Hello

[musicmind]

No offense Lazz its just that because they don't have a history as nation they want ours and they dream of the "Great Macedonia" which includes several parts of North Greece (Thessaloniki included). But the fault is all ours because when they first started to spread those ideas 50 years ago Greek politicians didn't do anything to prevent it. And now we have two generations of "Macedonians" who believe that they are descendants of the Alexander the Great and they support that he was a Slav.

As for the music yes we have different music from the rest of the Greece as greek islands have their our and Crete and Peloponnisos etc. Greek folk music has too many different styles it takes you all your lifetime just to learn and identify them all.

[thelevellers]

Welcome on board dude, sounds like you might make an interesting addition to our lovely forums

I'll pop into the Bar shortly...

Cheers, Rohan

[Roflcopter]

they are descendants of the Alexander the Great and they support that he was a Slav.

Sometimes I think history is too dangerous to let any politicians get close to it - or dress up as historians, to do their nationalist chores under cover. Bah.

Slavs didn't get to the Balkans before 6th century AD, IIRC, and Alexander had been dead 900 years or more. How anyone in his right mind can reconcile the two is beyond me, but must make for interesting discussions.

It's an old trick with nationalists to appropriate the preposterous, but glorious past, and it just goes to show what propaganda (a Jesuit term, BTW, not communist) can do to young peoples' minds.

Welcome to the forum - anyone responding in your fashion should be an asset. If people can face their 'own' sides' mistakes in how things came to be, there's still hope for mankind.

[FinnArild]

Welcome to the forum - I'll head over to the rythm experiment now ...

[Lazz]

No offense Lazz its just that because they don't have a history as nation they want ours and they dream of the "Great Macedonia" which includes several parts of North Greece (Thessaloniki included). But the fault is all ours because when they first started to spread those ideas 50 years ago Greek politicians didn't do anything to prevent it. And now we have two generations of "Macedonians" who believe that they are descendants of the Alexander the Great and they support that he was a Slav.

That all sounds a bit simplistic to me, musicmind, with the greatest respect.

I had been led to believe that the Argeads dynasty were from the Doric Peloponnese and claimed descendancy from Heracles. So maybe I am just unaware, but I don't see any claim anywhere yet (apart from what you just said) that either Alexander or Philip, his dad, were Slavic. Neither do I understand what difference it would make if they were. Tribes were roaming all over the place. And still are if they can squeeze past the border guards.

And what am I now expected to make of the ancient Kingdsom off Macedonia, then ? Does this mean it's all a complete historic fiction and never existed ? When all the time, here I was under the illusion that it marked the beginnings of the Hellenistic period of world history.

Unconfuse me, please.

As for the music yes we have different music from the rest of the Greece as greek islands have their our and Crete and Peloponnisos etc. Greek folk music has too many different styles it takes you all your lifetime just to learn and identify them all.

During my brief time in the Peloponnese, and even across the Dodecanese, the only music I got to hear was the same mindless thumping thudding crap played to young people across the rest of Europe. Apart from the company of rebets, the only other distinct folkloric traditions I encountered were marked as 'Macedonian' - and to all of us at the time the impression was very clear that this seemed to mean it was 'Greek' with very old. classic, traditional roots - and never a mention of Yugoslavia.

Bugger borders anyway.

[Roflcopter]

but I don't see any claim anywhere yet (apart from what you just said) that either Alexander or Philip, his dad, were Slavic.

He's referring to the fact that Ptolemy mentions a tribe that bears only the vaguest of name-resemblance to some later Slavic tribes from nearly a thousand years later, and that very poorly.

It makes the hair of anyone with a bit of etymology in his belt stand right up, as in uh-uh, no dice. Etymology follows a few replacement rules for vowels and consonants, and this one violates quite a few.

Based on that princinple saying the Seljuk Turks from 1100/1200-something AD can rightfully claim to be direct descendants of the Seleucid Successor empire from 300 BC, makes a *far* more convincing case, even. That is etymologically way more appealing even - but not a bit less spurious.

That's what he's referring to.

Egyptian Arabs claiming to have built the pyramids, sortof.

[Lazz]

I guess I just must be having a blonde moment.

I imagine there is some logic and reasoning involved in there somewhere - but it's all missing me.

Perhaps because of too many taken-for-granted assumptions of knowledge.

I find etymology fascinating - but can't follow what you are saying.

You seem to be suggesting there has been some historical revisionism going on while I have been busy with other things... but how did poor Ptolemy become involved after being so peacefully dead these several centuries ? And who delivered the pyramids into the argument ? There is a metaphor there, I'm sure, but it's cloudy.

Seriously - I am confused.

If anyone can explain further, I would appreciate it.