Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Demographic history of Macedonia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reworking ancient Macedonian section

After the page is unprotected, I'm going to seriously trim and try to put together a new section on the ancient Macedonians that will be appropiate to this article's purpose, which is to detail the demographic history, not to mull over the Hellenic controversy or give an etymology of Makedonia, which we already find in Macedonia. Neither the previous version nor Miskin's version are appropiate to the article's topic. I want to focus on where Macedonians were settled, what lands they controlled and fought over in the area, their constant struggle with the Dardani, and so on. A short summary though, no extended material. I'm in no hurry, because I don't have all the references I want yet anyway. Decius 8 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

First of all don't make a complete re-write. You should add the history of Paionians and all other nations which are included in the modern version of the region. Don't give support to the Slavic nation-building which wants to present it as if there's been only one type of Macedonians in history. Don't remove my section on the Greek ethnic claims of the Macedonian people, unless of course you question the authenticity of my quotations. This is something important for the article and something that the Slavic crowd constantly stries to sweep under the rug (as the previous version of the section reveals). Personally, I still don't see why the ancient section has to be here. It's obviously part of Macedon. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

No, as long as this article exists, it's going to begin with the ancient history section. I am going to re-write (rather erase) much of the text because it is not pertinent to the aim of the article and it repeats themes struck in other articles (Macedon), and even repeats material. This isn't about your version, but also the previous version was off-track also. The new info will be more "nuts and bolts" and pertaining to demographics (references strictly followed, no loose interpretations). Decius 8 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

I support completely Decius here. The section about the ancient Macedonians is abnormally large and repetative as much of stuff there is already present in Macedon and the Ancient Macedonian language. Birkemaal 9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

In case no-one noticed, many things are repetitive in this article. The difference is that before my edits, they were repeated "selectively". IMO the entire section "ancient Macedonians" is repetitive and irrelevant to the demographic history of the region. I suggest to remove the entire section, not just the things that Decius doesn't like. You have failed to prove that ancient Macedon expanded to the North prior to the Hellenistic Age, therefore I'm warning you in advance, do not try to edit the article with your dodgy views in mind. I'll be watching your edits. Miskin 18:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation repair needed

Whenever this page is unlocked, will someone please disambiguate the numerous links to "Greek", which is a disambiguation page (or drop me a note and I'll do it). Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 22:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? Miskin 18:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A link to the word "Greek" does not link to an actual article, but rather to a disambiguation page. Each instance should be fixed to link to Greek, or Greek, or Greek, for example. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bring out the evidence

Okay Miskin, even though it is not necessary to justify this article, I'm going to call your bluff. I'm going to cite (over the next few days, weeks, etc.) the solid references that indicate ancient Macedonian settlement outside of Macedonia (Greece) in the Balkans, and you're going to cite counter-evidence. Note that I'm not just talking about Paionia. And though I may restrict myself to the pre-Roman conquest, I do not see why I should not also discuss Macedonian settlements in the Roman period. Decius 00:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If all you are relying on are some maps in some French books, you may want to get a second opinion. Decius 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In time. The counter evidence will be the existence of a Paionian nation in the 2nd century BC and the Macedonian settlements all over the world. None of the above imply that the region of Macedonia has changed its borders at a pro-Roman stage. Miskin 11:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I was expecting more than you just bringing up those Paionian semi-autonomous coins which I first brought to your attention on Talk:Macedon some months ago. I'll assemble my evidence/arguments in the coming weeks/months, unless I decide to drop the issue because it is time-consuming and irrelevant to the article. Decius 04:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this article because it's been protected for a ridiculously lont time and discussion has died down here. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

VMORO your name alone makes me laugh with the fact that you're allowed to edit in here (for those who are unfamiliar check VMRO). Is there really one time that you have used the discussion page in order to bring up some actual counter-arguments before reverting? Not once. You talk about 500,000 Albanians in Greek Macedonia today without having a clue. 1/3 of Albania is working abroad, that doesn't mean that it counts as an ethnic minority in other countries since it has a temporary stay. Furthermore this has to do with the 1990s not the 1910s that the article is about. The biased version talks about Orthodox Albanians, but since you don't even know what Arvanites are, there's no point going there, so we just take it out for the obvious reasons to those who have a clue. That's only a sample of your ignorance. This article is rediculously biased and the reason is extremist like you. I've been restoring fallacies that I have previously discussed, and I'm quoting from prominent historians so it's not wise to mass revert my edits and replace it with your propaganda. Try to settle scores in the discussion page for a change. State what you don't agree with, otherwise your reverts are considered vandalism. I have already discussed over my changes and none of your buddies were able to come up with a counter-argument, hence the edits in the article. You didn't even dare to try to engage in a debate, and I don't blame you, I wouldn't be able to challenge the truth face-to-face either, that's way too difficult, even when it comes to best liars, and worst extremist. As I said, you've been reverting a pre-existing version (ancient Macedonia) and I'm restoring it, you're the one who's breaking 3RR. Either talk over the edits I've made one-by-one here in discussion or piss off. And as an advice... Instead of trying to improve the image of your country (which has by default a fairly low international importance) on the internet by supporting one-sided propaganda articles on supposedly neutral places, I think it'd be more useful for your country if you tried to help the actual people who are alive today, let's say by being more concerned about its economy and quality of life... Miskin 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I want to draw your attention to the constant use of expressions like "reunification" (which I had to correct in several places), which clash with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. "Reunification" expresses the Greek point of view, from the point of the Macedonian Slavs or the Bulgarians it would be "occupation". In the same way a Bulgarian can use "reunification" concerning the administration of eastern Greek Macedonia by Bulgaria in WWII, whereas for the Greeks it was clearly an "occupation".

There was - without absolutely now doubt - large Latin-speaking population in northern Macedonia (the case of Justinian is enough of a proof), if you don't want to hear this from me, I can contact Decius and ask him to explain it to you. Birkemaal 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Birkermall I'll just make three points before reverting:

1. Scupi at the time of Justinian was not part of Macedonia B, it was on another province which must have been Illyricum (I'll check the map when I get home). Therefore you wrote what you wrote on the wrong borders, and I was right to remove them.
2. Justinian was a native speaker of Greek and wrote the Empire's constitution in the Greek language. In the same work he characterises Latin as their "father language", as it had long fallen out of use on the eastern part of the Empire.
3. In Alexander III's own words: Macedonia and the rest of Greece, hence since antiquity Macedonia is considered a part of Greece. Then the Byzantine Empire included it within its borders for over 1000 years, so reunification refers to all that, and whether you like it or not it's valid. If that was the only thing that troubled you then you could have edited this word alone instead of the entire article.

After having exposed your ignorance, I'm reverting. Miskin 11:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, my attempts at discussion with you are very well documented in the previous sections. Yes, attempts, because explaining to someone an obvious fact such as the borders of Macedonia for around 10 times causes the objective suspicion whether that someone is blind, analphabetic or simply an idiot. Your constant use of anachronisms such as the "Byzantine nation" (read the article Nation to understand why it is anachronistic) and POV expressions such as "reunification" (also mentioned by Birkemaal) does make your edits worthy of reverting. You should, however, note that I tried to integrate your edits with the rest of the text removing only the obvious POV elements and anachronisms - something which you rejected because you seem to be in love with them. Well, suit yourself. VMORO 08:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know the borders of Macedonia over time, point #1 above proves it. As what you consider obvious facts are false, I feel responsible to correct your fallacies. As for the rediculous claim "There is no Byzantine nation", that's the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks. That's like saying, "there's no country called Germany". Please go read a book, preferrable a non-bulgarian one. As I said, if that's really what bothers you then edit those 2 things, you don't have to revert the entire section, but I suppose that's just a silly excuse. Your integration was rediculous. Miskin 11:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

VMORO we can't do business that way. You need to use the discussion page before you edit so that I can give an answer to every single of your remarks otherwise we'll keep reverting each other. I'll summarise as many things as I can remember. First of all it's not me who edited the section 'ancient Macedonians', I don't know who it is. The edits I made in the "Roman Empire" section aimed to correct false information. What you consider and refer to in the article as "Northern Macedonia" (FYROM), hasn't had this significance before Tito's reforms in the late 1940's. To use the term "Northern Macedonia" to refer to that region during Roman times (or any time prior to Tito) is simply anachronistic, POV, and generally stupid. Apart from that, even monkeys know that the Eastern part of the Empire which included Macedonia was Hellenised and not Latinized, hence the creation of the Byzantine nation. Also the Byzantine Empire, whether you like it or not, was a Greek state. As G. Ostrogorsky has said, the term "Byzantines" was invented in order to separate Roman from Medieval Greek history. Apart from that, nobody refers to the Byzantines as "Romans" apart from themselves, the rest of the world called them Greeks (including Bulgarians). At the end of the day, half of the population of Modern Greece are immigrants from Asia Minor and Constantinople, i.e. Byzantines. I hope this is also clear. Everything I've added in the section "Byzantine Macedonia" is pretty much quoted from the book. The rest of my edits are corrections of fallacies which constantly deny the existence of Greek people in Macedonia, and the ludicrous implications about the Greek people being nothing but an artificial nation of Hellenised Romano-Turko-Albano-Slavs. According to Hobsbawm (probably the best historian alive), the Greek war of independence was the only scenario of a revolution which suited the standards of Western nationalism, i.e. an entire nation rising against a conqueror. He continues by saying that due to the power of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople who promoted the Greek language, many merchants of the Ottoman Empire (not in Greece) were Hellenised. That's the only case of Hellenisation he mentions, and the rest of cases mentioned in the article are nothing but Bulgarian propaganda. Southern or Aegean or Greek or simply "original" Macedonia, has always been primarily Greek whether you like it or not. I'm going to specify in every section of the article what Macedonia geographically means (like I did in the Byzantine section). Miskin 01:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You should read G. Ostrogorsky better. The Byzantines were used of the enormous ethnic mixture that had characterized the empire. For the Byzantine world, there was only one emperor and his empire constituted an earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven. There was no idea about Byzantine nation or worse Greek nation – all Christians were supposed to be under the emperor. Orthodox Byzantine universalism was partly dropped early 15 century when George Gemistos Plethon revived the Hellenic spirit in Peloponnesus, but this was at the time when the empire was reduced to the capitol and Mistra.--Cigor 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

Miskin, you should think about putting your quotes in Macedon. I am finding more and more quotes that can be posted to argue the opposite view; NPOV (which gives equal representation to views of virtually equal standing) would force us to present both side by side; now, that would be fine, except for the fact that going into such a prolonged discussion of the controversy is detracting from the aesthetic unity and purpose of the article. I expect objective editors to agree with a new compromise. User:Miskin and User:Theathenae probably will not agree, but all they have in mind is seeing "Greek, Greek, Greek" across the page, it seems. User:VMORO might also prefer to overemphasive the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians for his own reasons, but I don't know. But I think all editors should reconsider. Decius 00:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The text I have left in the section now as of my writing this appears to be a reasonable compromise. It is more summarized, less repetitive (see Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language) and less Point Of View. Decius 00:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion into Roman Empire

Excuse my intrusion, but Macedonia finally became a Roman province in 146 BC (see Andriscus), so it appears (maybe I'm wrong, who knows) that both the Miskin version ("3rd century bc") and the version VMORO reverts to ("4th century AD") is incorrect. Even if you incorrectly date it from 168 BC (the defeat of Perseus of Macedon at the hands of the Romans), that is still the 2nd century bc. ---Decius 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And there was no "complete Hellenization" of the region in 146 BC. To avoid questioning your intelligence, Miskin, I will question your neutrality. ---Decius 05:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The 3rd instead of 2nd century was a typo from my part. As for whether or not it was fully Hellenised up until 146 BC, that's something debatable. However I have no objections to say that it wasn't. Miskin 11:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Latinization in Northern Macedonia

References will be found for Latinization in Northern Macedonia, so it would be better not to delete this from the text yet Miskin, though I don't have the references now. But I can't say that Northen Macedonia was "largely" Latinized, which needs a reference. This is an interesting subject so far as I'm concerned, because individuals such as Andre Du Nay in his pro-Hungarian POV work, The Early History of the Romanian language (1996) claims that Proto-Romanian formed in the Roman province of Macedonia, so I'm wondering what evidence all these Latinization claims are really based on. I also read that Emperor Justinian I's family were Latin speakers (he was born around Scupi). The Latinization question will eventually be discussed in the Roman province of Macedonia. ----Decius 13:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Justinian I claims that when he was born, that area was in the province of Illyricum, but even if that's so, it doesn't disprove Latinization in Northern Macedonia. Decius 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your mistake here is to confuse the Roman with the Byzantine empire. As the article says, during the Roman Empire (the Latin one), the province of Macedonia included Thessaly, Epirus parts of Thrace and Illyria, so for obvious reasons we cannot consider the demography of that era as a representative of Macedonia in general. It would almost be as if we considered Philip's unification (or conquest if you want) of the central Greek city-states as a greater Macedonian region. I hope you don't disagree that Justianian I is a Byzantine Emperor, and E. Honigmann's maps reflect the provinces of Byzantine Macedonia (A and B) during his reign (also stated in the article). Macedonia B was expanded in the North up until Monastir, and I remember making sure that it didn't include Scupi, therefore the article of Justinian stands correct. Even after the Slavic invasions took place, Scupi was not part of Byzantine Macedonia. It only because part of a region named Macedonia under the Ottoman domination as the villaet of Scopje (or whatever the Turks called it). According to Turkish demographies, it was the only villaet of Macedonia where the Slavic element was dominant to the Greek (the other velaets being Monastir and Thessaloniki). Even if we assume the region of Scupi to be largerly Latinized, it was not part of Byzantine Macedonia, therefore to mention that the Northern part of Macedonia was Latinized is false. Justinian had imperial blood on his mother's side, this is why Latin was fluent in his family (still not a first language) and because it was spoken in the area. Besides, the Latin Justinian used in his writings was 'Classic', a form of Latin that by his time had ceased to exist as a vernacular language. That's probably the same Latin that was fluent in his family and all Byzantine courts. It has nothing to do with the Vulgar Latin, which was the only spoken form in the Latinized areas. On the other hand, Justinian used vernacular Medieval Greek in order to write the constitution, he didn't use Atticist language like the Byzantine scholars of his era. This means that he had a mother-tongue knowledge of Greek, which doesn't necessarily imply that Scupi was a Hellenized reason. Miskin 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Two points, my darling Miskin:

1)I have made no "mistake", nor am I "confusing" anything here. The stuff about Justinian I is not my idea, read this:[1]. So your attempt to pin it on me fails. His family has been cited (along with other evidences) as evidence of Latinization in northern Roman Macedonia, though his family was from a later period.

2) I have no especial interest to claim that Northern Macedonia was largely Latinized, I am just interested in reviewing the evidence, and do not like it when editors erase mention of something (Latinization in Northern Macedonia) from articles just because they don't like it (you want to make sure everything stays Hellenized, etc.). I would rather prefer no Latinization in Northern Macedonia, which would refute the Hungarian claim that Romanian formed in the Roman province of Macedonia. But if credible scholars out there still consider Latinization in Northern Roman Macedonia, and if there is evidence for it, it will be mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

---Decius 00:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to get so defensive about it. I told you already that Scupi was not part of Byzantine Macedonia, so even if we assume it to part of a Latinized region, it's still not part of Northern Macedonia until the Ottoman period (where Latinization would have been replaced by Slavinization). I don't have a problem to be regarded as a Latinized area either, what I corrected in the article was the abstract use of "Romanization" that conveniently didn't specify Roman Latinization from Byzantine Hellenization. Miskin 00:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this map: [2] and this map: [3]. They show the classic Roman provinces of the Balkans, Pannonia, Dacia, Moesia, Illyricum, Thracia, and Macedonia. In the period these maps depict, Scupi and its environs were located in the Roman province of Macedonia. Justinian I is from a later Byzantine period, but his Latin-speaking family didn't appear out of nowhere. Scupi itself, according to historians, was practically founded by the Romans in the 2nd century BC. A historian (think it was Pliny or Plutarch) mentions Romans living there. Insofar as Scupi apparently was in the Roman province of Macedonia for at least a time, that alone proves Latinization in Northern Macedonia. What needs to be determined is when Scupi was included in the Province of Macedonia, because at an earlier date it may have been alloted to Dardania (in southern Moesia). And we haven't even discussed the evidence of Romanization south of Scupi that probably exists. ---Decius 03:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my impression, and unfortunately I cannot provide any references because I don't remember where the heck I read it, that Justinian I was an avid "Latinizer" (he called it "the language of our forefathers"), who regretted the wholesale delatinization-cum-hellenization of his empire. Indeed he decreed that the vast legal works he initially commissioned (Corpus Iuris Civilis etc) be written in Latin, but this proved futile as very few of his subjects could read it; he therefore relented and had the "Νεαραί" (Novellae Constitutiones) written in Greek. Chronographos 14:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It was Justinian himself who said it in Novellae: "ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας". Miskin 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, right from the horse's mouth, so to speak: "We did not author the Law in the language of our forefathers, but in the common, Greek one, so that it be accessible to all, and readily interpretable". Chronographos 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Northern extension of the Roman province of Macedonia at different times

A main thing that the Roman province of Macedonia article will be concerned with is determining the borders of the Macedonia province at different times. But for this article, the Roman borders are irrelevant, because this article concerns the geographic region as it is defined now, and thus Scupi in this article will be considered as part of Northern Macedonia. ---Decius 05:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That's your POV. I say that this article is restricted to what has been known as Macedonia over time. A reference to the pseudo-Macedonian lands (Scupi etc) can be made from the Ottoman period and forth, but referring to those regions as "northern Macedonia" in Byzantium or Antiquity is simply academically wrong. It has to be specified what is geographically meant by "Macedonia" in each historical section. Miskin 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering two options: making clear in an introductory paragraph what is meant by Macedonia in the article; or specific explanations in each section (or even both). But in the case of Scupi, it appears that at times it was part of Roman Macedonia, unless all these maps (and many others) are wrong. Decius 12:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these maps seem to be accurate regarding the Roman province of Macedonia at different times:

---They all include Scupi in the Roman province of Macedonia. ---Decius 06:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This next map may be an example of an earlier partitioning, with Scupi included in a Dardanian region of southern Moesia:

---Decius 07:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how on earth can you see in your first map that Scupi is part of Roman Macedonia. In the same map you can see that Roman Macedonia includes Thessaly and great part of central Greece, this is why it can't be considered in this article. In Byzantine Macedonia however, Scupi is not part of Macedonia, and if you insist I will have to post sources and maps as well. I don't know how this changes anything, except the belief that Northern Macedonia was Latinized (something that's been said already). Miskin 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

All four maps in the external links clearly show (the www.raremaps.com one is clear too) Scupi in Roman Macedonia. This counters your claim that it was not included in Macedonia till "Ottoman times" (wrong). I'm not talking Byzantine times, but Roman times. ---Decius 12:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for the first image: it divided Moesia Inferior from Thrace at a higher latitude (see Roman province) than the 1849 map (in fact, all the actual maps are aligned in this way, except that Wiki image), so it is disqualified (probably a wrongly done image). The dip (actually, a bay) in the Illyrian Adriatic coast in the 1849 image lines up much more with the division of Moesia Inferior from Thrace in the 1849 map, but in the Roman Empire Map.png, the division is placed well north of the coastal dip (bay), up into Dalmatia. So it's no good for comparisons. I don't need that image, because I already have three which explicitly include Scupi in Roman Macedonia. Decius 13:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't counter anything. Roman Macedonia was massive and I thought I made it clear why its demography can't count in this article (unless of course you want to consider Southern Macedonia to start North of Athens). Miskin

That is your POV. This issue will be further discussed by various editors, including me, but I'm going to leave this point for today. A more pressing issue is why someone doesn't ban Igor Sterbinski's many IP's from Wikipedia already (see Macedonia article). Though he probably has enough back-ups that it won't matter. Decius 15:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

POV or no POV, why don't you just upload all the Public Domain old maps you can find (the older the better) in the article and get done with it? People who want to read about Macedonia as a Roman province are best served by the maps themselves. Of what importance is it whether Scupi lay at this or that side of which border at this time or the other? Chronographos 15:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (As for Sterbinski, I would report him myself, but he is too much fun. It's interesting nevertheless, how some admins once banned Theathenae's ISP (a whole domain range!) for much less disturbance, and now turn a blind eye towards that particular serial offender). Chronographos 15:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm planning on filling this stub article with maps:Roman province of Macedonia. It is in serious need of references so real text can be added to it, rather than a few sentences. It'll be handled eventually. Decius 15:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Maps are good. Especially old engravings: not only are they aesthetically superb, but their copyright has expired by definition, making them perfect Wikipedia material. Chronographos 15:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)