Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Template:WP1.0 for older discussions, see Talk:Macedon/Archive 1 and Talk:Macedon/Archive 2

poorly written article

This poorly written Wiki article attempts to make it appear that ancient Macedonians were distinct from ancient Greeks. I would gambit the article is largely edited by people from Fyrom/Republic of Macedonia with irredentist aims towards Greece (contrary to both US and UN resolutions to refrain from propaganda against Greek Macedonians). Despite the occasional voice of objections there is no major dispute among most scholars that ancient Macedon was inherently Greek in nature. (at least more than anything else) The Hellenic age (the greek word for what we in english call "greek") is evidence beyond dispute of this.

To give an example of historical distortions found in this article...

“ Macedon or Macedonia (Greek Μακεδονία Makedonía) was the name of a kingdom centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west and the region of Thrace to the east. ”

By saying the "northern-most part of Greece" it makes it seem like it bordered Greece. There was no "Greece" state in ancient times... there was only a collection of autonomous city states and Kingdoms that self-identified as Greeks. (Mycenae, Athens, Argos, Ithica, Sparta, Macedon Corinth, etc...)

Another example of irredentism.... the Wiki article states....

“ "It became increasingly Atticised during this period, though prominent Athenians appear to have regarded the Macedonians as uncouth[3]. ”

This statement is very deceptive. It was common during times of conflict for Greeks to label each other "barbarians" (non-Greeks) as an insult. (similar to saying "unAmerican" today) While Demosthenes used "barbarians" to describe Macedonians... he also used it describe the Athenian orator Aristogeiton [Aristophanes, ‘Nephelae’ (line 491). And even Demosthenes himself as described by as a "barbarian" by Aeschine. Plato characterized the Lesbian Aeolic Greek dialect as ‘a barbarian register’ while addressing Pittakos of Mytilene. Athenaios VIII 350a Socrates calls Strepsiadis “ανθρωπός αμαθές ουτώσι και βάρβαρος“. (Strepsiadis…was a well-known Athenian) - Protagoras 3410 etc... etc... There are countless instances of Greeks describing each other as barbarians.

There are other examples of bias in the article but the most telling is how it lightly brushs over the Hellenic period of Macedon (similar to the golden age of Athens).... in which Macedonia spread the Greek Language, Greek culture, and Greek ideas to the region. They unique flavour of macedon among Greeks... was very similar to how Athens also had unique aspects to it... as did Sparta... as did most of the Greek mini-states.

If Macedon wasn't Greek.... then Greek philosopher Aristotle wasn't Greek either (since he came from Chalcidice in Macedon). To go down this road we would also need to rewrite a fair portion of Wiki articles related to antiquity and the Hellenistic period. To do this to suit the political needs of a country whose population is roughly a quarter Muslim and most of the rest are ethnically slavic (who have called themselves Yugoslavians, Serbians, and Bulgarians in the last hundred years) amounts to roughly helping the Taliban blow up Buddhist statues for political ends.

Because of political nature of the article I would advise a complete rewrite by people will credentials in ancient studies. History is not a popularity contest. Just stick to the facts as we know them. What's ironic is that virtually every last piece of "evidence" that Macedon wasn't Greek... is either translated from Greek or comes from Greek artifacts. The citizens of Fyrom can't even read inscriptions from Macedon... as they are almost all writen in Greek. (Their own "Macedonian" language was called Bulgarian less than a hundred years ago) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Currency of ancient Macedonia by NO mean was "greek" drahma. There were more, drahmas and tetradrahmas, but the main currency was STATER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.247.75 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"greek drahma"?? How about "greek stater"? Just read before you post... GK1973 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@OP. Your first comment re "ancient Greece" is of course correct but come on now. What kind of distortion due to politics do you see here? This article doesn't discuss modern politics at all and in fact, you're the first to mention them here. If you see any kind of "weakness" in this article, as you state, I doubt it's because of that. The article on Ancient Macedonians, btw, spends a LOT of space (probably more than necessary; neglects other aspects as well) talking about their "Greekness" so, what's your point?

As an asides, why is Aristotle's being a Macedonian such a widespread belief (I've come across it in various philosophy books as well)? He was born in an Ionian colony and, as far as memory serves, there are no ancient sources calling him a "Macedonian". The earliest sources of this sort I recall are medieval biographies. Feel free to correct me, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's poorly written, but not for the reasons you state. Calling the mythical Karanus the first king and not pointing out that he is mythical...and I am curious where this is from?

" It should be mentioned that the Macedonian tribe ruled by the Argeads, the tribe whose lands the Greeks called Macedonia, was itself called Argead (which translates as "descended from Argos")"....please cite your source for this, thank you...

This is another of those articles where modern politics rears it ugly head I can see, I assume that it why it is locked. To the OP, how does saying that Macedon was in the northernmost part of Greece (which it is) make it sound like it borders Greece?

Also apologies if I don't sign this right, it's been a while.Gingervlad (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)gingervlad

removed modern concepts

Archived per WP:TALK, there's no need to remove anything. As GK1973 says, the concepts and words of "Greece"(Hellenes) and "Greek"(Helenic) clearly existed on the antiquity and can be found on all historical documents with the correct meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All instances of the word Greece and Greek should be removed from this article. Greece and Greek are modern concepts that did not exist at the time. Although Ancient Macedonian culture may have been similar to what you would see in Athens or Sparta, or any other city-state it is by no means Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.16 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure of what you mean with the concepts of "Greece" or "Greek" not existing at that time. Check the works at wikisource:Category:Works_originally_in_Greek. For example, on the preamble of the Laws of Plato it says "greeks" and "Greece" several times wikisource:Laws_(Plato)/Preamble --Enric Naval (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Another smart boy... the concepts of Hellenes and hellenic (translated as Greeks and Greek by the Romans and thus the Western world but this is another story) are ancient and given thousands of times in all historical documents of antiquity. For example, according to Herodot, a historian who lived before Alexander the Great, Philip II or even Plato, Alexander I king of Macedonia proclaimed himself "a Greek (Hellenas) viceroy". The meaning of these words is clear to whoever has read any ancient texts and of course they denote exactly what they denote today... a single nation divided in many tribes, cities, prefectures etc... And of course thousands of times you will find the word Hellenas (Greek) used in ancient texts. Why shoud anybody answer to these meaningless babblings? Because, unfortunately, not everybody knows about history and voices like that count on it... GK1973 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

name of article

What is that "Macedon"????? I know about Macedonia. Like Trakia, Thessalia, Paphlagonia .... many other macedonian names.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.242.15 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) is reading the first line of the article so much to expect from someone... "Macedon or Macedonia" its the same place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.125 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "macedon" is the person who comes from or lives in Macedonia. Does anybody know any ancient reference of "Macedon" as a geographical term?79.107.74.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

North of Greece

I understand Macedon definitions vary based on authors and sources, I added sources which state Macedon was North of Greece:

1. Hellenistic World by F.W.Walbank p. 91: '.... Macedonians were an essential bulwark to the north of Greece'
2. ^ Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World By Pierre Jouguet p.179: 'After crossing the Spercheios and ravaging the territory of Heracleia, which he could not take, he marched on Thermopylae. The pass was defended. The peoples of Northern Greece -Locrians, Phocians, Megarians, Boeotians, Athenians- had sent their contingents, the largest being that of Aetolians. Antigonos Gonatas and Antiochos had furnished 500 hoplites each.'
3. ^ Alexander the Great by Richard Stoneman p.1: 'Alexander the Great was born in summer 356 BC and died thirty-three years later in the month of Daisios (June) 323 BC. He was born the son of Philip, the King of Macedon, a fertile and predominantly pastoral region lying north of classical Greece'
4. ^ The Greeks by Jean Pierre Vernant p.43: 'Athens also imported wood for shipbuilding, wood that for the most part came from northern Greece and from Macedonia.'

Just a few sourcesMactruth (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC

I have shown sources for my editing, which are valid and fair. Greek users are continuously reverting the edits, but with little reasoning. In fact, the only reason I got was from Δρακόλακκος, who stated, "this is completely lame, go mess up something else" which is an OPINION. This is POV pushing, and the page will be reverted back. Mactruth (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly you Greeks cant except the fact that your claim of "Macedonia being in northern Greece" isn't accepted by all historians? Instead of showing all the data to the people, you only show that which supports your claim, without discussion or argument. Good jobs guys. Mactruth (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the differentiation between the geographic boundaries of classical "Greece" and the Greek-inhabited/influenced areas. Classical Greece proper has often been depicted as reaching north up to Thessaly, so that Macedon can be said to have been "north of Greece". But by the same token, the Ionian cities lay "east of Greece", and Magna Graecia "west of Greece", without anyone actually being able to dispute that they were Greek. But since Macedon was Greek or hellenized (Greekness being a cultural identity more than anything, it comes down to the same thing), it was indeed in the northern part of the Greek sphere, and, indeed, of modern Greece. Perhaps it is best to avoid the pointless arguments by substituting it with "in the northernmost part of the ancient Greek world" or something like that. Constantine ✍ 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greece is NOT a place. So any such term used as a geographical determinant is not precise. Before anybody starts shouting, let me explain. Greece has been, and still is, a region. "Ancient Greece" has not. What is it? Is it the totality of the Greek world? Then Magna Graecia and Ionia should also be Greece... Is it the region called Greece by Strabo? Then Macedonia is clearly in the north of Greece, as perceived in the times of Strabo - NOT ancient Greece. Unfortunately, we do not exactly know where the boundaries of the region of Greece lay before Strabo. Aristoteles suggests that Macedonia was inside what was called Region of Greece, but then other sources seem to suggest that, although clearly inside the Greek world, it was not IN Greece. Many sources even seem to suggest that Thessalia was outside the region of Greece, since the pass of Thermopylae is many times called the gates into Greece. Of course, I know that Mactruth's agenda has nothing to do with that, he just strives to hint, suggest etc that the Macedonians were not Greeks, but in this case, I also find that "Ancient Greece" is a flawed geographical term. You have to understand that Greece as a pure geographical term had nothing to do with Greece as the home of Greek cities, kingdoms or tribes. There are those who wish to suggest that whatever lay outside the region of Greece was not Greek and this idiocy has unfortunately led to Greeks being very reluctant to admit what they already know, that is that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE MACEDONIANS WERE A GREEK TRIBE. GK1973 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) was the name of an ancient kingdom. Initially the kingdom of the Argead Macedonians, centered in nowadays Greek Macedonia, north of Thessaly, Macedon later incorporated the rest of the Macedonian tribes. It was bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west (in nowadays Greek Epirus), the region of Thrace to the east (in nowadays Greek East Macedonia, Greek Thrace and Bulgaria) and Paeonia to the north (in nowadays Republic of Macedonia). For a brief period, it became the most powerful state in the world after Alexander the Great's conquests, inaugurating the Hellenistic period of world history.

It is true that MACEDON initially was ONLY the kingdom of the Argead Macedonians. Their kingdom was fully within MODERN GREECE and at any time NORTH OF THESSALY. To make understood that the Argead Macedonians were not the only Macedonians, thus Macedon was NOT the full region of Macedonia at the time BEFORE the Argeads had subdued the rest of the Macedonian tribes I mention their later incorporation in the KINGDOM OF MACEDON. Then, I added Paeonia in the north (east was there, west was there, north was not...) and I added where these other region were in regard to MODERN GEOGRAPHY, since these can be the ONLY geographical determinants... I also changed this part about Alexander having conquered "most of the world known to Greeks". This is really awkward, since the Greeks knew much more in terms of geography than what this phrase gives them credit.... Alexander's exploits were huge, but this phrase is just plainly wrong. The Greeks perfectly well knew the lands all the way to the British Isles, as well as of the lands north of the Danube (Istros), Lybia (Africa) and of course the existence of India... GK1973 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, he is just using this to try to imply that the ancient Macedonians were "something other" than Greek. He's been trying for months now. WP:DNFTT at this point. "Northernmost part of ancient Greece" is fine. It's sourced, and there's nothing wrong with it either in the geographical or cultural sense. --Athenean (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the article Ancient Greece "refers to the period" (a time period), so in better English it should read just "in Ancient Greece" since geographical identifiers cannot be used for time periods without sounding awkward.

Brittanica, (here[1]) has this wording early in the first paragraph: "in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula"... "achieved hegemony over Greece" ..."of ancient Greek civilization"

Should we change it to "in Ancient Greece" and add a seperate sentence for the geography? Shadowmorph (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past [[2]]. In my talk page [[3]] you can find several references that give a different perspective to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids the terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains.

Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French [[4]] and others that are not very informative [[5]]. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used: [[6]]. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece".Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE (ESPECIALLY FIRST PARAGRAPH NEEDS CLARIFICATION): Macedonia or Macedon was a kingdom which "By its geographical position ... forms the connecting link between the Balkans and the Greek peninsula." There we need a clarification. Yes, the land where the Kingdom was centered, connects Balkans with Greek Peninsula. But this term is not the best to clarify the land arround the kingdom itself: all the excavation sites I have visited (Vergina and Pella, (capitals), Philippoi, Dios (Religious place where they make ceremonies to the 12 Greek Deities), and some others just where points of high interest for the ancient Macedonians, are giving more emphasis on the land itself being part of the Greek Mainland, rather than to the Kingdom's location as a crossroad of a Greek Peninsula with Balkan Peninsula without further description. The term "Greek mainland" gives emphasis of being part of Greek world which extends further, up to north of Greek Peninsula's limits, instead of just a "connection of Greek World or Greek Peninsula with Balkans". I mean the Kingdom its forming a greek land. As we see the 5 major settlements of Ancient Macedonia, including its 2 capital cities, prove that the land has an "identity" itself which links it with the rest of the Greek World. Its not just a crossroad between Greece and Balkans: Macedonia is part of the world itself. However the article lacks to make a reference to this. It may let the visitors who come to read and gather more detailed informations about Macedonia, to find the article lacking some informations about the influence of the land to the kingdom itself. Yes, "connects Greek peninsula with Balkan", but what the kingdom itself is...? what describes it? Where belongs? Attica region of Athens, Laconian region of Sparta belong to Greek mainland, while Macedonia region of Pella where? of course needs further clarification where the term Mainland can be used better than the Peninsula does. Modern day people need a reference to its "identity" as when they read an article, they see it from a general view first. Just I am trying to give an example which term describes one of the most powerful states in the ancient world: as part of Mainland or a nonsense connection between just 2 areas?. When I am reading the article, after my visit (one and half months ago) in 1) Pella, 2) Vergina 3) Dios and 4) Philippoi, I see that while 4 settlements that the article needs more clarification of the Macedonian land itself, as we already to with Attican land and Laconian land.: The Kingdom is not a "layer" over the land, is part of a land which culturally, geologically and politically (location of capitals), religiously (Dios, the main Macedonian religious site, which is built on the roots the greek mountain Olympus and they had greek religion) and cultural part (columns in Pella, Mosaics in the ground, to God Dionysus), of the Greek mainland-I saw it with my eyes- etc), which all together form more than enough elementals that clarify the kingdom itself as part of the Ancient Greek mainland, rather than simply... North of Greece or a crossroad between Greek Peninsula with Balkans. Is part of the Greek Mainland. As a wiki, we have to give priority to which geopolitical/geological category Ancient Macedon is better clarified while at same time we give emphasis to the archeological excavation data: "North of X Peninsula which links it with Y Peninsula" or more simply "part of the X mainland, X world" as the data give us?. Because the term Greek Peninsula is a term which its borders have been not determinated yet, sometimes appears larger in scale, including more of King of Macedon's lands, while other times is much smaller, ending up to northern Thessalia, so we can't use it for Macedon which has already some portions of land within it. May the land where the Macedonians where centered, is not described as within the limits of the Greek Peninsula, or part of Magna Grecia, or Minor Asia, however its part of the Greek mainland world. (The Greek Mainland includes: Pelopponesus, Laecedemonia, Attica, Larissa, Macedonia). When we refer to greek mainland as general layout, which includes Macedonia, and is the region, which includes both Greek Peninsula (southern parts of Macedon) and some portions north of it (rest of Macedon). The excavations in the archeological sites themselves at least this confirms. And last, I should note that the archeological sites in Pella, Vergina, Dios confirm that at least, Macedonia, has strong geological/geopolotical connection with the rest of the Greek world rather than staying as a connection of it with Balkan Peninsula, so the term part of Greek Mainland or something like this fits better here and describes it better than the "North of Greece" for the antiquity.--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NO! Section "Involvement in the Greek world" concerns issues you discuss. intro properly begins more neutrally and objectively; part of Greek Mainland begs the question and would be misleading, since the complex relation of macedonia and 'greece' or greek culture was an issue in ancient times and still is. Wran (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is about the location. the state itself is not just a connection between X and Y area. This doesn't requires clarification about the land itself?--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any term we can use to desrcibe the kingdom's land without sliding on 1 side or another? for example to include at BOTH time the data from archeological sites of what land was, while at sime keep neutrality on it? How? Nothing helps :( --62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Empire of Alexander the III

Would it be to much to make it an article (considering it was only an empire from when he took the throne to his death at Ba-bi-lu)?It would make it easier to link Diadochi Articles together. The main reasoning I'm using is the fact that Alexanders empire, was so different from the kingdom ruled by his formers.(forgot I wasn't logged on) --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that it might be useful to make the short Alexander the Great empire-part of Macedonia as its own article. However I also do understand the arguments against it (that it was in theory indeed the same kingdom as before and so on..). User:Gabagool/sig 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Macedon?

Where does the name Macedon come from? Both ancient and modern Greeks called it Makedonia and in other languages it was refered to as Macedonia, Macedoine, Makedonya, etc... So why Macedon? Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do a google search 'Macedon', and eliminate all the adjoining terms such as county, ranges, etc you end up with: 362 hits and these still include items that have nothing to do with the Maceodnia of Philip and Alexander. "Results 1 - 10 of about 362 for macedon -town of -medicine -county of -ranges -club of -real estate -wine -and spa" Politis (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedon is a term used in English to only denote the kingdom of Macedon(ia), which usually was not the same with the region of Macedonia. In the early years, it only was the part ruled by the Argeads, thus a part only of Macedonia, later, it also comprised lands in Thrace and Epirus. GK1973 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this original research? (I'm refering to the theory only a part of Macedonia was ruled by the Argeads thus was different than the kingdom of Macedon(?)) Shadowmorph (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonia" is the most common English usage, and accurately refers to the kingdom, the Macedonian Empire, and in all other times of its history mentioned here. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brittanica, (here[7]) says Macedonia (the ancient kingdom). It doesn't even mention Macedon (disambiguation) nowhere near the beginning. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

actually it doesn't use "Macedon" at all. "Macedon" can be used when referring to "Phillip II of Macedon" or the "rise of Macedon" but probably only to distinguish between pre-Alexander and the later eras. I've been bold and moved the page Shadowmorph (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"kingdom of Macedon" is not the most common use, but "Macedonia" is. If we had to use Macedon for the title it probably should be kingdom of Macedon like in kingdom of Israel. But contrary to the Israel case, kingdom of Macedon is rarely used for times other than the pre-Alexandrian. This article is about Macedonia in all time periods Shadowmorph (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The word ancient could be omitted because there never was a non ancient kingdom by itself. But it is better left there for clarity Shadowmorph (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Kingdom of Macedonia" is the most common term. Yet "Macedon" has the same meaning. As long as "Macedon" directs to this page and is mentioned as an alternative term, I got no problem GK1973 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the re-direct from Macedon (I think) simply because the term Macedon is so unusual.Politis (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Any more suggestions, welcomed Shadowmorph (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always been under the inpression that the country's name was the 'Kingdom of Macedon' and I have used that name for all the articles, that have involved this kingdom. 'Macedonian' was the adjective for the noun 'Macedon(ia)'. Kyriakos (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

well, you were mistaken. "Macedon" sees some use in dated sources, but the most common term is clearly "Macedonia". We long used to keep this article at Macedon just for disambiguation purposes. It is always helpful to consult the OED rather than wading though google hits. Macedon n. is listed, as "1. Ancient Macedonia. Now arch. and hist.", first attestation c. 1330, in use in the 19th century and into the 1960s, but at present mostly in the composition Philip of Macedon. I would advocate the title of Ancient Macedonia as most appropriate for this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there are other Macedonias to disambiguate. Ancient Macedonia could be confused with Ancient "Macedonia" (region surrounding the location of the modern republic that uses that name) which would be Paeonia, I think. That problem only appeared when an admin decided to move the country article and omit the words "Republic of". And he didn't remove the move-protection either. If that wasn't done, there would be less need to disambiguate that, imho. I'd challenge your proposal on its basis also. It's not that bad but the word ancient is itself trivially omitted in all contexts that the correct Macedonia is inferred by other means. When the words Aristotle, Empire, Army etc pop up then "ancient" is not needed; it is not a part of the description. By Googling "empire of Macedonia" gives many results while "empire of ancient Macedonia" gives no results. Same for "Aristotle was born in Macedonia". You can check other sources. Thanks for your input, by the way. Oh and in case you don't know there is a current arbitration about the Macedonia naming dispute inside Wikipedia. Temporarily no Macedonia-related article (of the non-locked ones) should be moved until the ARBCOM finishes it's job. Check it here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About the common use about "Macedonia" in antiquity

Search term in "quotes"	results
"empire of Macedonia"	4,270 results [8]
"empire of Macedon"	2,470 [9]
"empire of ancient Macedonia" / "ancient empire of Macedonia"	0 / 5 [10] / [11]
"tomb in Macedonia"	198 results[12]
"tomb in Macedon"	2 [13]
"tomb in ancient Macedonia"	0 [14]
"Aristotle was born in Macedonia"	234 results[15]:
"Aristotle was born in Macedon"	4 [16]
"Aristotle was born in ancient Macedonia"	5[17]

Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the move to "Macedonia (qualifier)", just "ancient kingdom" doesn't strike me as a particularly good choice. I suggest "Macedonia (antiquity)" or "Macedonia (Classical Antiquity)". --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No.. this would be problematic because Macedonia (antiquity) could also mean Macedonia (region)(antiquity) and Macedonia (region) has very little to do with Macedonia in antiquity or even Macedonia (country)(antiquity), which is even less relevant. In antiquty there were actually 2 Macedonias, Macedonia (kingdom) and Macedonia (ancient region), the latter being the territory of the combined Macedonian tribes in addition to the Argeads we all know. Macedonia (classical antiquty) is also not a good solution, because Macedonia's history spans far back to the past and to the future of this relatively short period. Yes... unfortunately, wherever the word "Macedonia" is used there are issues with semantics...GK1973 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology -> "македнос", Solun, language etc??????

I'm sorry, is this an encyclopedia or a playground??? "The name of Macedonia (from [Macedonian], Makedonía), comes from the ancient Macedonian word македнос"!!!! Is this an ancient alphabet i'm missing? An ancient spoken language i'm missing??? Would you please get some serious... this is an encyclopedia, not a propagandistic forum!

There is an image that says "The statue of Alexander the Great in Solun sea front"... from the antiquity till nowdays the name of the city is Thessaloniki after Alexanders sister Thessalonike! Why are you people trying to twist the history?

After the ancient Macedonian language, there was the Slavic Macedonian language? The religion of the ancient Macedonian was the unknown Ancient Macedonian religion? Just a notice... 30km south from the Macedonian capital Aigai (inside the Macedonian kingdom) there is the Mount Olympus, i think you've heard about the Twelve Olympians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#The_King

"The King

The king (Басилеус, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (Басиликос граматеус, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council."

What the Cyrillic alphabet has to do with the ancient Macedonian kingdom???

I'm sure there are more since i read it very quickly. I don't know if i have to laugh or cry!!! Can someone please clean this mess? --xvvx (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Relax, man. Just a silly piece of POV vandalism. It was reverted within three minutes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, i don't know what's wrong. Even though i can see from the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&action=history that you have reverted the article to the previous version, for some reason i can not understand, if i click on the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) i get the previous version --xvvx (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Try refreshing your browser cache, perhaps. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's o.k now, without refreshing the cache. There might be some other problem. IE is an unknown word for me :p I use linux and tried 5 different browsers (Firefox, Opera, Epiphany, Arora, Konqueror) :p --xvvx (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric Macedonia

My concern is this material, whose accuracy I've not yet examined. It seems interesting but it is placed IMO in the wrong article (at least to that extent): Macedonia (Greece), where there should be only a summary of it per SS. So, my question is: where should this material mainly be?

1. Here?
2. To the history section of the Macedonia (region)?
3. As it stands now?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two points (I cannot comment on its accuracy, although it looks good):

• As phrased, it covers the area of the modern province, because its source does.
• That's the only reason I can see for Macedonia (Greece) to have a history section at all, other than a summary of Macedonia (region). Its boundary is the Greek frontier as of 1913, and it is unlikely to be a natural division in the palaeolithic (or even in the nineteenth century).

I would put it in Macedonia (region); the connection of purely archaeological cultures to the kingdom of Macedon must be conjecture. But this would involve asking if the archaeology of the inland parts of the region differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hat link

The title is unambiguously referring to an ancient kingdom. However "ancient" might create some confusion about the roman province and the byzantine thema to the lay reader. Thus the inclusion of other places template. We could also change that part of the hat link to For other historical entities see Macedonia (disamgiguation).Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Current hat link looks fine. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Article Revision: Description of the territory

A long time has passed and the article continues at a low level. It's time to implement changes that will increase accuracy, neutrality and coherence. Starting with the territory:
The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past [[18]]. In my talk page [[19]] you can find several references that give a perspective different to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains. Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French [[20]] and others that are not very informative [[21]]. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used: [[22]]. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece". Maps with similar look can be prepared and used for the different stages of the 'Macedon'.Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, not again! You were denied last time by a solid consensus and I do not have the time or patience to re-hash the same old nonsensical debate again. The maps are fine. Hxseek's are inaccurate. Your sourcing is worthless and misleading. Forget it, not a chance. --Athenean (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Last time the map changes were accepted but could no be implemented because of POV pushing and contributions loaded with dogmatic opinions and deprived of any objectiveness, just like yours. Why the sourcing is worthless and misleading? Why they are inaccurate? Why not use a neutral description of the territory?Ilidio Martins (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is a not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe[[23]]? To make things worst the "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece". Because of the absence of a geological peninsula one borrows it a political meaning? This is what I call biased nonsense!
In summary the particular article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has severe problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Eordaians, Mygdonians etc

We are not sure whether all or some of these tribes were Thracians. The Mygdonians for example might have been Bryges and the Bryges are most possibly not Thracian. The Eordaians also had Greek elements in the past, but might be completely assimilated by the time we are talking of etc. It is easy to find historical texts where the Lyncestae, the Orestae etc are called Macedonian tribes but this is not easily possible for the said tribes. In my opinion, most possibly they were Thracian or Thracian affiliated, so I do not have a problem with stating that. But, as you said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to make a certain civilization appear more prominent than it really was. Believe you me when I say that "most possibly" is a very good solution, unless you want "antiThracians" to crop up and (with far more compelling and supported arguments) try to erase that word from the article.

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's reference

There is problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe[24]? Moreover "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece" which constitutes a quite daring suggestion.
The article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)