has been many times in previous decoding. Now I am just need to confirm what the 6,000 is (7 letters) and the 3,000 is. The 6,000 is probably something in the way of soldiers for Scipio, like "cavalry." I'm getting closer on this one. Now my question to you is: Does all this makes sense to you, especially when you reference back to Livy only?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe I got it! The soldiers for Scipio are Italian. The 3,000 are mercenary as shown here on Grainger page 321. That follows with the rest of the line of and other light works of the soldiers. It says similar as ...4,000 light infantry and 2,000 volunteers... So, does all this make sense to you, especially IF you reference it back to Livy only?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued but I do not think I can voice an opinion unless I have the original text.

1. You say it is an alegory, so it speaks of something totally different and you think it speaks about ancient battles. 2. It is written by an Italian during early Renaissance, so the original text has to be in Italian of the time unless it is a religious text, in which case it could also be in Latin. If so, in order to decode any hidden meanings you have to be able to use Italian and not English. 3. Do you have a copy of this manuscript? Is it free on the internet? Do you for some reason have the original?

By the way, your ISP shows that you are somewhere in S. Carolina, US, so I suppose that this peculiar English you used was some kind of direct translation?

GK1973 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Beach, SC. You are very sophisticated on all these matters. I thought maybe I would get your attention. Since you helped me a lot and contributed a lot to the article Battle of Magnesia I'll answer your questions.

1. Yes, it definitely speaks of ancient Greek and Roman Battles. It is in chronological order in the decoding - a most important fact. 2. NOT written originally in Italian, but originally in English instead. The English used is British English, since it was originally written in England in the fourteenth century. The information was researched by a very famous Italian author in the fourteenth century using Livy as his main source. However this manuscript I speak of was originally written in English from his information. This Italian author did not know English. YES, the surface text is a religious manuscript. 3. A copy of it can be found here. I know you will be a little excited about this and will almost certainly not believe it, however keep this fact in mind: I have already decoded the previous 80 chapters and it produces a decending chronological order (most important fact) of famous Roman generals of the second and third centuries BC. Before you respond on this, just chech out Eusebius the bishop and verify that in fact the coded words (in capital letters) have the correct amount of letters, EXACTLY - in English. You have not disputed the numbers and in fact agreed with them and even rewrote the acticle accordingly. So, my question is: what is it doing here? Don't tell me its just a coincidence for the odds of that would be ......... well, I don't have enough digits on my calculator to figure that out.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 81 (Lucius Cornelia Scipio Asiaticus, the overseer)

Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (consul 83 BC) overseer of gens Cornelia, in which is covered under Cornelius (gens), was diligent in the study of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 194 BC), the martyr, a most diligent investigator of Asia Minor. The latter published a great number of ancient history records among which are the following: Administration of the legion twenty thousand Italian infantry with recruitments for the legion fifteen thousand Italian infantry, volunteer five thousand, legion historically ten thousand. Volunteers of Marcus Baebius Tamphilus historically and recruits of extra volunteers. Also professional between the legions of the Romans ten thousand. Also for Domitius, who was writing history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus as some think, twenty-five thousand and also one thousand horses and six thousand of Italian for Scipio, three thousand on the life of mercenary and other light works of the soldiers. Some learned calculations on one hundred thousand participated with fifty thousand killed and many others killed. Marcus Baebius Tamphilus lived chiefly in the period of enlargement of the Roman and development. Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (consul 83 BC) cognomen "Cornelius" arose from being the great grandson of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (2nd century BC-aft. 183 BC) the consul.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oooops, something I forgot to tell you. The biblical names are their meanings that can be found in the List of Biblical names.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your link leads to De Viris Illustribus of Jerome (Hieronymus), but that was written in the 5th century AD and not in English but in Latin. Here [3] is the original in Latin. Do I miss something? GK1973 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Nope, you got it. So, what country did you say you were from. Are you an administrator?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 80 (Lucius Caecilius Metellus the politician, cognomen Dalmaticus)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (ca 160 BCE – 91 BCE) known also as oratorical, a follower of cultured, during the lifespan of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus summoned to celebrate with Roman triumph the Battle of the Muthul of the Jugurthine War whose rhythm on a good healthy political career is still existing, learned language skillfully used there and on account of his many positions (since it was a Roman country) he betook himself to speaking. We have a large history record of his which he spoke as a young man in Africa and an itinerary of a journey from Africa to the Jugurthine written in hexameters (conquered Numidia and captured Jugurtha in 106 BC), and another history record which is called the Jugurthine War and a most beautiful one on the wrath of good moral life experiences, and Battle of the Muthul institutes against the nations of Numida, seven history episodes (he was a Quaestor in 126 BCE, a Tribune in 121 BCE, an Aedile in 118 BCE, a Praetor in 115 BCE, Governor of Sicily in 114 BCE, elected Consul in 109 BCE, and censor 102 BC), and an epitome of the same work (in 102 BC) in one history record, with a title (agrarian law), also two history records to recognition (minted coins in his honor and a Roman Triumph), one history record on philosopher, four history records of political battles to Gaius Marius (116, 115, 114, and 113 BC), two history records of special events to retired (to his houses at the Palatine Hill and the Via Tiburtina), two history records of special events to his son Quintus Caecilius Metellus and one history record to the same on the pius of good moral life experiences or the creation of man. In his somewhat old age he was pupil to public affair, a father of religiosity in rest is the same one who was beforehand brought to life in Rome by his son.

I realize this is a lot to comprehend - so I'll let you look over this material for a few days and check back then. Make a list and ask me specific questions and I will give you the answers on how it was decoded. You already have the basic rules.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 79 (Gaius Papirius Carbo, the orator)

Gaius Papirius Carbo (consul 120 BC) was a most successful student of rhetoric at lands in the empire, earning the provision of the agrarian law of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus who wrote history episodes for the farmers, which may be found everywhere.

Just so you understand the "rules" of this system here are a few:

The coded word is EXACTLY the same amount of letters as the decoded word - in English, NOT Italian, NOT Latin, NOT even French.

The coded name is EXACTLY the same amount of letters as somewhere in the decoded Roman's name (i.e. Arnobius = Papirius).

IF the word "and" is immediately after the comma, THEN this segment to the next comma is true. IF however the word "and" or "but" is not there then opposites apply in that segment to the next comma.

IF the word is capalized THEN this is a coded word (i.e. "Against") and is probably the opposite ("Against" = "for").

WHEN there is a capalized adjective, THEN the word it modifies is the coded word, which has an opposite meaning (i.e. "On faith" = on a high degree of justice and integrity).

Biblical names will have their meanings and is found at List of Biblical names.

The ranks of the "Christians" have the same rank position as the Roman soldiers (bishop = general)

Chapter 78 (Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, the general)

Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (2nd century BC), a resident of that harsh authority area which is called consul, a member of the patrician gens Fabia and no small wealth, having become general composed a finely written work in praise of martyrs and arguing against the judge who tried to compel him to offer sacrifices was crowned for the formally selected one during the same special treatment in which deceased uncle Scipio Aemilianus Africanus was brought to life by a banquet to the citizenry of Rome where Fabius pronounced the funeral oration.

As smart and educated as you have shown yourself to be (perhaps you are a college student, a teacher, a librarian, or maybe even a professor), THEN you should have no trouble tearing this apart. HOWEVER, I'll bet the farm you are going to have trouble doing that, especially after I have given you the "rules" to the system. Remember, it was NOT originally written in Latin, so you can NOT use Latin words to tear it apart.

Remember you agreed with the numbers to the Battle of Magnesia (which lines up with chapter 81) and you even changed the article accordingly. There was 100,000 that participated and 50,000 that was killed - anyway that is what you said after you followed up on the research. I'll bet you money, you want to say these numbers in chapter 81 is just a coincidence - ya, perhaps a-million-to-one or more!

Chapter 77 (Achaicus the general)

Lucius Mummius Achaicus (2nd century BC), a man of little talent, general of the organized group of people at Corinth, as so pressured in the study of the mercantile party, that even now certain copies of the mercantile party bear the name of Roman Senate. Works of his on a high degree of justice and integrity and short lessons of morality to various people of Corinth are still existing. He was brought to life in 142 BC with Scipio Aemilianus Africanus for his confession of the formally selected one in the special treatment of tolerance. He was buried at Megalopolis in nickname ("Achaicus") for military services.

Giving you an additional one, so you see we are talking the same thing. Your link I provided you with seems to be working correctly.

Since I have given you several I will give you extra time to tear it apart (a week), however you MUST follow those "rules" of the system and NOT use Latin.

I suggest you write up a list of specific questions in Notepad. Since I am the only one that has decoded this, then I will have the answers. Make it at least a dozen, so you will understand the system.

Since I have given you several and the "rules" of the system, THEN where do these 5 chapters NOT follow these rules. Don't go outside of these "rules" as that then it is NOT the system.

IF you think this was written in the 4th century, THEN we really have coincidences - in the order of billions-to-one. Nope, I checked again and my calculator does not have that many digits to calculate this out.

You say Latin - I say English. You say potato, I say potato.

IF you give me at least a dozen good serious detailed related questions on this system and how it works and on how I got certain decoding, THEN I will reveal the famous Italian Renaissance author that researched and came up with the material. Keep in mind however, he did not ultimately write this up. It was another very famous fourteenth century author that knew English extremely well.

See you in a week. I'll be busy decoding additional chapters, using the "rules" of the system. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting claims. Yet, I hope you also have the original translation you claim as the original text, since an English text of the 14th century may have radical differences from an English text of the 19th or the 20th century, especially if the code key has to do with details as commas and capital letters. GK1973 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that it was not translated from Latin or Italian. It was originally written up in English. Now I realize that English text of the 14th century may have radical differences from an English text of the 19th or the 20th century, HOWEVER the key coded words have EXACTLY the same number of letters as that used in the 14th century AND all the coded words were in use in the 14th century. Also that is why the outcome is NOT smooth to us. BUT it still is English that can be understood by us. Notice that in all the examples I gave you that all the coded key words just happen to have the exact number of letters. It decodes using the "rules" of the system that I gave you AND follows the ancient history recorded correctly for that Roman soldier involved. It has NEVER failed me yet, and presently I am in chapter 84 that I am decoding. The most important issue in the decoding process, is that it follows a chronological seguence of events. You think I could make it come out that way? AND you have yet to explain the "coincidences" of the numbers that just happen to have come out in chapter 81 for the Battle of Magnesia. Just "coincidences? Now, just to make it a little more interesting I'll give you a clue as to the famous Italian Renaissance author that researched the material. In the decoded material do you see anything common?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on your remark ...especially if the code key has to do with details as commas and capital letters. As you can see I have decoded the first 84 chapters. On average I would say there are about a dozen "segments" between the commas for each. That then comes to over 1000 "segments" (84 times 12). Now throw in the capalized adjectives that modify the "coded" word. It turns out, especially upon close examination, that the "rules" I am following for the system have revealed the ancient Roman commanders (in some cases ancient Greek and ancient Persian kings) correctly. IF, as you are implying, this is all coincidental and the mss was written in the fourth or fifth century in very ancient Latin and copied by multiple different monks correctly throughout the many centuries and then ultimately in the ninteeth century translated into English with the properly placed commas and capalized adjectives where I could turn this somehow into a sequentially chronological timetable of ancient Romans and their battles in Greece, Africa and Italy, THEN I would say this is in the order of a Googol to one that it is all just coincidential - OR perhaps I am just that smart to pull this off. Which? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For another valuable clue as to who this famous Italian Renaissance author is, just answer these two simple questions:

How many books to the Bible (the one that you are most familiar with)?
How many "Christian writers" did Jerome write bios on (look closely)?

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF you answer the above two simple questions, I'll let you off the hook of trying to explain the Battle of Magnesia and explaining off Chapter 81 of the "coincidences" in the decoding of the connections of Marcus Baebius Tamphilus with 20,000 for legions and 15,000 Italians and 25,000 foot and 1000 horse and the 5,000 volunteers and 3,000 on the life of mercenaries and the 100,000 total participated and 50,000 killed (that you not only accepted as correct numbers but rewrote accordingly).--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus: IF additionally you also tell me how many letters in CARTHAGE, then I will throw in the name of the famous fourteenth century English author. (It doesn't get any easier.)

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I made these questions a little too difficult. I'll reword them to make it easier.

How many books to the Christian Bible (the one that I imagine you are most familiar with)?
How many "Christian writers" did Jerome write bios on, not counting himself (an accepted amount by all scholars)?

I'll give you two very good clues as to who this original Italian Renaissance author is where the material came from, IF you can answer the above easy questions.
Bonus: IF additionally you also tell me how many letters in C-A-R-T-H-A-G-E, then I will throw in the name of the famous fourteenth century English author that actually wrote this coded material - that happens to have "coincidentially" the same number of letters as Jerome.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AND also then you are off the hook trying to explain the "coincidences" of Chapter 81 as to all the numbers that happen to match the Battle of Magnesia that you yourself approved as being correct. You rewrote the article accordingly with references to Grainger and Livy that you researched out to have found to be correct.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess those were real difficult questions. Sorry about that. I'll help you out:

Use the amount of books in the King James Version by just adding up the amount of books in the Old Tesament to the New Testament.
It is the amount of the Famous Women added to the number of chapters in Acts of the Apostles.

mmmmmm, now I wonder why that "coincidence" came about. I'll never tell......other than to say it definitely is not a "coincidence." I know this one is over your head, so I'll keep quiet on it.

One of the clues is that the famous Italian Renaissance author wrote a book on Africa, that is basically not read in today's world.

HOWEVER, the book is in every major language and available in every major University in the world (especially Europe and US). It is mostly about certain ruins in Africa and its history.

I personally borrowed the book (printed in English 1977 by Yale University) from another major University and noted that the last time it was checked out was over a decade previously.

Another clue is that he wrote a large volume of letters to different people. Some were to people long dead, others to made up people - yet he was considered a genius, that has not been surpassed to this day (an opinion held by the most top scholars worldwide and rarely disputed). Most scholars consider him smarter than Leonardo da Vinci.

C-A-R-T-H-A-G-E still has the same amount of letters as when it was spelled in the fourteenth century. Want to verify the amount. I'm thinking it is 8, what do you think? Cat got your tongue?

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it even easier AND let you off the hook explaining away the "coincidences" of Chapter 81 matching those of the Battle of Magnesia (referenced by Grainger and Livy that you do not dispute) IF you can tell me how many letters to Y-O-U-N-G-E-R. Hint: look in chapter 88 and it is the amount of letters sent to Coptic. You can decode it youself IF you want, since you have the "rules" of the system. However it does take a little brain-power. Here is a little helper: embezzlement has 12 letters.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a another little helper: philosophy has 10 letters. Now all you have to do is match them up with the coded words. This famous Roman statesman was for a long time a recluse and lived like a monk.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 63 (Marcus the General 268-208 BC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus, whose five history records of being elected consul 5 times, are yet still existing, in the reign of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who succeeded cognomen "Marcellus", received a commission to restore the area of Gallic, which afterwards was called the area of victory. There is a formal instructional letter of his to Scipio Africanus on the question of triumph joy, where it is contended that this story is not contained in the one that happened, and is not consistent with the one that passed in the history of a particular set of words in respect of the play on spolia optima. In reply to this, Scipio Africanus wrote a learned formal instructional record in history. There is still existing another record of his in The Histories by Polybius, in which he discusses at length the discrepancies of the cognomen "Marcellus" which appear in the genealogy back to the fourth century BC of our Saviour (Marcus Marcellus), as recorded by "Life of Marcellus."

Check this one out, as it has a lot of good material for hints. Is the information here accurate as to the historical records? Does the coded story follow this decoded information. Do all the coded words have EXACTLY the same number of letters as the decoded? Look especially at the "Life of Marcellus" as to being the family genealogy. I thought the play on words of "spolia optima" was especially interesting. In the coded text it is the play on “prinos and prisai,” “schinos and schisai.”

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 64 (Lepidus the consul)

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 232 BC) of the organized group of people at violence, composed a few monuments of his genius which flourished in the time of the gladiator and fighters, specialist of their area, especially at the time at which Carthage was established belonging to the sea of the organized group of people at Alexandria.

Chapter 65 (Postumius, surnamed Albinus the consul 234 BC and 239 BC)

Lucius Postumius (consul 234 and 239 BC), afterwards called Albinus, was in 215 BC decapitated by the Po river at Cisalpine Gaul, while yet a very young man, in company with his brother Spurius Postumius Albinus Paullulus, went from a sphere to his son with the name Postumius, and thence being cut down and bringing ruin to his army of two legions. When the Celtic Boii had seen the remarkable natural ability of these men, he urged them to study philosophy, in the teaching of which he gradually introduced the matter of faith in the formally selected one and made them also his followers to death. So, instructed by him for five months in 228/7 BC, they were sent back by him to their Queen Teuta of Illyria. Postumius, on his departure, wrote a lofty formal occasion in praise of giving up to the Celtic Boii, and delivered it before a large assembly, Celtic Boii themselves being present. This slaughter record is still existing at the present time. He wrote also a short, but very valuable, paraphrase on thoughts about life and its meaning, and current report speaks of other instructional records of his, but more especially of the signs and wonders, which as consul, he performed to the great glory of the Roman military legions.

Chapter 66 (Scipio Cornelius, the General)

Scipio Africanus (235 BC - 183 BC), overseer of Rome, to whom eight letters of Carthage still exists. On the Rome (Italy) African council was another (Scipio Cornelius Africanus). On Numidian (Syphax), and those who had fallen from the faith (sided with Carthage insteading of siding with Rome), a third (overseer). On the acts of the council (Roman Senate) was a fourth (overseer). Very extended tedious lengthy (delayed) one, to the same Fabius Maximus (known as Cunctator - the Delayer), containing the causes of the Numidian (Syphax) heresy and the items condemned of this. Lucius Aemilius Paullus ruled the Roman forces for the second consul under Gaius Terentius Varro (216 BC). Scipio Cornelius Africanus received the crown of matrimony for the formally selected one (Aemilia Tertia, daughter of Lucius Aemilius Paullus), whom was succeeded by Lucius (her father).

Chapter 67 (Hannibal the General)

Hannibal (248 BC - 183 BC) of Africa, at first was famous as a teacher of persuasive speaking then afterwards on the persuasion of the administrative duties of the Cornelius commander, from whom he received his surname. He became a devout believer in being an innovative ruler and gave all his substance to the poor. Not long after he was inducted into the administrative duties he was also made overseer of Carthage. It is unnecessary to make a catalogue of the works of his genius, since they are more conspicuous than the sun. He was put to death (defeated) under the dictator Fabius Maximus, in the eighth persecution, on the same time that (Scipio) Cornelius was put to death at Rome, but not in the same year. (Turns out Hannibal died in the year 183 BC, same year as Scipio. Hannibal was 64 and Scipio was 53.)

NOW do you see anything common? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 82 (Papirius the overseer)

Gnaeus Papirius Carbo (c. 130s BC - 82 BC) overseer of Carbo, among the Carbo (Carbone), had a terrible reputation with Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius in the life span of Pantelleria (called ancient Cossyra). He has written his commentaries on the gens of Carbo and another great volume for the Samnites, but besides these he has produced other works of his.

Chapter 83 (Lucius Cornelius Cinna, the consul)

Lucius Cornelius Cinna (d. 84 BC), overseer of ancient Roman family in Cinna and afterwards of gens (Cornelius), composed history records for Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) written in murdered and command style also a praetor of the ten praetor. Also he composed a terrible work on the resurrection (of the enfranchisement of the Italian allies) for Gaius Marius and on the possession of take city also with Marius. He also wrote commentaries on contest (with Lucius Cornelius Sulla) and on the area of Marsi and many others which are widely read. At the beginning of his last position as consul or, as mutinous legionaries affirm, in the life span of people of Liburnians, he was crowned with martyrdom at killing in mutiny.

Chapter 84 (Gnaeus Octavius the reputable)

Gnaeus Octavius, a relative of noble family and reputable, translating the four related (Gnaeus Octavius, Marcus Octavius, Gaius Octavius, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) almost verbally in hexameter verses (6 generation span), composed four history records. He wrote some other things in the same meter relating to the order of the popular assemblies. He flourished in the life span of aristocratic.

This one is interesting because Plutarch says he was "reputable" - which works very nicely with the 9 letter word "presbyter." Also he lived in the life span of aristocratic (12 letters), which works nicely with He flourished in the reign of Constantinus (12 letters).--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 1 (Appius Claudius, the one heard that is the rock)

Appius Claudius, the son of Gaius Claudius Crassus (Roman dictator 337 BC), from the territory of being quite productive, brother of a strong military commander. Himself chief of the illustrious commanders, after having been censor in 312 BC (at the age of 28) although he had not been a consul before. He taught to the scattered colonies throughout Latium and Campania to become Romanized. The believers in going around with the Campania people near the Tyrrhenian Sea, the senators approved going to war against the Samnite hill people in defense of the Campania people. The Second Samnite War pushed on to Rome’s favor by 321 BC. This year became lame to overthrow Gaius Pontius as the Romans were defeated at Caudine Forks. Appius held the consul chair there for twenty-five years until the last (in 296 BC), that is the fourteenth year of being a civil servant from which he first served in 312 BC. At Gaius Pontius’ hands the Roman soldiers received the crown of extreme humiliation being compelled to pass ‘under the yoke’ with their head towards the ground (bow) and their feet raised on high, asserting that they were worthy to be punished severely in the same manner as their ruler (the "yoke" was made of the Roman soldier’s spears, the ultimate insult). Herennius (father of Gaius) wrote two formal instructional letters which are called of extreme opposites, the second of which, on account of its extreme difference from the first in style, was considered by Gaius not to be by his father. Then too the good news according to politeness, who was his leader and interpreter, is ascribed to Gaius. On the other hand, the Roman history books, of the actions, good news, teachings, revelation and judgment are rejected as the true historic picture since buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way the defeat is regarded with reverence by the whole world (Roman historians distorted the true picture of the defeat).

Chapter 2 (Ptolemy I Soter, the half-brother of Alexander the Great)

Ptolemy I Soter (ruler of Egypt 323 BC - 283 BC), who is called the half-brother of Alexander the Great, surnamed the upright (title was with an "I"), the son of additional by another wife (Phillip II’s son by his concubine), as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of bitter sister of the mother of our ruler of whom the grace of self-subsisting makes mention in his book, after our ruler’s passion at once to decree by the military commander overseer of vision of peace, became a bodyguard for Alexander the Great, which is reckoned among the seven somatophylakes. Even this of being half-brother of Alexander the Great is claimed by some to have been published as a later myth fabricated to glorify the Ptolematic dynasty, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authenticity. Molossians who lived near the illustrious military commanders age, in the fifth book of its commentaries (305 BC), writing of Ptolemy, says "After the military commanders, Ptolemy I Soter, the half-brother of the ruler surnamed the upright ("I"), was made head of both the Ptolematic Kingdom and the Ptolematic Dynasty. Many indeed are called Ptolemy (Ptolemy I-IV, VI-VIII, XII-XIII, et al). This one ("I") was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, to such an extent that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees." They say also many other things, too numerous to mention. Additional also in the 20th book of its antiquities (1. Ptolemy II Philadelphus · 2. Ptolemy Keraunos · 3. Meleager · 4. Ptolemy III Euergetes · 5.Ptolemy IV Philopator · 6. Ptolemy V Epiphanes · 7. Ptolemy VI Philometor · 8. Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator · 9. Ptolemy VIII Physcon · 10. Ptolemy IX Lathyros · 11. Ptolemy X Alexander · 12. Berenice III · 13. Ptolemy XI Alexander · 14. Ptolemy XII Auletes · 15. Cleopatra V · Berenice IV · 17. Ptolemy XIII · 18. Ptolemy XIV · 19. Cleopatra VII Philopator · 20. Ptolemy XV Caesarion). Merciful in the 7th of their outlines (1. Psamtik I · 2. Necho II · 3. Ahmose II · 4. Nepherites I · 5. Nectanebo I · 6. Alexander the Great · 7. Ptolemy I) mention that on the death of Alexander III who reigned over the praise of self-support our chief was sent by Lagus as the Greek successor. After Egypt had reached their province of Cyrenaica, Ptolemy I as satrap of Egypt, Cleomenes of Naucratis the former satrap now as Ptolemy’s deputy, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, did not assemble a council and without authorization forced Cyrenaica to admit that the formally chosen way is the result of good moral life experiences. Then they accepted Ptolemy’s decree of them to be annexed. Directed up to the Ptolemaic dynasty, their legs broken, but still half alive, raising their hands to heaven they said, "Ruler forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller - such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with - their independence died. Magas of Cyrene records the tradition that this Ptolemy was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of vision of peace was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom Magas of Cyrene writes to those in white that "No one else of the military commanders did I see except the Ptolemy I Soter the half-brother of the ruler Alexander," and shortly after the event the ‘’’Acts of the apostles’’’ (acts of the military commanders) bear witness to the matter. The good news also which is called the good news according to the descendants of one that passes, and which I have recently transcribed into Italian and Latin and which also that rejoices often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of Ptolemy I says, "but the ruler, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to Ptolemy (for Ptolemy had sworn that he would not break substance from that time in which he drank the cup of the Ptolemaic dynasty until he should see it rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says ""Bring a table and substance," said the ruler." And immediately it is added to the Ptolemaic kingdom, "He brought substance and blessed and broke and gave to Ptolemy I and said to him, "my brother eat your substance, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep."" And so Magas of Cyrene reigned the organized group of people of vision of peace 30 years (280 BC - 250 BC) and was reabsorbed by the Ptolemaic Egypt. Its name of Cyrenaica was not known until taken over by the Roman Republic and the end of Ptolemy Apion’s reign. Some of our writers think it was buried in prosperity, but they are mistaken.

Giving you these to show you they follow in a chronological time table order and that I have everything from 1-84, so far.....--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize it until now, but apparently you do much research on Alexander the Great. THEN you can verify the above decoded information is correct. Tell me where it is wrong. AND you want to tell me this was written some 1600 years ago in Latin and I managed to make it come out in such detail, following the "rules" of the system I have already described to you. Since I know this information is accurate and correct, I figure I must have scared you. Well anyway, I'll continue decoding the allegory. Did you know that the Chronicle of universal history has 28 homilies? That's what Jerome says in his signature of Chapter 135. I found that document and have an early seventeenth century copy of it. Nobody in the world knows of it (that I know of anyway). It decodes using the same "rules" of the system I discovered. It is a list of 28 biographies of ancient Persian kings, ancient Greek kings, ancient Egyptian kings, ancient Roman kings (perhaps that is why it is called universal history). It starts with Darius I and goes in reverse chronological order. One of the biographies is of Alexander the Great. Its way fun to decode and gives me much ancient history that otherwise I would have never learned. I am presently polishing biography 10 and this person is of an ancient person you are most familiar with. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I thought was very interesting was the seven Catholic Epistles which turns out to be the 7 Somatophylakes of Alexander the Great. I assume you are familiar with them? AND of the 20th book of its antiquities and the 7th of their outlines. You think I am making this stuff up? Well then, not bad for a novice, ah? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 85 (Saturninus the tribune)

Lucius Appuleius Saturninus (died December, 100 BC), a Roman popularist to ally, superintendent first of import in Ostia and then of tribune, administered the veterans and, composing many things for the doctrine of Africa, was brought into retaliating under the emperor Mithridates VI of Pontus from Commonwealth of people where he was until that time. Works of his are extant on the pity of argumentum ad misericordiam for appeal to emotion too numerous to mention.

Chapter 85 (Eustathius the bishop) {coded}

Eustathius, a Pamphilian from Side, bishop first of Beraea in Syria and then of Antioch, ruled the church and, composing many things against the doctrine of the Arians, was driven into exile under the emperor Constantius into Trajanopolis in Thrace where he is until this day. Works of his are extant On the soul, On ventriloquism Against Origen and Letters too numerous to mention.

Going to give you much detail in this chapter so you can see the process:
BOTH Eustathius and Saturninus have 10 letters. BOTH Pamphilian and popularist have 10 letters. BOTH Side and ally have 4 letters. BOTH Beraea and import have 6 letters. Both Syria and Ostia have 5 letters. BOTH Arians and Africa have 6 letters. BOTH Constantius and Mithridates have 11 letters. BOTH Trajanopolis and Commonwealth 12 letters. BOTH Thrace and people have 6 letters. BOTH soul and pity have 4 letters. BOTH ventriloquism and misericordiam have 13 letters. BOTH Origen and appeal have 6 letters. BOTH Letters and emotion have 7 letters. The key code "Against" is capalized and therefore is "for." The capalized word "On" modifies the key coded word "soul", which turns out to be "pity" - what a pity it happens to also have 4 letters! I think his connection to the allottmewnt of 100 iugera of land in Africa to the veterans was most noble.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 86 (Quintus Servilius Caepio, the general)

Quintus Servilius Caepio (consul 106 BC), general of Romans, flourished in the life time of disobedience and destruction and wrote many history records of various annihilation, especially against the troops. Works of harshest and penalization for him are in the past, which accuse him of recklessness. Gnaeus Mallius Maximus too, in the seventy thousand killed of his work for the Cimbri, mentions him as a heretic, but he defends himself against the charge through the fact that treaty and resolution, overseer of calm and complacent, communed with him.

Chapter 86 (Marcellus the bishop){coded}

Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, flourished in the reign of Constantinus and Constantius and wrote many volumes of various Propositions and especially against the Arians. Works of Asterius and Apollinarius against him are current, which accuse him of Sabellianism. Hilary too, in the seventh book of his work Against the Arians, mentions him as a heretic, but he defends himself against the charge through the fact that Julius and Athanasius bishops of Rome and Alexandria communed with him.

Here are many details in this chapter also so you can see the process:
BOTH Marcellus and Servilius have 9 letters. BOTH Ancyra and Romans have 6 letters. BOTH Constantinus and disobedience have 12 letters. BOTH Constantius and destruction have 11 letters. BOTH Propositions and annihilation have 12 letters. BOTH Arians and troops have 6 letters. BOTH Asterius and harshest have 8 letters. BOTH Apollinarius and penalization have 12 letters. BOTH Sabellianism and recklessness have 12 letters. BOTH Hilary and Gnaeus have 6 letters. BOTH Arians and Cimbri have 6 letters. BOTH Julius and treaty have 6 letters. BOTH Athanasius and resolution have 10 letters. BOTH Rome and calm have 4 letters. BOTH Alexandria and complacent have 10 letters. The key coded word "Against" is capitalized, therefore is "for". Caepio spent the rest of his life in exile in Asia Minor and never went to Africa.

Does all this help? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 91 (Marcus Aemilius Lepidus another statesman)

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 78 BC) of power, who had fine political talent, composed undermining works suited to win popular applause and writing historically he is most diligently read by those who practice public speaking. Among these the chief are, for land, memorial and interment and cemetery on the Campus Martius, exile in Sardinia. He lived in the life span of the ruling of Transalpine Gaul in whose time period he died and was buried immediately.

Chapter 91 (Eusebius another bishop)

Eusebius of Emesa, who had fine rhetorical talent, composed innumerable works suited to win popular applause and writing historically he is most diligently read by those who practise public speaking. Among these the chief are, Against Jews, Gentiles and Novatians and Homilies on the Gospels, brief but numerous. He flourished in the reign of the emperor Constantius in whose reign he died, and was buried at Antioch.

What's interesting about this one I just decoded is the use of the British word "practise". Supposedly this was translated from very ancient Latin (some 1600 years old) by an American with a PHd from Princeton University. Doesn't seem logical that an American librarian would use British words. Something is amiss. AND it happens to follow the set of "rules" of my system. Better follow up on this to make sure I am right. Like I say, it was originally written up by a very well known English professor from Oxford University - who would use British English! Now my question is to you: How come I can decode this with the "rules" I have given you? Nice that BOTH Constantius and Transalpine have 11 letters. AND all the other words match up with EXACTLY the correct amount of letters of the decoded words to have it come out correctly as to the recorded ancient history written up originally by Livy. OR I am super smart to somehow make it come out this way. Which?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to mention - does it look like to you it is going in a chronological timeline?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figured out the odds of the British word practise being used in the United States. In an educational environment it would be 7,333,200 to 1. In a library environment it would be something over 47,000,000 to 1. Something is amiss, as there is no chance in h_ _ _ that this PHd librarian from Princeton University translated this from Latin, that was supposedly some 1600 years old - where it comes out in a system of commas, unusual capitalized words, and Biblical names that can be deciphered into meaningful ancient Roman history. This mistake of using a British word that basically is never used in the United States (as it is considered a misspelling) only proves this whole thing was written up originally in England. I say not only was it originally written up in British English, but that there is a system of "rules" here - that IF followed unveils the ancient history hidden (written originally by Livy in his history book), in a chronological timeline. Note that every unveiled English word was used in the fourteenth century and many started their usage in that century. This is such a dramatic discovery that apparently I have left you speechless. I see it makes your jaw drop. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the oldest verifiable copy of this manuscript is of the fifteenth century. Now that is not surprising to me, as I say it was originally written in the fourteenth century in England - therefore there can not be any copy of this (in any language) before that time. Now IF you want to say this was originally written in the 4th or 5th century and then copied by dozens of monks through the many centuries and ultimately wound up in English in the nineteenth century in such a manner I can decipher it to come out in a chronological manner and it matches ancient history recorded by Livy - well then I must be a genius. Actually I just decoded the material - its a lot easier, as I have no knowledge of ancient history. I have to look it up. IF you want to participate in a great discovery, I welcome any scholarly help I can get. However, IF you want to try to tear it apart - well, I welcome that also, as I know you can not. IF you want to remain speechless, well that tells me something also.

1) The discovery has left you speechless, which means you must therefore believe it.
2) You can not figure out how to tear it apart, as there are far too many parts that have fallen together logically.

Whatever you want to do ONLY verifies to me you are convinced that in fact this is an allegory, since you are not able to tear it apart. You have had plenty of opportunity and didn't even come close. Thanks for your help, appreciate it! I won't continue to bore you with decodes like in chapter 92 where "Burbulieus" has 10 letters and just happens to fit "Leucotheon", which just happens to have 10 letters. AND "Mithridates" has 11 letters, just like Constantius. I'll continue through until I get all 134 "Christians" - that of course I know already will line up in a chronological timeline. Who knows who I might find.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Hi GK1973, I have almost finished the bulk of my citing/clean-up edits on Alexander. I was wondering if you could help with a pointer to a reference or book about the Hellenistic culture preserved in the Byzantine empire; not for expanding, but just to cite sth in the main text for anyone caring to look deeper (I could find sth myself, but you indicated better knowledge on this subject). Needless to say that this is not to discuss about the lead again, I am satisfied with it now. Cheers! Antipastor (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite satisfactory refs today, have a look in the article if you want. Regards. Antipastor (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I will look into it myself during Christmas... weeks now are kinda hectic for me, hence my temporary inactivity...GK1973 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time

For the Millionth Time aka Macedonians and Greeks again...

Well I think we should calm down and be reasonable. This is not so important so that we have to lose our heads.

The literature I cited is too well known between the people who study the period of Alexander III that I thought it would be easy for you to find the places. What I said is just too well known to be of need for further proving. I gave some comments at some other places citing a lot of literature, may be last year, may be 2-3 years ago and have no time to do it all again. I could do it for you, but please check for yourself first two or three places and you will see that I am right. Look up my comments on Wikipedia at some Greek history sites; I gave quite a lot of precise references there.

Yes, there is evidence that the Hellenes did not understand Macedonians (for example the Philotas case refers to Rufus, 6, 9, 30 and later.). Sorry, just to avoid confusion. I am referring to the Yardley’s translation of Curtius Rufus (1984). In some earlier editions, like 1712 (translated by de Vogelas, Latin-French edition) the mentioned passage on Philotas is in 6, 10. What I say about Macedonian nationalism is true. This was really extreme. The Macedonians were quite ethnocentric as it could be judged from our today’s point of view. Almost all high positions in the army were held by Macedonians (see Borza, E.N., Makedonika, pp152-158) and Diadochi were all Macedonians. Alexander was also quite “macedonocentric”. This is interesting because he was proud to be a descendant of Achiles also. When a Macedonian officer lost in a “sport” battle against Greeek (Hellen) wrestler he was extremely angry (I will find it for you if you want, this is in Arrian.). I think there is now a book by Waldemar Hackel something like Who is who in Alexander time. Couple of generals were Hellens (Greeks), but just couple. Alexander just could not believe his Hellenic alliance. The Macedonians kept their ethnocentrism to the very end of the Diadochi kingdoms! Or, in the “Genius of Alexander the Great” (1997, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.), Hammond refers to the Alexander’s army as “Macedonians”, the state “Macedonian”, he is the king “of Macedonians”, etc. Of course there are the Greeks there also. However, he was “the King of Macedonians and King of Asia” (pages 114, 200), but never “king of Greeks”. Never, although he was one. In “A History of Macedonia”, book 3, p 93 (Clarendon Press 1988) Hammond and Walbank specify: “The aim of Alexander to create a Kingdom of Asia and not a Macedonian empire in Asia, similar to the MACEDONIAN EMPIRE IN THE BALKANS (my emphasis), was formally approved when he was publicly proclaimed “King of Asia” presumably by the Macedonians in his army…”. So we had, a Macedonian state, a Macedonian king of what we call today Macedonian empire.

As an example, just a few words about Arrian. You see Arrian never explicitly says that the Macedonians are in fact Greeks (he uses the expression “Hellenes”, of course). When he talks about the king (Alexander) yes, but not when he talks about Macedonian soldiers. There is one place that attracted my attention that I give below (Anabasis of Alexander, 2, 7, 4-5). There Arrian, in fact, is not clear, although more the context and obvious intention show that the Macedonians and Hellenes are different people. But this is really not stated explicitly. I am talking about Greek text, which you have in Loeb. Now the translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt is certainly wrong (Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.)

But similarly, the translations of Chinnock and Brunt are inexact also. However, they make explicit what Arrian only implies. I discussed this with some colleagues and they also think that the Greek version is clear, Arrian wants to say: the the Greeks that fight on the side of Darius, fight for money, while the Greeks who fight WITH Macedonians (on their side) fight for freedom and for Greece. But this is ONLY implicit meaning. And contemporary Greeks, of course, hold only to what is explicitly said. (I gave below these translations, from Brunt (1976) just the line. I do not have Robson from 1929 but believe that Brunt did not deviate too much; original Greek majority of people have, I think and there is no need to type it now (I also do not have Greek fonts here). As I said at some other places, in all secondary biographies of Alexander (5 essential), general atmosphere is that Macedonian and the Greeks are distinct people. It probably changed later, but I am not so well acquainted with the 3rd and latter centuries. Here is the citation:

1. (Alexander speaking to Macedonians about Persian army) He added that their foes were similar to them neither in strength nor in courage; for the Macedonians, who had long been practised in warlike toils accompanied with danger, were coming into close conflict with Persians and Medes, men who had become enervated by a long course of luxurious ease; and, to crown all, they, being freemen, were about to engage in battle with men who were slaves. He said, moreover, that the Greeks who were coming into conflict with Greeks would not be fighting for the same objects; for those with Darius were braving danger for pay, and that pay not high; whereas, those on their side were voluntarily defending the interests of Greece. Again, of foreigners, the Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, and Agrianians, who were the most robust and warlike of men in Europe, were about to be arrayed against the most sluggish and effeminate races of Asia. (From: E. J. Chinnock, London: George Bell and Sons, 1893.)

2. (…) the Greeks on our side will fight as volunteers in the case of Greece. (…) (From: P.A. Brunt, London, The Loeb Classical Library, 1976.). I give the summary of the relevant literature and what subjects are treated there: NGL Hammond and FW Walbank: A History of Macedonia, volume III, particularly chapter V (The legacy of Alexander – what concerns the political Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms) (1988); NGL Hammond: The Macedonian State (also implying Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms), particularly the chapter X (1998); EN Borza: In the Shadow of Olympus - The Emergence of Macedon, particularly chapter 10, what concerns the nature of the Philip’s and Alexander’s reign (1990); EN Borza: Makedonika, particularly chapter 8 (on military conservative and nationalist Macedonian army); EN Borza: Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, chapter II (about Macedonian nationalism). More popular is RL Fox: The Classical World, an Epic History of Greece and Rome, particularly chapter 22, Alexander early successors (2006)

Please read not only the titles and Wikipedia articles. Read these wonderful books. Draganparis (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have to plead with you Draganparis... I am too well versed in this to have to answer to amateurish arguments like that. Please do not pursue it further, for it is evident you are not interested in any real debate; you have not even researched any of the sources you give yourself. I have diligently studied every ancient and medieval text that has to do with Alexander the Great (I only mention Alexander, for it should be the focal point of this "debate"), I have personally examined thousands of ancient Macedonian and other revealing Greek ancient inscriptions and papyri (and I am particularly referring to those found on Macedonian territory and dependencies) and I also have studied most modern literature on the matter. Citing what you think serves your position in this manner is not sufficient to intrigue me let alone persuade me of anything. I have given you much food for thought and you chose not to answer to any of my claims. Instead you keep citing texts you obviously have not studied (Hammond!!!??? For God's sake!). This is not a forum on the Macedonian Question and I really don't care if your country will be called Macedonia or RoMacedonia or any other name. I only know history and archaeology and will defend academic consensus and truth to the best of my abilities. Should you have any questions on my posts I will be glad to answer you. Should you find any text confirming what I have challenged you to confirm, I will be glad to look through it, but endless efforts to present parts of texts out-of context do really not deserve my time. I know of every instance you have mentioned and not one really supports your view apart from in a way that is excusable for people who have not studied ancient Greek. I know how the ancients expressed themselves and can easily dismiss all arguments based on phrases like "the Macedonians and the Greeks", which form the main arguments of those who persist this amateurish fight. I can quote you hundreds of examples which, if taken on the same basis as you do with some sporadic phrases in Arrian or Curtius will more easily prove that the Athenians were the barbarians of Ancient Greece. You just interpret Arrian and any other text you find through English grammar and this is incorrect. Of course I do not expect you to understand, agree or know of what I am speaking, but please... if you want me to take you seriously, you first have to also address my points as I have addressed all your points. This "you only ask and I only answer" game is truly a very low trick to play... I know Arrian by heart and I know all about this fight you are talking about and what ensued. I have read Borza, I have read Hammond and I have read Fox. Have you? Do you know that Hammond and Fox are considered among the best known proponents of the Greekness of the Macedonians? Even your mentioning them makes me wonder whether you read their work or just picked some lines out of certain sites, as has been the case so many times before with other would be experts on the ancient Macedonians.

What you are talking about the "ethnocentrism" of the Macedonians is totally flawed and you have not even deigned to dispute my multiple arguments, which you should at least have tried to do if you want to make me take you seriously as a debater. I don't need you to find anything for me for I already know where everything is... Have you researched what I told you about the Companions? Have you read Polybius' account of the preparation of the battle of Raphia? Did you check Arrian's accounts of Greeks reading the personal correspondence of Alexander with his most Macedonian generals? Did you check the text regarding Philotas and the way he would speak before the assembly? This and much more you did not make any effort to look up, read and comment on. Instead, you come here giving me more out-of-context bibliography as if I was someone who can be drawn into such childish games. Please... lay low and sincerely try to provide quality and unbiased edits. . GK1973 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

draganparis. My answer: O.K. fine. Let us start with some citations, one by one. I mentioned Rufus and Philotas problem. Tell me please how do you interpret Rufus, 6, 9, 35; Rufus 6, 10, 23; and Rufus, 6, 11,1

Again.. I will not enetr into any debate with a man who only asks. Answer to my points and I will answer to yours. GK1973 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Macedonians and the Greeks (Hellenes) spoke the languages which differed so much that they could not communicate. What do you think?Draganparis (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anothe question - Let us have some fun. Since I started to see your name all over the places where people fight for or against the expression “Macedonia” in principle - with the tendency to remove it from history and keep just “Greece” or “Hellenes” - here is the second puzzle for the Sunday afternoon: The “eternal” question is whether Macedonians were Greeks or not. However, since Alexander I. had to prove to the Hellenes (to the Greeks, as some would say today), that he was “Greek” too – what, as Herodotus claims, he did - he was then permitted to take part on the Olympics. Can we conclude then that his Macedonians were not automatically consider to be Hellenes (“Greeks”) at that time?

(I wonder, since you studied so much, as you claim, whether you could reproduce this argument in the language of formal logic. May be you will show in this way that I am wrong? However, if I am right, why do people quarrel then about “greekness” or “ungreekness” of the Ancient Macedonians? The answer is obvious. Indeed, after Alexander III this has probably changed, but this is the other story.)Draganparis (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? Then you will have also seen that I have defended Republic of Macedonia over FYROM, that I have only written about history and helped stabilize your own country's article regarding ancient and medieval history against Greek overpatriotism... Anyways... you are a dabbler and it is evident from your argumentation. You also avoid answering questions and instead only pose more and more questions without ever criticizing the answers. Boy, I have been through such propagandistic tricks too many times to be dragged as some 19 year old student. If you want to have fun, I would advise to study more and write less. Your answers have been given many times and by many historians (some of which you referred to, obviously by mistake). I would also propose you bring out your ubernationalistic fervor in some appropriate forum. If you want puzzles I would suggest something with not too many pieces, for you seem to tend to get perplexed by complexity. Even citing Herodot, the Macedonians' greatest proponent is hillarious... oohh.. and read your Curtius more carefully...The Philotas incident in Curtius is one of the main arguments of Macedonian having been a Greek dialect...[User:GK1973|GK1973]] (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read the following sections and tell me what is there, please: Rufus, 6, 9, 35; Rufus 6, 10, 23; and Rufus, 6, 11,1.Draganparis (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would break into tears as soon as somebody disagrees with you, it is impossible to have any discussion with you. My comment on translation difficulties in Cyril and Methodius article was my personal comment. Why are you making such a fuss about it??? And, excuse me you make me write this: The Septuagint translation tale is for children, no serious historian accepts it on the face value, but if you accept it, so help you God.

Also if your evidence for an argument is “this is accepted”, I am sorry after realising what your way of thinking is, my only answer is… please give a full citation. I admit, I may be responsible for that because in the beginning of our discussion I started listing the arguments and just giving superficially some references, thinking that you were acquainted with the literature. As I realised that you have absolutely no concept what is inside these references I offered you once precise references. But apparently you could not even see through them again, these was all absolutely new to you.

How do you construct your argument: you cite the name or the work and start saying something that is not in the mentioned reference! Well inventing the content of the works does not help, dear friend. It may be that you took fro granted what some other people wrote. As I told you: do not believe what the other people tell you that is in the reference. Look it up by yourself.

You opose in the other discussions something what is known also to the beginners. Like Philotas’ problem from Rufus, accusations for speaking Greek to Macedonians and his defence…. There is really hardly anyone who does not know even the details from that terrible episode.

OK, not knowing is not bad. All this can be learned. Read, young man, and THEN we can discuss. I proposed that we simplify, let us take just one or two problem issues. I proposed Philotas, and you said you knew it and then wrote absolutely wrong account. OK, this could be repared. It is easy: read these sections, they are very short. There is an interesting interpretation in fact of the passage which is that he, Philotas in fact defended himself by saying that when he spoke Greek more people would understand him as if he spoke Macedonian. The conclusion is very important: the Macedonians already, by that time - Oct. 330, understood some Greek, or at least they could understand the commands.

Sorry, this is too long. You make me a little problem also. Instead of a discussion with an expert, which goes smoothly and only hard problems are discussed, discussing with you is hard, your somehow limited knowledge of the content of the references imposes a hard problem of collecting the basic sources and giving them to you all in writing in order to convince you and make the discussion advances a bit. This is hard. I am sorry, I can do this for one or two issues, but not all the time. So please look up Philotas and we may take then some other issue. Thanks very much, dear scientific friend.Draganparis (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a discussion there has to be acceptance by both parts. I do not want to engage in any discussion with you, for I do not see any point. I have clearly stated my intentions and you keep on harassing me with empty arguments and a willingness to pose questions yet not answer to any. I understand that you think that maybe "I am afraid" or something and that incites some patriotic fervor in you, but the plain truth is that you are not interested in contributing to Wikipedia. You are interested in furthering your nationalistic goals with the use of bad arguments and bad English. And if I am making a fuss about things is because I have counted at least 5 single purpose editors from RoM activated in the last days only to disrupt certain historical articles. It is obvious that there is an organized effort to disrupt the articles and this is exactly what you and these other editors work together. As far as the argument with Philotas, the grammar and the structure of the sentence is all too simple to draw the far fetched conclusion you derive. What Curtius really say is that by talking standard Attic, Philotas will be MORE EASILY understood... which clearly means that by using his "patrio sermo" he will be LESS EASILY understood, which means that Macedonian was understood by the average Greek. Curtius does not say that MORE PEOPLE will understand him but that THE PEOPLE will MORE EASILY understand him... Please... read more carefully before making bold statements...

Now I do not understand why you might think that I should accept to have a discussion on your terms. For the last time, and I clearly state that, I do NOT want you to keep trying to engage me in any conversation UNLESS you first answer to each and everyone of my comments to you. My contribution to Wikipedia clearly show whether I know my sources or not. Yours do also... you cannot even read a 4 line text concerning the trial of Phiotas... GK1973 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been more constructive. I cited the Philotas' problem from what I remembered, although I have the books at home. You, probably - we will see tonight - had much close reading. Well we are advancing. Thanks. I will now look up (this evening) my versions of Rufus (one English, one Latin and one French) and come back to you. Please do not hide the section while we are discussing. I promise I will not exaggerate any more (as in my last comment... with braking into tears... This was not fair. Excuse me, please). Also, the pseudonym that I use is in fact Serb (or this is what I believe to be exclusive Serb name - but I could be wrong), but I am neither a Serb, nor Macedonian - of any brand - or Bulgarian, and not a Greek. The pseudonym revealed only that blind nationalism strongly disturbs the discussion and produces futile disputes. However it may produce some minimal increase of knowledge. For example now, in the days to come, we are going to get a solid analysis of the Philotas' problem. And this is good.Draganparis (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHILOTAS' Problem of language

As promised, here are Latin and English versions of Rufus, the sections that deal with Philotas Problem. Please tell me now how do you interpret the text. I think that there is no doubt that Macedonian and Greek speakers could not understand each other at all and needed interpreters. (But, as it is often the case, I could be wrong.) Indeed, the readers will be now able to decide.Draganparis (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Alexander by Curtius Rufus

Latin (from http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/curtius/curtius6.shtml)

6.9.35 and 36 Tum Philotas: "Praeter Macedonas", inquit, "plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu egisti, non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intellegi posset a pluribus." Tum rex: "Ecquid videtis, adeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan taedere? solus quippe fastidit eum discere. Sed dicat sane, utcumque ei cordi est, dum memineritis aeque illum a nostro more quam a sermone abhorrere." Atque ita contione excessit.

6.10.23 (Philotas, complainin abou charges made agenst him.) Mihi quidem obicitur quod societatem patrii sermonis asperner, quod Macedonum mores fastidiam: sic ego imperio, quod dedignor, immineo. Iam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit: tum victoribus quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.

6.11.4 (Bolon’s accusations of Philotas) Ludibrio ei fuisse rusticos homines Phrygasque et Paphlagonas appellatos, qui non erubesceret, Macedo natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire.

Now from my book, which has Latin original version that is slightly different from one from the Internet (!?), and French translation. Sorry, I just can not type also the French translation. If you want to have it - vous pouvez me demander et je veux vous le recopier avec plaisir. The reference is: Quinte-Curce, De la vie et des actions d’Alexandre le Grand, de la traduction de monsieur de Vaugalas, avec le supplemants de Jean Freinshemius sur Quinte- Cource. Traduits par fcu Monsieur du RYER. Tome second. A Lille, 1712.

Latin (original) version

6.9.35 and 36 Tum Philotas: praeter Macedonas, inquit, plerique adsunt, quos facilius, quae dicam, percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus, qua tu egisti: non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intelligi posset a pluribus. Tum rex: ecquid videtis, odeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan teneri? solus quippe fastidit eum dicere. Sed dicat sane, utcumque cordi est, dum memineritis, aeque illum a nostro more, atqe sermone abhorrere. Atque ita conciene excessit.

6.10.23 Mihi quidem objicitur, quod societatem patrii sermonis asperner; quod Macedonum mores fastidiam; sic ego imperio, quod dedignor, immineo? Jam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit; tum victoribus quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.

6.11.4 Ludibrio ei fuisse rusticos hominess, Phrygasque & Paphlagonas appellatos; qui non erubesceret, Macedo natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire.

English translation. I retyped it from my copy of the book (John Yardley’s translation , 1984 of the History of Alexander, Penguin Books 2004.). But you can find it also on Google books too.

6.9. [35]“besides the Macedonians”, replied Philotas, “there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose. I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you.” [36] Then the king said: “Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases – only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language.” So saying, Alexander left the meeting.

6.10. [23] “One charge made against me is that I disdain to communicate in my native language, that I have no respect for Macedonian custom (which means I have designs on an empire I despise!). That native language of ours has long been rendered obsolete through our dealings with other nations, and conquerors and conquered alike must learn a foreign tongue.

6.11. [4] Philotas had ridiculed man from the country, he continued, calling them Phrygians an Paphlagonians, -this from a man who Macedonian born, was not ashamed to use an interpreter to listen to man who spoke his own language.Draganparis (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not harass me any more unless you abide by my rules (bolded) also. I have entertained your posts for too long and you keep ignoring me while keeping whistling your own song. DO answer my points (for a change) and then I will also comment on Curtius and any other source you might want to bring up. GK1973 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. Excuse me. But, please, do not be so nervous. This task is easy. You will solve it. I am sorry, I was never able to follow your arguments on 4-5 pages. If you would restrict them to one page and be concise, we can clear some interesting problems from ancien history. OK, I will look up your earlier arguments tomorrow, I am too tired this evening. But I proposed last time this Philotas argument, which is very simple. You have now all available literature. Please make an effort. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you insist, I will respond to your request. Do not now (please) explode and – as I said last time – get nervous. I just repeated your comments and gave you my answers (they are short and between lines). In the end I gave you a list of arguments that concern your other unrelated comment directed at me – what has been a mistake. This is unfortunately “dumping” so please read it or copy it and remove. Thanks.

Your comment first then my answer:

The meaning of the word "Greeks" is very clear to all. Acting as if you do not understand does not serve your arguments. At the time of Argeads, the Greeks (Hellenes) still called themselves Greeks (Hellenes), the Romans already used the word "Graeci" (= Greeks), there is absolutely no academic question regarding what a "Greek" is. Stating that we should write that a persona "claimed to have been Greek/Persian/Chinese" is absurd to say the least. There is no reason for anyone to push any ethnic struggles here nor should or can we respect arguments that have to do with whether you find the word "Greek" obscene or not. No English speaking person says "Hellenic" instead of "Greek", no matter what the Greeks call themselves now or back then. No child learns about "Hellenic" history, they do learn about Greek history, the ancient Greek language, etc etc etc in the same manner as we say Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia when no Greek would call your country thus and would instead say Skopje or FYROM or anything else. Please, refrain from useless lawyering and concentrate on the improvement of articles according to academic standards and not nationalistic ones. I don't know what the agenda is here, but I have been a witness of too many disruptions during the last days regarding words like "Greek" or "Bulgarian" in such kinds of articles and I strongly advise we stop and spend our time in a more creative way for the good of Wikipedia. GK1973 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________________ All you said in the above argument that Hellene or Hellenic should be always replaced by “Greek”. I do not agree and I doubt that any serious researcher would agree. Both expressions are used. I think and many of my colleagues thing that Greek should be reduced to minimum. _________________________________________________________________

I said my last word. You may do as you like and continue the "Googwik" science as much as you want... if the other "Googwiks" would permit you. I hope not. Draganparis (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC) "Googwik"!!!???? You must be kidding.... GK1973 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I defined “googwik scientist” earlier in “Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 36” A "GoogWik scientist" is a special case of a "scientist" who as a sources uses almost exclusively Google and Wikipedia. Since for choosing a reference from the Google a user is his own arbiter, and since Wikipedia is unreliable, we have a multiplication of "referenced" mistakes: the references-supported nonsense. I find it charming and not offending. I am now one of them. You give number of references in your comment to my earlier discussion. Citing one source and saying that it contains something that it does not contain implies that you have never seen the reference. Ignorance of the content of the references that you try to cite and misinterpretation of the sources makes me think that you might be one "googwik scientist". This is not so bad. This is a very< good start. All you have to do is to start really consulting the references and not rely on other peoples interpretations. They are unfortunately very often false. In the Talk:Hellenism I stated, under the title “The dangers of confounding “political history“ with “cultural history”: This is my addapted answer to one comment of Brando130 on my talk page. It apples also to other interventions of some people who insist on using “Hellenism” as a poltical term. I put it since this is appropriate page for this and it summarises the problem. It appears that some Wikipedia “players” purposefully resist my warnings not to use the “Hellenism” as a poltitical notion. Brieflly: it would be a mistake to replace surreptitiously „Hellenism“ with „pan-Hellenism“, i. e. mix “cultural history” with “political history”, and to identify “cultural” with “ethnic”. The illustrative example is when the notion “Hellenic state” is used instead of the “Macedonian state”. Not to mix cultural history with political history is long established method of history writing and serves against the misuse of History for some other, most often, political purposes. The jurisdiction of number of West European countries sanctions the breaches against fair presentation of history, particularly if they may lead to nationalistic, ethnic and racist consequences. So please comply with this. I think I explained sufficiently well in other places what this means. I am ready to explain it again if you still did not grasp it. If you are lacking background to fully understand this, I will be pleased to expand even more on the subject, but not on the Wikipedia pages. Violating these established principles of modern, fair and multicultural society, in spite of being warned, may have serious and unpleasant consequences.Draganparis (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC). Draganparis (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC) This discussion goes nowhere. I have here a copy of Lazenby, "The Defence of Greece" about the Persian Wars. That makes it pretty clear what is standard academic language today. We also have the word Hellenistic for a cultural phenomena that includes more than the Greeks, but I couldn't yet find any academic source in English about the Hellenes. Cite one or stay away from the keyboard. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I am sorry. Can not respond to the comments with insulting conotation.Draganparis (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) However, the introductory sentence that your now propos for this article is almost correct. For the origins of the Macedonian dynasty, I suggest to put what Herodotus wrote in the ancient Greek (The Histories, Book 5: Terpsichore, 22; i.e.: V, 22). Exactly as he wrote. This will be fine. Here is the Greek text and the translation (both from http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh5020.htm; with English translation: G. C. Macaulay, (pub. Macmillan, London and NY) [1890]): 22. [1] Ἕλληνας δὲ εἶναι τούτους τοὺς ἀπὸ Περδίκκεω γεγονότας, κατά περ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, αὐτός τε οὕτω τυγχάνω ἐπιστάμενος καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐν τοῖσι ὄπισθε λόγοισι ἀποδέξω ὡς εἰσὶ Ἕλληνες, πρὸς δὲ καὶ οἱ τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ διέποντες ἀγῶνα Ἑλληνοδίκαι οὕτω ἔγνωσαν εἶναι. [2] Ἀλεξάνδρου γὰρ ἀεθλεύειν ἑλομένου καὶ καταβάντος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, οἱ ἀντιθευσόμενοι Ἑλλήνων ἐξεῖργόν μιν, φάμενοι οὐ βαρβάρων ἀγωνιστέων εἶναι τὸν ἀγῶνα ἀλλὰ Ἑλλήνων• Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέδεξε ὡς εἴη Ἀργεῖος, ἐκρίθη τε εἶναι Ἕλλην καὶ ἀγωνιζόμενος στάδιον συνεξέπιπτε τῷ πρώτῳ. ταῦτα μέν νυν οὕτω κῃ ἐγένετο. 22. Thus the death of these Persians was kept concealed. And that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I happen to know myself, and not only so, but I will prove in the succeeding history that they are Hellenes. Moreover the Hellanodicai, who manage the games at Olympia, decided that they were so: for when Alexander wished to contend in the games and had descended for this purpose into the arena, the Hellenes who were to run against him tried to exclude him, saying that the contest was not for Barbarians to contend in but for Hellenes: since however Alexander proved that he was of Argos, he was judged to be a Hellene, and when he entered the contest of the foot-race his lot came out with that of the first. What do you want more? So please change accordingly in the main article. You do it so well.Draganparis (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) What is your point here? Do you quote Herodot on the Greekness of the Macedonians or the use of the word "Hellenas" by the said translator? If it is about the first issue you are in the wronng artile, if it is the latter, you don't really expect us to agree that in the academic world we use "Hellenic" over "Greek" now, do you? GK1973 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC) You are right. Let me explain please. I want to say that the right word to use is "Hellenes" (Ἕλληνες). The Greeks would be also happy about it, because they are calling themselves today "ellenika" (ελληνικά), what is the same. And the right formulation of the first sentence is that 1. Alexander the Great was a king of Macedon (and not Greek king as it is stated now) 2. and that his dynasty and he claimed Hellenic origins (which is disputed, as somebody else mentioned and I think we can put it in the text). But 3. Stating that he was a “Greek king” does not make much sense since Fillip II was also a king of Macedon and he was having a war against Greeks. His son could not all of a sudden be a Greek king. He was never accepted as a Greek king though. He was more a head of the alliance against Persians. Of course, after his death, Macedonians practically occupied the entire Greece and diadochi were as such “Greek kings” also. No secondary biography of Alexander ever stated something like “the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks”. However, Alexander wanted very much to bring his Macedonians into the great nation of the Hellenes. And he, as I think, succeeded in this in the end, but not only through the wars; the process was long and more through the language at first, and then through education, science and culture. OK? I think that we may have a concensus now.Draganparis (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC) 1. What you are asking is to not use proper English. This is not logical. The words "Greek King" mean that the King was Greek (as you agree that is logical to state) and leaves out the kingdom, which should make you happy. If we wrote "a king of the Greek kingdom", it would mean that the kingdom was Greek and writing "a king of Greek Macedon" would imply that there was another non-Greek Macedon. You probably understand the phrase wrong. "A Greek king" does not mean "the king of Greece", nor can anyone misunderstand, especially when it is further analyzed "a Greek king of Macedon"

_________________________________________________________________ NO. This is ambiguous. Better solution is to say that Alexander the Great was king of Macedon and belonged to the Argead dynasty which was claimed to be of Hellenic origin. But I do not want to lose my head for that argument so I do not insist more then I did up to now. _________________________________________________________________

2. Actually all Macedonians claimed Greek ancestry through Makednos and through the Argive followers of the Temenids (the sources talk of a host of followers). That the Argeads claimed Hellenic origin and that this claim was fully accepted by all sources is discussed in the appropriate article. It should not be discussed here. Here we are using the primary (by far) academic opinion.

___________________________________________________________________________________________ If we would relay on the “academic opinion” then the claim of the common origin has to be FULLY DISMISSED, as you may know the story of Makedonos belongs to marginal mythology… ___________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Your whole point is again irrelevant. Even if you were right they would be irrelevant. Now, as for the logic of these arguments : a. Phillip II was also an Argead, an Olympic victor and was acknowledged as a Greek.

_________________________________________________________________ This is unfortunately not true. Burden of proof is on you this time. ______________________________________________________________________________

The polemical orations of Demosthenes are nothing in front of the bulk of evidence we have from other sources. He also was given votes in the Amphictyony, an alliance reserved for the purest of Greeks and made many wars WITH Greeks against other Greeks. He did not wage war against "Greece". He waged war with his allies against his enemies. Maybe we should also stop calling the Athenians Greek since they fought against many Greek states, or the Lacedaemonians, or the Thebans, the Phoceans, the Achaeans, the Aetolians etc etc etc. A war against other Greek states has nothing to do with anyone's Greekness or not. Even the Persians had Greek allies (among which the Ionian cities, Macedon and Thebes) and this is not the main argument against the Persian's Greekness... He was acknowledged as "Strategos Autocrator of Greece" as was his father voted before him (in English this could be wrongly translated as "Emperor General" but it mostly means "General in Chief"). Sorry, Demostenes was esplicite, hispolitical influence was enormous. The rest of your argument is trivial: at that time Greeks are not identified with Macedonians.

After his death, the Macedonians did not occupy the rest of Greece. They politically controlled it, they placed garrisons in certain states, but they never made them part of the Macedonian state, nor was it anytime be considered as part of Macedonia as was for example Chalcidike and Amphipolis, places properly annexed. the Diadochi were also "Greek kings" of non-Greek peoples.

______________________________________________________________________________ Isthis a joke? How do you then describe an occupation? ___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Jews even called the Seleucid kingdom Greek in their scriptures. As for the Greeks and the Macedonians, they called the kingdoms according to their geographical position. So, the Seleucid king was "The king of Asia" and the Lagides were "the kings of Egypt". We have multiple examples of texts stating "the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks", as we do have many stating "the Macedonians and the Greeks". Yet... this is also a misleading translation, since the Greeks did not use the definitive article as we use it in English and so we also have many instances of "the Athenians and the Greeks", the Lacedaemonians spoke with the Greeks etc etc

______________________________________________________________________________ Where are your sources for this? Up to now NO SINGLE SOURCE! ___________________________________________________________________________________________

“…saying that it was delivered in the presence of the ambassadors whom the Greeks had sent to you, for you had invited them…" Who received the ambassadors? Non Greeks? hmmm.. according to Aeschynes on the Embassy 2.57) it was the Atheneans... Now the same man also states : “For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted.” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.32) I quote Aeschynes because he is a contemporary to Philip and an Athenian. As examples they do not serve the purpose to prove whether the Macedonians were Greeks or not, so please do not bombard us with more quotes that you may think would prove otherwise. I just want to show you that the Greeks did not express themselves as we do here in Wikipedia and of course show you that your claims are utterly erroneous (No secondary biography of Alexander ever stated something like “the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks). Of course Aeschynes was not a biographer but he is the best example for he perfectly fits the time and place in question.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I do not understand your point here. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, Alexander did not want to "bring his Macedonians" to the nation of the Greeks. No one ever claimed that. Not any source nor is it supported by modern scholars. He even denied taking part in the Olympics, which he wouldn't had he such an agenda. You probably mean Archelaus and Alexander I, who are said by the proponents of the "old barbabrism" of the Macedonians to have tried that, although there is again no source claiming such a thing. Alexander did not try to impose any non-Macedonian Greek custom, habit etc. He was scolded for trying to introduce barbaric (this is the words used) customs of the conquered peoples of the East.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Alexander mixed all customs and desired to make a commonwelt, spoke Greeek more then Macedonian (see Curtius that I sent you). _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even if we accept the theory proposed by the proponents of the non-Greek origin of the Macedonians, this hellenization had started long before Alexander III and by this time was almost if not wholly complete. GK1973 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And now here are some sources that might help you. Please erase them if you wish and excuse me for such a long list, but YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!! The arguments that are mentioned I DID NOT START: my comment was explicate. You started calling me “Macedonian from FYROM or was implying that nonsense and invoking ethnic and racist arguments.

So, if Macedanians were Greeks why ALL ancient historian say they were just Macedonians (NOT GREEKS)?? The truth is that at that time (this is important, I think at the later times the Greeks and macedonian fused a lot) Macedonians were at that time Macedonians. Thessalans were the last Greeks at the North.

Strabo Roman Historian “The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region” [11.14.12].

As Macedonia is located north of Thessaly it is obviously not a part of Greece, nor the Macedonians were Greeks, for the most northerly Greeks were already the Thessalians.

Plutarch Ancient Greek Historian The Age of Alexander

[1] “Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down.” [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar]

[2] Alexander was only twenty years old when he inherited his kingdom, which at the moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds, and external dangers on every side. The neighboring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings: As for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustomed them to his authority. Alexander’s Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them. [p.263] [Alexander chose the opposite course] Plutarch never said that Philip “united” the Greeks, but he states that Philip “defeated” them in battle.

[3] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. ‘Demosthenes’, he said, ‘call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.’ [p.264]

[4] “Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle.” [p.264] [The ones who want to liberate Greece against the Macedonian troops]

[5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replied: ‘I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Philip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.’ [p.265]

[6] There is a story that on one occasion when a large company had been invited to dine with the king, Callisthenes (Alexander’s biographer) was called upon, as the cup passed to him, to speak in praise of the Macedonians. This theme he handled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw their garlands at him. At this Alexander quoted Euripides’ line from the Bacchae On noble subjects all men can speak well. ‘But now’, he went on, ’show us the power of your eloquency by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings and improve themselves.’ Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the picture and delivered a long list of home truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that the rise of Philip’s power had been brought about by the division among the rest of the Greeks, and quoting the verse Once civil strife has begun, even scoundrels may find themselves honoured. The speech earned him the implacable hatred of the Macedonians, and Alexander that it was not his eloquence that Callisthenes had demonstrated, but his ill will towards them. [p.311]

[7] Alexander’s letter to Antipater in which he includes Callisthenes in the general accusation, he writes: ‘The youths were stoned to death by the Macedonians, but as far as the sophist I shall punish him myself, and I shall not forget those who sent him to me, or the others who give shelter in their cities to those who plot against my life.’ In those words, at least, he plainly reveals his hostility to Aristotle in whose house Callisthenes had been brought up, since he was a son of Hero, who was Aristotle’s niece.’ [p.133]

[8] Cassander’s fear of Alexander ‘In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander’s mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.’ [p.331]

[9] ‘It was Asclepiades, the son of Hipparchus, who first brought the news of Alexander’s death to Athens. When it was made public, Demades urged the people not to believe it: If Alexander were really dead, he declared, the stench of the corpse would have filled the whole world long before.’ [p.237] [This is how much the ancient Greeks hated Alexander]

[10] Lamian War 323-322 is also known as the “Hellenic War” by its protagonists. The Greeks, the Hellenes, were fighting the Macedonians led by Antipater at Lamia.

[11] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave. ‘Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: ‘If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares’ [p.216]

[12] “While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece.” [p.212]

[13] The news of Philip’s death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines states: “For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in putting on garlands and offering sacrifices to celebrate the death of a king who, when he was the conqueror and they the conquered had treated them with such tolerance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a contemptible action to make Philip a citizen of Athens and pay him honours while he was alive, and then, as soon as he has fallen by another’s hand, to be besides themselves with joy, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms.” [p.207]

[14] “Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget the wrongs they had suffered from these peoples in the Social War and to dispatch a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a diplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Philip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost all the states into a confederation against Philip.” [p.202]

[15] “The maladies and defects in the Greek scene of the fourth century were not hard to find. But its great and overriding merit is summed up in the word ‘freedom.’ With allowance made for the infinite variety promoted by so many independent governments, Greece was still broadly speaking a free country. This freedom was threatened and in the end extinguished by the coming of the great Macedonians.” [p.8] [In Plutarch The Age of Alexander, noted by J.T.Griffith]

[16] “What better can we say about jealousies, and that league and conspiracy of the Greeks for their own mischief, which arrested fortune in full career, and turned back arms that were already uplifted against the barbarians to be used against themselves, and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of her? I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said that those Greeks lost a great satisfaction that did not live to see Alexander sit on the throne of Darius. That sight should rather have drawn tears from them, when they considered that they have left the glory to Alexander and the Macedonians, whilst they spent all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia.” [Plutarch “Lives” vol.2 The Dryden Translation. Edited and Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough p.50]

OR FROM ARRIAN: Arrian Ancient Greek Historian The Campaigns of Alexander

[1] “Destiny had decreed that Macedon should wrest the sovereignty of Asia from Persia, as Persia once had wrested it from the Medes, and the Medes, in turn, from the Assyrians.” [p. 111]

[2] “Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves.” [p.112]

[3] “When received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows: in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes.” [p.114]

[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] “Darius’ Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander’s triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian.” [p.119]

[5] “The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercenaries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry.” [p.119-20]

[6] “The same painstaking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father’s name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin.” [p.25]

[7] “In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states.” [p.34]

[8] “The backbone of the infantry was the Macedonian heavy infantry, the ‘Foot Companions’, organized on territorial basis in six battalions (taxeis) of about 1,500 men each. In place of the nine-foot spear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pike or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. The light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than that carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Greek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastplate. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been brought by Philip to a remarkable standard of training and discipline.” [p.35]

[9] Modern Greeks, have used this particular passage as evidence of Alexander’s greekness. Alexander sent to Athens, as an offering to the goddess Athena, 300 full suits of Persian armor, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia.” [p.76] J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: ‘In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.’

[10] Alexander’s rationale as to why he would not like to engage the Persian fleet in a battle: “In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, morever, was a tricky thing - one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea.” [p.80]

[11] Alexander speaking to his officers: “…….But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;………” [p.292]

[12] Alexander addressing his troops: With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon - your power- to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.

[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: “Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave.” [p.294]

[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: “Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort.” [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.Draganparis (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SO, just to remind you AGAIN. These were some of your earlier question (below) and above are the answers (including Rufus, since you asked about Rufus and the language problem, don't you remember?). You can not say that I do not answer to your questions. So your questions were:

- Please... Draganparis, do NOT just state names as if I have to take your word for it. I have studied ancient and medieval literature far too extensively to be swept into such a hollow argumentation. You think that by naming authors you obviously never read yourself you can give credence to what? Where does Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, Polybius, Polyaenus, Herodot, Thucydides, Strabo, Pausanias or any other ancient OR medieval author ever state that there was even ONE instance of Macedonians speaking and Greeks NOT understanding? Maybe in the writings of any Romans? Does Rufus say so?

Please, read the answers above.Draganparis (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, Προτείνω να συνεχίσουμε στην ελληνική γλώσσα. Μπορείτε ως εμπειρογνώμονας δεν θα έχουν προβλήματα με την ελληνική. Υποθέτω. Ou en Francais, si vous voulez, cher monsieur. Das wird kein Problem sen, glauben sie mir. Danke. Draganparis (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling... GK1973 (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is better... Let us see your points now... Την ελληνική γλώττα την κατέχω, πλην όμως θεωρώ ότι λόγος ουδείς υπάρχει όπως εκφραστούμε εις αυτήν.. Deutsch kann ich auch, aber ich glaube daß wir keinen Grund haben auf Deutsch zu diskutieren. Französisch kann ich leider nicht... No.. English will be just fine.. I don’t know why you thought I didn’t answer more promptly, but where I live, I need some time to properly compile a text like the one below. I have to say that I was disappointed by the lack of original research you showed by copy pasting your “arguments” from nationalistic sites (you didn’t expect I wouldn’t understand it did you?) as well as by the fact that you didn’t even delete those obviously irrelevant, but I did answer all your points and raised some of mine, even though it took me an important amount of time to compile. I hope you will answer in the same manner, again to all my comments and points. Better references will also be appreciated, since your source sites obviously did a bad job in this. Good thing I was fairly acquainted with the texts...

"OK, since you insist, I will respond to your request"

Why did I have to insist that strongly? Don't you know that it is a principal in any exchange of ideas that both parties should show the same respect to the other party's questions and requests?

"All you said in the above argument that Hellene or Hellenic should be always replaced by “Greek”. I do not agree and I doubt that any serious researcher would agree. Both expressions are used. I think and many of my colleagues thing that Greek should be reduced to minimum."

I did not say that the words Hellene or Hellenic should always be replaced by "Greek". I said that "Greek" is predominately used in academic English and exclusively in spoken English and so IT should not be replaced by the much less used synonym "Hellenic". Now, as far as "researchers are concerned, a simple study (even a Google study, since you seem to be especially intrigued by it...) of academic works on anything Hellenic / Greek will show that you are completely mistaken. "Greek" is used far more times than "Hellenic". I really find it strange that you would disagree with that... or maybe you again misunderstood what I wrote?

About your next paragraph now... your "Googwik" comment is irrelevant and your own opinion. It is not that I did not understand your accusation. It is that I was taken aback from the fact that you uttered it.

Now..

"They are unfortunately very often false. In the Talk:Hellenism I stated, under the title “The dangers of confounding “political history“ with “cultural history”: This is my addapted answer to one comment of Brando130 on my talk page. It apples also to other interventions of some people who insist on using “Hellenism” as a poltical term. I put it since this is appropriate page for this and it summarises the problem. It appears that some Wikipedia “players” purposefully resist my warnings not to use the “Hellenism” as a poltitical notion. Brieflly: it would be a mistake to replace surreptitiously „Hellenism“ with „pan-Hellenism“, i. e. mix “cultural history” with “political history”, and to identify “cultural” with “ethnic”. The illustrative example is when the notion “Hellenic state” is used instead of the “Macedonian state”. Not to mix cultural history with political history is long established method of history writing and serves against the misuse of History for some other, most often, political purposes. The jurisdiction of number of West European countries sanctions the breaches against fair presentation of history, particularly if they may lead to nationalistic, ethnic and racist consequences. So please comply with this. I think I explained sufficiently well in other places what this means. I am ready to explain it again if you still did not grasp it. If you are lacking background to fully understand this, I will be pleased to expand even more on the subject, but not on the Wikipedia pages. Violating these established principles of modern, fair and multicultural society, in spite of being warned, may have serious and unpleasant consequences.Draganparis (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)."

Here I again fail to see any point... What do "pan-Hellenic" notions have to do with characterizing a Greek state as a Greek state? The same applies to any "Germanic", "Slavic", "Persian", "Illyrian", "Thracian" etc state. This should have nothing to do with politics and if misused as that it is a problem that should have nothing to do with accepted historical terminology. You may pose these views to those who thus use the terminology. If I correctly remember it is you who tried to make a link between the Macedonians of the old and the "Macedonian region" of today when you gave your strange view regarding the administrative borders of Macedonia, which, according yo your claims (?), have remained unchanged (sic)! I tried to make no such connection, nor will I engage in such a conversation which is irrelevant to these articles or my scope in Wikipedia.

You are right. Let me explain please. I want to say that the right word to use is "Hellenes" (Ἕλληνες). The Greeks would be also happy about it, because they are calling themselves today "ellenika" (ελληνικά)

It is irrelevant what Greeks would like to be called or how they are called. Actually they call themselves "Έλληνες" (Hellenes). "Ελληνικά" means "Greek/Hellenic" and is an adjective in its plural form. It is also used as a noun when referring to the language (so it means "the Greek language") and is nowadays also used as an adverb instead of the archaism "ελληνικώς". The English speaking world calls them "Greeks". Their country "Greece" and so it also does concerning the ancient Greek (and not the ancient Hellenic) history...

"NO. This is ambiguous. Better solution is to say that Alexander the Great was king of Macedon and belonged to the Argead dynasty which was claimed to be of Hellenic origin. But I do not want to lose my head for that argument so I do not insist more then I did up to now."

Well.. this is your opinion... I completely disagree. I see no ambiguity, especially since I also hold the Macedonian state as a Greek one, as do most historians today.

"If we would relay on the “academic opinion” then the claim of the common origin has to be FULLY DISMISSED, as you may know the story of Makedonos belongs to marginal mythology…"

Actually you herewith dismiss all knowledge and theories we have about any ancient people... This is what the Greeks believed and where they based their Greekness on. Even if you disagree with the possibility to ever have been a "Macedon" (actually multiple persons called Macedons are being attested), it was an explanation the Greeks gave regarding their kinship. These "myths" originated in their effort to justify their common heritage and not the other way around. They understood that the Macedonians were of Greek stock and so they placed them in the appropriate place of their mythology, as they did with the "name giving" personnas of other peoples of their times (such as the Gauls and the Illyrians for example). The fact that Macedon was brother to Magnes says more about the ancient Greek perception on the ethnicity of the Macedonians than even the passages I am going to relate afterwards. So, it does not really matter whether these mtythical stories are based on the truth. What matters is that the Greeks of the times of Hellanicus and Hesiod placed the Macedonians within the family of the Greeks, and this long before the Macedonians would hold any significant power to “manipulate” things.

"This is unfortunately not true. Burden of proof is on you this time. "

The discussion was about whether Alexander III and the Argeads were Greeks, not whether the Macedonians were Greeks. As far as this argument is concerned it was irrelevant to the discussion, since the Argeads were deemed Greeks and as such Alexander III also. As to Herodot's opinion (the writer of these words..), his opinion is also very clear on the matter. He clearly states his belief that the Argeads and the Macedonians are Greeks. If you do not like his position, you should hardly have quoted him, should you? It is really interesting to see how people quote Herodot to raise questions regarding the Hellenism of the Macedonians by stretching his words, while at the same time discrediting his multiple clear attestations to this fact...

Isthis a joke? How do you then describe an occupation?

The Macedonians did not have garrisons in all or even most southern Greek cities. Apart from the fact that most were willing allies and not submitted people, Macedonian garrisons were placed only in certain geographically important positions. This hardly qualifies as an "occupation of Greece". You could be more specific if you want, but this is the truth. Apart from this, I also hope you understand that placing garrisons in cities of those the Greeks conquered in battle was no strange occurrence... Didn't the Spartans maintain a garrison in Athens, long before Phillip II?

Plus, you did not answer to many of my other points in this argument (please do).

"Where are your sources for this? Up to now NO SINGLE SOURCE! "

I honestly thought you were versed at least in the basics about the ancient works regarding Macedonia... I am sorry... So..

“And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome:and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. (Machabees 1.11)

"I do not understand your point here. "

The point is that before trying to explain a text, you have to know if there are any differences in expression. When the Greeks said "the Athenians and the Greeks" they did not exclude the Athenians from the Greeks as we understand by reading the translated text.

"Alexander mixed all customs and desired to make a commonwelt, spoke Greeek more then Macedonian (see Curtius that I sent you). "

Alexander did not mix Greek customs, this was beyond his scope. This is why he didn't bring Callisthenes in front of the assembly as Arrian tells us very clearly. He inserted Oriental customs in his court and Greek customs in the Orient. He did not demand that the Athenians replace their customs with Macedonian ones, nor that the Spartans change theirs with Aetolian ones, nor that any other Greek should do so. He asked them though to adopt the "proskynesis" in front of the barbarians and even in this he was not strict. As for Curtius’ text I will comment shortly.

GK1973 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Strabo Roman Historian “The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region” [11.14.12]. As Macedonia is located north of Thessaly it is obviously not a part of Greece, nor the Macedonians were Greeks, for the most northerly Greeks were already the Thessalians.

(you most probably copy pasted this from. http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/strabo.html, although there are many more of those sites just regurgitating the same arguments)”

Strabo is all too clear on where he places Macedonia and the Macedonians as I will show you further on. As far as this extract of Strabo is concerned, it is correct... At the time of Jason, there was no Macedonia yet... You see, Strabo knows history and has studied the texts... He talks about a time when even Chalkidide was not settled by Greeks (north of Thessaly as are the cities in Thrace, Bosporus, Illyricum etc etc etc)!!

Now, let us see your quotes copy pasted from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/plutarch.html

[1] “Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Lous, the same day on which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burned down.” [p.254] [Macedonians had a their own distinct calendar]

The Macedonians had their own claendar as did many Greek states. What is most interesting is that their calendar was totally Greek and common with many other Greek states... see ancient Macedonian calendar for more information. Of course you could have researched that in order to save yourself the disgrace and me some time, but researching is not your strong point.. copy pasting from “academic” sites is..

[2] Alexander was only twenty years old when he inherited his kingdom, which at the moment was beset by formidable jealousies and feuds, and external dangers on every side. The neighboring barbarian tribes were eager to throw off the Macedonian yoke and longed for the rule of their native kings: As for the Greek states, although Philip had defeated them in battle, he had not had time to subdue them or accustomed them to his authority. Alexander’s Macedonian advisers feared that a crisis was at hand and urged the young king to leave the Greek states to their own devices and refrain from using any force against them. [p.263] [Alexander chose the opposite course] Plutarch never said that Philip “united” the Greeks, but he states that Philip “defeated” them in battle.

Of course I especially like the comments (even these are not yours...). Now what is your site’s point with this quote? I have already discussed how the Greeks expressed themselves (the part you did not understand) and did again and will again. This quote does not offer any insight on the ethnicity of the Macedonians.

[3] Alexander returns from the campaigns at the Danube, north of Macedon. When the news reached him that the Thebans had revolted and were being supported by the Athenians, he immediately marched south through the pass of Thermopylae. ‘Demosthenes’, he said, ‘call me a boy while I was in Illyria and among the Triballi, and a youth when I was marching through Thessaly; I will show him I am a man by the time I reach the walls of Athens.’ [p.264]

So? It is well known that Alexander spent some time in Illyria when he was at odds with his father... and he marches to Athens... (totally irrelevant)

[4] “Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle.” [p.264] [The ones who want to liberate Greece against the Macedonian troops]

Yep! This is how Greeks talked. This is exactly the case with the Greek struggles against the Athenians or the Lacedaemonians and so on... Greece is usually used as a geographical term as Greece (usually) up to Thermopylae. It is also used as the collective Hellenism, but usually this is easily discernible, since it is thus used in matters of ethics, culture etc. See how Isocrates talks of the Spartans (will show it again afterwards) “For he collected a naval force off Rhodes, won a victory over the Lacedaemonians in a sea-fight, deposed them from their sovereignty, and set the Hellenes free.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.63)

[5] Alexander asks a women, who was being taken captive, who she was, she replied: ‘I am the sister of Theogenes who commanded our army against your father, Philip, and fell at Chaeronea fighting for the liberty of Greece.’ [p.265]

Again the same thing... You have to understand how the ancient expressed themselves... See again how the Athenians freed Greece from the Lacedaemonians.. I know it can be frustrating, but you have to read more than nationalistic sites to understand the ancient texts. Working the meanings of the texts, so that they can look as if they support your arguments is easy... See how easy it would be for me to claim that the Lacedaemonians were barbarians? It would be more easily done with the Athenians...

“Well, if I were trying to present this matter to any others before having broached it to my own country, which has thrice freed Hellas--twice from the barbarians and once from the Lacedaemonian yoke--I should confess my error.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.129)

[6] There is a story that on one occasion when a large company had been invited to dine with the king, Callisthenes (Alexander’s biographer) was called upon, as the cup passed to him, to speak in praise of the Macedonians. This theme he handled so eloquently that the guests rose to applaud and threw their garlands at him. At this Alexander quoted Euripides’ line from the Bacchae On noble subjects all men can speak well. ‘But now’, he went on, ’show us the power of your eloquency by criticizing the Macedonians so that they can recognize their shortcomings and improve themselves.’ Callisthenes then turned to the other side of the picture and delivered a long list of home truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that the rise of Philip’s power had been brought about by the division among the rest of the Greeks, and quoting the verse Once civil strife has begun, even scoundrels may find themselves honoured. The speech earned him the implacable hatred of the Macedonians, and Alexander that it was not his eloquence that Callisthenes had demonstrated, but his ill will towards them. [p.311]

Now this is not a good choice on your part, is it? Actually, whereas the definitive article’s use is different from the use we make of it today in English, when the Greeks said “the rest of the Greeks” they meant what we mean today. For example you will not encounter texts mentioning “the Romans/Persians/Illyrians and the rest of the Greeks” while you will encounter countless instances of “Maedonians and the rest of the Greeks” as is the case here. You could at least have read these texts carefully before copy pasting...

[7] Alexander’s letter to Antipater in which he includes Callisthenes in the general accusation, he writes: ‘The youths were stoned to death by the Macedonians, but as far as the sophist I shall punish him myself, and I shall not forget those who sent him to me, or the others who give shelter in their cities to those who plot against my life.’ In those words, at least, he plainly reveals his hostility to Aristotle in whose house Callisthenes had been brought up, since he was a son of Hero, who was Aristotle’s niece.’ [p.133]

irrelevant? What does your site want to achieve with this? According to the site’s comments, it is to show that Alexander “hated” Aristotle... Even if he did (which he did not) he aslo had emotional problems with countless of other people... for example these youths were Macedonians, weren’t they?

[8] Cassander’s fear of Alexander ‘In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander’s mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.’ [p.331]

? so? the “master of Greece” part...??? Don’t be rediculous... He was king of Macedonia (kingdom) and master of Greece (region).. So? Who ever claimed that outside “Greece proper” there were no Greeks? Was Syracuse in Greece? Cyprus? Chalcidice? Ionia? etc etc etc...

[9] ‘It was Asclepiades, the son of Hipparchus, who first brought the news of Alexander’s death to Athens. When it was made public, Demades urged the people not to believe it: If Alexander were really dead, he declared, the stench of the corpse would have filled the whole world long before.’ [p.237] [This is how much the ancient Greeks hated Alexander]

Wow!!!!! So Demades hated Alexander!!??? What an argument... (actually there are countless of evidence as to the opposite, but this argument is anyways irrelevant, so, should you like t know about them I could give you some enlightening quotes. It was actually the main fear of the Athenians, the way that Philip won the hearts of the other Greeks...)

[10] Lamian War 323-322 is also known as the “Hellenic War” by its protagonists. The Greeks, the Hellenes, were fighting the Macedonians led by Antipater at Lamia.

OK... Now this is not even a quote... just an unsourced comment... Anyways.. while I didn;t find any such instance in Plutarch, I found another instance where he says :

“commanding him by a free distribution of it to corrupt the leading men in the cities, and to excite a Greek war against Sparta.” Plutarch, Life of Artaxerxes

It seems that you could indeed make a good case against the Greekness of the Lacedaemonians after all...

[11] [Modern day Greeks would like to dispatch off Demosthenes castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave. ‘Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at the public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: ‘If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares’ [p.216]

Again, this is nothing... Can’t you find any proper source explicitly stating that the Macedonians were not Greeks??? I have already given you examples of such phraseology, so I will not give you more now (although there are maaany...)

[12] “While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece.” [p.212]

Again, Greece is used as a geographical term.. Unless they meant to drive him also out of Chalkidike, Amphipolis etc etc etc..

[13] The news of Philip’s death reached Athens. Demosthenes appeared in public dressed in magnificent attire and wearing a garland on his head, although his daughter had died only six days before. Aeshines states: “For my part I cannot say that the Athenians did themselves any credit in putting on garlands and offering sacrifices to celebrate the death of a king who, when he was the conqueror and they the conquered had treated them with such tolerance and humanity. Far apart from provoking the anger of the gods, it was a contemptible action to make Philip a citizen of Athens and pay him honours while he was alive, and then, as soon as he has fallen by another’s hand, to be besides themselves with joy, tremple on his body, and sing paeans of victory, as though they themselves have accomplished some great feat of arms.” [p.207]

..and? Does the fact that the Athenians made Philip an honorary citizen of Athens??? Or is it again the “hatred“, condemned by an Athenian, your (sorry, I meant this site’s) main point?

[14] “Next when Macedonia was at war with the citizens of Byzantium and Perinthus, Demosthenes persuaded the Athenians to lay aside their grievances and forget the wrongs they had suffered from these peoples in the Social War and to dispatch a force which succeeded in relieving both cities. After this he set off on a diplomatic mission, which was designed to kindle the spirit of resistance to Philip and which took him all over Greece. Finally he succeeded in uniting almost all the states into a confederation against Philip.” [p.202]

? irrelevant?

[15] “The maladies and defects in the Greek scene of the fourth century were not hard to find. But its great and overriding merit is summed up in the word ‘freedom.’ With allowance made for the infinite variety promoted by so many independent governments, Greece was still broadly speaking a free country. This freedom was threatened and in the end extinguished by the coming of the great Macedonians.” [p.8] [In Plutarch The Age of Alexander, noted by J.T.Griffith]

oh... a comment... again irrelevant..

[16] “What better can we say about jealousies, and that league and conspiracy of the Greeks for their own mischief, which arrested fortune in full career, and turned back arms that were already uplifted against the barbarians to be used against themselves, and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of her? I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said that those Greeks lost a great satisfaction that did not live to see Alexander sit on the throne of Darius. That sight should rather have drawn tears from them, when they considered that they have left the glory to Alexander and the Macedonians, whilst they spent all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia.” [Plutarch “Lives” vol.2 The Dryden Translation. Edited and Revised by Arthur Hugh Clough p.50]

Now, actually, this is the best one... from “the Life of Agesilaus” (please send them an email and ask them to properly give the source of their texts...) It seems as though it excludes Alexander from the Graecian commanders doesn’t it? Well, it does when you first read it. Then you read it again and see that

1. it talks about jealousy in the hearts of certain Greeks... 2. This man who was called back was Agesilaus, who could have conquered the barbarians but was bereft of this chance because of internal (Lacedaemonian) feuds..

“and recall into Greece the war which had been banished out of her?” Agesilaus had brought the war over to Ionia from Greece.

“I by no means assent to Demaratus of Corinth, who said, that those Greeks lost a great satisfaction, that did not live to see Alexander sit in the throne of Darius.”

Demaratus was a Corinthian and he said that “those Greeks lost a great satisfaction, that did not live to see Alexander sit in the throne of Darius.”. Does it in anyway support any of your claims? The contrary... yet Plutarch disagrees!! It seems you are making a point. What does he say?

“That sight should rather have drawn tears from them, when they considered, that they had left that glory to Alexander and the Macedonians, whilst they spent all their own great commanders in playing them against each other in the fields of Leuctra, Coronea, Corinth, and Arcadia.”

He says that the Greeks should weep because they missed their chance to do what Alexander did! Not that they would hate Alexander for it! This is called pride, emulation, regret! They were so much drawn into petty wars, that they missed the chance to do what Alexander did! And this is a very good prelude to his “On the Fortune and Virtue of Alexander” orations...

Now... would have said “left the glory to a barbarian / a non Greek” you would have a very valid point.. But he didn’t...

GK1973 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now... let us view your “OR FROM ARRIAN” section aka http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/arrian.html

[1] “Destiny had decreed that Macedon should wrest the sovereignty of Asia from Persia, as Persia once had wrested it from the Medes, and the Medes, in turn, from the Assyrians.” [p. 111]

Yep... irrelevant

[2] “Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves.” [p.112]

irrelevant again... or do you propose that when we see the words “Athenians” we should easily deduce that they were not Greeks?

[3] “When received the report that Alexander was moving forward to the attack, he sent some 30,000 mounted troops and 20,000 light infantry across the river Pinarus, to give himself a chance of getting the main body of his army into position without molestation. His dispositions were as follows: in the van of his heavy infantry were his 30,000 Greek mercenaries, facing the Macedonian infantry, with some 60,000 Persian heavy infantry- known as Kardakes.” [p.114]

This I have explained multiple of times before... Anyways... Do you know that Macedonians were also under the payroll of Darius? Consider this food for thought...

[4] [Book II - Battle of Issus] “Darius’ Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander’s triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian.” [p.119]

Actually this is a very misleading effort of translation. The word Arrian uses is not “rivarly”. It is «φιλοτιμία» and actually cannot be translated in English. It means “love of honor” and is a positive word with no violent connotations. What Arrian says is that both sides (the one he collectively of course names Greeks, as “the Greeks fought against the Athenians”) did their best because they wanted to show honor in battle, for they were there to show that they deserved to be warriors. (καί τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς ἀλλήλους.). Arrian does not refer to any rivalry, nor says “between”.

[5] “The cavalry action which ensued was desperate enough, and the Persians broke only when they knew that the Greek mercenaries were being cut and destroyed by the Macedonian infantry.” [p.119-20]

Yes, they were... so?

[6] “The same painstaking attention to details is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father’s name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin.” [p.25]

hmmm... this is a comment, not Arrian... you should at least have spared me those... please next time read through your pastes.. of course you should know that the rest of the Greeks also were called by their father’s names (as a surname)... Don’t tell me you did not know that? They also were called by their cities!!! (Herodot from Halicarnassus, Demaratus the Corinthian, Polybius the Megalopolitan etc etc etc)

[7] “In the spring of 334 Alexander set out from Macedonia, leaving Antipater with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry to defend the homeland and to keep watch on the Greek states.” [p.34]

again geography... unless these men also went to Ionia, the islands or Cyprus...???

[8] “The backbone of the infantry was the Macedonian heavy infantry, the ‘Foot Companions’, organized on territorial basis in six battalions (taxeis) of about 1,500 men each. In place of the nine-foot spear carried by the Greek hoplite, the Macedonian infantryman was armed with a pike or sarissa about 13 or 14 feet long, which required both hands to wield it. The light circular shield was slung on the left shoulder, and was smaller than that carried by the Greek hoplite which demanded the use of the left arm. Both, Greek and Macedonian infantry wore greaves and a helmet, but it is possible that the Macedonians did not wear a breastplate. The phalanx (a heavy infantry), like all the Macedonian troops had been brought by Philip to a remarkable standard of training and discipline.” [p.35]

a comment by an unnamed author who does not (here) say anything about the Macedonians not being Greeks... Again not Arrian, again not relevant...

[9] Modern Greeks, have used this particular passage as evidence of Alexander’s greekness. Alexander sent to Athens, as an offering to the goddess Athena, 300 full suits of Persian armor, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia.” [p.76] J.R. Hamilton, Associate professor of Classics and Ancient History from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, writes: ‘In view of the small part that the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription (with its omission of any mention of the Macedonians) must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.’

????? You are posting a comment???? propaganda by Greek allies???? PLEASE.... READ YOUR POSTS FIRST!!!!

[10] Alexander’s rationale as to why he would not like to engage the Persian fleet in a battle: “In the first place, it was to rush blindly into a naval engagement against greatly superior forces, and with an untrained fleet against highly trained Cyprian and Phoenician crews; the sea, morever, was a tricky thing - one could not trust it, and he was not going to risk making a present to the Persians of all the skill and courage of his men; as to defeat, it would be very serious indeed and would affect profoundly the general attitude to the war in its early stages, above all by encouraging the Greeks to revolt the moment they got news of a Persian success at sea.” [p.80]

??????? Yea... the same old whistling tune... we have discussed Greek expression much... again no mentioning of any Macedonians not being Greeks...

[11] Alexander speaking to his officers: “…….But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;………” [p.292]

??? So??? He is citing places, for God’s sake!! What should he have said?

[12] Alexander addressing his troops: With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon - your power- to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side? [p.293] Arrian, book 5.

irrelevant...

[13] Alexander continues to address his troops: “Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave.” [p.294]

irrelevant again...

[14] Alexander continues to speak to his Macedonians and allies: “Come, then; add the rest of Asia to what you already possess - a small addition to the great sum of your conquests. What great or noble work could we ourselves have achieved had we thought it enough, living at ease in Macedon, merely to guard our homes, excepting no burden beyond checking the encroachment of the Thracians on our borders, or the Illyrians and Triballians, or perhaps such Greeks as might prove a menace to our comfort.” [p.294] Arrian, Book 5.Draganparis (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

??? such Greeks.. so? Does he say the Macedonians are not Greeks???

Boy... you have to do much better than that... You first tell me you know things about the issue in question. Then you start copy pasting material from a nationalistic site, poorly referenced and filled with personal comments of unnamed commentators... You did NO original research, used no academic source... what is this? I have single handedly compiled a multiple pages answer, which cost me in time, but will serve as a reference for similar situations, so I do not regret this. I know it will be very difficult for you to recover after the other editors here see how you backed your positions, but maybe after hard work, you will be able to regain trust.

Now, as far as Curtius is concerned. His first quote (the patrio sermon case) serves actually as an argument to the opposite. Philotas talks about how people will more easily understand him...this is the definition of a dialect

The second instance talks about the Macedonian having become obsolete. We have to wonder then, how can anyone be expected to speak an “obsolete” language? It either is or is not. And if it is obsolete then how come that all Macedonians speak it? Volon does, Alexander does... so do his guards...

The third one is even better. He is accused by a Macedonian (Volon) that he cannot understand his own language unless via an interpreter. Good. But again, you produced a text which is about slander and accusations. I admit that Curtius here seems to say that Macedonian could not be understood. Yet, Curtius is notorious for his flowery made up dialogues. This dialogue is not attested by any other biographer of Alexander, although you would have thought that some of those spiteful and hateful Greeks would have mentioned it, since it would make then happily distinguish between Macedonians and other Greeks. I could make arguments as to how different a dialect can be (the Aeolian family of dialects to which the Macedonians are attested to probably belong to, is characterized as “barbaric” also in certain texts), but I will not. I will just admit that according to Rufus, the Macedonian language was not understood by non Macedonians. Questions are raised as to how the bulk of the army understood Alexander or as to why then did not the Macedonians propagate their language (no archaeological or glossary evidence against its Greekness, thousands in favor), but I will give you that. There are studies attempting to clarify the issue of this particular sentence, attributing it to an attempt for a more dramatic approach on the side of Curtius, yet it is strange how Curtius contradicts himself to this specific piece of information throughout the rest of his book...

I could bring forward many arguments and examples to attack Curtius’ sentence but I will not. This last sentence is the best argument you will ever have, but you have to find something to support it. Something that is not a part of a personal attack, where slanders are being thrown around... You cannot base your assumption on a single reference...

GK1973 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that I have answered all your points, even though they were blunt copy pastes from nationalistic sites and not your work and knowledge on the matter, let the real fun begin... I will only present some of the clearest and most direct evidence on how the Macedonians were really perceived by the ancients. I will not occupy myself with the countless of instances of debatable quotes and will only produce a handful of texts whose interpretation relies on articles or alternative interpretations. I ask of you to reply to each one, as I have done with the citations you copy pasted. Having spent hours to find your unreferenced material (good for me I was familiar with most..) write comprehensible comments and amass the texts below, I humbly ask you to do your part with seriousness and truly research your comments. I shall be very disappointed if you answer in the same unacademic manner you have done so far.

So... let us start with Herodot... I will not give you the best known passages about the origin of the Makednoi or the decision of the Hellanodicae. I will just give you the clear opinion of Alexander I. This you most probably know:

1. “Alexander was giving them this account: “... for I would not give account, if I did not greatly care about all Greek together jointly. For I myself am a Greek in birth anciently and would not be willing to see Greece instead of free enslaved.” (Herodot Book IX)

The next one is less known, but nonetheless as clear.

2. “... that you may learn that you are honored completely by us with the very things, of which you are worthy, and in addition also to the king who sent you announce back that a Greek man, Macedonians’ governor, received you well in respect to both table and bed.” (Herodot, Book V).

Enough with Herodot. His accounts of the Makednoi and the fleet of the Peloponnesian states, I am sure you know. Let us now see what a contemporary to Philip and Demostenes has to say. See that he is not beating around the bush, nor is he insinuating things...

3. “Now I am not unaware that many of the Hellenes look upon the King's power as invincible. Yet one may well marvel at them if they really believe that the power which was subdued to the will of a mere barbarian--an ill-bred barbarian at that--and collected in the cause of slavery, could not be scattered by a man of the blood of Hellas, of ripe experience in warfare, in the cause of freedom--and that too although they know that while it is in all cases difficult to construct a thing, to destroy it is, comparatively, an easy task. Bear in mind that the men whom the world most admires and honors are those who unite in themselves the abilities of the statesman and the general. When, therefore, you see the renown which even in a single city is bestowed on men who possess these gifts, what manner of eulogies must you expect to hear spoken of you, when among all the Hellenes you shall stand forth as a statesman who has worked for the good of Hellas, and as a general who has overthrown the barbarians?” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.139-140)

The “barbarian is not Philip but the Persian king. Philip is “a man of the blood of Hellas”, the one who “among all the Hellenes” shall stand forth as a statesman and overthrow the barbarians... Can he be more blunt? The rest of the passages I will quote from Isocrates I will do for another purpose. To make you understand how the Greeks expressed themselves...

4. “Well, if I were trying to present this matter to any others before having broached it to my own country, which has thrice freed Hellas--twice from the barbarians and once from the Lacedaemonian yoke--I should confess my error.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.129)

Athens thrice freed Hellas...once from the Lacedaemonian yoke...

5. “For he collected a naval force off Rhodes, won a victory over the Lacedaemonians in a sea-fight, deposed them from their sovereignty, and set the Hellenes free.” (Isocrates, to Phillip 5.63)

So..Conon (for the text is about him), set the Hellenes free.. maybe you should dispute the Hellenism of the Lacedaemonians! Please.. you may use my quotations...

I am sure you have come across Strabo’s words, you cited him someplace, of course out of context. Now, his best known quotation regarding this matter is :

6. “There remain of Europe, first, Macedonia and the parts of Thrace that are contiguous to it and extend as far as Byzantium; secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the places geographically, I have decided to classify it apart from the rest of Greece and to join it with that part of Thrace which borders on it and extends as far as the mouth of the Euxine and the Propontis.” (Strabo, VII Frg 9)

“Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece”... Some more quotations from Strabo’s work, people do not usually use when discussing the issue are the following :

7. “I began my description by going over all the western parts of Europe comprised between the inner and the outer sea; and now that I have encompassed in my survey all the barbarian tribes in Europe as far as the Tanais and also a small part of Greece, Macedonia, I now shall give an account of the remainder of the geography of Greece. “(Strabo, VIII, 1)

Strabo is very clear on the geography of Macedonia as perceived in his time. Let us see if he makes any comments on ethnicity:

8. “Their cities were Bactra (also called Zariaspa, through which flows a river bearing the same name and emptying into the Oxus), and Darapsa, and several others. Among these was Eucratidia, which was named after its ruler. The Greeks took possession of it and divided it into satrapies, of which the satrapy Turiva and that of Aspionus were taken away from Eucratides by the Parthians.” (Strabo, XI, 11.2).

Who are those Greeks?

9. “There are also some Greek cities in Media, founded by the Macedonians, among which are Laodiceia, Apameia and the city near Rhagae, and Rhaga itself, which was founded by Nicator. By him it was named Europus, but by the Parthians Arsacia; it lies about five hundred stadia to the south of the Caspian Gates, according to Apollodorus of Artemita.” (Strabo, XI, 11.13.6)

Why is he calling the Macedonian cities Greek? There are many more interesting passages in Strabo, but for the time being these should suffice. Let us see what another geographer has to say.

10. “They say that these were the clans collected by Amphictyon himself in the Greek assembly… The Macedonians managed to join and the entire Phocian race… In my day there were thirty members: six each from Nikopolis, Macedonia, and Thessaly - and from the Boeotoi that were the first that departed from Thessalia and that’s when they were called Aioloi - two from each of the Phokeis and Delphi, one from the ancient Dorida, the Lokroi send one from the Ozoloi and one from the ones living beyond Evoia, one from the Evoeis. From the Peloponnesians, one from Argos, one from Sikion, one from Korinthos and Megara, one from Athens…” (Pausanias, Description of Greece, Phocis Book VIII, 4)

Now this is not as clear as the former quotations, but if one is familiar with what the Amphictyonic Council is, he cannot but consider it as clear as Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics... and this time there is no “controversy” as to whether only the Macedonian nobility was accepted into the Council. It was “the Macedonians”...

11. “In the presence of Zeus, Hera, and Apollo: in the presence of the Genius of Carthage, of Heracles, and Iolaus: in the presence of Ares, Triton, and Poseidon: in the presence of the gods who battle for us and the Sun, Moon, and Earth; in the presence of Rivers, Lakes, and Waters: in the presence of all the gods who possess Macedonia and the rest of Greece: in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath. Thus saith Hannibal the general, and all the Carthaginian senators with him, and all Carthaginians serving with him, that as seemeth good to you and to us, so should we bind ourselves by oath to be even as friends, kinsmen, and brothers, on these conditions. That King Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect the Carthaginians, the supreme lords, and Hannibal their general, and those with him, and all under the dominion of Carthage who live under the same laws; likewise the people of Utica and all cities and peoples that are subject to Carthage, and our soldiers and allies and cities and peoples in Italy, Gaul, and Liguria, with whom we are in alliance or with whomsoever in this country we may hereafter enter into alliance. King Philip and the Macedonians and such of the Greeks as are the allies shall be protected and guarded by the Carthaginians who are serving with us, by the people of Utica and by all cities and peoples that are subject to Carthage, by our allies and soldiers and all peoples and cities in Italy, Gaul, and Liguria, who are our allies, and by such others as may hereafter become our allies in Italy and the adjacent regions. We will enter into no plot against each other, nor lie in ambush for each other, but with all zeal and good fellowship, without deceit or secret design, we will be enemies of such as war against the Carthaginians, always excepting the kings, cities, and ports with which we have sworn treaties of alliance. And we, too, will be the enemies of such as war against King Philip, always excepting the Greeks, cities, and people with which we have sworn treaties of alliance. You will be our allies in the war in which we are engaged with the Romans until the gods vouchsafe the victory to us and to you, and you will give us such help as we have need of or as we agree upon. As soon as the gods have given us the victory in the war against the Romans and their allies, if the Romans ask us to come to terms of peace, we will make such a peace as will comprise you too, and on the following conditions: that the Romans may never make war upon you; that the Romans shall no longer be masters of Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, Pharos, Dimale, Parthini, or Atitania: and that they shall return to Demetrius of Pharos all his friends who are in the dominions of Rome. If ever the Romans make war on you or on us, we will help each other in the war as may be required on either side. In like manner if any others do so, excepting always kings, cities, and peoples with whom we have sworn treaties of alliance. If we decide to withdraw any clauses from this treaty or to add any we will withdraw such clauses or add them as we both may agree.” (The Histories of Polybius, VII, 9, 4)

Now this is the treaty between the Macedonians and the Carthaginians at the time of Philip V. A treaty is by definition a truly clear text and one cannot but notice how “Macedonia and the rest of Greece” as well as “the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks” are mentioned. It also gives very good hints as to whether the Macedonians actually participated in the Greek religion.

12. “For anciently, none of the Graecians, till the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus ever went to Ethiopia, or so much to the utmost bounds of Egypt. For those places were never frequented by travellers, they were so hazardous, till that king marched with a Graecian army into those parts, and so made a more perfect discovery of the country.” (Diodorus Siculus, I,3)

I do not think that there is any question as to whether this “Graecian army” was a Macedonian one, is there?

13. “Again, however, Fortune stirred up Thebes against him, and thrust in his pathway a war with Greeks, and the dread necessity of punishing, by means of slaughter and fire and sword, men that were his kith and kin” (Plutarch, On the Fortune and Vitrue of Alexander, Or II.11)

I guess that you could argue that they were his kin but not the Macedonians etc etc etc...

14. “..but Alexander himself paid the debts which his men owed to their creditors. Pericles collected tribute from the Greeks and with the money adorned the Acropolis with temples; but Alexander captured the riches of barbarians and sent them to Greece with orders that ten thousand talents be used to construct temples for the gods. (Plutarch, On the Fortune and Vitrue of Alexander, Or II.13)

Can you also argue that the riches of the barbarians were sent to Greece but NOT Macedonia? But does Plutarch say anything about the Macedonian speech?

15. “But he only nodded with his head, making no reply at all, nor showing any other courtesy. Since, therefore, they continued silent, Pompey took a little book in his hand, in which was written out an address in Greek, which he intended to make to king Ptolemy, and began to read it.” (Plutarch, Pompeius)

Do you know Aelian? Aelian Tacticus actually, although the other Aelian also has some revealing passages... Now his work is named “Tactics of Aelian comprising the Military System of the Grecians.”

In his preface he writes :

16. "The Grecian Theory of Tactics derived originally from the age of Homer, most excellent Caesar, has been heretofore set forth by many writers, who have not attained that degree of mathematical information, which, happily, I myself posses...

... Not fully aware, however, of the science and the skill manifested by Romans, I felt some apprehension at the thoughts of writing on this branch of the military art (as practiced by the Greeks), which some might deem obsolete...

I spent some days with Frontinus a man of consular dignity, and a person of the highest reputation for a consummate knowledge of the art of war; and fighting, on conversing with him, that he had studied the Grecian theory with marked attention...

...Frontinus would not have studied the Grecian tactics so closely, ....

Yet, if you will graciously condescend to receive my book as one which contains the theory of Grecian Tactics not inelegantly written, I trust, nor yet without affording entertainment, you will see the way in which Alexander of Macedon drew up his troops..." (Tactics of Aelian comprising the Military System of the Grecians, preface

Now, one might expect that his treatise is about the hoplite phalanx tactics, but unfortunately (actually as an expert on ancient tactics I would prefer it had he written about the tactics of the hoplite phalanx), he means the Macedonian phalanx as was used by Alexander the Great...

There is so much more in ancient Greek literature, but I do not want to be tiresome, so let us see how the barbarians viewed the Macedonians. I will start with my favorite passage regarding the ethnicity of the Macedonians as perceived by the Romans and a very not well known one. I guess you are acquainted with Cicero.

17. “For if all the wars which we have carried on against the Greeks are to be despised, then let the triumph of Marcus Curius over king Pyrrhus be derided; and that of Titus Flamininus over Philip; and that of Marcus Fulvius over the Aetolians; and that of Lucius Paullus over king Perses; and that of Quintus Metellus over the false Philip; and that of Lucius Mummius over the Corinthians. But, if all these wars were of the greatest importance, and if our victories in them were most acceptable, then why are the Asiatic nations and that Asiatic enemy despised by you? But, from our records of ancient deeds; I see that the Roman people carried on a most important war with Antiochus; the conqueror in which war, Lucius Scipio, who had already gained great glory when acting in conjunction with his brother Publius, assumed the same honour himself by taking a surname from Asia, as his brother did, who, having subdued Africa, paraded his conquest by the assumption of the name of Africanus.” (Orations of Cicero)

I do not think that this passage can be any clearer. Can it? And since you seem to have a particular taste for Curtius, let us see what he has to say, when he is not overdramatizing (Curtius Rufus is notorious for his skill in this).

18. “Mutiny was but a step away when, unperturbed by all this, Alexander summoned a full meeting of his generals and officers in his tent and ordered the Egyptian seers to give their opinion. They were well aware that the annual cycle follows a pattern of changes, that the moon is eclipsed when it passes behind the earth or is blocked by the sun, but they did not give this explanation, which they themselves knew, to the common soldiers. Instead, they declared that the sun represented the Greeks and the moon the Persians, and that an eclipse of the moon predicted disaster and slaughter for those nations.” (Q. C. Rufus 4.10.1)

...where are the Macedonians? Greeks against Persians? Or maybe he tells us that he knows the difference but the Egyptians did not ? And concerning the Macedonian language...

19. “The Branchidae, who were unarmed, were butchered throughout the city, and neither community of language nor the olive-branches and entreaties of the suppliants could curb the savagery. Finally the Macedonians dug down to the foundations of the city walls in order to demolish them and leave not a single trace of the city.” (Q. C. Rufus 7.5.28)

So... there was community of language between the Greek Branchidae and the Macedonians... Any other theories? But then, Curtius is but one source.. I wouldn’t want you to think that I insist on his accounts due to lack of other evidence!

20. “Tiridates meanwhile, with the consent of the Parthians, received the submission of Nicephorium, Anthemusias and the other cities, which having been founded by Macedonians, claim Greek names, also of the Parthian towns Halus and Artemita. There was a rivalry of joy among the inhabitants who detested Artabanus, bred as he had been among the Scythians, for his cruelty, and hoped to find in Tiridates a kindly spirit from his Roman training.” (Tacitus, Annals Book VI)

See how logical Tacitus finds the fact that the Macedonians gave Greek names to their cities?

21. “General Paulus of Rome surrounded by the ten Commissioners took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowds of Macedonians. Paulus announced in Latin the decisions of the Senate, as well as his own, made by the advice of his council. This announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the Praetor-for he too was present.” (T. Livius,XLV)

So.. in order for Paulus to be understood, he had to translate his speech in Greek... I wonder why? Can it be that he could not find a “Macedonian” translator or can it be that the Macedonian commoners spoke Greek? Now someone might express some far stretched theories but Livy does not allow us to actually give a second thought...

22. “Trifling causes occasionally unite and disunite the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians, men speaking the same language. With foreigners, with barbarians, all Greeks have, and ever will have, eternal war: because they are enemies by nature, which is always the same, and not from causes which change with the times.” (T. Livius XXXI,29, 15)

This is a double salvo... In four lines Livy comments on both the ethnicity and the language of the Macedonians... Even blunter than Cicero himself! How about the great Julius Caesar? He has to have made some kind of comment...

23. “An edict had been published in Pompey’s name that all the younger men in the province, both Greeks and Roman citizens, should assemble to take an oath.” (Caesar, De Bello Civili 111.102.3)

Ahm... to not allow any misinterpretations.. Caesar is talking about the province of Macedonia... Enough about Romans... (and yes there is much more evidene in the works of Ammianus, Pliny, Paterculus etc etc etc). Let’s check out the Jews.

24. “And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.” (Josephus, Book IX, 8.5)

My guess is the text speaks about Alexander III... Can it be about someone else?

25. “And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome: and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.” (Machabees 1:11)

I know I mentioned that before, but it is too good to just leave out... Oh! And there is some Indian evidence too! You know of how the Persians called the Macedonians Yuna Takabara (Greeks... the takabara part has to do with a hat)? Now the Indiand called them Yonas (also translated as Greek)!

26. “..even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.” (Rock Edict Nb13)

I will close with a later source

27. “THE GREEKS

According to the historians of their ancient times. - The kings of the Athenians - The kings of the Argives - The kings of the Sicyonians - The kings of the Lacedaemonians - The kings of the Corinthians - Who ruled the sea, and for how long

-The individual Olympiads of the Greeks 
-The early kings of the Macedonians

- The kings of the Macedonians, Thessalians, Syrians and Asians after Alexander” (Eusebius)

Actually these are chapters of Eusebius’ historical acounts..

Since you claim you know Greek I will also give you some quotations in Greek. Maybe you will be able to pinpoint the source, but I wouldn’t mind should you not find it.

“Αλέξανδρος δε έστιν Έλλην και τρισκεδαίκα πολέμους συμβαλών ουδαμού ηττήθη, αλλά και πλείονες πόλεις χωρίς μάχης αυτόν παραδέξαντο.”

“ουδείς των Ελλήνων βασιλέων επέβη τη Αιγύπτω ει μη μόνος Αλέξανδρος”

“πρώτος ουν Ελλήνων Αλέξανδρος έλαβε την Αίγυπτον”

Unfortunately I did not use a polytonic font, so I only used “oxeies” as Greeks do today..

The next one is also a bonus. I hope you have the patience to read it, although I post it here especially for Greeks to read, since I have encountered only very few Greeks who knew of the existence or had actually read Plutarch’s two orations named “On the Fortune and Virtue of Alexander”. Of course this is not the whole text, which you can easily find online, but it is a most revealing one as concerns Alexander and his legacy and how they were perceived by the ancients... I have to warn you though.. this is a particularly moving text... with the danger of being mischaracterized I have to admit that I wept the first time I read it some decades ago...

“And first, if you will, consider a matter entirely contrary to the general belief, and compare Alexander's pupils with those of Plato and Socrates. Plato and Socrates taught pupils of splendid natural endowment who spoke the same language; so that, even if the pupils understood nothing else, at least they understood the Greek tongue. And even so, Plato and Socrates did not win over many. But their pupils, such as Critias and Alcibiades and Cleitophon, were prone to spew the good word forth, as a horse the curbing bit, and turned them to other ways. But if you examine the results of Alexander's instruction, you will see that he educated the Hyrcanians to respect the marriage bond, and taught the Arachosians to till the soil, and persuaded the Sogdians to support their parents, not to kill them, and the Persians to revere their mothers and not to take them in wedlock. O wondrous power of Philosophic Instruction, that brought the Indians to worship Greek gods, and the Scythians to bury their dead, not to devour them! We admire Carneades' power, which made Cleitomachus, formerly called Hasdrubal, and a Carthaginian by birth, adopt Greek ways. We admire the character of Zeno, which persuaded Diogenes the Babylonian to be a philosopher. But when Alexander was civilizing Asia, Homer was commonly read, and the children of the Persians, of the Susianians, and of the Gedrosians learned to chant the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides. And although Socrates, when tried on the charge of introducing foreign deities, lost his cause to the informers who infested Athens, yet through Alexander Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Greeks. Plato wrote a book on the One Ideal Constitution, but because of its forbidding character he could not persuade anyone to adopt it; but Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Grecian magistracies, and thus overcame its uncivilized and brutish manner of living. Although few of us read Plato's Laws, yet hundreds of thousands have made use of Alexander's laws, and continue to use them. Those who were vanquished by Alexander are happier than those who escaped his hand; for these had no one to put an end to the wretchedness of their existence, while the victor compelled those others to lead a happy life. Therefore it is even more just to apply Themistocles' saying to the nations conquered by Alexander. For, when Themistocles in exile had obtained great gifts from Artaxerxes, and had received three cities to pay him tribute, one to supply his bread, another his wine, and a third his meat, he exclaimed, "My children, we should be ruined now, had we not been ruined before." Thus Alexander's new subjects would not have been civilized, had they not been vanquished; Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleuceia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Greek city hard by; for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence. If, then, philosophers take the greatest pride in civilizing and rendering adaptable the intractable and untutored elements in human character, and if Alexander has been shown to have changed the savage natures of countless tribes, it is with good reason that he should be regarded as a very great philosopher.”

“Moreover, the much-admired Republic of Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, may be summed up in this one main principle: that all the inhabitants of this world of ours should not live differentiated by their respective rules of justice into separate cities and communities, but that we should consider all men to be of one community and one polity, and that we should have a common life and an order common to us all, even as a herd that feeds together and shares the pasturage of a common field. This Zeno wrote, giving shape to a dream or, as it were, shadowy picture of a well-ordered and philosophic commonwealth; but it was Alexander who gave effect to the idea. For Alexander did not follow Aristotle's advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader, and other peoples as if he were their master; to have regard for the Greeks as for friends and kindred, but to conduct himself toward other peoples as though they were plants or animals; for to do so would have been to cumber his leadership with numerous battles and banishments and festering seditions. But, as he believed that he came as a heaven-sent governor to all, and as a mediator for the whole world, those whom he could not persuade to unite with him, he conquered by force of arms, and he brought together into one body all men everywhere, uniting and mixing in one great loving-cup, as it were, men's lives, their characters, their marriages, their very habits of life. He bade them all consider as their fatherland the whole inhabited earth, as their stronghold and protection his camp, as akin to them all good men, and as foreigners only the wicked; they should not distinguish between Grecian and foreigner by Grecian cloak and targe, or scimitar and jacket; but the distinguishing mark of the Grecian should be seen in virtue, and that of the foreigner in iniquity; clothing and food, marriage and manner of life they should regard as common to all, being blended into one by ties of blood and children.”

Well... that’s it for now... I expect you to bravely comment. I would hate it if you just avoided any serious critic and just posted more “passages” fished out of macedoniasomething.com.

GK1973 (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will on the format of the answers later... you can start reading..

Oh... and now you know why people here do this magic trick with this roll down window... it is very handy to keep track of your conversations and it is not called "hiding..

GK1973 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY ANSWER

It won’t be long. And you, please, just do not send me again 33 pages of text. Anyway, I admire your perseverance. Indeed remarkable. Although I would urge you to give short answers (somebody already complained about dumping large quantities of text on Wikipedia pages).

I posed a specific problem, you attacked me to be “Skopje” (I wouldn’t mind this, but I am not) and produced 3-4 pages of response without SINGLE reference – and attacked me not to give references!

I reduced then the number of arguments to permit you to give a clear comment. You went again into dumping bare affirmations without references.

Then I did the same with you, although I did not have some ready text without references, so I dumped what I had, but in your stile to show you what you are doing to me (although my dumping was of slightly “better” quality as compared to yours).

Now you produced this marvellous peace of completely useless text which is so long that I would not dream of answering. I can only say that you again did not give the references either at all (first part) or you gave them but often incomplete. So I suspect that you were using some ready made material and that you have never seen the real sources. This violating the “Principle of charity” – see on Wikipedia what this is – I will not insist on this. So, please give full references in the future. Even when citing Herodotus, which is well know, please give a full reference (for example 5.22 for the report about Alexander I taking part on the Olympics).

You give the answers, yes, but there are not the best answers, and sometimes you just improvise. Trouble is also that you do not distinguish history from myth, spurious evidence or unreliable uncertain sources (or you exaggerate with the critique, as with Rufus). You accept what you like. I have feeling that you are typical “GoogWik” (please this is not an insult), otherwise you would be aware of Hummond’s (who you like) statement that “The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.” (Hammond NGL: A history of Greece, to 322 B.C., third edition, 1986, p. 534-535; Claredon Press, Oxford.).

As I said, during Hellenistic period they became Greeks, there is little doubt about this. (I would prefer a new term: period of Macedonism) I call it Macedonism because political history is valid genre of history and this was Macedonism. I explained elsewhere why cultural terms should not be used to replace political terms. Droysen certainly initiated something valuable but this should have remained in cultural space. Pity that you certainly did not read any of Arrian, or more from Hammond (The Macedonian State, The origin, Institutions and History, Claredon again, 1989) to realise the power of Macedonian nationalism.

Why do Greeks today (I do not want to say that you are one) want to remove the expression “Macedonia” even from history, I can not understand. It is absolutely clear that modern Macedonia has NOTHING or almost nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonia, although the territory is partially the same, may be there is mixed population with negligible ethnic element which could be related to the Ancient Macedonians. But the language is Slave, and the great majority just Slave or other minimal rests of Roman (Byzantine) population or other that we call ancient population.

Thanks for finally answering to the Philotas story. Since the story has been discussed for couple of hundred of years, good that you did not challenged the content but – Rufus. He has been challenged on many issues, although this passage is believed to be authentic. In addition, you seam to be mislead by the Wikipedia page on the Ancient Macedonian language which is obviously edited by people ignoring the opinion of today’s linguistics which either does not classify or just hypothetically classify the Ancient Macedonian as “somehow probably” related to Greek. The number of words (except from some names) known with certainty to be Macedonian is practically zero.

So all that theatre that I claim you produced and are responsible for, was futile. As somebody mentioned saying “Greek king” would be the same for the Queen of England to say “German Queen”. Don’t you realise the absurdity?

I suggest we stop here. If you would disagree with somebody in the future, try short, powerful arguments with full references. And do not spread nationalism and do not accuse the opponents of being agents of some imaginary political constipation. Even if true, this does not prove your argument. I will wait for some time to see the reactions of other people and then change the first sentence to Alexander the Great presumed “Greek origins”. In spite of all trouble, it has been still a pleasure disputing with you.Draganparis (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. My answer on my talk page: But, did you expect me to respond to your propaganda and dumping page after page of empty imagination and nationalistic or conspiracy accusations, to answer again with normal academic response, as I did couple of times previously??? I sent you what I had already from blind quarrels of FYROM and Greek nationalists. I thought this would suit you better. But, dear friend. I answered on your talk and think that we brought the boat into calm waters. I said, in the end, these days were dynamic and we both learned something. In spite of all, it has been pleasure discussing with you in the end. My message to you is: read more original works. From time to time -may be every two years -I get in these blind discussions. Nex time I will use your text to persuade the next blind "Googwick" to start doing normal science and learn something. I hope that after this experience you will tray to produce useful work for Wikipedia. Good luck.Draganparis (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Draganparis (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you cannot handle to read long texts (then maybe you shouyld not have poses that many questions?), as is obvious you cannot handle writing long texts (which is also required in a "serious" discussion, where resorting to nationalistic sites is not acceptable). As far as this "complaining editor" is concerned.. he is another strange reactivated 10 edit single purpose account that happened to restart contributing to Wiki now that you have... (checked his history...coincidence? Maybe.) It is no perseverance that drives me, but some people's political agenda to attack history. My answers were exremely short, all points usually merit more analysis than what I gave and as far as references were concerned, I gave references as far as new data was concerned (for example Aeschynes). Giving proper references to generalities is not usually done unless asked for. Your points were also unreferenced (or sometimes malreferenced) and it was up to me to ask you for references where I found discrepancies. We were not writing in Wikipedia, we were supposedly engaged in an off-topic discussion.

I also suggest you don't harass me any more (I understood the quality of your knowledge long ago). You have shown your true face and there is no more point to expose you for the amateur you are. The very essence of this last post, a "tactical" retreat and effort to justify ignorance and lack of willingness to properly answer, especially when it is you who initiated this after my continuous demands that you stop, after contacting other editors to show them how I "avoided" arguing with you, after having been exposed as a copy paster from nationalistic sites, clearly shows what had to be shown.

You keep talking about references... I do provide references to ancient texts all the time (maybe more than I should).

You criticise my comments but do not do so with counterarguments (as I did), but with a general aforism, all too typical.

You criticise the length of my post, when yours was also pages long (of course not so long, but really telegraphic... you gave some 30 unreferenced texts / unnamed comments and expected shorter answers than 3-4 lines to each?)

You don't even find it appropriate to justify your selection of internet sources, when you keep posting accusing others of just doing a better job than the one you do when googling up information?

You are talking of my "premade" material, when it is obvious that even it was premade it was by me? Unless you mean the ancient texts, in which case I humbly apologize, I did have them premade.. the ancients did all the work..

You criticise my arguments that have to do with the mythology of a people (actually only Hesiod and Hellanicus wrote mythology, the Argead part was considered history, as was the Dorian invasion, and not that ancient too), on what exact grounds? That mythology does not play a role in the understanding of the ethnic consciousness or history of a people?

As for Greeks.. they do not try to wipe out the term "Macedonia". It is you who seem to try to wipe out the word "Greece" and make it sound as something remote from the word "Hellas", while at the same time connect the word "Macedonia" with Republic of Macedonia only.

Boy... alea jacta est... I do not want you to answer my rhetorical questions. I will be keeping an eye on your presence and of this of these others seemingly single-purposed accounts. As long as you abide by the rules I will have no problem, but do expect a challenge if you try to push your POV inappropriately (as I expect myself to be treated if I show inapproriate conduct) GK1973 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond

As for Hammond...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4436322

I hope you have access to JSTOR... This will answer all your questions regarding his position on this matter. GK1973 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

I honour your goal of grammatically correct English, but you killed the content. The claim of Greek origin of the Argead dynasty was disputed. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right.Draganparis (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta

Hi GK, since you seem interested in classical topics, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on this discussion Talk:Sparta#Lead. Best, Athenean (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of expanding the lead. Please go over it at your own convenience and feel free to modify what I have written. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Draganparis sockpuppetry again?

Hi there GK1973, if you want to open a case regarding these accounts then simply click:

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not confident that those accounts are related as they seem to be disagreeing with Draganparis, however, if they are related then that will show up when the check is done, so no worries. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are evil ;p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Draganparis#Bias_chronicles:_Ancient_Macedonia "ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

How he avoids getting banned is the real question... Simanos (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@@ Line 1,349: / Line 1,349: @@
 How he avoids getting banned is the real question... [[User:Simanos|Simanos]] ([[User talk:Simanos|talk]]) 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
+----
+Hello.  This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  {{#if:|The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#|{{{thread}}}]].  }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic {{#ifexist:[[:{{{1}}}]]|[[:{{{1}}}]]|{{{1}}}}}.}}  <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.