Showing posts with label Gandeto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gandeto. Show all posts

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Of color blind knaves and blind fools: a few points on the Macedonian issue

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."


This article has also been published at the American Chronicle:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/244578
 
Miltiades Elia Bolaris
July24, 2011

My hometown Serres is built at the foothills of Menoikio mountain, in central-eastern Macedonia. A Paeonian foundation, as Herodotus tells us, which the Macedonians made their own. When we were children, my father would take me and my brother, we would go mountain hiking from dawn to eve, and he would talk to us. He was an inspiring gentleman, to us children, well-traveled and well-read; full of wisdom. Both I and my brother owe a lot to him. Something that stuck in my mind from those childhood conversations with my father was the following saying by Confucius:

"If in your path you come across someone with whom you can carry an intelligent conversation, stay and discuss in earnest with him.
If in your path you come across someone with whom you cannot carry an intelligent conversation, do not waste your time in idle talk. Keep walking!"

I thought of my father a few days ago, on July 20th, prophet Elias's day in the Orthodox calendar, his name day. Here I stand now, wondering: why don't I simply follow my father's advise and Confucius' wisdom?

Does someone have to answer any and every scatological byproduct of lower intelligence floating out there? Here is an example:

"Macedonians, Philhellenes and Greeks", by Christos Stephou, a Canadian autodidact who habitually misspells his own (appropriately Boulgarized to Risto Stefov) Greek name.

A "Rebuttal", supposedly, of an article written three years ago:

"The arrest, disappearance and possible murder of a critic of PM Nicola Gruevski in FYROM", published on July 28. 2009 in the American Chronicle". I am saying "supposedly" because the article is rambling about anything but what it is supposed to be rebutting.

There is a wonderful American expression: "You cannot win an argument against an idiot as he is not bound by the rules of logic". Basic self respect demands that I should avoid it:
εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ' ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο
if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me


At the same token, try as I may, and we all have our weaknesses, I simply cannot  
bear to hear the truth I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.

So, then, here we are, forced by necessity to make a few points of clarification. Our task is not to convince any propagandists of pseudo-Makedonism out there. They know they are dealing in a fake product, whether historical, political or linguistic. They are in the business of fraud and falsification. What makes it easy for us is that they are not even good at it. What we need to do is to clear out the cloudy haziness with which they always cover up their fuzzy tracks. We need to make the intellectual field crystal clear using crisp, logical argumentswhich are solidly based on research and factual documentation. We simply need to do our homework. We need to expose each and every pseudo-Makedonist hoax, for what it is: a fraud against history and science and a crime against the true identity of the Slavomacedonian nation and the future of the youth of FYROM.

POINT A: "When the Western-philhellenes came to Greece to begin their
project, they found this mass of befuddled individuals completely

immersed in their struggle for survival and oblivious to the

significance of their immediate surroundings."


When someone tries to belittle one of the greatest revolutions of the 19th century, the Greek revolution of 1821-1829, a revolution which paved through its heroic example the way to freedom for all other Christians of Ottoman occupied Europe, a revolution that inspired the greatest minds of its time, from Byron and Goethe to Delacroix, by calling it a mere "project" of "Western-Philhellenes", that someone is not only failing in his purpose. He is also betraying his abysmal hatred, personal baseness, mean spirit and, most of all, unfulfilled envy for what he never had. Nobody can accuse the Slavomacedonians for waiting to be be liberated by the Serbian army in 1912 or for gaining a statehood after the Yugoslav army decided to retreat in 1992. Things happen. But to start from this lack of an ethnogenetic Big Bang to go and start mumbling nonsense of Western Philhellenes' "project" is ludicrous.
A house pussycat has no moral right to accuse a lion of being docile, if you asked me. If you have not produced a Kolokotronis, a Karaiskakis a Makrygiannis or a Kanaris, and the only heroes you have to show are some Bugari Komitadjis, in the service of Bulgarian Exarchy, then the least you can do is hush the whole issue and lie low. Do not provoke comparisons that will slap you right back on your face.
"...mass of befuddled individuals...oblivious to the significance of their immediate surroundings" doing what they had to do. Greeks gained their freedom after a 9-year revolutionary struggle, 160 years before the peaceful retreat of the Yugoslav army gave independence (like a ripe fruit that fell on Skopje's  lap) to FYROM.

Calling the Greek revolutionaries, those barefooted men and women that broke the back of the Ottoman empire after a tooth and nail nine year old bloody struggle for freedom, a revolution during which no stone was left upon a stone, fighting against the most tyrannical empire of their time, and won, to call these men and women

"this mass of befuddled individuals completely immersed in their
struggle for survival"

is not at all demeaning the memory of those heroes. Pass du tous! It is simply indicative of how a slimy creature experiences its own insignificance looking up -in owe- to soaring eagles from down below, plodding along in its miserable muddy hole.

Since the population of FYROM has never achieved national liberation on its own, and there are historic reasons for this, the lack of homogeneity in the population being the most important, the closest thing they can look back towards is the two month long Ilinden uprising and the famous Krushevo government did not lasdt for more than ten days. This was an uprising that was thought of, organized and carried by Bulgarian Komitadjis. The liberation of the land during the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 was carried by the Serbian army. During WWII the local population embrashed the Nazi led Royal Bulgarian troups as liberators and the communist party leadership was the first to leave the Yugoslav Communist Party to join the Communist Party of Bulgaria. When the Serb army left southern Yugoslavia in the early 1990's, as the Yugoslav state was collapsing and Serbian army was needed to fight Croatian independentists, FYROM was finally established. FYROM, therefore, like Albania, which was liberated from the Ottomans by the Greek and Serbian army, or Bulgaria, which was liberated by the Russian army, for that matter, have no great national liberating revolution to look back to. This is not a crime nor a handicap. Crime against history and basic intelligence are the moronic attempts of the Skopian history falsifiers who try to try to appear greater by belittling the achievements of others. The fact that the Greek revolution roused the sympathy of freedom loving intellectuals from around the world who came to help the Greeks does not take anything out that great revolution. As for the Treaty of Bucharest which the Skopjan mouthpieces love to quote all the time, it did not give Macedonia to Greece. The Greek army in a succession of ferocious battles first in Sarantaporo and then in Yanista, defeated the Ottoman army forcing Hasan Tahsin Pasha to surrender central and western Macedonia to the Greeks.Te Greek army entered Thessaloniki on October 26, 1912.  The Treaty of London treaty recognizing Greek sovereignty over  these lands was signed on May 30, 1913. All the Treaty of Bucharest did was to divide between Romania, Greece and Serbia the lands lost by Bulgaria during the second Balkan War. And this was in August 1913, almost a year after Greeks had already won Thessaloniki. So, why are they not crying about the Treaty of London then, which determined the fate of their land, and only make noises about the Treaty of Buccarest that only determined the fate of a small part in the SE part of FYROM? The fact that the Skopje ultra-nationalist are whining and crying about the Treaty of Bucharest, is only reminiscing of the bitter tears their Bugari grandparents shed for having seen majka Balgarija lose to the hated Srbi and Grci. If it was not for the Treaty of Bucharest, FYROM would be part of Bulgaria...and as fate had it, with the intervention of Tito, they became Makedonci, not Makedonci Bugari. Is this the real reason why some of them are crying?
The ottoman army's Hasan Tahsin pasha capitulating to Constantinos. King George I entering Thessaloniki on Oct. 26, 1912, ten months before the signing of the Treaty of Buccharest.
 

POINT B:  "In haste to build and instill into this bewildered hodgepodge of
leftover Balkanites - Slavs, Albanians, Gypsies and Vlachs - a new
Greek identity, these idealistic westerners forgot to install a safety
valve for the inflated Greek ego."

Greeks: "...bewildered hodgepodge of
leftover Balkanites..." but damn proud of their heritage!
Let me rephrase this, and put it in a context that an impartial reader can easily
comprehend:

"In haste to build and instill into this bewildered hodgepodge of
leftover Europenites and Africanites – Slavs, Mexicans, Nigers,
Gypsies and Jews - a new Yankee identity, these idealistic westerners
forgot to install a safety valve for the inflated American ego."


How does that sound? Can the author of such a hideously racist excrement of a twisted humanoid brain have the moral footings to accuse anyone else of "promoting KKK ideology"?

Americans, Canadians, Australians: "...bewildered hodgepodge of leftover Europenites, Asiatics, Africanites..." if we are to follow Stefov's  twisted Nazi logic
The only bewilderment here is for how and why the American Chronicle can tolerate such a miserable misanthrope among its accepted "authors". Let the thousand flowers bloom is the idea...and who cares for the occasional thorn here and there.
PS: We don't live in Skopje here. While it is easy to accuse someone publicly of "promoting KKK ideology", when slapped with a libel suit for defamation, the irresponsible party will need to bring along to the court of law some solid proof of that "promotion", or they will have to eat their words like Charlie Chaplin ate his shoes, and we  will make sure we are there to watch it.


POINT C: " If the ancient boundaries of Greece do not coincide with the modern-day Greece's location and size, then the answer should be found in the "unredeemed" Greek territories."

Unlike Bulgaria, Turkey or Yugoslavia, and unlike Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Japan or the USA, not to speak of Canada and Australia, Greece has not taken part in any offensive war ever since 1922. It has in fact lost lands won post WWI and the Treaty of Sevres.The Dodecanese islands, are greek inhabited islands which Italy had won from the Ottomans and were given to Greece as compensation from Italy for all the destruction that Greece suffered during the triple occupation of Italy, Germany and Bulgaria during WWII. Greece has not made any implicit or explicit demands on the lands of any of its neighbors ever since 1922, and if anything, both Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonija have made numerous land grab claims against Greece. Yugoslavia in the 1940's and '50's, backed up by Yugoslav partisans and armed intervention and mingling in the Greek civil war, and FYROM through its constitution, its irredentist maps, school books, state sponsored publications and  constant propaganda pounding of the Slavomacedonian population about Obedineta Makredonija‏ "United Macedonia", the enslaved motherland of the "ethnic Macedonians" currently "occupied" but the un-Macedonian "Grci".


POINT D: Again on "promoting KKK ideology":
"Your virulent attack on Macedonia, its leadership and people ("The arrest, disappearance and possible murder of a critic of PM Nicola Gruevski in FYROM",
published on July 28. 2009 in the American Chronicle), is nothing less
than an expression of your deep-seated bigotry and hate for the ethnic
Macedonians."


The aforementioned article exposed the Gruevski administration of Stalinist style imprisonment of a vocal opponent of its pseudo-Makedonist campaign, and all of a sudden I stand accused of "promoting KKK ideology"? Very interesting train of thought indeed. I forgot that in Gruevski's VMRO regime there is only:

One people, One nation, One leader: Gruevski! An attack on one, is taken as an attack on all.

What is the German slogan, again?

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"

An attack on the Führer, is an attack on the Nation! It is obvious that the ones who attack the Führer must be shut into concentration camps and be gased!...Oh, wait, maybe not practical an idea, when your country is a candidate member begging entry into the EU. Change of plans: just lock' em up in the Bardovci psychiatric clinic and drug 'em up with expired psycho drugs. That will do the trick! Send some money to Toronto too, to oil the diaspora propaganda section. We need to have more ideology goons writing this kind of crap. It's crap, alright, but its VMRO-DPMNE supporting, "good" crap:

"Laden with racism and hate, your portrayal of Macedonia and its leadership bristles with heavy inaccuracies."

God forbid if FYROM's "leadership" is portrayed like the cosa nostra Balkanika that it is! One opposition TV channel closed and two opposition newspapers shut down by Gruevski's mafiosi, I mean, police, have not been enough to hush up the growing internal uproar! Who needs external lights on VMRO-DPMNE's heavy handed political control of FYROM's polity!

On another point, speaking of KKK ideology, maybe the Slavomacedonian ultra-nationalist propagandists should look a bit closer to home. In what other country in the world would such a no hands down deleteriously racist and Nazi propaganda would be not only permitted but paid for and promoted by state TV? What would the (non-"Makedonoide-White race" nor even "Negroide race" but a mere "Mulato") current president of the USA think if he was to  watch this hemetic product of Skopje state TV?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBRoocbMSEE

The translation is included, below the video, but here is a good excerpt, where none other than God himself is speaking on Skopje's national TV, promoting pseudo-Makedonism:

"Divine blessing for you, my Macedonians. I have waited for thousands of years to be called by you. From always with you, from eternity I am coming, I am already among you because here neither time nor space exists. Here, at my place, the time is still. But at your place, the time is now, for me to explain. Your mother Earth I have inhabited with three races: the White-Macedonoids, the Yellow-Mongoloids and the Black-Negroids. The rest-all are mulattoes. From you, Macedonians, the descendants of Macedon, I have impregnated the White race and everything began from you, to the Sea of Japan. All White people are your brothers because they carry Macedonian gene. And all the migrations started from your place towards the north. Kokino, Porodin, Radobor, Angelci, Barutnica, Govrlevo, wherever you dig you shall find the truth who you are, why you are and from where are you. Evil diabolic souls obscured the truth for thousands of years and lied to the world."

Let me repeat the charge: Your virulent attack on Macedonia, its leadership and people... is nothing less than an expression of your deep-seated bigotry and hate for the ethnic Macedonians. 
First of all, there are no ethnic Macedonians. Being a Macedonian myself I am not going to stay idle by while Stefov & Co. refuse me my Makedonism, claiming Macedonia as his exclusive tribal turf, disenfranchising me of my identity and cultural roots. There are not now and there never were an ethnic Macedonian, and the ancient Macedonians sure as hell did not speak Slavic but Greek. Secondly, for someone to accuse me of "...deep-seated bigotry and hate for the.." Slavo-Macedonians, they should produce such manifestation. Our attacks have been merciless but fully justified and they were NEVER AGAINST THE PEOPLE but against the pseudo-Makedonist leadership and propagandists. We respect and love the Slavomacedonians with whom we have never had anything to divide. We throw to the dogs of derision the ultra-nationalist Skopjan pseudo-Makedonists who have brought only hatred, division, political and economic poverty and isolation. As for the "our virulent attack on...(Skopje's pseudo-Makedonist leadership" and to the paid parade of ludicrous apologists, we happily plead guilty as charged: It is our firm belief and conviction that if you love the people you must attack the VMRO-DPMNE party, its central Asian style Makedonbashi Führer and all that the third world misery that they represent!
An attack on the Führer and his Central Asian type heavy handed leadership style and abysmal civil rights record is branded an attack on the Slavomacedonian people!
A question is now being raised. Is our attack on Gruevski's Stalinist methods of locking up its political opponents in psychiatric clinics (our article: "The arrest, disappearance and possible murder of a critic of PM Nicola Gruevski in FYROM"), in the interests of the Slavomacedonian people, or not? If the struggle to free the political future of FYROM and its multi-ethnic society from the cancer that Bukefalist pseudo-Makredonism represents is in the best long term interests of the Slavomacedonian people, which we fervently believe that it is, then by default, the cheerleaders and paid apologists of this fraudulent cult, a cult that has poisoned the political life and ethnic-minority relations as well as the international relations with ALL of Slavomacedonia's neighbors for years to come, these then are the most deleterious enemies of their people, these fanatical, color-blind knaves who treat the Slavomacedonian people as simple blind fools, are the worst enemies of their kin and, and the grave-diggers of the future for the youth of their country.

 POINT E: "The linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic
nuances in the Balkans; they can also be misleading."

"In other words, language does not denote or equate with ethnicity...
To sum it up: "it is identity that counts, not language not blood, not anything else."
As you can see Mr. Boralis, your feet are not resting on a firm ground. In other words, you are walking on thin ice. That usually happens to people who, as you so loudly put it in your article, use lies and distortions. So, it is not the language people speak or write that identifies the person's ethnicity? What about the inscriptions written in Greek that "prove" Alexander's Greek-ness? Which is it?"

It might come as a surprise to some, but the world is not as black and white as their color blind narrow vision and handicapped intellectual capacity might allow. The world is colorful and not everything fits the narrow cookie cutter standards of the less bright.

I know that it sounds like divine wonder to some, but the fact that South Africans and Australians speak the same language does not signify the same ethnicity. Likewise, speaking the same language, Spanish, does not make an Argentinian proud of his Mexicanidad. Are we clear on this?
We move to the next point. A Russian Jew and an Israeli Jew feel as belonging to the same ethnicity despite their ability to converse in the same language, one speaking Russian, or even Yiddish, and the other in Hebrew. A Jew in America may only feel culturally and or religiously Jewish, while the Russian Jew is Jewish in an ethnic sense, and he is legally considered to be a member of an "ethnic minority" by Russian law. He may or may not be religious. An Israeli Jew is ethnically Israeli and he feels Jewish whether he is religious or secular. The same can be said of an Armenian of Greece, of France, of Turkey and of Armenia, Iran, the USA or Russia. He may or may not be religious, he may or may not be speaking Armenian, but if he has an Armenian identity, then he is an Armenian. The ethnic and religious can over the years recede into cultural only and vice versa. A Muslim Slav from Bosnia had never acquired an ethnic identity and many had lost their religious identity that had receded into a cultural identity: Their grandparents were Muslim, so, if asked they would identify themselves as Muslims, and could easily intermarry with Catholic Croats or Orthodox Serbs. After the civil war, most Bosnian Muslims elevated their cultural and religious identity into an ethnic identity and now they even have their own language: Bosnian! You can also call it Serbocroatobosnian, but you may be run over by a nationalist truck or two...or three! Before the Balkan wars and WWI, someone could be a Turkophone Greek in central Anatolia, in Turkey that had lost his Greek language over the years but not his Greek Orthodox religious and cultural and ethnic identity. You could also be a Greek Muslim who spoke perfect Greek, in Macedonia or Thessaly or Crete, but lost your religious and ethnic identity, since being Muslim made someone identify themselves as Turkish. During the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, there were Greeks who came to Greece who spoke not a word of Greek and Greek Muslims who left because they identify themselves as Turkish. In Macedonia, and Albania there were bilingual people who could and did switch from one identity to another. I had dinner with a n army friend and his wife in Edessa a few years ago, and my friend's wife told me that her cousin's were coming from Bulgaria to work on the fruit orchards on picking season. Your cousins from Bulgaria? I asked? Were they children of civil war partisans from the 1940's? No...they had left earlier, in the Greek-Bulgarian voluntary population exchange of the 1920's. Momentary puzzlement on my part. That was normal back then, she explained. My grandfather was Greek, but his brother decided that he was a Bulgarian, so he left. Being brothers, they kept in contact. Now the grandchildren have different ethnic identities, this side Greek, that side Bulgarian, and they communicate in English! This was the time when the Exarchists were still calling themselves Bugari, the call for united Makedonija was only being promoted by Bulgarian fascists and the Bulgarian Communist Party and Kriste Misirkov was still debating in front of the mirror as to what to call himself, a simple Bulgarian, or a truest kind of Bulgarian, i.e. a Makedonetch.


POINT F. Did I ever say or write that Philip and Alexander were Greek just because all the ancient inscriptions found in Macedonia written by and intended to be read by the ancient Macedonians were Greek? I am sure I did not. Let me see what I wrote:

"Finally, we have the strongest indication on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, is their Greek language." Yes, indeed this is correct. The "strongest indication" on what? "...on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians". No Alexander, no Philip involved in this. And I did not say proof either, I said "indication": one indication. You add several  indications and then you have the proof!
For example, you put also the fact that Macedonia and all the countries that Alexander conquered are  full of Greek theaters and this is another indication that the people who went into these Greek theaters were able to understand Aeschylus and Euripides because that is what they would hear in those theaters, not Chinese opera.
The restored Hellenistic theater of Babylon, in Iraq, dating from the time of Alexander
Add to this that the inscriptions to the men of Macedonia for conscription into the army was all written in Coene Greek and then you can see that by the fourth century BC the local Macedonian dialect had recessed to the point that everyone could understand standard Coene Greek. Should we also add that in the Christian bible when we hear of St. Paul visiting Philippoi and Thessaloniki, Apollonia and Berroia he meets Jews and Greeks and never mentions any "ethnic" Makedonci? I suppose this is another indication of the ethnic character of the ancient Macedonians. Should we also add the fact that wherever the Macedonians went, starting from Paeonia and Thrace to Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Bactria and India, we see the Greek language to be propagating and we see these Macedonians call themselves Macedonians only as a geographic determinant but Greeks in ethnicity? Is the
spread of the Greek language another indication of the language that the ancient Macedonians spoke? Is the fact that Jewish and Sanskrit and Iranian texts mention Greeks when they speak of Alexander's Macedonians? I suppose this is another indication. How about the fact that when Alexander asked that his Persian recruits be taught to fight in the way of the Macedonians and asked to have them learn Greek so that they can join his army...is that possibly an indication too of what language the Macedonian army was using for its commands? After all, the first thing you learn once you decide to join the Foreign Legion, is the French language, n'est-ce pas? Now, when someone lives in France, he speaks French, if he travels the world and he only reads French poetry and asks his friends to send him more French books, his father has been known to be a Frenchman, his mama is a French lady and his great great grandpa was proclaiming to the world that he was French...there is no way that I am going to call this man a Ukrainian. I am sorry, I cannot. I'd say that the better guess is that he is a Frenchman.
Now, we know Alexander had his Homer's Iliad and Odyssey with him all the time, he even had a Persian golden box to keep them in, he orderedGreek poetry and philosophy to be sent to him from Macedonia whilesightseeing and touring in Afghanistan. His father was called the only statement among all the Greeks who has worked for the good of Greece, against the barbarians ("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?"Isoc. 5 140), He was also called a no good for nothing barbarian, but also "more Greek than all Greeks", by the same self proclaimed "queer, ill-conditioned fellow", Demosthenes:

308] And as for Philip, why, by Heracles, he was more Greek than all
Greeks, the finest orator and inspeech friendliest than everyone
towards Athens you could find in the whole world. And yet there were
some queer, ill-conditioned fellows in this city who did not blush to
abuse him, and even to call him a barbarian!"

Alexander's mother was Myrtele, a Greek princess from the royal house of Molossoi in Epeirus, who had to change her Greek name Myrtale to the even more Greek Olympias when she married into the Macedonian Royal household. His great great grandfather was Alexandros I, the benefactor of all Greeks, who, through Herodotus relayed to us that:

"Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery...consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."

"He goes to great pains to convince the reader that Alexander the Great was Greek because the writings on the found artifacts were in the ancient Greek language." I suppose we covered this.

Now:

"The fact that neither Philip nor Alexander the Great ever claimed to
be Greek or to have Greek consciousness is simply immaterial to him."

Let's read:

"While Alexander was in the region, a prophecy is said to have
occurred. A fountain near Xanthos suddenly welled up of its own accord
and threw out a bronze tablet inscribed with archaic letters
announcing the overthrow of the Persian Empire by the Greeks."

I read this in a Turkish web site:
http://www.exploreturkey.com/exptur.phtml?id=199 
Nobody could accuse the Turks of firebrand Philhellenism. So, then, if Alexander was, let's say a Proto-Slav Makedonskiot...why on earth would he be

"[3] Encouraged by this prophecy, Alexander hastened to clear up the seacoast as far as
Cilicia and Phoenicia." ?

Let us read again this prophesy which made Alexander be so encouraged:

"Now, there is in Lycia, near the city of Xanthus, a spring, which at
this time, as we are told, was of its own motion upheaved from its
depths, and overflowed, and cast forth a bronze tablet bearing the
prints of ancient letters, in which it was made known that the empire
of the Persians would one day be destroyed by the Greeks
and come to
an end. " 
Plutarch Alexander 17.2

Let me just say this: If I were Aleksandar Makedonskiot the ProtoSlav Czar of the Slavomakedonci and heard that "the Persians would one day be destroyed by the Greeks ", I not  depressed!...not encouraged...I would have called it quits and turned the army back! Why waste my time!...if it was to be the Greeks who would destroy the empire of the Persians? Now, one more tiny point.
Why did Alexander say "Alexandros Philippou and the Hellenes..."? Does this mean that pseudo-Makedonism's "Aleksandar Makedonskiot" forgot to take his "ethnic Makedonci" to the Granicus river battle? He obviously did not mean to say that his Makedonci were Greeks... did he? He did not mean to say that he had won that great battle against the Persian satraps with ALL the Greeks, INCLUDING his Macedonians...or did he?
 Let's see again:

‘Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων 
ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων’ 
‘Alexander the son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians 
from the Barbarians who dwell in Asia.’
Yeah...that's a tough one all right...We can't say that Risto did not try...He gave it all he had: "The fact that neither Philip nor Alexander the Great ever claimed to be Greek or to have Greek consciousness...". Talk is cheap. 
"Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων
Alexander the son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians", but including the Macedonians is PRICELESS!
We don't feel any sympathy for the poor trickster.. He and his kind are used to academic derision. They write whatever their glava comes down with, they throw some chopped up ancient quote to try to make the ancient Macedonians seem like they were not Greek, and then they wait. If nobody answers their nonsense, they are happy. If someone does, they hush up. They move to the nest issue. Being slapped around by truth and historical documentation is part and parcel of a normal day's job for a Skopjan propagandist and they are well adapted to the fact. It's like being a fake money printer. they print a lot of money, mostly in large denominations...the bigger the lie the more believable. if they are not caught, they keep on printing more. If they are caught, they stop but they continue as soon as they can, because this is the only thing they know how to do. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Whatever the Titoists learned in the Stalinist school or falsification, the Skopjans applied and still apply feverishly till today.

Do they need to see a video where Philip and Alexander proclaim themselves to be Greek, to be convinced? There is none. All you need to do is read the sources. If you cannot read the sources, then go here:
http://macedonia-evidence.org/ , and read the opinion of Academics world wide.
But even if ancient videos had been found, Tendov and Boshevski would still invent more Rosetta stones with Demotic Egyptian read as proto-Slavic "Makedonski" in them, Stefov and Odisej Belchevski would invent pre-historic Slavomacedonski Homeric bards that taught that wretched Homer the ABC's of poetry and Aleksandar Donski would invent pseudo-Slavic words for every Greek, Thracian, Illyrian or Latin name ever found in Macedonia.

To end this, I would try to play the devil's advocate. Would the finding of a Slavonic inscription in Macedonia in any script, be it Egyptian, Chinese, Aramaic, Phoenician, Greek or Latin, produced in the years before the descent of the Slavs, of any time before Byzantium, that is, Roman, Hellenistic or Classic or Archaic eras of Macedonia, would this SINGLE inscription containing a proto-Slavic message be heralded as proof that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but Slavs? We are being reasonable here. We filled a page of "strong indications" why we believe the Macedonians were Greek. All we ask is for ONE tiny little inscription. What do we have instead? The fraudulent invention of an inscription by two pseudo-scientists on the Rosseta stone, a document that has been translated and scrutinized for almost two hundred years now, making internationally acclaimed bufoons out of the two Electrical engineering professors. And who can forget the notorious pseudo-linguist cum pseudo-historian, Aleksandar Donski, the one who found George W. Bush, and half of the US presidents to date plus Queen Elizabeth of England to be "Makedonci" descendants of Alexander the Great, the one who invents fraudulent pseudo-Slavonic etymologies fooling his nations' youth into a dead alley pseudo-archaist identity. What about the restauranteur-turned paleographer, Wasil Iliov, the charlatan who can read Slavonic Makedonski in every rock inscription south of the Danube...

And are we to accept that the deceptive delusions fabricated by the above named state paid charlatans have the same validity as thousands of Greek inscriptions exception of the several hundred Latin one after the Roman occupation), over 95% of them with Greek names (a few with Thracian or Paeonian ones), are we to say...that they mean nothing?

If a hypothetical catastrophe hits a country, say Holland tomorrow and all that is left for the archaeologist of the future, by which to make a determination of what was the ethnic identity (since identity is a personal issue, and not written in front of the house or place of work of each individual), what should we guess that they will say? he will fins some inscriptions or books in Englishem, German, French, even some Arabic or even Chinese, and some Russian, but the 95 % will be in Dutch. Will such future archaeologist be credible to come to the conclusion that the inhabitants of Holland in the 21st century were Hindus or Iranians?


POINT G: "Instead of disseminating worn-out propaganda lines and attempting to buy and collect new "converts" to your failed political goals you should advise, since you claim to be in that business, your leaders..."

Let me understand this now. I am "buying" converts? And...what exactly is "that business" which I "claim to be in"? I don't know what kind of deals Stefov Inc. is involved in, but some of us happen to work for a living. What we write is out of conviction, not profit. Unlike others, across the table, whatever we write is free in the public domain. And no, we have no money floating around to "buy" converts. After all, we do not run any kind of Buccephalist cult in need of converts. Do not judge others by your contact, in other words. We are all about truth and historical accuracy. Nothing else! And we are not known for showing mercy to pseudo-intellectual frauds.

Charlatans beware! Identity fraud will be relentlessly exposed to derision!

The circus with the clowns and the tigers jumping through the fire circles can be spectacular for some time but you cannot build a stable national identity based on Pharaohnic size statues and pseudo-science. I am sorry to bring an owl to Athena, as the ancient saying goes, but the middle section on the Rosetta stone, despite Tendov and Boshevski's ludicrous claims is not Slavic, but Demotic Egyptian. I am terribly sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect, not any kind of proto-Slavo-Makedonski. Read Nicholas G.L. Hammond, read Eugene Borza, read Ian Worthington, read R.Malcolm Errington, tehre might be dissagreements as to when the Macedonians started speaking Standard Coene Greek, but everyone agrees that their original dialect was a mix of Aeolian and Northwest Greek. I am sorry to remind the Slavomacedonian youth of this, while it is a prerogative of anyone to chose when their previous ethnic identity does not meet their current existence, it is not a crime to say, that their grandparents spoke Bulgarian and thought of themselves as Bugari, or that their Grandparents were Greek and Latin speaking Vlachs even if themselves do not speak those languages any longer, and feel more of Slavic identity nowdays. That is fine. Untold millions of Canadians, Americans, South Africans or Australians have been through that same transformation, and many are now immensely proud of their ethnic mix. And yes, Greeks and Turks, both former imperial nations have had a lot of other nations adopt their identity. A quick comparison between a Greek and a Turk of the Aegean coast will make it apparent that their DNA is not that different, while a comparison of the facial characteristics of Turks from the Aegean coast with Turks from Central Asia will immediately prove that Anatolian Turks are basically Islamized Greeks, Armenians and to a smaller degree Slavs. I doubt that the average Turk cares for this. They feel a strong connection to the very Mongolian-looking Uygur in Xinjiang, the original Turks, who revolted recently against the Han Chinese. It is ok to say that there were Paeonians and Greek speaking Macedonians as well as Ilyrians and Thracians living in those lands in antiquity.Iit is ok to say that FYROM was a Greek speaking and Latin speaking territory before the Slabs showed up in Byzantine times. If it is ok for the Canadians, the Australians the Americans to say that their grandparents met indigenous populations when they arrived 200 to 500 years ago, it is perfectly ok I believe for the young Slavomacedonians to learn that more than a twelve hundred years ago, when the Brijaci and Draguvites and the other Slavonic tribes showed up, there were indeed Greek and Latin speaking Byzantines in this land and they did not simply disappear in thin air, many are still there, making up the ethnic mix of the country. No it is not all right to avoid the basic historic truth and create imbecile myths and make the children that they are basically Makedonci, who lost half of Macedonia to the hated Greeks. It is not ok to parade the Slavomacedonian youth in pseudo-Macedonian-phalangites apparel, making a carnival circus out of them.

The ones who criticize and expose the fraudulent pseudo-Makedonist myths of the VMRO-DPMNE regime and its well-paid apologists worldwide, do not show hatred towards the people of FYROM. The truth makes you stronger, the lies make you weak and vulnerable. A strong identity that can last into the future can only be built on truth, otherwise, and someone does not need a Cassandra, to be told of this, FYROM;'s population will start splitting in their component parts. Yugoslavia did not look anywhere as vulnerable, when I was growing up, yet it took its place in history books as a failed experiment.

Instead of crying and screaming and trying to make their critics as ethnic haters and KKKmen, the apologists of pseudo-Makedonism should consider starting an ethnic Glashnost, an opening up of a national debate as to where they stand and where they want to be 10, 20, 50, 200 years from now.

If anyone is perpetrating a crime against the Slavomacedonian youth, it is those who make a living selling books that promote pseudo-Makedonism and feed it with ethnogonetic myths which cannot stand to any serious academic scrutiny. I am sorry to personalize this but it is obvious that the likes of Donski and Gandeto, Stefov and Kuzman cannot be part of such a renaissance. People who have been tainted with lies and deception, cannot possibly be part of the solution. Ljupco Georgievski is the only exception to the rule, having been a Makedonist in his youth but moving towards a rapprochement with his family's Bulgarian identity. While there are many in FYROM who would be ready to shed Makedonism for Bulgarism, that might in fact create more problems and ethnic splits than solve the overall identity problem in FYROM. Things are not easy, but covering the issues under the rug is not the way to proceed either. First of all, not all Slavomacedonian speaking citizens are of Bulgarian ancestry and who can convince a Vlach or a Torbeshi that they are now Bulgarians?

It is obvious that FYROM cannot stay in limbo in eternity. Something has to give in. To begin with, the Makedonist ultra-nationalists might as well come to terms with reality and forget about grand schemes of Obedineta Makedonija, of taking over northern Greece's historic Macedonia and Bulgaria's Pirin region. Secondly, who says that an ethnically limiting name has to be applied to a state that is a multi-ethnic conglomerate of multiple nationalities in the model of ex-Yugoslavia? Additionally they have to realize that no matter how many countries recognize an inexact name for FYROM, it is obvious by now, after some 20 odd years of tug of war that they cannot get what they want. No government in Greece, no matter how strong or weak will commit suicide in the hands of the two million Macedonian Greeks if it dares compromise on the wrong side of the name issue and gives in to FYROM. The solution, therefore, needs to be one which cannot be negotiated by the builders of bronze equestrian Buccephalist sculptures and godfathers of Philippian stadia and Alexandrian highways.


FINAL THOUGHT:
Until now, they had thought that time is on their side. More and more countries were recognizing FYROM under its pseudonym ROM, and they had thought that the issue will fade into a solution in their favor. Two NATO summits later, the EU doors shut closed and an increasingly restive Albanian minority unwilling to put up with all this nonsense, plus the fact that Greece is bound to have weak governments for some time to come, therefore unable to compromise and be sen as traitor to long term Hellenic national interests and now the bleak realization is finally sinking in:

Time is not on Gruevski's pseudo-Makedonist side after all.

FURTHER REFERENCES:
Bibliography and articles found in: http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Clarifying Plutarch's "Parallel Lives" on Alexander and the Macedonians - Part 3

This article is being simultaneously published by the American Chronicle.


July 10, 2011
Miltiades Elia Bolaris


One of the reasons ancient Greek thought, whether poetic, philosophical, historical or dramatic is considered the foundation of all that is of value in western civilization is precisely its timeliness in expressing human emotion and pathos in a way unequaled before -and certainly setting up an unattainable standard of excellence for what has followed since. There is a line that runs from Homer and Hesiod to Sappho, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides and Plato, flowing through Epicurus, Zeno, Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch, a tragic but full of fresh energy line that connects humanity and all that is worthy in it to the pen of a genius.
While this paper's topic is on how Plutarch viewed Alexander and the Macedonians, I will permit myself the usage of other sources, which will help us expose the shallowness of some of the arguments used by the pseudo-Makedonists.
First the podium will be given to professor Griz...ovski, a.k.a. Gandeto, who, in the fifth of his "Plutarch´s seven points of interest on Macedonians and Greeks" claims that since the citizens of Thebes were making the case of liberating Greece, indeed, all the city states implicitly excluding Macedonia, and since Alexander captured, plundered and razed Thebes to the ground, expecting the Greeks to be terrified, adding the two and we are faced with the proof that the Macedonians are not Greek.
In Gandeto's own words:

"5. Thebes: Plutarch, Alexander 11.

Thebans´ response to Alexander´s demand to surrender the ring leaders against Macedon (chance given to them to repent) with proclamation:

"Anyone who wanted to help them liberate Greece should join their ranks."

"Their city was captured, plundered and razed to the ground, mainly because Alexander expected the Greeks to be terrified at the enormity of the disaster and to cower in fear, but also as a specious way of gratifying his allies´ grievances.
(a) "To liberate Greece" includes and encompasses all the city-states where Greeks lived; and by the same token, patently excludes Macedon from Greece.

(b) Alexander expected the Greeks to be "terrified and to cower in fear." 

Conventional wisdom dictates that we must confront the obvious: If Alexander were a Greek king and if the ancient Macedonians were indeed Greeks, would he expect his own Macedonians be to terrified and cowered in fear too? Notice, though, that the reference is to "all Greeks" and not just the Thebans."

Now let's read what Plutarch actually wrote, without any interference or editing:

[4] προσμίξας δὲ ταῖς Θήβαις καὶ διδοὺς ἔτι τῶν πεπραγμένων μετάνοιαν ἐξῄτει Φοίνικα καὶ Προθύτην, καὶ τοῖς μεταβαλλομένοις πρὸς αὐτὸν ἄδειαν ἐκήρυττε. τῶν δὲ Θηβαίων ἀντεξαιτούντων μὲν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ Φιλώταν καὶ Ἀντίπατρον, κηρυττόντων δὲ τοὺς τὴν Ἑλλάδα βουλομένους συνελευθεροῦν τάττεσθαι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, οὕτως ἔτρεψε τοὺς Μακεδόνας πρὸς πόλεμον. [5] ἠγωνίσθη μὲν οὖν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἀρετῇ καὶ προθυμίᾳ παρὰ τῶν Θηβαίων πολλαπλασίοις οὖσι τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀντιταχθέντων ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὴν Καδμείαν ἀφέντες οἱ φρουροὶ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐπέπιπτον αὐτοῖς ἐξόπισθεν, κυκλωθέντες οἱ πλεῖστοι κατὰ τὴν μάχην αὐτὴν ἔπεσον, ἡ δὲ πόλις ἥλω καὶ διαρπασθεῖσα κατεσκάφη, τὸ μὲν ὅλον προσδοκήσαντος αὐτοῦ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐκπλαγέντας πάθει τηλικούτῳ καὶ πτήξαντας ἀτρεμήσειν, ἄλλως δὲ καὶ καλλωπισαμένου χαρίζεσθαι τοῖς τῶν συμμάχων ἐγκλήμασι: καὶ γὰρ Φωκεῖς καὶ Πλαταιεῖς τῶν Θηβαίων κατηγόρησαν, [6] ὑπεξελόμενος δὲ τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ξένους τῶν Μακεδόνων ἅπαντας καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Πινδάρου γεγονότας καὶ τοὺς ὑπεναντιωθέντας τοῖς ψηφισαμένοις τὴν ἀπόστασιν, ἀπέδοτο τοὺς ἄλλους περὶ τρισμυρίους γενομένους: οἱ δὲ ἀποθανόντες ὑπὲρ ἑξακισχιλίους ἦσαν.
[4] Arrived before Thebes, and wishing to give her still a chance to repent of what she had done, he merely demanded the surrender of Phoenix and Prothytes, and proclaimed an amnesty for those who came over to his side. But the Thebans made a counter-demand that he should surrender to them Philotas and Antipater, and made a counter-proclamation that all who wished to help in setting Greece free should range themselves with them; and so Alexander set his Macedonians to the work of war. [5] On the part of the Thebans, then, the struggle was carried on with a spirit and valour beyond their powers, since they were arrayed against an enemy who was many times more numerous than they; but when the Macedonian garrison also, leaving the citadel of the Cadmeia, fell upon them in the rear, most of them were surrounded, and fell in the battle itself and their city was taken, plundered, and razed to the ground. This was done, in the main, because Alexander expected that the Greeks would be terrified by so great a disaster and cower down in quiet, but apart from this, he also plumed himself on gratifying the complaints of his allies; for the Phocians and Plataeans had denounced the Thebans. [6] So after separating out the priests, all who were guest-friends of the Macedonians, the descendants of Pindar, and those who had voted against the revolt, he sold the rest into slavery, and they proved to be more than thirty thousand; those who had been slain were more than six thousand.
Plutarch, Alexander,11.4-6

We will come back to Plutarch's text, but for now, all we need to note is that from the text above, Yugoslav "conventional wisdom dictates that we must confront the obvious", and the "obvious" according to Gandeto is that basically "the Macedonians were not Greeks."

We know that as soon as Alexander and the Macedonian army arrived outside the walls of Thebes,
"a detachment of Thebans made a shortie and killed some Macedonians; but Alexander offered a free pardon if Thebes was prepared to re-enter the Common peace and let the diffident leaders be tried by the Council of the Common Peace.
Within the walls an Assembly of the People considered the offer. Some speakers advised acceptance 'in the public interest" (Arr. An. 1.7.11), others rejection. The Assembly chose rejection, probably in the belief that armies were on the way from Aetolia, Athens, and the Peloponnese."
"The Macedonian State, The Origins, Institutions and History, N.G.L. Hammond, Oxford University Press, 1989-1992, page 202.

We know, therefore, what was being debated in the Theban Assembly. Our sources give us the arguments for and against the offer of compromise with king Alexander of Macedonia.

Let's hear a related speech:
"It is true you have a cause which binds you together more firmly than your fathers were. They fought to be free from the usurpations of the Persian crown, but they fought against a manly foe. You fight against the offscourings of the earth"...(they)
"...now come to you with their hands steeped in blood, robbing the widow, destroying houses, seizing the grey-haired father, and incarcerating him in prison because he will not be a traitor to the principles of his fathers and the land that gave him birth."...
"A few, I trust, may come from every battle fleid to fulfil the pledge they made that they would come to Thebes-- but they will come as captives, not as conquerors."
"Every crime which could characterize the course of demons has marked the course of the invader. The northern portion of Boeotia has been ruthlessly desolated--the people not only deprived of the means of subsistence, but their household property destroyed, and every indignity which the base imagination of a merciless foe could suggest inflicted, without regard to age, sex or condition."...
"By showing themselves so utterly disgraced that if the question was proposed to you whether you would combine with hyenas or Macedonians, I trust every Boeotian would say, give me the hyenas."...
"This is a new government, formed of independent Hellenic States, each jealous of its own sovereignty."

I would ask the reader to go over this related speech once again, to read every line carefully and absorb every argument to its core. Yes, we sense the hatred against the "offscourings of the earth", yes we sense the pathos for independence away from outside control, yes we feel the outrage for the "merciless foe" 's "hands steeped in blood, robbing the widow, destroying houses, seizing the grey-haired father, and incarcerating him in prison because he will not be a traitor to the principles of his fathers and the land that gave him birth", and yes, of course we also hear all too loud the cry that given the proposition, the speaker and his audience "would say, give me the hyenas."
But we honestly need to ask ourselves: Does "conventional wisdom" make it inevitable that based on the arguments brought forward by this speech, asked to make a determination, we would to come to the inevitable conclusion that democratic and independent loving Thebans and Macedonians are by necessity of a different ethnic background?
The reader would have to decide if Gandeto's arguments hold any water. I beg to differ, because differences in the political organization of a society do not in and by themselves predetermine nationality. They are just that, political differences, leading to differences in political organizations and structures. North and South Korea have been at each others' throats ever since the early 1950's but this does not make one any less Korean than the other.
To make this point more apparent, we can take the previous speech and substitute the names:
Whereas "Persian Crown" we substitute it with "British Crown", Thebes with Richmond, Boeotia with Virginia, Macedonians with Yankees, Boeotian with Virginian and "Hellenic States" simply with "States". Now let's read it once again, under a 19th century light:

"It is true you have a cause which binds you together more firmly than your fathers were. They fought to be free from the usurpations of the British crown, but they fought against a manly foe. You fight against the offscourings of the earth"...(they)
"...now come to you with their hands steeped in blood, robbing the widow, destroying houses, seizing the grey-haired father, and incarcerating him in prison because he will not be a traitor to the principles of his fathers and the land that gave him birth."...
"A few, I trust, may come from every battle fleid to fulfil the pledge they made that they would come to Richmond-- but they will come as captives, not as conquerors."
"Every crime which could characterize the course of demons has marked the course of the invader. The northern portion of Virginia has been ruthlessly desolated--the people not only deprived of the means of subsistence, but their household property destroyed, and every indignity which the base imagination of a merciless foe could suggest inflicted, without regard to age, sex or condition."...
"By showing themselves so utterly disgraced that if the question was proposed to you whether you would combine with hyenas or Yankees, I trust every Virginian would say, give me the hyenas."...
"This is a new government, formed of independent States, each jealous of its own sovereignty."

This is in fact the original speech, and while it could as well have been given by the rebel faction in the Assembly of freedom-loving Thebes, it was in fact given in the Executive Mansion, in Richmond, Va., on January 5, 1863 by the confederate president Jefferson Davis. I used it because it shows that similar situations produce similar arguments. Human pathos is indeed timeless, after all, and only the actors change, the drama remains the same; it just enriches itself with different costumes. Reading this speech, an ideological offspring of Gandeto of the distant future could gleefully argue that "conventional wisdom dictates that we must confront the obvious": The Yankees and the Confederates were of different nationality, that the Confederates were not Americans.

Like the Thebans and the southern Greeks thousands of years before them, the Southern states, Jefferson Davis said in 1863, were "forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires."
How could the Southerners have been Americans?...someone again could argue, basing his arguments solely on quotations taken out of context. Wasn't it Robert E. Lee, himself, the marshal general of the Confederacy who, after the defeat in 1865, counseled his southern compatriots telling them:

"Abandon your animosities and make your sons Americans."
"He Lost a War and Won Immortality", Louis Redmond

Here, again, comes the echo: surely, you do not "make" someone an "American" if he is already an American! That would be contrary to the "dictates" of "conventional wisdom"! The Confederates hated everything American, after all, and the "proof" is irrefutable:

Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do not give a damn.

I'm glad I fit against 'er 
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too.

I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
...
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some mo'.
...
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
...
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.
...
I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em down no mo' 
But I ain't a-goin' to love 'em 
Now that is serten sho.
...
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn.
...
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn.
I'm glad I fought against 'er 
I only wish we'd won..."

Confederate song: "O, I'm a good old Rebel"

And on another note, the Aleksandar Donskis of the future will ascertain their readers that the confederates spoke "Confederate", not English, since they used "Confederate" "fit" instead of the English "fight", "serten sho" and "no mo' " instead of the English "certain" and "sure" "any more" and "Yankees is stiff" instead of the English "Yankees are killed".

Going back to the "Old rebel" song, I doubt that Gandeto would even need any more proof, if anything like a Greek version of such Macedonian vs southern Greek expression of hatred as this American civil war song, had ever been written.

Going back to Thebes now, all that Alexander asked of the Thebans, once he....

"Arrived before Thebes, and wishing to give her still a chance to repent of what she had done, he merely demanded the surrender of Phoenix and Prothytes, and proclaimed an amnesty for those who came over to his side."

This is it...just the right to punish two of his personal political opponents, in return for full amnesty. Now that is a lot better deal than what General Phillip Sheridan offered the men women and children he encountered cutting through the Shenandoah Valley :

"The people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war."
Hugh Tulloch, "The Routledge companion to the American Civil War era", page 131

"Lincoln's troops razed the South and doomed to poverty generations of Southerners for many years to come. General Sherman's "March to the Sea" was nothing more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery, rape, and murder. These men were less soldiers on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree. Northern armies brought war to women, children, and privately held property as a matter of official policy (rather than as so-called "collateral damage")."
"Abraham Lincoln: An American Tyrant", by Dave Gibson, 2005.


"Thebans´ response to Alexander´s demand to surrender the ring leaders against Macedon (chance given to them to repent) with proclamation:
"Anyone who wanted to help them liberate Greece should join their ranks.""

Millenia later a confederate song echoed in the same wavelength:

"Their motto is resistance -- 
"To tyrants we'll not yield!"
 Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!"
"Battle cry of freedom (Southern Version)

And yet another one:

"He's off to the wars and gone;
...
His sword is buckled on, 
...
His foes he does defy;
...
I hope for the best, and so do all
Whose hopes are in the field;
I know that we shall win the day
For Southrons never yield. "
...
"A Southern Soldier Boy"
http://www.civilwarpoetry.org/confederate/songs/soldier-boy.html 

But the Thebans took their cry for resistance to "Alexander's tyranny", "the tyrant of Greece", as they called him, a step further:
"The Theban's democratic Assembly not only voted to continue the struggle for autonomy, as they understood it, but also (in the words of Diodorus) "proclaimed from a high tower that anyone who wished to join the Great King and Thebans in freeing the Greeks and destroying the tyrant of Greece should come over to them". This proclamation was addressed to the members of the League of Corinth, including other Boeotian cities, who were obediently serving in Alexander's army...But they were appealing for aid in liberating Greece from Alexander's tyranny to the Great King of Persia – that is, to the very figure who was supposed to be the bogeyman of the united freedom – loving Greeks."
Paul Cartledge, of Cambridge University, "Alexander the Great", 2004, pages 110-111.

Then, to add further insult to Alexander's injury Plutarch tells us:
"But the Thebans made a counter-demand that he should surrender to them Philotas and Antipater, and made a counter-proclamation that all who wished to help in setting Greece free should range themselves with them; and so Alexander set his Macedonians to the work of war."
Plutarch, Alexander, 11.4

Alexander, as we saw above, did not go intending to destroy Thebes. The decision to destroy Thebes was not his own, as the record shows, though he did in fact pull the plug on them:

ἄλλως δὲ καὶ καλλωπισαμένου χαρίζεσθαι τοῖς τῶν συμμάχων ἐγκλήμασι: καὶ γὰρ Φωκεῖς καὶ Πλαταιεῖς τῶν Θηβαίων κατηγόρησαν, 
he also plumed himself on gratifying the complaints of his allies; for the Phocians and Plataeans had denounced the Thebans. 
Plutarch, Alexander,11.5

"Alexander nominally left Thebes' fate to the League, but the only delegates with him were Thebes' enemies; Phocis and Boeotia indeed voted the city's destruction, but the responsibility lies with Alexander.
"Alexander the Great", W. W. Tarn, Cambridge University Press, 1948, reprinted by Beacon Press, 1956-1971, page 7.


All that Alexander had asked was Thebes' inclusion back into the Pan-Hellenic anti-Persian alliance, and the right to punish two of his Theban political opponents.

Alexander was not the only one to try conciliation in the face of provocation:

"The policy of the time, therefore, has seemed to me to consist in conciliation, which should deny to the Disunionists any new provocation or apparent offence,..."
William H. Seward to Abraham Lincoln, March 15, 1861 Report on Fort Sumter, Department of State

Conciliation did not work out. Plutarch again:
"[5] On the part of the Thebans, then, the struggle was carried on with a spirit and valour beyond their powers, since they were arrayed against an enemy who was many times more numerous than they; but when the Macedonian garrison also, leaving the citadel of the Cadmeia, fell upon them in the rear, most of them were surrounded, and fell in the battle itself and their city was taken, plundered, and razed to the ground."
Plutarch, Alexander, 11.4

Gandeto happily reminds us:

(b) Alexander expected the Greeks to be "terrified and to cower in fear". 

This is of course true. Civil war, after all, is raw politics pursued through violent means for the sake of dominance:

"This was done, in the main, because Alexander expected that the Greeks would be terrified by so great a disaster and cower down in quiet..."
Plutarch, Alexander, 11.4

Lincoln's general Sherman was equally harsh in his persuasion:

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."
"Sherman's aim – physically to destroy, live off the land and demoralize the civilian population – was hugely successful."
Hugh Tulloch, "The Routledge companion to the American Civil War era", page 131

"If Alexander were a Greek king and if the ancient Macedonians were indeed Greeks, would he expect his own Macedonians be to terrified and cowered in fear too? Notice, though, that the reference is to "all Greeks" and not just the Thebans.", Gandeto insists.

John Beauchamp Jones was a clerk at the Department of War of the Confederacy. He kept a daily diary:

"AUGUST 7TH, 1864
The 1st Army Corps moved through the city last night, via the Central and Fredericksburg Railroads, and this morning Fitzhugh Lee´s cavalry corps is passing in the same direction—9 A.M.
All this indicates a transferrence of the scene of operations nearer the enemy´s country—the relief of Richmond—the failure of Grant´s MAD BULL campaign, prompted by President Lincoln, who is no general.
Honor to Lee!—the savior of his country! and the noble band of heroes whom he has led to victory!—but first to God.""

And then:

"SEPTEMBER 9TH. 1864 —Rained last night; clear to-day.
We hear of great rejoicing in the United States over the fall of Atlanta, and this may be premature. President Lincoln has issued a proclamation for thanksgiving in the churches, etc.""
John Beauchamp Jones, "Diary of a Rebel War Clerk"
http://www.cw-chronicles.com/blog/

We note here "Lee!—the savior of his country", "nearer the enemy´s country", and "great rejoicing in the United States over the fall of Atlanta", as "proof", in the pseudo-Makedonist sense, of a "separate ethnic identity" of the two camps on the American civil war. That war, after all, killed one-quarter of the Confederacy's (white) men of military age. Thebes's six thousand can not even stand comparison. 

"...most of them were surrounded, and fell in the battle itself and their city was taken, plundered, and razed to the ground."
But in Atlanta alone, Sherman's army burned all but about 400 buildings. Most estimates put the number of buildings destroyed by Sherman's Yankees range from 3,200 to 5,000 and that was just in one city!


"This was done" Plutarch reminded us,

"in the main, because Alexander expected that the Greeks would be terrified by so great a disaster and cower down in quiet..."

Now here is what Gandeto reasoned out of all this:
"(a) "To liberate Greece" includes and encompasses all the city-states where Greeks lived; and by the same token, patently excludes Macedon from Greece."


While Alexander was no great friend of Thebes, he could not at the same time forget that:
"Amyntas, son of Perdiccas – or any other potential rival – depended on a coalition of the out-kingdoms (he obviously means not only Paeonians and Thracians but also and foremost the Upper Macedonian kingdoms - MEB) and rebellious Greek cities such as Thebes".
"Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography", Peter GreenUniversity of California Press, Oxford, 1991

It is no wonder therefore that Alexander wanted to make an example of them, and to make sure than no pretender to his own throne got any hopes left in Theban assistance. Making an example of the Theban rebels, therefore, was a message to multiple recipients: The other Greek city states, whom he wanted to sit put, Athens foremost, the Persian king, and not least, his own Macedonian political adversaries.
When Gandeto tries to focus our attention : "Notice, though, that the reference is to "all Greeks" and not just the Thebans." he is missing the point. Let's hear Waldermar Heckel's narrative explaining Alexander's priorities in the aftermath of Philip's assassination in Aegae: 

"He proceeded to round up his rivals – the sons of Aeropus, Arrhabaeus, and Heromenes, as well as his cousin Amyntas son of Perdiccas – and, in the days and weeks to come, eliminated them on charges of complicity in the murder...Alexander's political opponents were now on high alert. They had little choice but to make their peace with the new king or flee the country. Amyntas son of Antiochus, a longtime friend of the deposed heir, Amyntas IV, took refuge in Asia with the Great King, as did Neoptolemus, a son of Arrhabaeus..."

It was incidentally, this very same Neoptolemus, son of Arrhabaeus, the Macedonian Prince, who joined the Persian army among other Greek mercenaries defending Halicarnassus against Alexander: 

[10] καὶ ἀπέθανον αὐτῶν ἄλλοι τε ἐς ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ
ἑκατὸν καὶ Νεοπτόλεμος ὁ Ἀρραβαίου, τοῦ Ἀμύντου
ἀδελφός, τῶν παρὰ Δαρεῖον αὐτομολησάντων 
and one hundred and seventy of them died and Neoptolemos, son of Arrhabaeos, Amyntas' brother, among the ones who had gone over to Dareius
Arrian 1.20.10

As for the Macedonian nobleman Amyntas, son of Antiochus, mentioned above, we see him fighting on the Persian side against Alexander's Macedonians in Issos, then leading a whole army of mercenaries:

 Ἀμύντας δ᾽ ὁφυγὼν ἐκ Μακεδονίας καὶ πρὸς Δαρεῖον ἀναβὰςσυνηγωνίσατο μὲν τοῖς Πέρσαις ἐν τῇ Κιλικίᾳ, διασωθεὶς δ᾽ἐκ τῆς ἐν Ἰσσῷ παρατάξεως μετὰ τετρακισχιλίωνμισθοφόρων καὶ πρὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου παρουσίας διανύσαςεἰς Τρίπολιν τῆς Φοινίκης ἐπέλεξεν ἐκ τοῦ παντὸς στόλουτὰς ἀρκούσας ναῦς εἰς τὸν πλοῦν τοῖς ἰδίοις στρατιώταις, τὰςδ᾽ ἄλλας ἐνέπρησε.
That Amyntas who had fled from Macedonia and had gone up to Dareius had fought on the Persian side in Cilicia. He escaped, however, from the battle at Issus with four thousand mercenaries and got to Tripolis in Phoenicia before Alexander's arrival. Here he chose from the whole Persian fleet enough ships to transport his soldiers, and burned the rest. 
Diodorus, 17.48.2

So, then, when Gandeto is asking: 
"If Alexander were a Greek king and if the ancient Macedonians were indeed Greeks, would he expect his own Macedonians be to terrified and cowered in fear too?", the answer is obviously: Yes! And when Gandeto admonishes us to: "Notice, though, that the reference is to "all Greeks" and not just the Thebans", we agree, Plutarch said: τοὺς Ἕλληνας – the Greeks, everyone, in other word, who opposed him, and not just the Thebans, and yes, that includes his own Macedonians, especially the likes of Amyntas son of Antiochus, and Neoptolemus, a son of Arrhabaeus. 
This is exactly what Plutarch is saying!

Alexander knew that when the democratic minded rebels spoke to the Theban Assembly, they:
"called on all true Thebans to throw off the Macedonian yoke - "making great play," says Arrian dourly, "with the grand old words "liberty" and "free speech".
It is clear that a message to "all true Thebans", obviously presupposes that there were also some "not so true" Thebans among them. An age-old game of ultra-nationalists world wide: We are the true patriots while You are the traitors of the ethnic-polity. This, incidentally, at the same exact time when these same Theban partisans were themselves (as professor Paul Cartlege pointed out a few lines earlier) "they were appealing for aid in liberating Greece from Alexander's tyranny to the Great King of Persia!"...
Who was fighting, now, for Greece and who was fighting for Persia? Who was fighting to perpetuate Greece's chaos andh age-old, permanent division, treacherously inviting the patent interference of the Great King of Persia, and who was fighting to unite the fratricidal Greek states in a common Panhellenic struggle of revenge against their old nemesis, ending the supremacy of Persia in Greek affairs? 
Words are cheap, and the Theban democrats were surely full of them, but actions is what counts, and in the end, it was Philip and Alexander who (through diplomacy, bribery and raw force where needed) whipped the quarreling Greek city states into the Common Peace and the Congress of Corinth, creating thus, the preconditions of Panhellenic Greek unity in action, for the first time after the Persian wars of 490-480BC.
Since Gandeto had recklessly asked us to check out what professor Waldemar Heckel was saying on this issue, we did:
"The Macedonian king was no longer a boy...but the leader of all Greeks in a war of vengeance. And so he was portrayed by his 'official" historian Calisthenes. Nor were the Panhellenic elements restricted to the Homeric tradition. Just as the destruction of Thebes in 335 had been justified by the past and continuing Medism of the Thebans, so too Gryneum on the coast of Asia Minor had paid the ultimate price for Medism. In the Troad, the fallen statue of Ariobarxanes, former satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, was seen as an omen of victory. Parhaps this symbolic prostration had been arranged by Alexander's own men, or perhaps the pro-Macedonian party had defaced the statue in anticipation of liberation from Persian rule. If the later is the case, it represents one of the few instances of Greek enthusiasm for the expedition. In truth, the Greeks of Asia minor did not throw open their gates to the "liberating" army. Most were under oligarchies, propped up by Persian authority, politically secure and economically prosperous. Indeed, the Greeks had experienced liberation often enough to know that they were simply asked to exchange one master for another. The city of Ephesus had placed a statue of Philip II in its temple of Artemis in anticipation of Philip's campaign, but after the success of Memnon against Parmenion and Calas, and the death of Philip himself, the statue was again dragged down. The support of the Ionians for the Panhellenic war was reactive, awaiting the outcome of battle and the coercive presence of Macedonian armsrather than a key to the overthrow of Persian power. One cannot blame those Greeks. Liberation meant deposing a ruling group and disenfranchising many of its supporters: murder, exile, and the confiscation of property were the concomitants of political change..."
"The conquests of Alexander the Great" Waldemar Heckel, Cambridge university Press, 2008

The Thebans were not the only "freedom – loving" nationalists eager to use foreign (Persian, in their case) intervention to defeat their own domineering brethren (Alexander and the Macedonians) on the other side:
"As an example: the simultaneous Confederate invasions of Maryland and Kentucky in the late summer of 1862 occurred in the context of intense diplomatic activity leading toward possible European intervention in the war, of Lincoln's decision to issue an emancipation proclamation, of anti-black and anti-draft riots and martial law in the North, and of hopes by Peace Democrats to capture control of the Union Congress in the fall elections."
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/History/BattleCry_Freedom.html

In both instances, this invitation to a foreign power to come to the rescue, was being done in the interest of their own political faction, in the interests and the right of their own state to function in an independent way, for "states rights", after all. Ethnic identity and nationalism had nothing to do with it. South Vietnam was getting help from the USA while North Vietnam was being assisted by the Soviet Union, while both were fighting to keep Viet Nam "free from foreign domination". Speaking of freedom and states rights:

"The South", said Jefferson Davis in 1863, was "forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires." 
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/History/BattleCry_Freedom.html

While each side of the Theban Assembly fence, was in essence calling the other side traitors, Alexander did not have to venture too far back into history to find the propaganda material he needed to prove which Hellenic state was the traitor to the Pan-Hellenic cause:
[1.9.7] ὡς τῆς τε ἐν τῷ Μηδικῷ πολέμῳ προδοσίας τῶν Ἑλλήνων διὰ μακροῦ ταύτην δίκην ἐκτίσαντας Θηβαίους, καὶ τῆςΠλαταιῶν ἔν τε ταῖς σπονδαῖς καταλήψεως καὶ τοῦπαντελοῦς ἀνδραποδισμοῦ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τῆς τῶνπαραδόντων σφᾶς Λακεδαιμονίους οὐχ Ἑλληνικῆς γενομένης διὰ Θηβαίους σφαγῆς, καὶ τοῦ χωρίου τῆςἐρημώσεως, ἐν ὅτῳ οἱ Ἕλληνες παραταξάμενοι Μήδοιςἀπώσαντο τῆς Ἑλλάδος τὸν κίνδυνον, καὶ ὅτι Ἀθηναίουςαὐτοὶ τῇ ψήφῳ ἀπώλλυον, ὅτε ὑπὲρ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ τῆςπόλεως γνώμη προὐτέθη ἐν τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίων ξυμμάχοις.
It seemed as if the Thebans had after a long time suffered this punishment for their betrayal of the Greeks in the Median war, for their seizure of the city of Plataea during the truce, and for their complete enslavement of it, as well as for the un-Hellenic slaughter of the men who had surrendered to the Lacedaemonians, which had been committed at the instigation of the Thebans; and for the devastation of the territory in which the Greeks had stood in battle-array against the Medes and had repelled danger from Greece lastly, because by their vote they had tried to ruin the Athenians when a motion was brought forward among the allies of the Lacedaemonians for the enslavement of Athens.
Arrian, Anabasis, 1.9.7

Arrian is openly characterizing past Theban actions as non-Greek, "un-Hellenic" (οὐχ Ἑλληνικῆς). Can this also be considered "proof" that the Thebans too were not Greek? We will have to wait for Gandeto's sequel for that. For sure, Demosthenes' insult on Philip as being "not a Greek not even a barbarian" has been heralded as sacrosanct "proof" by some of FYROM Slavs, making them immensely proud of their un-Hellenic "barbarity", a "barbarity" than ostensibly makes them automatically Philip' kins and "Macedonians".

Gandeto insists that the destruction of Thebes is proof, somehow, that the Macedonians were not Greek. And the tries to arm-twist Plutarch as well as "any of the other ancient chroniclers" to do the same:
"Furthermore, it must be stressed that neither from Plutarch´s passages nor from any of the other ancient chroniclers can one find references where the ancient Macedonians were regarded as Greeks. While this notion of "greekness"(sic) for the ancient Macedonians is a newly hatched political idea with ominous designs and frightening connotations...".

Search and you shall find, not one, but thousands of such references:
10   πᾶς  γὰρ  ὁ  αἰτῶν  λαμβάνει  καὶ  ὁ  ζητῶν  εὑρίσκει...
10. for everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds...
Luke 11.10

All we need to do is put down our circa 1940's Yugoslav distorting glasses and start reading afresh, with the intend to learn and to enrich ourselves and not to violate, distort and falsify the ancient text:

[1.9.6] Θηβαίοις δὲ τὰ τῆς ἀποστάσεως ὀξέα καὶ ξὺν οὐδενὶ
λογισμῷ γενόμενα, καὶ ἡ ἅλωσις δἰ ὀλίγου τε καὶ οὐ
ξὺν πόνῳ τῶν ἑλόντων ξυνενεχθεῖσα, καὶ ὁ φόνος ὁ πολύς,
οἷα δὴ ἐξ ὁμοφύλων τε καὶ παλαιὰς ἀπεχθείας ἐπεξιόντων, καὶ ὁ τῆς πόλεως παντελὴς ἀνδραποδισμός, δυνάμει τε καὶ
δόξῃ ἐς τὰ πολέμια τῶν τότε προεχούσης ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν,
οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἐς μῆνιν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θείου ἀνηνέχθη,
But the Thebans having effected their revolt suddenly and without any previous consideration, the capture of the city being brought about in so short a time and without difficulty on the part of the captors, the slaughter, being great, as was natural, from its being made by men of the same race who were glutting their revenge on them for ancient injuries, the complete enslavement of a city which excelled among those in Greece at that time both in power and warlike reputation, all this was attributed not without probability to the avenging wrath of the deity.
Did Arrian just say:
καὶ ὁ φόνος ὁ πολύς,οἷα δὴ ἐξ ὁμοφύλων τε καὶ παλαιὰς ἀπεχθείας ἐπεξιόντων,...
the slaughter, being great, as was natural, from its being made by men of the same race who were glutting their revenge on them for ancient injuries,...?

If Arrian is calling Thebans and Macedonians ὁμοφύλους i.e. "of the same race" 
(the Greek word φύλον/phylon is better translated as "tribe" or even "ethnic group" since Greeks did not think in terms of "races" in the modern Anglo-Saxon sense) then he obviously thinks of them as men of the same Hellenic family, which means that "this notion of "greekness"(sic) for the ancient Macedonians is" NOT after all, such "a newly hatched political idea" as the Skopjan history falsifiers would have us believe. 
Gandeto will have to resolve this seeming "paradox" on his own.

While he is thinking about the apparent paradox he trapped himself into, we will push the paradox yet one step further, by "proving" (using the infamous "Gendeto method of ethnic identification") to the world that both the Spartans AND the Athenians were not Greek either. Here is Plutarch, once again, on the Spartans:

ἔνθα δὴ τῶν μὲν Ἑλλήνων Εὐρυβιάδην καὶ Λακεδαιμονιους
ἡγεῖσθαι κελευόντων, τῶν δ᾽ Ἀθηναίων, ὅτι πλήθει τῶν
νεῶν σύμπαντας ὁμοῦ τι τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπερέβαλλον, οὐκ
ἀξιούντων ἑτέροις ἕπεσθαι, 
It was at this place that the Hellenes urged Eurybiades and the Lacedaemonians 
to take the lead, but the Athenians, since in the number 
of their ships they surpassed all the rest put together, 
disdained to follow others, 
Plutarch, Themistocles, 7.2

We note: "Hellenes" vs "the Lacedaemonians" (who are being urged to taker the lead of the Greeks). 

Conventional wisdom dictates that we must confront the obvious: If Eurybiades were a Greek king and if the ancient Lacedaemonians were indeed Greeks, would he expect his own Lacedaemonians to take the lead? Notice, though, that the reference is to "Hellenes" and not just the Athenians.

Now it is the turn of the Athenians. Here is Plutarch again:

καὶ κατεπράϋνε τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, ὑπισχνούμενος, ἂν ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γένωνται πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, ἑκόντας αὐτοῖς παρέξειν εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ πειθομένους τοὺς Ἕλληνας.
and tried to mollify the Athenians with the promise that if they would show themselves brave men in the war, he would induce the Hellenes to yield a willing obedience to them thereafter.
Plutarch, Themistocles, 7.3

We note: "Athenians" vs "Hellenes" (who will yield a willing obedience to The Athenians).

This is once again crystal clear (following Gandeto's impeccable"logic": 

Conventional wisdom dictates that we must confront the obvious: If Themistocles were a Greek statesman and if the ancient Athenians were indeed Greeks, would he expect his own Athenians to "show themselves brave men in the war"? Notice, though, that the reference is to "Hellenes" as opposed to the Athenians.

Finally, from Plutarch's Agis again, we find "irrefutable" (bogus) "proof" that the Spartans were not the same as Greeks, since as Gandeto professed:
Plutarch's "phrases abound with frank distinction between Macedonians (AND Spartans AND Athenians on the one side, we now can add!) and Greeks and, at no time, do we find ambiguous references used in distinguishing or in describing these two (+two!) ancient peoples. The ethnic separation is not an issue; the roles are quite divergent and the clarity of purpose is evident. The boundary lines are precise and the positions taken are straightforward and meaningful. In other words, Plutarch makes it abundantly clear that ancient Macedonians (AS WELL AS Spartans AND Athenians, following his criteria) were not Greeks."

[2] ...ὥστε θαυμάζειν καὶ διαλογίζεσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἷος ἦν ἄρα κόσμος Λακωνικοῦ στρατεύματος Ἀγησίλαον ἔχοντος ἢ Λύσανδρον ἐκεῖνον ἢ Λεωνίδαν τὸν παλαιὸν ἡγούμενον,
so that the Greeks were in amazement and were wondering what would have been the condition of the Laconian army had it been commanded by Agesilaus or the famous Lysander, or Leonidas of old times 
Plutarch, Agis, 14.2

We note: "the Greeks" vs "the Spartans" (the Laconian army)
In other words, if "Plutarch makes it abundantly clear that ancient Macedonians were not Greeks", we have to argue that he also makes it equally "abundantly clear" (if we are to follow Gandeto's flawed and irrationally unhistorical method) that both the Spartans AND the Athenians were indeed...not Greeks either! Whom does that leave? The Argives? But the Macedonians themselves, indeed the Temenid dynasty, were claiming descent from Argos...

The attempt to distort Ancient Greek history, making a total mockery out of it in the service of a 20th century forged ethnic identity of a mainly Slavic and Albanian but truly multi-ethnic state in the south of ex-Yugoslavia, and all of it based on the grossly inaccurate interpretation of isolated quotes, comes at a cost. The price tag is blaring academic derision (http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html ) and manifest self exposure to worldwide ridicule. 
Make him whatever you want, but any Badian or Borza, Wilcken, Errington, Hammond, Heckel, Tarn or Cartledge would fall on the floor laughing their heart's content out if someone would suggest to them that Basileus Alexandros Philippou o Makedon was some sort of proto-Slavic Czar Alksandar Filipov Makedonski. At the time Philip was busy unifying the Greeks under his leadership and Alexander was conquering the then known world for Hellenism, the Slavs, respectfully, had not even entered the world arena and had no concept of what or where Macedonia was, leading quiet lives around the Pripjet swamps at the convergence of Modern Poland, Ukraine and Byelorussia. And no pharaonic sized, 60ft bronze horse with "Aleksandar Makedonski" on top of it, in the middle of "Makedonija Square" in Skopje, the capital of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonija" is ever going to change this sober fact.


PS. My thanks to the people at http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/ for their welcome contribution.