IDIVIDI forum Веб сајт
почетна страница почетна страница > Македонија и Свет > Историја
  Активни теми Активни теми RSS - Историја на македонскиот народ
  најчести прашања најчести прашања  Пребарувај форум   Настани   Регистрирајте се Регистрирајте се  Влез Влез

Затворена темаИсторија на македонскиот народ

 Внеси реплика Внеси реплика страница  12>
Автор
Порака
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Тема: Историја на македонскиот народ
    Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 13:26
History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present

Part 19 – Ottoman Rule in Macedonia

 
The Ottomans crossed into Europe for the first time around the year 1345 as mercenaries hired by the Pravoslavs to defend the Pravoslav Empire. Over the years as the Ottomans grew in number, they settled in Galipoly, west of the Dardanelles (Endrene), and later used the area as a staging ground for conquest.

In 1389 the Ottomans attacked Kosovo in a decisive battle and destroyed the Pravoslav army, killing the nobility in the process. In 1392 they attacked and conquered geographical Macedonia including Solun but not Sveta Gora (Holy Mountain). In 1444 while attempting to drive north, through today’s Bulgaria, they were met and crushed by the western Crusaders at Varna. Soon after their recovery they besieged and took Tsari Grad in 1453, looting all the wealth that had been accumulated for over two millennia.

Feeling the sting of the 1444 defeat, the Ottomans turned northwest and in 1526 attacked and destroyed the Hungarian army, killing 25,000 knights. After that they unsuccessfully tried twice to take Vienna, once in 1529 and then again in 1683. The failure to take Vienna halted the Ottoman expansion in Europe.

In a steady process of state building, the Ottoman Empire expanded in both easterly and westerly directions conquering the Pravoslavs and remnants of the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian kingdoms to the west and the Turkish nomadic principalities in Anatolia as well as the Mamluk sultanate in Egypt to the east. By the 17th century the Ottoman Empire had grown and held vast lands in west Asia, north Africa and southeast Europe.

During the 16th century the Ottomans shared the world stage with Elizabethan England, Habsburg Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Valois France and the Dutch Republic. Of greater significance to the Ottomans were the city states of Venice and Genoa which exerted enormous political and economic power with their fleets and commercial networks that linked India, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and west European worlds.

Initially the Turks may have been ethnically Turkish, perhaps originating from a single race but by the time they had conquered the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire had become multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
The Ottoman Empire built its power base on a heterogeneous mix of people who were added to its population with every conquest. What may have been Turkish at the start was soon lost and the term “Turk” came to mean “Muslim” as more and more people from the conquered worlds were Islamized. To be a Turk, one had to be a Muslim first. “The devsirme system offered extreme social mobility for males, allowing peasant boys to rise to the highest military and administrative positions in the empire outside of the dynasty itself.” (Page 30, Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Binghamton University, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

When the Ottomans crossed over to the Balkans and conquered Macedonia the basic state institutions and military organization of the empire were still in a state of development. Built on a basis of feudal social relations the empire was despotic with many elements of theocratic rule.
After sacking Tsari Grad the Ottomans adapted much of the Pravoslav administration and feudal practices and began to settle the Balkans. The conquered people of the new Ottoman territories became subjects of the empire, to be ruled according to Muslim law. At the head of the Ottoman Empire sat the Sultan who was God’s representative on earth. The Sultan owned everything and everyone in the empire. Below the Sultan sat the ruling class and below them sat the Rajak (protected flock). Everyone worked for the Sultan and he in turn provided his subjects with all of life’s necessities.

The Sultan was the supreme head of the empire and his power was unrestricted. Initially his capital was in Bursa then it was moved to Endrene (Adrianople) and after Tsari Grad fell, in 1453, it became the permanent Ottoman capital. Even though their empire was spread throughout Asia and Africa, the European provinces were considered to be the Ottoman Empire’s heart and soul.

Initially at the head of the Ottoman state administration stood a single Vizier but by 1386 a second Vizier was appointed, elevating the first one to Grand Vizier. The number of viziers continued to increase with time and by the middle of the 16th century there were four.

After the Balkan conquests, the Ottoman Empire was divided into two large Bejlerbejliks, or administrative units. The rulers of these provinces, the Bejlerbejs, were appointed directly by the Sultan. The Bejlerbejs were the highest local military commanders in the Bejlerbejliks or Pashaliks as they later came to be known. The Rumelia or European Bejlerbejlik incorporated the territories of the Turkish provinces of Europe. This Pashalik was further divided into smaller units called Sanjaks or Jivi, which made up the basic military and territorially administrative components of the empire. Each Pashalik was also divided into kazas where each kaza represented a judicial district for which a qadi or judge was responsible. With time and with the extension of the empire’s frontiers the number of Bejlerbejliks grew and their nature began to change. Bejlerbejliks became Elajets or Pashaliks and during the 1470’s two Kaziaskers, or Supreme Military Judges, were appointed: one in Rumelia and the other in Anatolia in Asia Minor. There was also a Nichandji, or Keeper of the Imperial Seal, who sat at the head of the administration and, on behalf of the Sultan, placed the seal on all acts issued by the central government. Financial affairs were handled by the Defterdars.

The Divan, or State Council headed by the Grand Vizier consisted of the highest state officials, including viziers, kaziaskers and defterdars, who regularly met to discuss and resolve important state matters.

The Ottoman military was subdivided into land and naval forces. The land force, considered to be the strength of the empire consisted of the Sultan's guard and the provincial (Elajet) armies. The most powerful and most numerous of the Elajet was the Spahis or cavalry. The striking force of the Sultan's guard was the Corps of Janissaries, which was formed around 1329.

The Janissaries were initially recruited from the prisoners-of-war and, by means of the “Blood Tax”, from the subordinated Christian population.

Muslim Turks always administered their government and the military. However, due to lack of manpower to rule an expanding empire, the Ottomans adopted the “devshirme” or child contribution program in the 1300’s. This so called “Blood Tax” was harvested by rounding up healthy young Christian boys and converting them to Islam. After being educated, the bright ones were given administrative roles and the rest, the “Janissary”, were given military responsibilities. The devshirme was abolished in 1637 when the Janissary proved to be a handful for the Sultan. In some regions, however, this practice was continued up until the 19th century.

The navy started out very small but was intensively built up in the late 1390’s by Sultan Bajazid I. Initially, and at times of war, the Grand Vizier was Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. The empire’s feudal lords had no right to exert legal, administrative, financial or military authority, even on their own estates.

The legal system was created around the Seriat which had its basis in Islam. The Koran and Hadith were the books from which the ideals and fundamental principles for the construction of the legal system were drawn. No law could be passed which in principle contradicted the Seriat. Only the supreme religious leader, the Sejh-ul-Islam, had the right to interpret and assess the legal norms and only from the point of view of Islamic law.

The Koran dictated Muslim conduct and behaviour, including punishment for crimes. In the Ottoman mind only religion and the word of God had sole authority over peoples’ lives. Religion was the official government of the Ottoman State. Islam was the only recognized form of rule that suited Muslims but could not be directly applied to non-Muslims. So the next best thing was to allow another religion to rule the non-Muslims. The obvious choice of course was the Pravoslav Christian religion, which was the foundation of the Pravoslav Empire. There was a catch however. The official Muslim documents that would allow the “transfer of rule” were based on an ancient Islamic model, which denounced all Christianity as a corrupt invention of the “Evil one”. The conservative Turks regarded the Christians as no more than unclean and perverted animals. Also, the ancient documents called for sacrifices to be made. A Christian religious leader, for being granted leadership by the Muslims, was expected to sacrifice his own flock on demand, to prove his loyalty to the Sultan. It was under these conditions that the Patriarch accepted his installment as sole ruler of the Christian Orthodox faith and of the non-Muslim Millet.

The Sultans tolerated Christianity as the Government of the non-Muslim Millet and sold the Patriarchate to an adventurer who could buy (bribe) his nomination. Once nominated, the Patriarch in turn sold consecration rights to Bishops, who in turn regarded their gain as a “legitimate investment” of capital and proceeded to “farm their diocese”. Under Ottoman rule the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad became a corrupt business, having little to do with faith and more to do with making money. As more and more bishoprics fell into the hands of the new Patriarch, faith at the top began to fade away. This was also the beginning of the end for the Slavonic (Macedonian) Churches in the Ottoman Empire.

In addition to being a religious ruler, the Patriarch and his appointed Bishops became civil administrators of the Christian and non-Muslim people. Their authority included mediating with the Turks, administering Christian law (marriages, inheritance, divorce, etc.), running schools and hospitals, and dealing with the large and small issues of life. There were no prescribed provisions, however, on how to deal with criminal matters or the limit of authority on the part of the Bishops. In other words, there was no uniform manner by which Christian criminals could be punished or how far a Bishop could exercise his authority. This opened the way for interpretation, neglect, abuse, and activities of corruption such as nepotism, favouritism, and bribery.

After conquering the Balkans, the Ottoman Turks immediately started to establish their own administration and, where possible, retained existing administrative and territorial divisions. Macedonia belonged to the Bejlerbejlik, or Elajet of Rumelia. Solun was administered by the famous military commander Evrenos Beg and served as the oldest military centre for the defense of the empire’s western frontier. When Skopje fell to the Ottomans in 1392 it became the centre of a new region. The first Skopje regional commander was Pashaigit Beg.

In an attempt to create a stable political and social support system in conquered Macedonia, the Ottoman authorities introduced voluntary migration for Turks from Asia Minor. As a result, many Turkish settlements sprang up all over Macedonia and occupied strategic positions like valleys of navigable rivers and coastal plains. This increase in Moslem numbers, particularly in the larger towns, was at the expense of the Christian population. The nomads of Anatolia were best suited for such migration because of their nomadic way of life.

In time and as a result of Ottoman colonization policies, small Turkish livestock breeding settlements were established at Jurutsi and Konjari near Solun, and in the districts of Nevrokop, Strumitsa, Radovish, Kochani and Ovche Pole. Migration into Macedonia was not restricted to Turks. Late in the 15th century Jews fleeing the western European Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal also settled in Macedonia. These migrations were of particular significance to Macedonia's economic development. Jewish colonies sprang up and flourished in important urban centres like Solun, Bitola, Skopje, Berroea, Kostur, Serres, Shtip, Kratovo and Strumitsa. The Jewish colony in Solun was one of the largest and most significant of all colonies in the entire Ottoman Empire. By the middle of the 16th century Solun was home to more than three thousand Jewish families.

Besides the colonization of Macedonia by foreign elements, there was also the assimilation of Macedonians in the Islamic fold. The process of converting Christians to Muslims began as soon as Macedonia was conquered. At the outset, a fair number of the old nobility converted to Islam in the hope of protecting and even increasing their landholdings. Gradually greater proportions of the population were converted, sometimes whole villages and districts at once. Macedonians living among the Turks, especially in the larger towns, gradually began to assimilate into the Turkish fold. Even though they became Turks, a great majority of the Macedonians retained their mother tongue and continued to speak Macedonian, practicing their traditions and even their religious customs.

In terms of taxation, the most fundamental and distinguishing feature of the feudal system introduced in the Balkans by the Ottomans was the Timar-Spahi system. In Ottoman terms, at the top was the Sultan and supreme owner of all lands. At the bottom were the peasants, or Rajak. Between the Sultan and the peasant were the feudal landlords (Spahi) who, in return for their military service, received a fief from the state. The Spahi had the right to work the land but could not dispose of it. The amount of income derived from the fief in the form of feudal rent from the Rajaks was standard and controlled by the state.

“One of the major evils for the people of our village, and for the rest of the enslaved Christians, was the imposed tax, the so-called ‘one tenth’, or as the people used to call it the ‘spahiluk’ after the Spahi or tax collectors. This tax was to be paid in produce since there was no money in circulation at the time. Great injustices were committed by the tax collectors in their arbitrary ways of getting the taxes from the people. It was to be one tenth of the produce, but only God knows how much more the Spahi took from the people. The trouble was not the amount of tax that had to be paid by each family, but the way in which it was collected. The Turkish government would put the collection of taxes on auction – the one who would offer the best price had the right to collect the tax from the population. The right of collecting taxes was usually purchased from the government either by the Turks or the ‘Arnauti’ (Mohammedan Albanians). The State took its due, but those who obtained the right to collect taxes charged the people what they wanted. These people went to each house in the village, to the fields, to the pastures and the vineyards, and collected these taxes without any control or scales or measures. These collectors were the masters of the population and no one dared to complain because the people feared the worst. And, if someone dared to complain his voice was a voice in the desert – no one would hear it. People used to say: ‘Whom to complain to? God is high and the Tsar is far away.’ The people endured and carried this heavy burden like mute animals. The burden of the yoke was increased by the arbitrary acts of the Spahi. Sometimes the Spahi would not come in time to collect the produce and the people silently waited for him; they waited without daring to speak. What followed was a sorrowful sight – the fields of grain ripened, and the sheaves were gathered, the rain fell, and everything rotted. The grapes, already spoiled by the rain were gathered, but to what avail? This pitiful situation did not disturb the Spahi. The Spahi were lords and they would get their dues by robbing the ‘Rajak’ (the slaves) anyway. The Spahi would bribe government officials to look the other way. All these people were corrupt – from the lowest to highest officials in office. They conspired with each other and the population in silence carried the burden.” (Foto Tomev).

Initially, the Ottomans divided their land into four categories. The “meri” lands such as valleys, forests, mountains, rivers, roads, etc., belonged exclusively to the Sultan. The “timar” lands were meri lands loaned or granted to Ottoman civil and military officials. After the land reforms, timar estates converted to private property and became known as “chifliks”. The “vakof” lands were tax-exempt lands dedicated for pious purposes and to support public services such as fire fighting etc. The “molk” lands occupied by peoples’ houses, gardens, vineyards, orchards etc. were also private lands.

Even though the Sultan was considered to be God’s representative on earth, his real power was derived from his empire’s material holdings. Most of the income for his treasury was derived from the imperial fiefs, the large complexes of state land. Other revenues were derived from mining, commerce and various other taxes. The highest state functionaries possessed their own fiefs. Each fief produced an annual income of no less than 100,000 akcas. The annual average income of the fief owned by Isa Beg, the Skopje regional commander, excluding that from Skopje itself, was 763,000 akcas. Feudal lords, depending on their contributions to the empire, were awarded lands known as zeamets and timars. The zeamets produced an annual income between 20,000 and 99,999 akcas and the smaller timars produced at most 19,999 akcas. The average timar produced an income from approximately 2,000 to 6,000 akcas. According to records, the greater part of Macedonia during the 15th and 16th centuries was subdivided mostly into Timars.

In the early period of Ottoman rule, due to labour shortages, Christians were employed to do the job of the Spahis. According to an incomplete census carried out in the mid-15th century, out of a total of one hundred timars and two zeamets in the territory of the Prilep and Kichevo nahije, twenty-seven timars and one zeamet were awarded to Christians. In the 1466/67 census of the Debar district, eighteen of the ninety-eight recorded timars were in Christian hands. With time, however, the number of Christian Spahi decreased and by the 16th century they all disappeared.

Muslims were trusted more by the authorities than Christians so many Christian Spahi converted to Islam and amalgamated their belongings with those of the Turkish feudal lords. This was the surest and most often the only way to permanently safeguard their positions.

The feudally dependent peasantry or Rajak, both Christian and Moslem, held limited amounts of state lands known as the bashtina or chiflik. A portion of this land was awarded to each family in the Rajak along with a paper deed or tapia giving the family rights of inheritance and disposal, provided there was prior approval by the Spahi.

Besides paying taxes, the new citizens of the Ottoman Empire were given special duties to serve their new empire. These included martolozes, vojniks, falconers, derbendkis, bridge-keepers rice-growers and madenkis. The job of the martolozes was to protect various regions that were threatened by outlaws, or haiduks, or to garrison certain fortresses and provincial towns. The job of the vojniks was to go into battle and serve as fighters or members of the supply corps or work in the imperial stables or imperial meadows. The falconers job was to catch, train and look after falcons for hunting. The derbendkis, whose services were widespread throughout Macedonia, provided safe passage through gorges and other places where passage was difficult, especially along the more important military and trade routes. Linked with the services of the derbendkis were those of the bridge-keepers who were responsible for guarding and repairing bridges of strategic importance. The rice-growers were obliged to provide the state with a certain amount of rice, which was considered the basic food of the empire. The job of the madenkis included coal-mining, tar-making and ferrymen services.
In return for their services these people were wholly or in part exempt from paying taxes and from other obligations to the empire.

Besides feudal exploitation the Macedonian population, especially throughout the 18th century, was also subjected to religious and national discrimination, which in time became so profound that the term “Rajak” became virtually synonymous with the term “slavery”.

Macedonia’s rural economy remained largely agricultural for centuries but its techniques remained stagnant and underdeveloped. The peasants produced a number of varieties of wheat, fruits, vegetables and wine. Tobacco, cotton, rice, sesame, opium poppies, maize, saffron, anise seeds, chick-peas and a number of green vegetables were also cultivated and became more popular during the Ottoman period.

Animal husbandry became one of the predominant branches of rural economy. All kinds of livestock were kept including large numbers of sheep and goats. The buffalo was introduced from Asia Minor as a yoke animal for tilling soil and pulling carts. Hunting and fishing in rivers, lakes and seas also played a part in Macedonia’s rural economy.

Given the significant immigration, Macedonian towns grew in population and gradually took on a visibly oriental character. With the coming of new populations new skills and talents followed. Tanner and furrier crafts experienced a particularly strong growth. Jews who had business links in western Europe contributed greatly to this development.

In towns the craftsmen, called esnafs or rufekas, were organized in guilds and worked as private corporations. Each religion had its own guilds and Moslems, Christians and Jews alike competed with each other for work, thus keeping the price of goods and services down to a reasonable level.

The strong central government also played its role in the development of the domestic economy by providing security and safeguards for traders and travelers. Fairs and farmer’s markets were established and operated on a regular basis allowing goods to be bought and sold. Fairs were opened up in several places in Macedonia, including Struga, the village of Doljani near Strumitsa and the village of Beshik near Siderokapsa.

As European and Turkish currency came into circulation, domestic and foreign trade flourished. Solun became one of the most important Ottoman trading centers for trading with foreign merchants including the powerful merchants of Venice. While various metal and luxury products such as finely woven goods, silver and gold articles, salt and weapons were imported, items such as wheat, skins, furs, wool, silk and silver were exported.

Mining was also an important aspect of the Ottoman economy producing, among other things, coal and metals necessary for minting silver and gold coins.

The Islamic Ottomans belonged to the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion. The empire’s subjects belonged to one of two religiously (not nationally) divided Millets. The Islam Millet was exclusively for Muslims and the non-Islam or Roum (for Roman) Millet grouped all other religions together.

Islam was the dominant religion in the Ottoman Empire but Christianity and Judaism were also allowed to exist. In Macedonia, the powerful Ohrid Archbishopric was active right up to the year 1767 when it was abolished by the Ottoman Sultan Mustafa III.

Ever since its inception, the Ohrid Archbishopric extended its sphere of influence and dominated the neighbouring churches. In spite of Pravoslav attempts to curb its power, the Ohrid Archbishopric survived and began its revitalization. By the start of the 15th century it subordinated the Sofia and Vidin eparchies and by the middle of the same century it was in control of the Vlach and Moldavian eparchies. Shortly afterwards it took control of parts of the Pech Patriarchate including Pech itself. Even the Orthodox districts of Italy (Apulia, Calabria and Sicily), Venice and Dalmatia were subordinated to the Ohrid Archbishopric for a while.

At the beginning of the 16th century the Vlach metropolitan diocese became subordinated to the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad and as a result in 1530 Paul, the Metropolitan of Smederevo, rejected the authority of the Ohrid Archbishopric. In retaliation on March 13, 1532 a synod of archpriests was summoned in Ohrid which in turn excommunicated Paul and all the clergy he had ordained. Paul, however, continued to regard himself as an independent and elevated himself to the level of Patriarch. Then by using his influence and by bribing the Ottoman authorities he brought charges against Prohor, the Archbishop of Ohrid, landing him in jail. On June 20, 1541 another synod of archpriests, including Paul, was summoned in Ohrid and made its decision to remove Paul from his position as a church dignitary. The only opposition received was from the Metropolitan of Kostur.

Unfortunately all this infighting and Paul’s involvement with the Ottoman authorities created a great deal of negative attention, prompting the Sultan to break up the Ohrid Church by establishing separate eparchies. In 1557 the Pech Patriarchate was reinstated and took Tetovo, Skopje, Shtip and Upper Ozumaya from the Ohrid Archbishopric. In 1575 the Orthodox Christians of Dalmatia and Venice were taken away from the Ohrid Church and moved under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate in Tsari Grad. At the start of the 17th century Ohrid lost all the eparchies from southern Italy. After that Ohrid’s boundaries remained unaltered until its dissolution in 1767.

As mentioned earlier, the Archbishopric of Ohrid, since its inception, has been an autonomous church headed by an Archbishop who was elected by a Synod. The Synod consisted of archpriests from various eparchies and was summoned on various occasions to deal with the more important matters while the Church Convocation dealt with general matters. The majority of Archbishops who served the Ohrid Church were foreigners and most of them were greedy for money, succumbing to bribery. Some, however, worked hard to raise the standards of the Archbishopric and others including Prohor, Athanasius and Barlaam even worked secretly against the Ottoman yoke.

Even though the Ohrid Church had lost a great number of its possessions to the Ottomans it still remained a feudal institution and, apart from the returns it received from its church lands, it also received considerable income from various taxes, from performing services and settling disputes. The Ohrid lower clergy were all Macedonian and were scarcely distinguishable economically from the general population. Even though foreigners occupied the leading positions in the church, the church itself supported a unique Macedonian culture and an independent Macedonia.

During the second half of the 16th century there were obvious signs of a weakening Ottoman Empire. The successful campaigns that were waged earlier were coming to an end only to be replaced by a series of military defeats and territorial losses. Unable to expand or even hold onto existing territories, the Ottoman central government began to lose prestige and slowly fell into an economic crisis. The situation worsened when feudal lords decided to replace the Rajak's tax contributions in kind (finished products) with money, most of which they kept for themselves. With time, the feudal lords became less interested in taking part in unsuccessful campaigns and defied the weakening central government by refusing to supply the war effort with men or materials. The central government's inability to exercise authority over the feudal lords created a suitable environment for anarchy. More and more of the more powerful feudal lords began to take advantage of the situation and formed their own small-scale military fiefs.

When the state treasury was completely depleted, the central government was forced to take measures which further undermined the military fief. The problem was solved by offering Spahi landholdings to people who could be trusted. The only people the central government could trust were the representatives of the court aristocracy who had absolutely no links with the ranks of the Spahi.

Instead of collecting taxes itself, the state government began to lease its lands to the highest bidders and collected rent. The lease holders in turn, behaving like true landlords and masters of their leased property, leased their land to a third party while exacting a profit for themselves. By this method landholding quickly began to move out of the control of the state and into the hands of the profiteers. Landholding became so profitable that even the Rajak's small holdings were in demand and could be bought and sold in the market. Soon outsiders began to purchase Rajak plots and transformed the purchased land into chifliks, swallowing up entire villages. The new lords of the Rajak lands, known as the Chifliksajbia, continued to fulfill the obligations of the tied peasants but contractors now worked the land. The contractors were usually the same peasants (chiflikari) or former landowners who, after disposing of their lands, no longer had any share in their ownership. The contractors could be freely hired and fired which forced them to work even harder. Under the harsher conditions of not only meeting their existing obligations to the Spahi and the state, they now had to pay an additional rent to the chifliksajbia.

By the middle of the 17th century life in the chifliks became so harsh that peasants left their villages for larger towns, adding to the influx of Moslems and Jews. Many, who could no longer bear the burden and had nowhere to go, turned to marauding and robbing. Bands of peasants left their hearths and fled to either join outlaw organizations (ajdutska druzhina) or live in larger towns where some of them succeeded in becoming factors of significance in the urban economy.

During the 17th century western Europeans came to Macedonia and procured certain privileges from the Ottomans that allowed them to open consular agencies. In 1685, French merchants from Marseilles opened an agency in Solun and in 1700 they opened another one in Kavalla, through which they purchased cotton and wheat. Later Britain, Venice and the Netherlands also established consular agencies in Macedonia. At that time Solun was the gateway to the Ottoman Empire and the largest port for European goods destined for the Balkans.

With the ascendancy of the Atlantic trade routes, Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Italian towns began to decline, particularly during the 17th century when western traders were being replaced by local ones, especially in central Europe.

Catholic influence and propaganda, although somewhat disorganized, was present in Macedonia as early as the 16th century. Then in1622 when the Papal Throne came under Jesuit control, a new organization called the Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith was established with aims at controlling all Catholic missionary activities throughout the world. It was not too long afterwards that the Catholic missions infiltrated Macedonia, including the Archbishopric of Ohrid. By the first half of the 17th century four of the Archbishops of Ohrid (Porphyry, Athanasius, Abraham and Meletius) were secretly working for the Catholics. Links were established by eparchies where Church Congregations were discretely approached to switch to Catholicism. The missionaries from Rome were cautious, tactful and did not impose the Latin language upon the population. By doing so and by showing respect for the dogma of the Eastern Church, Catholic propaganda in Ohrid became very effective in gaining ground. In fact it became so effective that in 1630 the Unites attempted to take over the archiepiscopal church of the Assumption of the Virgin but the Archbishop, by handsomely bribing the Ottoman authorities, was able to halt the takeover. That unfortunately did not stop the Catholics from trying and by the middle of the 17th century they created a Catholic Archbishopric inside Ohrid. But as soon as it was created, conditions turned unfavourable for them and it had to be dissolved and subordinated to the Diocese of Skopje.

In 1661 Archbishop Athanasius took a trip to Rome with a proposal to unify Rome and the Archbishopric of Ohrid. An agreement was reached and a missionary by the name of Onuphrius Constantine was elected as Bishop to serve at the Koine speaking College in Rome. The union, however, did not work out and Catholic propaganda in Macedonia began to lose its effect. A new hope was growing among the Balkan people that Russia, an Orthodox country, would some day liberate them from their bondage.

The Macedonian people were never content with being occupied and showed their displeasure at every opportunity. The first major incident occurred in the middle of the 15th century in the Debar region, where Macedonians, Albanians and Vlachs lived together. Led by George Castriot, the people rose up against the tyranny of the Turks.

George Castriot, who took the name Scanderbeg after Iskander, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, came from an illustrious feudal family which at the time ruled part of present day central Albania and the greater Debar region in the present day Republic of Macedonia. During the Ottoman conquests in the region, John Castriot, George's father, managed to retain his title and holdings by acknowledging the supreme authority of the Sultan and fulfilling certain obligations as his vassal. As proof of his loyalty, John Castriot surrendered his sons to the Sultan to be held as hostages. One of those sons was George. George quickly became fascinated by the energy and vigour of the Ottoman military and could not wait to join them.

Having accepted Islam, George’s first act was to change his name to Scanderbeg. Scanderbeg quickly built a reputation as an able commander and gained the confidence of the Ottoman supreme authorities. When his father died in 1437, Scanderbeg took his father’s place as governor of the same district. Even though Scanderbeg was an ally of the Sultan, his real loyalties lay with his people.

When war broke out in the region in 1442 and Janos Hunjadi’s armies penetrated the interior of the Ottoman Empire, Scanderbeg decided the time was right to renounce his allegiance to the Sultan and raise a rebellion. When a great battle broke out in 1443 near Nish and the Ottoman front was crushed, instead of attacking, Scanderbeg together with his nephew Hamza and three hundred cavalrymen deserted and fled with the panic stricken Ottoman soldiers.

On his way, Scanderbeg passed through the Debar region where he received much support and a hero’s welcome. In Debar he was joined by local chieftains and a large number of rebel peasants. With his cavalry and new recruits he began the revolt by attacking Croia (Kruje), an important Ottoman military and administrative centre. After sacking Croia with ease he returned to Debar where he began to organize a general rebellion. With Croia in his possession, Scanderbeg, on November 27, 1443, declared his principality independent. Using the Debar region as his base, Scanderbeg’s rebels began a campaign against a large number of fortresses including the strategically significant fortress of Svetigrad (Kodzhadzhik). The siege of Svetigrad was led by Moses the Great, one of Scanderbeg’s loyal supporters and his three thousand strong rebel force from the Debar region. After a fierce battle, the fortress fell and the entire Debar region became completely liberated.

For the time being the rebels ceased their easterly expansion and, as a result, the eastern border of the greater Debar region became the borderline between the Ottomans and the rebels which in the next three decades or so would become an area of continuous conflict.

The next great battle was fought on April 29, 1444 at Dolni Debar. A rebel strike force of insurgents from the Debar region led by Moses the Great decimated the Ottoman army leaving seven thousand dead and five hundred captured prisoners.
Two years later, on September 27, 1446, another battle took place near Debar in which the Ottomans suffered heavy losses again.

Scanderbeg was becoming a legend and a serious threat to Ottoman stability, so in the summer of 1448 Sultan Murat II, together with his heir prince Mehmed, prepared a strike force and set out to find him. Their first encounter with the rebels was at the fortress of Svetigrad where a garrison of local rebels, led by Peter Perlat, offered them strong resistance.
Unfortunately, after a long drawn out siege the fortress fell. All was not lost however, due to more pressing matters elsewhere the Sultan decided to abandon his pursuit and left, leaving a greater part of the Debar region still in the hands of the insurgents.

The next encounter came in 1452 when Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror amassed a large army in Ohrid. Upon finding out, Scanderbeg immediately concentrated his forces at the military camp of Oronic, the present day town of Debar and launched an attack, together with Moses the Great and his nephew Hamza. The opposing armies met near the fortress of Modrich and Scanderbeg’s forces broke through the Turkish lines in a single battle giving him a decisive victory and forcing the Turkish army to retreat.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the following spring Mehmed dispatched his general Ibrahim Pasha and launched another attack on the rebels. The armies met in Polog on April 22, 1453. Led by Scanderbeg and Moses the rebels fought fiercely and gained another victory over the Turks.

Unable to gain any ground against the rebels by battle, the Sultan turned to bribery. He paid Moses to look the other way while a large Ottoman force crossed the Debar frontier and approached Scanderbeg’s forces in a surprise attack. During this catastrophic battle which took place in 1455 near Berat, six thousand men, nearly half of the rebel force, were lost. To save himself Moses fled the region and joined the Ottoman army. In spite of the heavy losses, the people of Debar did not give up and continued to support Scanderbeg. In no time at all, he was able to recoup his losses, rebuild his army and renew the conflict.

The next Ottoman attack came a year later. This time not only was Scanderbeg ready for it, but being aware that it was led by the traitor Moses the Great, he marched his army in person to meet him. On May 19, 1456 near Oronic, the rebels attacked and defeated the Ottoman army of fifteen thousand, giving Scanderbeg another victory. Pleased with the results, Scanderbeg forgave Moses for his treachery and welcomed him back to the rebel camp. Upon their return home, Scanderbeg reinstated Moses to his former position entrusting him, once again, with the defense of the Debar region.

When it seemed like Scanderbeg’s worries were over a new set of problems began to plague the uprising. The Sultan made a deal with a number of powerful feudal lords and they in turn began their personal attacks on rebels causing them to lose massive territories. One such territory was the fortress of Modrich which, like the fortress of Svetigrad, was of strategic importance.

By gaining Modrich the Ottomans gained a safe route to the rebel camps. Losing no time, an Ottoman army was dispatched and reached the town of Lesh in the summer of 1457. Feeling their vulnerability, instead of waiting for the attack, the rebels took the offensive and met the marching Turkish army head on in a fierce battle. Surprised by the attack the Ottoman army broke up and gave Scanderbeg another decisive victory. With the success of this battle the rebels diplomatically regained all previously lost territories.

The prolonged struggle with the rebels convinced the Sultan that Scanderbeg could be subdued and the rebel territory freed only by a large-scale military campaign. Led by the battle hardened, experienced commander Balaban Pasha, from Mat, a massive campaign was organized and unleashed upon the rebels in 1465. A fierce battle ensued near Debar but the Turkish force was much too powerful to break. Besides losing much of his force, Scanderbeg also lost many of his experienced commanders, including Moses the Great, who was captured, sent to Tsari Grad and cruelly put to death. Both sides suffered heavy losses but Balaban succeeded in quelling the rebellion but only in the Debar region. The rebellion was moved to the interior of Albania and continued to flourish until a decade past Scanderbeg’s death.

Scanderbeg died of illness on January 17, 1468. Ten years later after the fall of Croia, the last bastion of rebel strength, on January 16, 1478 the rebellion was over. This, however, was not the first or last rebellion. In time, and with the breakdown of Ottoman rule, more and more revolts would take place in the future.

As mentioned earlier, with the breakdown of the timar and Spahi system and the decline of the Ottoman state, exploitation of the dependent population in Macedonia was at an incline. Violence, especially on the part of the Ottoman government, was reaching a record high. Life for the average Macedonian was unbearable and frustration began to express itself in various forms. Peasants who could no longer afford to pay their taxes were fleeing to the mountains and settling in less accessible places where the tax collectors could not easily find them. Without a peaceful means of relieving their anguish and exploitation from the Ottoman yoke, the Macedonian people had no choice but to turn to violence.

The next local uprising took place in 1564/65, in the Moriovo region and spread to the Prilep plains and from there to the town of Prilep. Dubbed as the Moriovo and Prilep revolt, it is unknown why this revolt began, but it is clear that three peasants and two priests from the Moriovo district started it. No sooner had the trouble started than the Sultan, through a decree dated October 3, 1564, ordered that the leaders of the revolt be put to death while the followers were to be sent to serve as oarsmen on Turkish galleys. Before the decree could be enforced, however, the perpetrators fled causing the Sultan to order another decree for their capture.

Prilep soon became a hotbed of demonstrations when the Ottoman court ruled in favour of a Pasha in a dispute with the peasants. According to a document dated December 1565 a revolt broke out inside the town of Prilep when the Prilep Court, in settling a dispute between the peasants and Mustapha Pasha, ruled in favour of the Pasha. When the news hit the streets more than a thousand rebels from the surrounding villages, armed with sticks and stones, assembled and stormed the court. It is unknown how this revolt ended.

Since Christians by law were not allowed to carry arms, they had no effective defense against maltreatment, especially from the corrupt legal system. The only recourse available to them was to become outlaws. Although unpopular, outlawry was one of the oldest forms of armed struggle expressed by the Macedonian people, which unfortunately, reached epidemic proportions over the course of the 17th century. The outlaws, or haiduks, lived secret lives known only to other outlaws or trusted friends. When it came to defending their homes and properties, they came together in bands or druzhini of twenty to thirty people. Occasionally, for defensive purposes a number of smaller bands combined together to form a large band usually numbering no more than three hundred people. The band leaders or vojvodi were elected members of their bands and were usually chosen for their military skills and leadership abilities. The ranks of the outlaws came mostly from the feudally tied peasants but it was not uncommon to find priests and monks among them. Women too were known to have joined outlaw bands. The oldest record of a woman outlaw dates back to 1636. Her name was Kira and she was from the village Chapari. Kira was a member of Petar Dundar’s band from the village Berantsi, near Bitola. There were also recorded cases of women who led outlaw bands.

The main preoccupation of the outlaws was to defend the oppressed and in times of trouble come to their aid. In retaliation the outlaws were known to attack feudal estates and even burn down Spahi harvests. They also ambushed and robbed merchant caravans and tax collectors. Bands were known to have attacked some of the larger towns. On several occasions outlaws banded together and overran Bitola, Lerin, Ohrid and Resen. Twice they looted the bezesteen in Bitola, once in 1646 and another time in 1661.

To curb outlaw activities, the Ottoman authorities frequently undertook extreme measures by organizing posses to hunt them down, burning down villages that were known to be sympathetic to outlaws and imprisoning and sometimes executing relatives of outlaws. When all these measures failed to stop them, the Ottomans introduced the services of the derbendkis, to provide safe passage through the countryside to important functionaries such as merchants, tax collectors and travelers.

Outlaws who were captured were tortured, sent to prison for life, or executed. The lucky ones were executed outright. Their dead bodies were then impaled on stakes or on iron hooks for everyone to see. Those less fortunate were skinned alive, had their heads split open and were left to die a slow and painful death. Those sent to prison were usually chained to galleys and spent the rest of their lives as oarsmen.

Despite the extreme measures exercised against them, the outlaws were never stamped out and were always a part of every conflict. The outlaws were the nucleus of the armed forces and the experienced leaders and commanders of the revolts and uprisings. They were the first to raise the spirit of resistance and the first to stand up for the people. That is why the outlaws are so widely revered in Macedonian folklore.

Unwilling to yield, the Ottoman noose continued to tighten on the peasants, Christian and Muslim alike. Their moment to strike back, however, came when the Ottomans became entangled with the Austrians in a war during the Austrian invasion of Macedonia.

What came to be known as the Karposh Uprising, dubbed after its leader Karposh, was a Macedonian people’s revolt against the economic, social and political injustices perpetrated by the Ottoman overlords.

As mentioned earlier, in 1683 the Ottomans, for the second time, tried to take Vienna but failed after a two-month siege. The city was saved with the assistance of the Polish army led by King John Sobiesky. The Ottoman army suffered a catastrophic defeat resulting in enormous losses of territory, material and manpower. To prevent further expansion and keep the Ottomans in check, the Holy League of Austria, Poland, Venice and later Russia was created.

Once they gained momentum the Austrians continued to drive the Ottomans southward reaching the northern boundaries of Macedonia. Led by General Piccolomini, the Austrians entered the Plain of Skopje on October 25, 1689 and were met by a jubilant crowd celebrating their triumphant arrival.

The Austrians continued to march southward and came upon the town of Skopje only to find it empty. Skopje had been evacuated and left with plenty of food and all kinds of merchandise. Feeling that it may have been a trap, Piccolomini withdrew his forces at once and set the town on fire. The fires raged for two whole days and consumed the greater part of Skopje.

The Austrians continued to move through the Macedonian interior and set camp in the village of Orizari, near Kumanovo. A detachment was sent to Shtip, which arrived there at dawn on November 10, 1689 only to be met with Ottoman resistance. A fierce battle broke out but the Austrians managed to force the Ottomans out, leaving about two thousand of their dead behind. After setting the town on fire, the Austrians left for camp but on their way ran into an Ottoman detachment of three hundred soldiers. Another battle ensued and the Ottomans disbursed.

During mid-November the Austrians organized a detachment of Albanian Catholic volunteers and sent them to Tetovo where they succeeded in putting down a garrison of more than six hundred Ottoman troops. On December 20 an Austrian detachment, with Serbs led by Captain Sanoski, was sent from Prishtina to Veles where it succeeded in capturing and burning down the town. Unfortunately upon their retreat, the detachment was ambushed by Janissaries and Sanoski was mortally wounded.

The destruction and mayhem caused by the Austro-Turkish War brought a sudden deterioration in the economic and political situation in the region. The need for further military operations forced the Ottoman state to increase its purchases of grain, fodder, livestock, timber and other agricultural products, far below normal prices. Also, to pay for the military campaigns, a host of new taxes were introduced. During this difficult period the Rajak also suffered violence at the hands of deserters from the Ottoman army and from the defectors of the central government.

Among those who deserted their military duty was the notorious general Jegen Pasha, the former Bejlerbej of Rumelia. With ten thousand deserters among his ranks he ravaged the Balkan Peninsula until he was finally put to death in February of 1689.

The military catastrophe and the chaotic situation inside the Ottoman Empire created suitable conditions for widespread outlawry in all parts of Macedonia, especially in the Moriovo, Bitola, Tikvesh, Veles, Shtip and Mt. Dospat regions which led up to the famous Karposh Uprising.

Sometime in the middle of October 1689 the famous outlaw Arambasha Karposh led an uprising which broke out in the region between Kustendil and Skopje. Immediately after declaring a revolt, Karposh attacked and captured Kriva Palanka. Kriva Palanka was an Ottoman stronghold built in 1636 to house Ottoman soldiers. After capturing the stronghold, Karposh declared it liberated rebel territory and made it his centre of resistance. Among the items captured at the stronghold were six cannons, a real prize for the rebels. After securing Kriva Palanka the rebels built and secured a new stronghold near Kumanovo.

It is not known whether or not the rebels were assisted by the Austrians but it is possible. According to contemporary Ottoman chronicles and local legends, Karposh was known as the "King of Kumanovo". This could have been a title conferred upon him by the Austrian emperor Leopold I who sent him a Busby (a tall fur hat worn by hussars and guardsmen) as a gift and a sign of recognition.

Unfortunately for the rebels, the current situation did not last long and a reversal in military and political events played a decisive role in the fate of the uprising. The Ottomans had by now had enough time to take countermeasures to stop the economic and military decline of their state.
The first step taken in Macedonia was to put down the rebellion and drive the Austrian army out of Macedonian territory. To do that the Ottomans employed the services of the Crimean Khan Selim Giray, along with his fierce detachment of Tartar worriers.

The council of war which met in Sofia on November 14, 1689 decided to attack the Karposh uprising through Kustendil. But before they could do that they had to secure Kriva Palanka.

Upon finding that they were about to be attacked, the rebels set fire to Kriva Palanka and concentrated their forces in the new fortress in Kumanovo. No sooner had they prepared their defenses than the Ottoman and Tartar detachments arrived. The rebels stood their ground and fought gallantly but were quickly overwhelmed by the numerically superior Ottoman force. A large number of rebels, including Karposh, were captured at the outset.

When the battle was over, all rebels who resisted to the end were slaughtered. Karposh and the others were taken prisoner. After subduing Kumanovo, the Ottomans left for Skopje where they executed Karposh and the others.

Karposh was brought before Selim Giray who at the time was standing on the Stone Bridge over the River Vardar. Selim used him for target practice and impaled him with his Tartar lances. He then had his body hurled into the Vardar River. Karposh died early in December of 1689 and with him died the Karposh uprising.

For the rebels who survived the battles there was no salvation from the Ottoman backlash except to leave Macedonia. Many fled north beyond the Sava and Danube Rivers. Some even went as far north as Russia and joined the Russian military. There they formed the "Macedonian regiment" which became part of the regular Russian army.

The failed Karposh uprising depleted the local population of northwestern Macedonia, opening the way for large scale Albanian immigration.

Just as the Karposh revolt was winding down in Macedonia, on April 6, 1690, Leopold I issued a manifesto inviting "all peoples of Albania, Serbia, Mysia, Bulgaria, Silistria, Illyria, Macedonia and Rashka to join the Austrians in taking up arms against the Turks." Then on April 26, 1690, he issued a letter making Macedonia and her people his protectorate. It has been said that Leopold acted on the advice of Macedonians Marko Krajda of Kozhani and Dimitri Georgija Popovich of Solun. Among other things the letter stated that "we graciously accept the Macedonian people, in its entirety in every respect, under our imperial and regal protection." Another letter was issued on May 31, 1690 extending Austria’s protection to Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Unfortunately, all these good gestures were too little too late for Macedonia which by 1690 was back under tight Ottoman control.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 13:26
History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present

Part 17 - Revival of the Macedonian State, Language and Culture

It was Herbert George Wells who said that the barbarian invasion of Europe started with the rise of the Great Wall of China. Migrating tribes of Mongolian nomads, who spent their summers on the Siberian plains and their winters in East Central China, could no longer do so because the Great Wall of China blocked them. Unable to go to their traditional lands, the tribes were forced to change their wintering patterns. Unable to cross into Eastern Central China, the Mongolian tribes began a westward movement putting pressure on the people whose lands they invaded. By the time the great wall was finished in the 6th century AD, many of the Mongolian tribes had abandoned their traditional eastern migrating patterns and moved westward.

It is my belief that the Slavs did not move willingly but were pushed out as a consequence of this great wave of tribal migration.

Who the Slavs were and where they came from are still controversial questions, which will be answered in time and with diligent archeological research. In the meantime, there are two emerging theories.

The first and more popular theory is that the modern Slavs are the descendents of the first Europeans. They are identified by many names but are best known as the Veneti. The second theory is that the Slavs of Europe are the remnants of Alexander the Greats’ settlers and soldiers. It is well known that Alexander the Great established many cities and outposts wherever he campaigned in order to support his military needs. Settlers were brought from Macedonia and given lands to farm. When Alexander’s empire collapsed, instead of returning home, many of his people remained at their outposts and permanently settled the new lands. Archeological digs in India have revealed that Macedonian estates were still in existence two centuries after Alexander’s empire collapsed. It is conceivable then that the Macedonian settlers of Europe also remained on their estates, living undisturbed for centuries, and migrated northward as their populations expanded. Being already civilized, the Macedonians had a well-established language and culture, which they disseminated among the native populations from which they employed their workers.

These are, however, only theories and much archeological evidence is needed to validate them. On the other hand, what is certain and well documented is the 8th century revival of the Macedonian language and culture.

As for the language of the Slavs, there are some who believe that the Slavs north of the Danube spoke different languages and only learned the so-called Slav language after they crossed the Danube River. This was also the case with the Huns, Avars and Bulgars. Today’s Bulgarians speak a Slavic language as a consequence of being assimilated by the indigenous Slavic speaking population that lived south of the Danube. “The Bulgarians had adopted Slavic language and culture. It is paradoxical that the Bulgarians, a Turkic people who adopted Slavic language and customs, took a significant role in standardizing Slavic writing.” (Page 197, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, Jefferson North Carolina: McFarland, 1997) The reason for adopting the Slavic language was because the majority of the people whom the Bulgars occupied were Slavs, mostly Macedonians. The true Bulgars their Turko-Tartar rulers were only a small minority.

Relations between Tsari Grad and Bulgaria soured when Khan Presian became ruler of the Bulgars in 835 AD. While the Pravoslavs were busy fighting the Muslims, the Bulgar king sought the opportunity and invaded Pravoslav territory, bringing thirty years of peace to an end.

A large Bulgar invasion force entered Pravoslav territory and occupied several regions of northern Macedonia. Bulgar encroachment continued up until Boris’s reign. By then the Bulgars had occupied a large part of the Strumitsa region and parts of central Macedonia to the Vardar valley. Finally in 864 AD the Pravoslavs intervened but instead of pushing the Bulgars out, they settled for peace. The peace treaty did not free Macedonia but it did put an end to Bulgar expansionism for a while. According to the terms of the treaty Boris was also obliged to accept Christianity as his state religion.

It was during the reign of the Pravoslav emperor Michael III (842-867) that Solun had definitely established itself as the religious and philosophical center of the empire. This was the time when Kiril (Cyril) and Metodi (Methodius) set off on a series of missions to spread the doctrines of Christianity to various places in Eastern Europe and Asia. (Solun up to this point had not been invaded by the Slavs, but the Solunians spoke Slavic).

I just want to mention here that, by the eighth century AD, the Macedonian eparchy was controlled by a Macedonian Archbishopric with its center located in Solun and bishoprics existed in eighteen towns including Lerin, Kostur, Voden and Serres.

The brothers Kiril and Metodi were Macedonians, natives of Solun, who were acclaimed as the apostles of the Southern Slavs and the fathers of Slav literary culture. Kiril, the younger of the two, was given the name Constantine when he was baptized. It was much later when he received the name Kiril.

Kiril was very fortunate to have studied in Tsari Grad at a young age and receive his education from Leo the Grammarian and Photius, a prominent educator at the imperial university. Kiril was an extraordinary student and earned himself the nickname "the Philosopher". After he finished his education he was ordained deacon and later became professor of philosophy at the imperial school in Tsari Grad, where he took over the chair from Photius. Soon afterwards, he retired to the quiet solitude of a monastery. From there, in 861 AD, he was summoned by the emperor, Michael III, and sent on a mission to Christianize the Khazars of southern Russia who lived between the Dnieper and Volga Rivers.

The elder brother Metodi was a well-liked, intelligent man who started his career in his father’s footsteps. At first he served in the military in Solun. Later, at age twenty, he became governor of one of the Slav colonies in the Opsikion province in Asia. Then he became a monk and, like his brother, took part in a mission to Christianize the Khazars.

Kiril and Metodi were two of seven siblings. Their father Lev was a prominent Macedonian man who served as assistant to the Solun military commander of the Pravoslav army.

The careers of the Solun brothers took a turn for the better in 862 AD when, Rostislav, the prince of Moravia sent his ambassador to Tsari Grad seeking missionaries capable of teaching his people to read and write in their own language. Rostislav, fearful of his powerful German neighbours, sought the opportunity to strengthen his alliance with the Pravoslavs to counter-balance the German missionary influence in his kingdom. Rostislav preferred the ecclesiastical politics of Photius, now patriarch of Tsari Grad, over those of his western counterpart.

When word came that Emperor Michael was looking for capable missionaries, Photius decided that Kiril and Metodi were the most suitable candidates for the job. The Solun brothers, being Slav speakers themselves, knew the Solunian dialect of the Slav language well and accepted the task.

The old-Macedonian dialect was quite well understood by all the Slav tribes. Unfortunately, teaching the illiterate to read and write was easier said than done. Even though the Slavs had a written form of language described as “lines and incisions”, it was not an easy language to learn.

Kiril was familiar with the Glagolic script but that also was too complex a language for illiterate people to grasp quickly. According to Tsarnorizets Hrabar, an advocate of Macedonian literacy, Kiril and Metodi first tried to use the Koine and then Latin alphabets, but proper pronunciation could not be achieved. Slav speech was far too complex to record with just Koine or Latin letters. Kiril was an intelligent man and solved the problem by constructing a new alphabet based on old Macedonian traditions. The pattern and some letters he based on the Koine alphabet but he enriched it by adding new letters. He borrowed some of the new letters from the Glagolic script and some he fashioned from ancient Macedonian symbols that had traditional Macedonian meaning. “Peter Hill argues that Old Church Slavonic was more than merely a written dialect. It is naïve, he says, to imagine that this construction of a written language was possible without established tradition. Therefore it can safely be assumed that there was at least some tradition on which Cyril and Methodius could build. Presumably their familiarity with this tradition derived from the fact that they were Slavic themselves.” (Page 198, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 1997)

When it was completed Kiril’s alphabet consisted of 38 letters, each accurately and exactly representing a unique sound in the Slav speech. The phonetic nature of Kiril’s language made spelling words very simple. One only needed to learn the alphabet to have the ability to read and write. The same is true to this day.

I just want to mention that there are some references claiming that Kiril was the inventor of the Glagolic script, but they are incorrect. Kiril was familiar with the Glagolic script and had composed Glagolic texts but we now know from recent discoveries of ancient inscriptions that the Glagolic alphabet existed before Kiril’s time.

In 862 AD Kiril and Metodi, along with a number of followers, arrived in Moravia in Rostislav’s court. They immediately set out to work and to their surprise Kiril’s vernacular was not only well understood, but became popular with the Moravians.

The Pravoslav missionaries continued their work for a while, with much success, but were soon handicapped by the lack of Pravoslav bishops to ordain their priests. Also, their popularity with the Moravians displeased the German missionaries who saw them as competition and harshly objected to their presence.

German hostilities reached their peak when the German Emperor Louis forced Rostislav to take an oath of loyalty to him. The German prelate, the bishop of Passau, who had the power to ordain Pravoslav priests refused to do so out of contempt. Unable to continue their work the missionaries were forced to return to Tsari Grad.

On their way back the Macedonian brothers took a detour through Venice where they learned that the Pope had excommunicated Photius, the Pravoslav Patriarch in Tsari Grad. Pravoslav missionaries and their liturgical use of the Macedonian language were vehemently criticized.

In 858 AD Emperor Michael III, on his own authority, deposed Patriarch Ignatius and replaced him with the more progressive Photius. The Pope, however, did not agree with Michael’s decision and proclaimed his deeds invalid. At the same time the Pope denounced both Photius and the emperor.

When Pope Nicholas I found out that the Pravoslav missionaries were in Venice he summoned them to Rome. By the time they arrived, however, Nicholas had died and the political situation had changed for the better. In a turn of events Nicholas’s successor, Adrian II, warmly welcomed the strangers, especially when he found out that they were bringing him an important gift. Kiril it seems had recovered some relics of Pope St. Clement when he was in the Crimea visiting the Khazars and offered them to Adrian as gifts.

When they arrived, Adrian conducted an investigation and found no misconduct on the part of the Pravoslavs. In his judgment he permitted Kiril and Metodi to receive Episcopal consecration and allowed their newly converted priests to be ordained. He also approved Slavonic to be used in liturgy.

Sadly, Kiril died on February 14, 869 AD in Rome and never made it back home. After Kiril’s death Metodi pleaded with Pope Adrian to allow him to take his brother’s body to Solun for burial but Adrian would not permit it. It was the wish of Kiril and Metodi’s mother that if either son should die, the other would bring the body back for a decent burial in the family monastery. Unfortunately Adrian would not allow it claiming that it would not be fitting for the Pope to permit the body of so distinguished a Christian to be taken away. He declared that a man so famous should be buried in a famous place. Kiril was buried with great pomp in the church of San Clemente on the Coelian, where the relics of St. Clement had been enshrined.

After Kiril died Metodi took over the cause and leadership of the mission from his brother. Having been consecrated, he obtained a letter of recommendation from the Pope and the Holy See and quickly returned to his duties. At the request of Kozzel, prince of Pannonia, who at the time wanted to revive the ancient archdiocese of Sirmium (now Mitrovitsa), Metodi was made metropolitan (Archbishop). He was given a large area of responsibility with boundaries that extended to the borders of Bulgaria. Unfortunately as the political situation in Moravia was shifting Metodi’s title and his papal approval did not mean much to the Western missionaries, especially the Germans who began a smear campaign against him. To make matters worse, Rostislav's nephew, Svatopluk, allied himself with Carloman of Bavaria and had his uncle driven out. After that it did not take long before Metodi was in trouble again.

In 870 AD Metodi was summoned before a synod of German bishops. They found him guilty of misconduct, no doubt on trumped-up charges, and locked him in a leaking jail cell. It took two years of pleading before Pope John VIII could get him out. Unfortunately, to avoid further controversies Pope John withdrew his permission to use Slavonic, a barbarous language as he called it, for any purpose other than preaching. At the same time he reminded the Germans that Pannonia was never German and since age immemorial it belonged to the Holy See.

After his release, Metodi continued his work in Moravia but there too he got into trouble. Metodi did not approve of Svatopluk’s wicked lifestyle and made his displeasure public. In retaliation, Svatopluk reported Metodi to the Holy See. He accused him of conducting divine worship in Slavonic and of heresy, charging that he omitted the words "and the Son" from the creed. At that time these words where not yet introduced everywhere in the West.

In 878 AD, as a result of Svatopluk’s accusations, Pope John VIII summoned Metodi to Rome and conducted an inquiry. Metodi was a serious man, a dedicated Christian, and was able to convince the Pope both of his devotion to his religion and of the necessity to use Slavonic liturgy. Even though Pope John was in agreement with Metodi on most matters, he had certain reservations about the use of the Slavonic language. It seems that some of the western missionaries perceived the Slavonic language as a threat to their own mission and did everything in their power to condemn it. They alleged that, being created by mere men, the Slavonic language was not from God and that God had created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Koine and Latin. Metodi however fought back with equally persuasive arguments, counter-claiming that God did not create the Hebrew, Koine or Latin languages. God created the Syrian language which Adam and the people after him spoke until the flood. Then during the building of the Tower of Babel, God distributed the various languages among the people and created the written form of the languages. His arguments may have bought Metodi some time but he was still in trouble with the German missionaries.

Seeing that he could not easily get rid of him, Svatopluk used his influence as king and persuaded the Pope to appoint Wiching, a known adversary, to work with Metodi. The German (or French) priest Wiching was brought in to assist Metodi as one of his bishops. Wiching was an implacable opponent of Metodi who worked against him tirelessly. This unscrupulous prelate continued to persecute Metodi, even to the extent of forging pontifical documents.

After Metodi’s death, Wiching obtained the archiepiscopal see, banished Metodi’s followers, and undid as much as he could of Metodi’s work in Moravia.

When Wiching was appointed as his assistant, Metodi must have realized that he was fighting a losing battle. In the last four years of his life he took a break from missionary work and translated most of the Bible from Koine to Slavonic.

Metodi died in 885 AD, probably from exhaustion. His funeral service was carried out in Koine, Slavonic and Latin. Metodi was very popular with the people and many came to his funeral to pay their last respects.

I just want to add here that Saints Kiril and Metodi were always celebrated in the lands of their missions and after 1880 they were also celebrated throughout the entire western world.

In Tsari Grad in the meantime, tired of his uncle Bardas, Emperor Michael III had him assassinated and replaced with Basil the Macedonian, whom he elevated to the position of Caesar. About a year later, Basil got tired of Michael and after a heavy drinking bout had him murdered.

Already being Caesar, Basil assumed the position of emperor unopposed in 867 AD. As an emperor, Basil the Macedonian reorganized the empire’s finances and justly and fairly managed the empire’s administration. He had some luck with his campaigns and recovered some long lost territories in the east from the Muslims. His fleet recovered control of the Mediterranean Sea, driving out the Corsairs. His army managed to drive the Saracens out of Calabria but had little success in Sicily. After his campaigns failed miserably in 886 AD, Basil died without any victories. Basil I was most memorable for staring a Macedonian Pravoslav dynasty that lasted for over two centuries. Basil I was succeeded by his son Leo VI, also known as Leo the wise.

Metodi’s death did not end the spread of the Macedonian language and culture as many of his enemies had hoped. In fact, many of Kiril and Metodi’s disciples rose to the task and carried on in the tradition of their teachers, spreading Macedonian culture to the Slavs even under the worst of circumstances.

The most famous of the Pravoslav disciples were Kliment (Clement), Naum, Angelarius Sava and Gorazd. Even though Gorazd was groomed to take over from Metodi, the first to rise to the occasion was Kliment, also known as Kliment of Ohrid.

Kliment was one of the brightest of Kiril and Metodi’s students and played a pivotal role in their careers. After his banishment from Moravia and Pannonia however, Kliment returned to Ohrid to his place of birth (although some claim he was born in Solun).

Kliment spent the next seven years, from 886 to 893 AD, in Ohrid doing God’s work and teaching the Slavonic language. During his stay in Ohrid he was instrumental in founding the Ohrid Literary School and developing the first university in the Balkans and perhaps in all of Europe. It has been said that three thousand five hundred clergy and teachers were educated in the University of Ohrid. But that was not all, Kliment was also responsible for writing poetry and translating other works from Koine to Slavonic.

In 839 AD Kliment was joined by one of his life long friends, Naum. Kliment and Naum were responsible for refining Kiril’s alphabet as well as re-writing many of Kiril’s works from Glagolic to Slavonic (Cyrillic). Kiril, it seems, had written many works in the Glagolic script in anticipation of using them in his teaching but after finding out that Glagolic was too difficult for lay people to grasp, he opted for the simpler Slavonic which he himself created.

During Leo VI’s rule the peace treaty between the Pravoslavs and Bulgars was once again breached. When the Bulgar ruler, Simeon, came to power in 893 AD he resumed aggression in Macedonia. His armies continued to penetrate further west and south and came to within twenty-two kilometers of Solun. A new peace treaty was signed in 896 AD and Leo VI agreed to pay Simeon an annual subsidy of an undisclosed amount to cease his aggression.

After coming to power, in 893 AD, Simeon invited Kliment to Preslav with an offer to make him his son’s royal counselor and assistant. The offer however did not materialize due to some demands Simeon had made that seemed unreasonable to Kliment. Simeon had some reservations about making the Slavic language official and requested that Kliment modify it. Kliment of course refused, wanting the work of Kiril and Metodi to stay as it was. Simeon himself was educated in Koine at Tsari Grad and had developed ambitions to take over the Pravoslav empire and become Emperor of a Pravoslav-Bulgar empire.

When the original offer did not work out, Kliment was given a new appointment in the Velika bishopric in a backward province. This was somewhat of a demotion for Kliment but at the same time it allowed him more time to work on his own projects. He continued to translate chants, psalms, festal fragments from the Bible, moralities and so on.

Towards the end of their careers, both Kliment and Naum built churches on opposite sides of Lake Ohrid. Closest to the city, Kliment dedicated a shrine to the holy healer Panteleimon. A little later, near the springs of the Crn Drim River, Naum built a monument in honour of Gabriel and Michael, the archangels.

Both Kliment and Naum were buried in the tombs they had built for themselves. Naum was buried in 910 AD and Kliment six years later in 916 AD.

Naum, like Kliment, was also an important contributor to the development of the Macedonian language and culture. It is believed that Naum was born in Macedonia in 835 AD and had been Kliment’s inseparable companion since his earliest youth. As mentioned earlier, Naum was a student of Kiril and Metodi’s and was active among the Slavs in Moravia and Pannonia. Naum, also known as Naum of Ohrid, was inseparable from his teachers and fellow pupils and suffered the same humiliation and injustice they did. Their most difficult and fateful moments came after Metodi’s death when, under the influence of German churchmen, the Franks attacked the Macedonian missionaries and tortured them. In the words of Kliment of Ohrid’s biographer: "Soldiers, stern men because they were Germans and by nature fierce, their fierceness being increased by their orders, took the priests, led them out of the town, pulled off their clothes and began to drag them along naked. Thus by one act they did them two wrongs: dishonored them and tortured them in the icy fog, which had descended on the Danube banks. Besides this, they put their swords against their heads, ready to cut them, and their spears against their breasts, ready to make them bleed, so they would not die a sudden death..."

"Subjected to cruel torture, some of the pupils succumbed, while the others, among them particularly Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Sava and Angelarius, were declared excommunicate by Bishop Vihing. Their books were seized and burnt. The younger pupils (about 200) were sold as slaves, while these five were driven out of the country."

On their way home to Macedonia, at the request of Boris the Bulgarian prince, Kliment, Naum and Angelarius (who died shortly afterwards) took a detour through Pliska, Bulgaria. After a short visit they felt it was time to return home and continued their work translating books from Koine to Slavonic. Prince Boris insisted that they remain in Pliska but when he couldn’t convince Kliment he insisted that Naum must stay. Having no choice, Naum spent the next seven years, from 885 to 893 AD, in Pliska before returning home to join Kliment.

Leo VI became emperor in 886 AD and for a while busied himself writing a manual on military tactics. He was educated by the Pravoslav patriarch Photius and had been co-emperor to his father, Basil I, since 870 AD. During his reign, the empire prospered and Leo managed to keep the Bulgars at bay, though eventually he had to make concessions in order to halt their slow advance. Besides the Bulgar nuisance there was one unfortunate incident that marred Leo’s career, which was a monumental blow to Macedonia. It was the sacking of Solun.

In 904 AD, while unprotected and unprepared for military warfare, Solun was attacked by Saracen Arab pirates. The Solunians put up strong resistance but were overwhelmed and could not avoid defeat. After the city’s defenses collapsed it was brutally attacked and mercilessly ravaged for days until it was literally laid to waste.

In 907 AD Leo signed a treaty with Russia to regulate trade between the two powers.

Leo was unfortunate not to have left a male heir. He married four times which got him into trouble with the Church, but in the end he died without an heir.

Leo VI was replaced by his younger brother Alexander, the third son of Basil I. Leo VI made Alexander his co-emperor in 879 AD but ruled by himself until his death in 912 AD.

No sooner had he become emperor than Alexander dismissed all of Leo's advisers and exiled Leo’s widow Zoë to a nunnery. Alexander also refused to honour his brother’s obligations and pay the Bulgars tribute. King Simeon was not at all pleased and resumed his hostilities against the Pravoslavs. One positive thing that Alexander did was to make his young nephew (Leo IV’s son) Constantine VII his co-emperor.

Alexander ruled for only a year before five-year-old Constantine VII succeeded him. Being of young age, Constantine could not officially rule so from time to time relatives and court officials were appointed to act on his behalf. One such official was Romanus I, a soldier of some distinction, who co-ruled with Constantine from 920 to 944 AD.

Constantine VII was considered a good emperor because he brought prolonged stability to his empire. Commerce and the arts flourished during his reign and his world enjoyed prosperity and peace.

It was during Constantine’s reign that Simeon’s son, Petar, became ruler of the Bulgars in 927 AD. It was at Petar’s insistence that the Pravoslavs relinquish a great part of Macedonia to the Bulgars.

Constantine VII’s relatively long reign ended in 959 AD and he was replaced by his son Romanus II. Constantine named his son Romanus to honour his trusted friend and co-emperor Romanus I.

Romanus II’s reign was active but brief. Unlike his father who sought peace, Romanus wanted military adventures and initiated a period of military activities. He exploited a weakness in the Muslim empire and attacked the Saracens. In 960 AD he recaptured Crete and invaded Cilicia.

Romanus II died in 963 AD leaving two infants, Basil II and Constantine VIII, as heirs. They would share their rule with their mother, Theophano, as regent.

Soon after Romanus’s death one of his victorious generals, General Nicephorus, who had campaigned against the Saracens, returned and married empress Theophano. Even though he recovered Cyprus and his armies overran most of Syria for the glory of the empire, his motives towards the throne made him extremely unpopular with the clergy and the court. As his unpopularity grew Theophano decided to be rid of him and annulled her marriage. She then had him murdered.

John (Ivan I) Tsimisces, the man who arranged for Nicephorus’s murder forced himself onto the throne and proclaimed himself “associate ruler”, to rule on behalf of the two children. He then expected Empress Theophano to marry him but when that did not happen, he had her exiled in a convent.

In time, John, like Basil the Macedonian, made amends for his crime and treated the boys and his colleagues with much respect which boosted his popularity in the court.

The relative peace in the Balkans was again disrupted in 969 AD when the Russian, Sviatoslav, decided to invade Bulgaria. The Russians had been active in the region for a while and were slowly encroaching on Bulgarian territory. The outright invasion was prompted by Petar’s death in 969 AD. After Petar’s death there was no heir present in his palace to replace him. Both of his sons, Boris and Roman, at the time were in Tsari Grad, held hostage by the Pravoslavs. Upon Petar’s death they were quickly returned to safeguard the Bulgar crown but by then it was too late. The Russians were already in Preslav, the Bulgar capital, and they captured the boys.

In the absence of a Bulgar heir, an uprising was organized by the Comitopoloi brothers David, Moses, Aaron and Samoil, sons of Duke-Comes Nikola.

Finally in 971 AD the Pravoslavs organized a counter attack and defeated Sviatoslav in Silistria on the Danube, in two decisive battles. A peace treaty was reached, which not only ceased Russian aggression but also gave the Pravoslavs access into Russia. With Russia as an ally, Christianization of the Russian people was not far behind.

Feeling confident after his victories with Russia, John decided to move his campaign to Syria where the Saracens had been on the move recovering more ground. Unfortunately his career was cut short by his sudden death in 976 AD.

By now Basil II had reached age twenty. He was of age to rule alone, along with his younger brother Constantine VIII, without the need of associates.

Since Petar’s rule in 927 AD, even though Bulgarian expansion in the region had halted, Macedonia was still occupied by both the Bulgars and the Pravoslavs. At the time, neither empire had access to resources outside of their own territories and both empires were dependent upon internal means to support their military and administrations. Macedonia’s economy, at the time, was mostly rural agriculture consisting of communes operated independently and co-operatively by clan and tribal relationships. Tribal lords ruled over principalities who for the most part were leaders of the co-operatives. As the need for more resources increased in order to support both empires, so did Pravoslav and Bulgar control over Macedonian principalities. The lords who once governed Macedonia independently or semi-independently soon became obedient tools of the occupiers. With time lords were appointed and dismissed at the will of their rulers and only existed to serve them. In addition to the appointed lords, the Bulgars brought their own judges, tax collectors and church officials to serve them.

With the strengthening of Pravoslav and Bulgar rule in Macedonia the decline of tribal self-government among the Macedonians was accelerated. At that time both the Pravoslav and Bulgar states had well formed feudal social relations. More and more agricultural co-operative communes were transformed into territorial communes, which accelerated the division of co-operatively held property. As a result of the clan-link breakdown in Macedonia, new and numerous feudal lords began to appear taking over lands and people. Among them were foreigners and the church. Foreigners from other parts of the empire were granted Macedonian lands and privileges to use the Macedonian population to do their work. Church and monastery land holdings were formed and in time increased through gifts and by means of confiscations. Many Macedonian peasants lost their lands to the church due to defaulting on loans or when being accused of religious crimes.

The establishment of feudal social structures in Macedonia opened the way for mass exploitation not only of the feudal principalities but also of the free peasants who still lived in rural communities. The situation worsened around the middle of the tenth century when the profitable Bulgar wars of conquest came to an end. Having no other substantial sources of income to support the Bulgar military, administrative, court and church systems, the Bulgars turned to feudal exploitation. After everyone took their cut, the Macedonian peasant was left with nothing. Pushed beyond the brink of starvation, the Macedonian peasants revolted in what later became known as the Bogomil movement. Even though it was religious in nature, the Bogomil movement was predominantly a class struggle between the poor Macedonian peasant and his rich foreign rulers. The Bogomil movement was initiated in Macedonia by a Macedonian priest named Bogomil.

It is said that at the dawn of medieval Macedonia two great men arose, Kliment of Ohrid and a priest named Bogomil. The first was an educator and writer whose distinguished work is the pride of Macedonia. The second was an idealist whose heretical theory became a rallying cry for the oppressed in Macedonia and later throughout Europe.

Bogomil was the first to teach religious elements adopted from the Paulician and Marsalian teachings. These beliefs, which forbade taking sacraments, worshipping images, including the cross, and refuted much of the Bible, were probably introduced to Macedonia by the Armenian colonists deposited in Thrace by past Pravoslav emperors. Many of the dualistic, anti-ecclesiastical and anti-feudal characteristics of these movements found their expression in the Bogomil ideology.

The first Bogomil church was built underground, probably by Bogomil himself, to avoid detection and persecution. Bogomil churches served as houses of worship and as schools to disseminate Bogomil doctrines. The Bogomils believed in the existence of a struggle between good and evil and that good would conquer in the end. They maintained that the rich were the servants of the devil and anyone who submitted to them was going against God. According to them, the entire visible world with all its laws and systems had been created not by God but by the devil. They opposed the existence of churches and monasteries, were against the use of crosses, icons and feasts and propagated the belief that man could pray to God without the aid of a priest.

Much of the energy attributed to the rise of the Bogomil movement came from the unbearable exploitation from foreign rulers and the Church.

The Bogomil movement, in reality, was a rebellion against secular feudal lords, the state body and the empires themselves. Foreign rule brought higher taxes, more violence and additional punishment for the common people. Villages grew poorer and peasants lost their properties and means of livelihood. Many were taken prisoner and became serfs and slaves, sometimes in their own lands.

Under feudal ownership the peasants were fully dependent upon their feudal lords. Some historians argue that Kliment of Ohrid’s visit to the Bulgar capital and his resignation as bishop a few months before his death was in response to the violence and devastation the Bulgars inflicted on the territory of the Bishopric of Velika.

The swift spread of the Bogomil movement prompted Petar, the Bulgar king, to take measures for its suppression but he did not succeed. Bogomilism was strongest in the territory defined by the triangle of the Vardar River, Ohrid and Mt. Shar. His intervention, however, did cause the Bogomils much suffering. But even the cruelest of methods did not stop the insurrection, which in time spread and became a general people’s movement.

Petar’s death and the Russian campaigns drastically reduced Bulgar control over Macedonia allowing the Bogomil movement to flourish, at least for a while.

In the meantime, eager to exploit the situation, a new force of power was emerging in Macedonia.

In 976 AD, the year emperor John (Tsimisces) died, the four brothers, David, Moses, Aaron and Samoil raised a rebellion. With the collapse of Bulgar rule and in the absence of Pravoslav forces, the rebellion was successful and the four brothers decided to rule their newly established state jointly. Unfortunately, the joint rule did not last too long. Vlach shepherds killed David, somewhere between Castra and Prespa, and Moses died during a siege in Serres.

In the absence of David and Moses a struggle for the throne ensued between Aaron and Samoil. Samoil, being a much more talented leader and statesman, was victorious.

To prevent further problems, Samoil had Aaron and all his family executed, with the exception of Aaron’s son Ivan.

After consolidating his power Samoil started a westerly campaign penetrating Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly right down to the Peloponnesus. Just recovering from its last sacking, Solun was about to be sacked again but Samoil decided to continue south and in so doing he took a large number of towns, including Larissa. Samoil resettled the inhabitants of Larissa in the interior of his state and incorporated the Larissan soldiers into his own army.

From Larissa he removed the remains of St. Achilles and brought them to Prespa, to the island of Ail. Protected by the waters of Lake Mala Prespa, Samoil made Ail his capital and built a magnificent palace on it.

It was no accident that Samoil received his strongest support from the territory defined by the triangle of the Vardar River, Ohrid and Mt. Shar. Samoil’s success was fueled by the Bogomil movement and its distaste for foreign rule. In Macedonia the Bogomil movement was particularly influential in the creation of favourable conditions for a liberation uprising and the formation of an independent state. Samoil took full advantage of the situation and established a Macedonian state.

Although Samoil may not have been a Bogomil himself, he accepted Bogomilism and its right to exist in his new kingdom. In turn, the Bogomils ceased to verbally attack Samoil, his upper classes, royal officials and high ranking clergy.

If anyone was not pleased with Samoil’s successes it was the Pravoslavs. Samoil, in combination with the Bogomil movement, was perceived as a powerful force and the Pravoslavs wanted it checked.

For the last ten years or so Basil II was attempting to put down insurrections in Asia, ignoring what was happening in his own backyard. But when the threat became too great to ignore, he gathered an army together and crossed over the frontier regions of the Rhodopes and the River Maritsa. There in August 986 AD, at the hands of Samoil, Basil suffered a crushing defeat. Basil lost nearly his entire cavalry, a large section of his infantry and narrowly escaped death himself. A peace treaty was concluded giving Samoil free control of his new territory.

Basil’s defeat caused even more internal strife among the Pravoslavs, especially in Asia. The Pravoslav quarrels took attention away from Samoil and opened opportunities to extend his rule to new territories.

In the summer of 989 AD Samoil resumed his campaign and took Berroea (Ber). After that he invaded Dalmatia and declared war on young king Vladimir. When Samoil reached Diocleia, Vladimir fled to the mountains but was persuaded by one of his tribal chieftains to surrender. Samoil took him prisoner and banished him to Prespa.

In much need of resources, Samoil plundered the whole of Dalmatia and took whatever he could find. He then burned the cities of Kotor and Dubrovnik and razed many villages as far away as Zadar. Samoil had no navy and was not able to take any of the coastal towns.

Back in Prespa meanwhile, Samoil’s daughter Kossara fell in love with the young captive king Vladimir and wanted to marry him. Not to disappoint her, Samoil gave in and gave her his blessings. Now that he was his son-in-law he gave Vladimir his former kingdom back. As a wedding gift he also gave the newlyweds Dyrrachium and all its territories. He even returned Trebinye to Vladimir's uncle, Dragomir.

Samoil’s good deeds not only earned him the respect of his son-in-law but Vladimir also became his ally and loyal vassal.

When the Pravoslav civil war ended Basil decided it was time to terminate his three year treaty with Samoil, which lasted from 987 to 990 AD. War broke out in 990 AD and lasted until 994 AD during which time Basil captured and destroyed a number of Samoil's strongholds.

In retaliation, in late 994 AD, Samoil prepared a siege against Solun during which Gregory Taronites, the city’s Governor, was killed. Gregory died while attempting to rescue his son, Ashot, who had been ambushed during a reconnaissance mission. When Basil found out, he was furious and sent Uranus, his Supreme Commander from the west, to investigate. Uranus discovered that not only had Samoil besieged Solun, but he had been plundering the surrounding countryside. He had also been campaigning in Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica and the Peloponnesus. Upset by the situation, Basil ordered Uranus to attack Samoil and put an end to his free reign.

Uranus immediately went in pursuit of Samoil but found the River Spercheius swollen from a flash flood. Unable to cross he camped on the river’s bank. As it happened, Samoil's army had also made camp nearby but on the opposite side of the river. Upon his discovery that Samoil was close by, Uranus went in search of and found a safe place to cross. During the night he made the crossing and attacked his sleeping adversary. Being unprepared, Samoil's army was devastated and both Samoil and his son were badly wounded and barely managed to escape.

Victorious, Basil demanded that Samoil surrender. Instead of surrendering Samoil fled to his capital. To convince Basil not to pursue him, Samoil agreed to sign a peace treaty and offered his surrender in writing. But instead of surrendering Samoil had himself proclaimed King.

What Samoil really wanted was the crown of an Emperor but the Pope of Rome, Gregory V, had no intention of creating another Emperor. Samoil could have taken the Bulgar crown, but unfortunately that crown was also in Tsari Grad and out of reach. So, all that Samoil could legally hope for was a mere King’s crown.

Even though Samoil’s crown was not recognized by Tsari Grad, his coronation gave him international recognition. For the Pope of Rome, this was another chance to erode and weaken Pravoslav rule.

When Basil found out that Samoil was crowned king he became furious and once again dispatched Uranus to destroy him. Unable to engage Samoil in battle, Uranus went on a looting spree burning everything in his path. After three months of mayhem and destruction Uranus failed his mission and returned to Tsari Grad empty handed.

Safe, at least for now, Samoil took the opportunity to marry another daughter, Miroslava, to Ashot, Gregory’s son from Solun whom he had previously captured. As a wedding gift he gave the newlyweds Governorship of Dyrrachium with king Vladimir’s full approval. The ungrateful Ashot, however, fled to Tsari Grad and for his loyalty was awarded the title of Magistrate, by the Pravoslavs. In the meantime his wife, Miroslava, became a lady-in-waiting at the Tsari Grad court.

Soon after Ashot fled, the city leaders of Dyrrachium broke off relations with Vladimir and surrendered their city to the Pravoslavs.

In retaliation and hoping to stir trouble for Basil in Tsari Grad, Samoil began a propaganda campaign promoting Vatatz, a family member from the Basil Glavas family as his ally.

The Basil Glavas family and a number of other nobles had taken refuge with Samoil to avoid persecution from Basil.

Instead of creating trouble however, Samoil’s actions further infuriated Basil prompting him to initiate a new military offensive. Taking a route via Philippopolis, Basil destroyed most cities in the region of Serdica. In the year 1000 he dispatched a large army and attacked all fortified cities, capturing Great and Little Preslav and Pliska, near the River Maritsa. In 1001 Basil himself joined the offensive and marched his army by Solun in the direction of Berroea, where he captured Dobromir. Basil then captured Kolidron, near Berroea, and put Servia under siege. In spite of Servia’s brave resistance, the city fell into Basil's hands anyway. Nikolitsa, Servia’s Governor, was taken captive to Tsari Grad but instead of being thrown in jail, Basil conferred upon him the honour of a patrician. Nikolitsa, however, was not satisfied and fled to Samoil and together they attacked Servia. Basil retaliated and again captured Nikolitsa but this time he conferred upon him the honour of serving in chains in exile in his jail in Tsari Grad.

After subduing Servia Basil took his campaign to Thessaly. He took back and made repairs to the damaged fortresses which Samoil’s troops had held. He then refortified the fortresses with fresh Pravoslav garrisons. After that he turned his attention to Voden and took the city by force from the aggressive Governor Drazhan. Drazhan was captured and sent to Solun as Basil’s prisoner. Upon his arrival in Solun, Basil dispatched Uranus to Antioch to deal with the Arabs. Uranus was replaced with the patrician David Arijant as Solun’s new military commander.

In 1002 Basil made his way to Vidin and after an eight-month siege he broke through the defenses and captured the town. On the same day Samoil forced marched his troops through Thrace, looting and trashing Endrene (Adrianople). If Samoil’s intent was to get Basil’s attention by trashing Endrene, he succeeded. Basil now moved his campaign to Skopje, where he caught up with Samoil. Unexpectedly Samoil fled without a fight and Skopje’s Governor surrendered the city to Basil. From Skopje, Basil took his campaign to the fortress of Pernik where he encountered heavy resistance from the great warrior Krakras. Not only did Basil not succeed in taking the town but he also incurred great losses in the process and was forced to return to Tsari Grad.

As if Samoil did not have enough problems with the Pravoslavs he now made the Hungarians angry. His son, who was married to a Hungarian princess, decided to leave her thus bringing disgrace to his family and an end to the cordial relations between Samoil and King Stephen I. After the embarrassing incident, King Stephen abandoned his alliance with Samoil and joined Basil who had offered him an alliance of his own.

In the recent past, Pravoslav attacks and plundering of Samoil's territory were more frequent and of greater intensity. Samoil felt it was time do something and soon. His chance came in 1014 when Basil’s forces were about to enter a gorge in the Rhodope Mountains. Samoil surrounded the gorge with a strong force in what was going to be a surprise attack. Unfortunately Basil must have anticipated Samoil’s move and ordered one of David Arijant’s generals to force march his troops around Samoil’s forces. When a fierce battle broke out between Basil and Samoil, Samoil's army was attacked from the rear and trapped. Unable to withdraw, many of Samoil’s soldiers were slain and even more were captured. Samoil himself was saved by his son who aided his escape to the fortress of Prilep.

After his victory Basil rounded up all his prisoners and had his soldiers gouge their eyes out. According to accounts there were fifteen thousand Macedonian soldiers captured that day. To lead the blind soldiers back to Samoil, Basil ordered that one out of every hundred men be left with one eye intact.

This was indeed a gruesome act, a real tragedy not only for Samoil but for Macedonia as well.

Shaken by the sight of this tragedy Samoil died of shock two days later. Samoil was succeeded by his son Gabriel Radomir.

When Samoil died in 1014, his kingdom was vast and included the whole of Macedonia (except for Solun), Thessaly, Epirus, the coastal sclavenes of Oiocleia, Travunya and Zachlumia, the Neretva region (excluding the islands) as far as Cetina, Serbia, Bosnia and a considerable part of Bulgaria.

For the most part, the majority of the population living in Samoil’s empire was Macedonian with large Slav pockets south of Olympus down to the Peloponnesus. To a lesser extent there lived Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, Romani, Albanians and Vlachs. Additionally there lived migrants such as Vardariot Turks and Armenians who were recently settled there by former Pravoslav emperors and some by Samoil. While many Armenians existed in Thrace, Samoil had also settled some in Pelagonia, Prespa and Ohrid. The Romani were known to exist mostly in coastal regions.

Samoil’s kingdom was a newly created state with a completely different nucleus of people and with completely different domestic and foreign policies than any of his neighbours. The centre of Samoil’s state was in the far south of the Balkans, inside today's Republic of Macedonia.

Samoil had a number of capitals which he used from time to time. During his reign Samoil moved his capital to several places including Prespa, Ohrid, Prilep, Bitola, Pronishte and Setin, all of which were inside Macedonia.

According to ancient sources, very little is known about the socio-economic conditions and the organization of Samoil's state.

It is likely that the majority of people in Samoil’s kingdom were peasants, most of whom were freemen, but those working on the feudal estates were either serfs or churchmen. The serfs worked on both secular and church lands while churchmen worked exclusively on church lands. Being of a slightly better social class, the churchmen were exempt from heavy taxes. However, the churchmen were obliged to donate extra labour, probably in community service, in lieu of taxes.

The noble class in Samoil’s state was made up mostly of feudal lords and aristocrats who were allied behind Samoil and supported his policies. After his death the alliances began to erode and the nobles went their separate ways in pursuit of their own interests which led them closer and closer towards the Pravoslavs.

Slavery was rarely practiced but on occasion slaves were captured and sold, usually outside the kingdom. The main source of slaves was prisoners of war. It is well known, for example, that Samoil enslaved the population of Larissa after their city fell.

Most of Samoil’s income came from imperial land-holdings, sale of livestock, judicial fines and military plunder. Samoil's treasury contained many valuables including gold and money. Having no coins of his own minted the currency circulated in Samoil's kingdom was Pravoslav.

As for his military makeup, Samoil was supreme commander and enlisted his forces almost exclusively from his own kingdom. He had an enormous army consisting of both infantry and cavalry. Samoil was an able strategist who personally took part not only in planning but also in executing battles. For the most part, Samoil’s weaponry and military dress was similar to the Pravoslav. His soldiers wore a short outer tunic, trousers and a shirt of steel. They also wore a helmet with a pivoting extension which could be lowered down to the chin to protect the warrior’s face. Each soldier was armed with a defensive shield, long spear and sword. Other accessories included bugles and standards. Besides his regular army, Samoil also employed his own bodyguards. Samoil had no navy or any type of war vessel.

The official language of Samoil's kingdom was Macedonian (Slavonic) although Koine was also used occasionally as the language of diplomacy at the imperial palace.

Samoil built some of the most significant buildings in his kingdom including the Basilica of St. Achilles, his various palaces and a number of churches situated in the southern parts of his kingdom.

The famous and historic Archbishopric of Ohrid was created during Samoil's reign. Initially the Archbishopric was seated in Prespa but when Samoil moved to Ohrid, he brought it with him. Ohrid became his capital as well as his religious center. After its consolidation, the new archbishop was given authority over all bishops who fell under Samoil’s jurisdiction. Unfortunately the Pravoslavs refused to recognize the Archbishop of Ohrid, probably because the Roman church, which crowned Samoil, had consecrated it.

During Samoil's rule the Macedonian church was quite popular and the clergy, especially the bishops, enjoyed their privileged positions.

When Basil II found out that Samoil had died, he marched his army to Polog via Solun and razed Samoil’s imperial palace in Bitola. His troops stormed Prilep and Shtip bringing devastation to everything that stood in their path.

In the spring of 1015 Basil set out for Voden and subdued an uprising. He then moved the town’s inhabitants to Voler. He garrisoned Voden with Pravoslav lancers (mounted soldiers armed with long spears) and dispatched two of his military commanders to the Meglen region to seize the town. The siege turned out to be more difficult than expected and the conflict drew in Basil himself. The town finally fell and was destroyed.

To draw the war away from his kingdom, Radomir, Samoil’s son and heir, decided to attack the Pravoslavs in their own territory. He would have succeeded had it not been for Vladislav’s treachery. It seems that Basil secretly promised Vladislav (Radomir's nephew) the Macedonian crown and convinced him to murder his uncle. Vladislav slew Radomir in 1015, somewhere near Ostrovo, during a hunting expedition.

On his accession, Vladislav took a vow of loyalty to Basil and became a vassal king of the Pravoslavs. After his accession, Vladislav went after Vladimir, Samoil’s son-in-law, his only remaining opposition. With the help of the wretched Archbishop David, Vladislav enticed Vladimir to come to Prespa, where he was murdered.

With no internal opposition, Vladislav now consolidated his power and immediately broke off relations with Basil. Basil in turn declared war on the Macedonian kingdom and went in pursuit of Vladislav.

While his military commanders were devastating Pelagonia, Basil set out for Ohrid. On his way forces loyal to Vladislav engaged him. To minimize his losses and create fear among Vladislav’s allies, Basil ordered the gauging of the eyes of all those caught fighting against him.

In spite of heavy opposition, Basil took Ohrid and set course for Dyrrachium. On his way news reached him that Ivets, one of Vladislav's military commanders, had completely routed Basil’s army in Pelagonia. Basil abandoned his course for Dyrrachium and immediately went in pursuit of Ivets but was unable to engage him in battle. Basil then left for Solun and from there went to Mosynopolis on a totally different campaign.

For a while Basil was busy fighting a war against the Khazars in the Crimea and it was not until the middle of the following year, in 1016, that he was able to renew his Balkan offensive. This time he made his way via Philippopolis to the district of Serdica and surrounded the fortified town of Pernik for a second time in fourteen years. The siege was taking too long so Basil left again for Mosynopolis and then, in the spring of 1017, invaded southern Macedonia by way of Solun. He again dispatched his two commanders to Pelagonia while he himself set out for Kostur. On his way he received news that the great warrior Krakras had allied himself with Vladislav and that the two intended to invade Pravoslav territories.

Basil immediately halted his advance and went in pursuit, razing and burning several fortresses on his way. When he arrived in the vicinity of Ostrovo, Basil captured Setina immediately and dispatched his elite detachments in pursuit of Vladislav. Basil followed with the main army. The sight of the huge Pravoslav army struck panic among the ranks of Vladislav's soldiers, especially since Basil threatened to gauge their eyes out. Defeat for Vladislav was inevitable but, for reasons unknown, Basil withdrew his pursuit and returned to Tsari Grad in January 1018.

Vladislav, in the meantime, regrouped his army and took the offensive with aims of occupying Dyrrachium and taking possession of Vladimir's lands. Unfortunately Vladislav was killed during the city’s siege.

As soon as Vladislav died his commanders sent Basil a letter offering him their allegiance and the surrender of the fortresses and towns in their possession.

After taking possession of some sixty or so fortresses and towns, Basil went to Ohrid and took possession of Samoil’s extremely rich treasury.

Even after Vladislav’s fall, some of his loyal supporters like Fruzhin, Vladislav's eldest son, and the Dukes Ivets and Nikolitsa, refused to surrender. Fruzhin took a diplomatic approach and eventually surrendered and was given a pardon and title. Ivets resisted and set camp in Southern Prespa in an attempt to organize an insurrection. Unfortunately, through deception, the Pravoslavs capture Ivets, gauged out his eyes out and cast him into prison.

Nikolitsa too refused to surrender but after being surrounded with no hope of escape, he yielded to the Pravoslav emperor and received a prison sentence in Solun.

By August 1018, Basil II succeeded in destroying the last remnants of Samoil's forty-two year reign (976-1018) of his Macedonian kingdom.

By now Basil II was an old man and after finishing with Samoil, he took his campaign to Armenia. Some historians believe this was a mistake. By destroying Armenia he destroyed an effective buffer zone between the Pravoslavs and the Islamic powers.

Basil II died in 1025 and so did the revived strength and energy of the Pravoslav Empire. Basil was succeeded by his younger brother Constantine VIII, the last prince of the Macedonian dynasty. Constantine died in 1028 and for the next twenty-six years the Pravoslav emperors were the successive husbands of Constantine VIII's daughter Zoe. Zoe, Romanus III Argyrus (1028-1034), Michael IV (1034-1041), Michael V Calaphates (1041-1042) and Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1054).

To be continued…

And now I leave you with this…

Is the Koine language Greek? Some of you have asked this question.

The Koine language may have ancient words and letters that belonged to the ancient city states but it is not exclusively Greek. I don’t believe the Greek language is exclusively Greek. Most of the letters in the Greek alphabet are borrowed from the Phoenician alphabet.

The Koine language was created out of necessity by Alexander the Great. During Alexander’s reign, there was no common or international language to bridge the needs for communication between the various cultures in his growing empire. Koine was born out of necessity. It may have begun as a Greek language but in time it evolved and took many foreign attributes. Those who understand Attic and Koine will tell you that the two are separate and distinctly different languages. The alphabets may have similarities but the vocabularies are not. Koine, at most, may contain 40% ancient Attic elements but the other 60% are foreign elements, mostly Macedonian.

I just want to point out that the modern Greek language of today has its roots not in the Attic but in the Koine language. The Attic language died many centuries ago but Koine survived through the Macedonian institutions and through the Pravoslav Church. I must also add that Koine was not the natural language of the modern Greeks. The vast majority of 19th century modern Greeks did not speak modern Greek (whatever that may be?). The modern Greek language was imposed on the Greek population through the schools and educational institutions.

Also, please do not confuse ancient Greek with modern Greek. Modern Greek is an imposed adaptation of ancient Greek. In other words, modern Greeks have usurped the ancient name and ancient language in order to lay claim to the ancient heritage. If I may add, the Greeks have also usurped the ancient Macedonian heritage at the exclusion of the Macedonians.

If the truth be known then, the modern Greeks speak a language fostered by the ancient Macedonians, which in my opinion, makes it Macedonian.

 

 
My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 14:45

Justinian I's grand projects and campaigns during his reign may have greatly contributed to the glory of Pravoslavism (Christendom) but at the same time they bankrupt the empire's economy.

Justin II, overwhelmed by his failures, died in anguish. Tiberius had some success in achieving peace with the Persians but it did not last for too long. While Tiberius was campaigning in the west, the Avars, in the absence of Pravoslav (Byzantine) troops, overran the Balkans and demanded that Tiberius relinquish control of the city of Sirmium (near modern day Mitrovica in Serbia). When Tiberius refused they attacked. Quick to take advantage of the Pravoslav weakness, the Persians abandoned the peace treaty already in progress and resumed hostilities. Having been left without many choices, Tiberius dispatched Maurice, one of his commanders, to Persian controlled Armenia where, over the next few years, he conducted a series of successful campaigns. Forced to focus his military efforts on the Persians, Tiberius had no troops to repel the Avars and gave into their demands. In 582 AD Pravoslav control of Sirmium was relinquished to the Avars. In order to be allowed to evacuate the city's residents safely, Tiberius agreed to pay the Avars 240,000 solidi. This was the total of unpaid subsidies that they were owed for the last 3 years.

In 582 AD Tiberius became very ill and appointed Maurice and Germanus as his heirs. To give them legitimacy he had each engaged to one of his daughters and elevated to the rank of Caesar. But when it was time Tiberius only crowned Maurice as Augustus.

On August 14th, 582 AD Tiberius died and Maurice became sole emperor of the Pravoslav Empire.

Maurice, or Matricius as he was then known, began his career as a soldier under the Emperor Tiberius. He was the commander of a new legion formed from the ranks of allied barbarians with whom he fought, against the Persians. When he returned triumphant to Tsari Grad, Tiberius gave him his daughter Constantina in marriage.

After his accession Maurice discovered that, through the reckless extravagance of his predecessors, the empire's treasury was empty and the empire was bankrupt. To remedy the situation he cut court expenses, which unfortunately made him very unpopular with his administrators and eventually led to his fall. During the twenty years of his reign, Maurice witnessed his empire gradually decay. For the first ten years or so he was involved in a long drawn out war with the Persians which only ended because of internal problems in the Persian camp. The Avars and Slavs continued their invasion of the northern provinces unchecked and had penetrated the Balkan Peninsula down to the Peloponnesus. The Lombards ravaged Italy only because the empire did not have the resources to protect it.

To turn the tide, Maurice, in 584 AD, asked the Franks for help. Eagerly the Franks accepted Maurice's proposal and invaded Italy. With the Avars still being a problem, Maurice had to buy them off with a heavy bribe, which further strained his resources. By the time he was finished the emperor had become very unpopular with his people. He had depleted the empire's resources so badly that in 599 AD he could not even pay ransom for 12,000 of his soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars and allowed them all to be murdered.

The situation finally snapped when his own army turned on him. A revolt was started when, instead of giving his soldiers time off, he decided to send them into battle. The well-paid soldiers were usually sent home to rest during the winter. Unfortunately this particular winter emperor Maurice had different plans. Instead of a vacation he ordered his army to cross the frozen Danube and destroy the barbarian camps beyond. Winter was the safest time to cross the Danube, using its frozen surface as a bridge. What started out as an army revolt turned into a revolution when, in 602 AD, the soldiers kicked out their officers. They chose Phocas, a soldier from their own ranks, as their leader and marched on Tsari Grad. Unable to organize resistance, Maurice fled across the Bosporus with his family. He was overtaken at Chalcedon and murdered with his five sons.

Phocas, being chosen by the army in the Macedonian tradition, assumed the role of emperor and began his tyrannical reign which lasted from 602 to 610 AD.

It is important to mention at this point that the cohesion of the empire was held intact not because of the strong leadership exhibited by the Emperors but because of the will of the Christians and their loyalty to their Christian faith. Even at this point in time Christianity was a powerful force that bound people together. The empire was made up of a wide variety of ethnic and cultural groups bound together by their common faith. By this time paganism was viewed as a weakness and was on its way out. The sense that God and his saints would protect the Christians fighting the wicked pagans provided a common cause for soldiers of various ethnicities to fight together, especially against the non Christian Syrians. But as mentioned earlier it was not Christian might but a rebellion within the ranks of the Syrians that ended the Pravoslav-Persian war. Even though they were enemies, the rebellious Syrians asked the Pravoslavs for help. The Pravoslavs agreed to provide it in exchange for their lost territories which had been relinquished to the Persians over the years.

After a deal was reached, the rebel leader Khusro, aided by the Pravoslav army, returned to Persia and confronted the old order with a victorious and decisive battle. Khusro honoured the agreement and gave back Dara, Mytropolis, Arzanene, Iberia and most of Persian Armenia.

Unfortunately the long absence of the Pravoslav army from the Balkans had its consequences for the region. Undefended, the Balkans were left open to Avar invasions.

The Avars were a well-organized nomadic group of people with Mongolian origins who were probably driven out of Mongolia during the 550's. The Avars, it seems, were remnants of refugees from the rise of Turkish power, which pushed them across Eurasia. When they first appeared in the Ukrainian steppe they were a welcome sight by the Pravoslavs who saw them as leverage to control the Katrigurs and Utigurs of whom I made mention earlier. Unfortunately, the Avars conquered the Katrigurs and Utigurs and went on to conquer all other groups in the Ukrainian steppe. In 567 AD they allied themselves with the Lombards, destroyed the Gepids and occupied the Hungarian plains.

Besides the Avars, history has also recorded Slav movements in the Balkans at about the same time. The Pravoslav army, however, did not regard the Slavs as very dangerous opponents, even though they were fierce fighters, because they were not united and generally operated in small groups based on extended family units. In other words, the Slavs at this time were not soldiers but harmless farmers traveling together with their families looking for land to settle to cultivate their crops.

According to historic accounts the Slavs were not conquerors or marauders. They were very happy to settle in forested lands and marshes, places usually not suitable for crop farming. People whose main preoccupation was farming would not easily abandon their ancestral lands unless they were in grave danger. Why would the Slavs abandon their homes, endanger their lives by crossing the very difficult Danube River and settle in hostile and less than ideal lands?

In my opinion the Slavs did not cross the Danube at will but were forced to do so by the pressures of the invading barbarian tribes. The arrival of the Goths, Huns, Avars, etc., near the Danube forced the indigenous people to flee south and seek refuge. A great number of the Slav migrations recorded in history, are actually refugee movements of displaced indigenous people from the Danube River region. My supporting evidence for this, in part, is based on Professor Curta's findings which are based on archeological data derived from settlement excavations. "First, there is already enough evidence to move away from the migrationist model which has dominated the discipline of Slavic archaeology ever since its inception. A retreat from migrationism is necessary simply because the available data do not fit any of the current models for the study of (pre)historic migration." "It has become increasingly evident that migrations across ecological or cultural boundaries would require considerable planning on the part of the migrants, and should leave substantial and clear archaeological evidence." "Furthermore, the archaeological evidence... does not match any long-distance migratory pattern." (Page 307, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

So, if the Slavs were not willing migrants as per Professor Curta's findings then what motivated them to travel south to the Balkans? The most logical and probable explanation, given the political situation of the time, is that the Slavs were war refugees forced out of their homes by the more aggressive invaders the Goths, Huns and Avars. There are those, including Falmerayer, who believe that the traveling Slavs were not allowed to settle in Macedonia and were driven to the south and west by the Pravoslav army. This can be substantiated by the fact that with the exception of one, found north of Skopje, there are no archeological Slav burial finds in Macedonia but a great number of them are found to the west and south of geographical Macedonia. There are also unconfirmed claims that the original Slavs who made their way from north of the Danube region did not speak the "Slav language" that is attributed to them. They learned that language from the indigenous people living south of the Danube.

And now back to Phocas's story.

With time it became clear that, in return for glory, Justinian had bestowed upon his successors the arduous burden of managing an over-extended empire whose resources he had drained and whose institutions and infrastructure proved too weak to meet the future challenges. The empire's inability to cope with its problems ultimately led to the rise of a different breed of illegitimate emperors. According to historian George of Pisidia, Phocas was, and to a certain extent remains, one of the most maligned of all Pravoslav emperors. Another Byzantine author Theophlact Simocatta, among other things, called Phocas a barbarian half-breed, a Cyclops and a Centaur. Phocas, however, cannot be blamed entirely for his actions without understanding the state of the empire he inherited. As I mentioned earlier, the imperial woes began around 565 AD, about the time of Justinian's death. By that time Justinian had expanded the empire to include Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Unfortunately, the empire benefited far less from these conquests than Justinian had hoped. The ambitious emperor had dangerously overestimated the empire's capabilities. Thirty-five years or so late, the empire had still not recovered from its financial smarting. In fact it was getting worse. Phocas marched into Tsari Grad a hero but soon found himself plagued with the same sorts of crises that had brought down his predecessor. With the situation in the provinces already shaky, Phocas was quickly faced with a major threat along the eastern frontier of the empire.

Relations between the Pravoslavs and Persia soured when Phocas overthrew Maurice and the Persian king now had an honourable pretext for an attack. Presenting himself as the avenger of Maurice's murder, the Persian king seized the opportunity to recover the areas that he had earlier ceded to Maurice. In 603AD he started a war that would last for over two decades, critically weakening both empires. In 609 AD, Phocas was forced to withdraw most of the army from the Persian frontier in order to deal with a dangerous rebellion that had spread from the province of Africa to Egypt. The rebellion, it appears, was staged by a man named Heraclius who would eventually replace Phocas as emperor. No doubt encouraged by the commitment of the imperial army against the Persians, a Pravoslav rebel army invaded Egypt in the summer of 608 AD. Heraclius was confident that his supporters could achieve a quick victory in Egypt and gain control of its riches as well its navy.

Shortly after Heraclius's forces entered Egypt, riots broke out in cities throughout Egypt, Syria and Palestine. The people of these provinces had had enough of Phocas's rule and wanted change.

To crush the rebellion in Egypt, Phocas withdrew his army from the Persian war and unleashed it on the rebels in Egypt. Unfortunately, in so doing he left a void in his defenses.

Even with the aid of his army, Phocus was unable to stop the rebellion. The civil war in Egypt came to an end when Heraclius's supporters achieved victory. The end of the civil strife unfortunately came too late to salvage the situation with Persia.

In 609 AD all key Pravoslav fortresses and defenses along the eastern borders were captured by the Persian armies and the Pravoslavs were driven out of Armenia. In the meantime, while his forces were finishing up in Egypt, Heraclius and his fleet made their way to Tsari Grad. Phocas tried to put up resistance but quickly found himself in the same losing position as his predecessor Maurice. Deserted by his supporters, Phocas was seized and brought before Heraclius, who in turn executed him.

Heraclius's revolt marked a crucial turning point in Pravoslav history. In only slightly over two years his actions cost the empire thousands of lives, sapping the empire's manpower, finances and leaving the frontiers virtually undefended. His revolt cost the empire the loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

Emperor Heraclius ruled the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641 AD. His entry into Pravoslav affairs was at a time when the Empire was threatened on all fronts by many enemies. Leading citizens had had enough of the corrupt Emperor Phocas and wanted him out.

Heraclius's involvement with the Pravoslavs began when his father, General Heraclius of Carthage, was invited to oust Phocus. The general and his brother responded by sending their respective sons with well-equipped forces. By 610 AD Heraclius, the son, triumphantly entered Tsari Grad.

Heraclius, like his predecessors, found the empire's treasury empty. The empire actually worsened with his first few years of rule before it began to turn around.

Heraclius's first order of business was to strengthen the empire's defenses. He did that by dividing the empire into four military districts, each ruled by a military governor. By giving prospective soldiers land grants (themes), he recruited a considerable number of natives, thus minimizing the need for costly foreign mercenaries. On the economic side, he turned to the church for contributions and at the same time introduced new taxes. It took him twelve years before he was confident to go on the offensive. In the spring of 622 AD he led a powerful army into battle.

There are some who say that Heraclius risked his own life by personally participating in many battles. After six years of fighting, his new army was victorious and defeated the Persians. Unfortunately as soon as he arrived in Tsari Grad to celebrate his victories, in 628 AD, the armies of Islam began to advance on Persia. By 633 AD all the territories gained were lost.

Heraclius did try to stop the Islamic onslaught in 636 AD when he raised an army of 80,000 soldiers and met the Muslims by the river Yarmuk. Unfortunately, the climatic conditions were not favourable for the Pravoslavs when a violent sandstorm struck them head-on giving the Muslims, who were used to this kind of weather, battle advantage. The stressful situation was exhausting mentally and physically for Heraclius and caused him to fall seriously ill. Feeling that he may no longer be able to rule, Heraclius performed the ceremony of succession and appointed his two sons Constantine and Heraclonas as his successors in 638 AD.

With the succession settled, Heraclius spent the last years of his life trying to settle the debate between the monophysites and the monotheleties, centering on the nature of Christ. His efforts were unfortunately in vain and no resolution was reached before his death in 641 AD.

Heraclius is also known as the emperor who finally abolished the Latin language from his empire thus allowing the Macedonian language to begin its revival.

It is noteworthy to mention at this point that, while the Pravoslavs were fighting the Persians for dominion over the near east, a new power was growing in Arabia. By the late 620's the tribes of Arabia were uniting under the Prophet Mohamed and were beginning to raid Palestine. By about 633 AD most of the empire's eastern provinces were conquered and after the fall of Damascus in 635 AD, a large Pravoslav army was dispatched to stop the Muslim advance, but it failed.

After Heraclius's death more territories exchanged hands and Caesaria, on the Palestinian coast, was also lost after the Pravoslavs lost Egypt.

By the late 640's the Pravoslavs had again lost the fortress Dara, Edessa in the near-east, Antioch and Alexandria. By the early 650's the Muslims had launched attacks over the Taurus Mountains, through Azerbaijan and made their way into Armenia. By late 653 AD they were at the shores of the Bosporus on the other side of Tsari Grad.

The loss of the major cities and fortresses in the east was a major blow to the economy of the Pravoslavs, who for many years had become dependent on Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Palestine and the Caspian coastlands for their commerce. Although the economy did not entirely collapse, much of the progress experienced up to the seventh century ceased to exist. Grand projects including building new churches, repairs and renovations to aqueducts, walls, etc. were also abandoned. Many of the larger cities, excluding Solun and Tsari Grad, were emptied and their populations took on a rural village lifestyle, living off the land.

Being cut off from the rich eastern economies, the empire became poor and began to turn its attention inwards. The empire was no longer a superpower and would never again dominate the near-east. It was also during this period that the Pravoslavs chose to elevate Solun to a second capital city.

By the end of the seventh century AD, Islam, seated in Damascus, was becoming a superpower extending from the borders of India and Tibet to Spain and from southern Egypt and Arabia to Armenia. Islam, a powerful new religious force originating in Arabia, was taking over the near-east in rapid conquests following the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 AD.

By this time both the Persian and Pravoslav empires had been weakened by their mutual wars and were experiencing devastating defeats at the hands of the Muslims.

While the Persian Empire quickly succumbed to the Muslim assault, the Pravoslavs were only saved because of Tsari Grad's strong triple wall fortifications. As mentioned earlier, the defensive wall construction of Tsari Grad was commissioned around 410 AD and was completed by 500 AD. The inner wall was about twelve meters high and about five and a half meters wide, defended by ninety-six polygonal towers rising more than ten meters above the wall. The second wall was about ten meters high defended by another ninety-six towers. On the outside was a moat about twenty meters wide and about six meters deep. Beyond the moat was a third low wall designed to act as a retaining wall for the moat. Also, one had to cross ten gates before entering the city.

The outer walls were approximately five and a half kilometers long and extended about a kilometer and a half beyond the original Constantinian wall. The large area between the walls was never built up and was used for farming and to supply the city with secure sources of water.

The existence of open farmland inside the city walls was a vital factor in the city's ability to resist sieges. Used to grow crops and graze animals, the land provided the city with a limited but secure source of food.

Europe and Christianity were saved because the Pravoslavs were able to withstand many waves of Muslim onslaught. Had Tsari Grad not been built to withstand the greatest of sieges, Islam would have overrun Europe, as it did Asia. Christianity and the world as we know it today would not have existed in the same way.

Before his death Heraclius elevated both his 28-year-old son Constantine, from his first wife Fabia-Eudocia, and his 15-year-old son Heraclonas, from his send wife Martina, to co-emperors. Unfortunately 28-year-old Constantine, or Constantine III as he was then known, died three months later.

In the absence of Constantine III, his brother Heraclonas crowned Constantine III's son, Constans II, as his co-emperor. But in September 641 AD the Senate deposed Heraclonas and his mother the Empress Martina. To make sure they would never rule again, Martina's tongue and Heraclonas's nose were cut off.

As Constans II was only eleven years old, the Senate held power in the interim and served as the supreme court of the empire.

Like his predecessors, Constans II inherited an empire full of problems. Although he did his best to solve them, he was more unsuccessful than not. His attempts to invade Asia Minor in 646 AD were met with difficulties. Not only did the Muslim Saracen repel his invasion, but the war was brought closer to Tsari Grad in the end. Year after year Muslim troops continued to raid deeper and deeper into Asia Minor, pushing nearer to the western limit of Asia, while Europe was threatened by losses to the Saracen fleet in the eastern Mediterranean. By 649 AD the Saracen fleet captured Cyprus and the Pravoslav fleet was driven out of Alexandria by 652 AD. In 655 AD the Pravoslav fleet faced its final defeat off Phoenix on the Lycian coast, in the heaviest sea-fight since Actium.

Constans, tired of watching his empire slowly erode, took his campaign north. In 658 AD he invaded the region north of the Danube which, at the time, was occupied by Slavs. He successfully defeated numerous tribes and forced them to resettle in Asia Minor. At the same time he began recruiting captive Slavs into his Anatolian forces. Soon afterwards, due to his unpopularity at home, he went west and in 662 AD set out on an expedition to campaign against the Lombards in Italy. On his way he took a southern route which landed him in Rome in 663 AD. Instead of continuing further north, he ended his campaign and retired in Syracuse on the island of Sicily. From there he directed his African campaigns against the attacking Saracens, who had assaulted and captured Carthage in 663 AD.

Even though his African campaigns were successful and his army was able to drive the Saracens as far back as Tripoli, Constans was not popular. Forcing the cost of the war on Syracuse and making the Sicilians pay for it made them very angry indeed. His unpopularity made him the victim of a conspiracy and in 668 AD he was murdered by a slave while bathing.

After Constans II's death, his son Constantine IV succeeded him as emperor. Before setting out on his campaigns in 654 AD, Constans II elevated his son Constantine IV to co-emperor and in 659 AD he did the same for his other two sons, Heraclius and Tiberius.

To ensure that there would be no problem with the dynastic succession, Constans had his younger brother Theodosius murdered. Theodosius, however, was popular with the court and raised public sentiment against Constans, causing him go to Italy.

Constantine IV was only eighteen years old when he became emperor and his first task was to suppress the rebellion in Syracuse and bring his father's murderers to justice.

The first major threat that Constantine faced was the advance of the Arabs. By 673 AD the Muslims had attacked Sicily, North Africa and had advanced north into Asia Minor. While in possession of the Asiatic shore of the Sea of Marmora in 674 AD, the Muslims began their assault upon Tsari Grad. By about the same time the Pravoslavs had invented a new weapon, a primitive flame-thrower consisting of a mixture of flammable oils blown-ejected with huge bellows. Armed with this revolutionary weapon, the Pravoslav fleet turned the tide on the Arab advance and recovered its mastery of the sea. The Saracens were driven off and their leader had no choice but to sue for peace. Constantine IV was able to negotiate a favourable treaty and the Arab leader agreed to pay an annual tribute of 3,000 pieces of gold.

The Pravoslav victories in the east allowed Constantine to turn his attention to the west. It was at this time that the Pravoslav army was dispatched to Solun to save the city from another barbarian siege. History has recorded this as a Slav siege but the leaderless Slavs never acted alone. It is most likely that the more aggressive Avars organized and conducted the siege with Slav help. After the siege was broken, the Avars sent ambassadors to Tsari Grad to acknowledge Pravoslav control over them.

This was not the first siege that Solun experienced during this period. With the Pravoslav army campaigning in far away lands, there were plenty of opportunities for organized barbarian hordes eager to take advantage of her, in the absence of the army.

In the sixth century Solun was the second largest city in the Pravoslav Empire and a very important commercial and cultural center. It was natural then that she would attract all kinds of loot seekers and adventurers. Solun, however, was a fortress protected by strong walls and by the spirit of St. Dimitrius. Armed with their Christian faith and self determination, the Macedonians of Solun succeeded in defending their city on their own, without armies.

Of the many attacks that took place against this majestic city only a few have been recorded in history. The first was a joint Avar-Slav attack that took place in October 584 AD, carried out by an army of nearly five thousand warriors. Two years later there was a second, more serious attack again led by the Avars. This time the enemy employed siege engines, catapults and other equipment. The siege lasted eight days before the Avars broke off the attack. This time it was not Solunian determination but the spirit of St. Dimitrius, which unleashed the plague on the eager invaders causing them to flee in panic.

The next attack took place in 616 AD, organized by a Slav alliance involving a fleet consisting of numerous boats fashioned from single tree-trunks. This time the Slavs came with their families and households intent upon an immediate settlement of the city. Unfortunately, when they came in contact with the Solunians, the Slavs suffered great losses and beat a hasty retreat. (It is most likely that this particular group of Slavs were refugees looking for a safe haven and were forcibly turned away. During campaigns soldiers did not bring their families to battle. Families and belongings were usually left at camp, a safe distance away from the battle).

Two years later, in 618 AD, the Avars came back, with Slav help. The allied armies appeared in front of the city walls and for thirty-three days attempted to forcibly enter the city, without success. Eventually they gave up and left.

The next wave of attacks came in 674 AD. The entire region nearby was looted for the next two years until the Pravoslav army, freed from its eastern campaigns, put an end to it. Even though Solun itself was placed under siege, the assailants were unable to penetrate her defenses and again were forced out empty handed.

The next barbarian menaces to enter Pravoslav affairs were the Bulgars. By 670 AD the Bulgars had consolidated their power under their leader Asparuch, who intended to eventually invade Pravoslav lands. In time the Bulgars invaded the Danube delta intending to move further south into Pravoslav territory. The Bulgars were a pagan people whom the Khazars, another barbarian tribe, had forced down toward the Danube delta in the latter part of the 7th century.

The Danube delta was considered, at the time, a Pravoslav protectorate and in 680 AD Constantine mounted a joint naval and land force expedition to expel the Bulgars. After several attempts, the Pravoslavs were unable to engage the Bulgars in battle. When the Pravoslavs attempted to retreat, the Bulgars mounted a counterattack and were able to inflict much damage upon them.

In the following year, because of his great losses, Constantine IV agreed to a Bulgar treaty. By virtue of this treaty signed in the same year, the Bulgars were recognized as an independent kingdom, occupying lands south of the Danube into the Thracian plain. Soon afterwards, the Bulgars established their capital at Pliska and gained control of access to the Danube.

To offset this, Constantine established the land grants (theme) of Thrace and settled Avar fugitives there to act as a buffer zone against the Bulgars.

With the Bulgars in check, Constantine's next concern was ensuring the succession of his son Justinian to the throne. To do that, however, he had to remove his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius from their positions as co-emperors. His decision to do so unfortunately caused protests among his Anatolian troops. It has been said that the soldiers of the time felt that the division of imperial power should be three in nature, the same as the trinity. Constantine unfortunately disagreed and acting quickly, arrested and executed the leaders of the protest. He also rescinded his orders to remove his brothers and left them as co-emperors. Afterwards, however, Constantine changed his mind and removed the brothers from their positions. To ensure that they would never again rule, he had their noses slit. After that he proclaimed his son Justinian II as co-emperor.

In 685AD Constantine IV died at the age of thirty-five and was succeeded by his seventeen year old son Justinian II. Justinian's reign was unfortunately plagued with problems. He waged a successful campaign against the Bulgars in 690 AD which gave him a false sense of confidence to try his luck against the Muslims. In 693 AD he invaded Syria through the Taurus Mountains only to meet with an overwhelming defeat.

History has recorded Justinian II as a brilliant but tempestuous and vindictive emperor who dealt very harshly with his unsuccessful generals and drastically taxed his subjects by monstrous methods. No wonder Leontius, one of his more successful generals, revolted against him, deposed him, slit his nose and sent him off to prison in the Crimea.

After deposing Justinian II, Leontius became emperor in 695 AD only to be deposed himself. In 698 AD a number of Pravoslav officers returned to Tsari Grad from Africa. Afraid of paying the ultimate penalty for losing Carthage to the Saracens, they struck first and captured Leontius, slit his nose, shut him up in a monastery and made Tiberius III emperor.

Tiberius III was made emperor by the army in the Macedonian tradition but did not fare well either. He at least did better than Justinian II against the Saracens by successfully penetrating into northern Syria. Unfortunately his luck ran out when Justinian II escaped from the Crimea in 705 AD. After his escape Justinian got help from the Bulgar king and seized the Tsari Grad palace. After he restored himself to the throne he had Leontius and Tiberius III executed.

Justinian was a vindictive man who indulged in an orgy of undiscriminating cruelty, which was only ended by a military insurrection. Having been sent to crush a revolt in the Crimea, instead general Philippicus joined the rebels and sailed back to Tsari Grad. In 711 AD he swept to power on a wave of popular support and had Justinian II, his wife and children killed.

Philippicus, plagued by conspiracies, only lasted as emperor from 711 to 713 AD and was replaced by Anastasius II. Anastasius, unable to cope with the Saracen tide, only lasted from 713 to 715 AD. Anastasius II fell and made way for Theodosius III to take his place in 715 AD.

While the emperors were rising and falling in the palace of the capital city, the Saracens were preparing for a massive campaign against Tsari Grad. A Saracen strike force was being readied in Asia Minor to move on the city. Fortunately a capable army commander named Leo happened to be stationed in Asia Minor and took matters into his own hands. For a while he engaged the Saracens and kept them at bay. Then he made a truce with them, turned around and marched on Tsari Grad himself. Upon his arrival he deposed Theodosius III and installed himself as emperor.

No sooner had Leo III taken control of the empire, in 716 AD, thousands of Arab and Persian warriors arrived at the Hellespont and began their siege of Tsari Grad. The Saracen fleets filled the Bosporus but were eventually beaten back by the Pravoslav flame-throwers.

After freeing the waterways, Leo dispatched troops to the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus and cut off the Saracen supply lines from the east. The besiegers now found themselves effectively besieged and in danger of starving. Another blow was delivered when news came that the Bulgar king was mobilizing a great force and was going to strike at the Saracens from the north.

With the aid of the Bulgars, Leo was able to turn back the Muslim assault. After receiving the bad news, the Saracens abandoned the siege and made their way back to Asia Minor. With the Moslem threat out of the way, at least for now, Leo had time to turn his attention to domestic affairs. Besides making reforms to the themes, he entered the great religious controversies giving them a new twist. Leo felt that the practice of using images and pictures or icons in worship, which at the time was common, tended to encourage idolatry. The practice was ridiculed and criticized by the Moslems which prompted Leo to put an end to it.

In 725 AD Leo banned idolatry and gave orders to remove all religious statues from the churches. All walls with icons and pictures of saints were to be whitewashed. Doing this was not as easy as Leo may have thought and caused a great deal of upset, which history has recorded as the famous iconoclastic controversy. No sooner had officials begun to enforce the edict than riots broke out, not just in Tsari Grad but throughout the entire empire. The Pope in Rome reacted strongly to Leo's initiatives by excommunicating all bishops who were in support of them. Even though Leo was unable to enforce his edict in the west, his actions did alienate the western Church eventually contributing to the eleventh century schism. The worst opposition, however, was yet to come and it was not going to be from outside the empire.

By Leo's time the empire's decline was leveling off, but in terms of territories much was lost. The Danube was no longer the empire's northern boundary. The interior of the Balkan Peninsula had seen its share of violence and occupations and now a Bulgar kingdom came into being where none existed before.

Leo III turned out to be an excellent administrator who revived prosperity and added prestige to his empire through the victories he delivered under his personal command. Leo III died in 741 AD and was succeeded by his son Constantine V.

By Leo's time, the themes (land grants) had taken root and, however dismal, the economic developments had permitted the empire to survive and provided a foundation for greater success in the centuries to come. Military service was a hereditary occupation where the eldest son assumed the burden of service and was supported primarily by revenues from the "granted lands" which were worked by other members of the family. The technological base of Pravoslav society during the 7th and 8th centuries was more advanced than that of contemporary western Europe. The Pravoslavs possessed iron tools that could even be found the villages. Water mills dotted the landscape and field-sown beans provided a diet rich in protein. None of these advances was to characterize western European agriculture until the 10th century AD.

Agriculture in the rural areas of Pravoslav society was taken very seriously and a tradition of careful farming was developed and persisted even through the darkest days. Having lost first its Egyptian granary and later its north African and Sicilian resources, the Pravoslavs had to live from whatever they could produce on the remaining lands. The villages and small peasant holdings seem to have been the main form of rural organization and collective agricultural practices during that time. In trade and commerce, after the loss of Egypt and North Africa, the grain fleets manned by hereditary shipmasters disappeared. In their place emerged the independent merchants who in time developed new trade routes and began to trade with the Bulgars in Thrace and through Cyprus, with the Arabs. With time, despite constant warfare, Pravoslav society was becoming more vibrant and healthier.


Constantine V became emperor in 741 AD after Leo III, his father, died. Constantine's first order of business was to fight his way to the throne by suppressing a revolt initiated by his brother-in-law. In the next few years, internal strife in the Muslim world allowed Constantine opportunities to campaign in Armenia and beyond the Taurus Range.

Constantine was victorious in northern Syria and was able to transfer prisoners to Thrace in preparation for a new war against the Bulgars. He fortified the passes of the Balkan range in an attempt to curb Bulgar aggression. Unfortunately, the Bulgar kings reacted by attacking the Pravoslav initiatives. Constantine in turn launched a counter attack and was able to repel the Bulgars. The only thing that prevented him from crushing them was a disastrous storm which wrecked his fleet. In no fewer than nine campaigns, Constantine undermined Bulgar strength and permanently weakened it. By doing so he cleared the region of brigands allowing merchants to operate safely.

Constantine V was considered a good emperor by many but he did make mistakes. Being a true zealot he searched out and penalized those who continued to practice image worship, even in private, by instituting harsh religious persecution. He even embarked on a campaign against monks and monasticism which by most was thought to be somewhat extreme.

Constantine V's reign lasted until 775 AD when he was succeeded by his son Leo IV. Leo IV unfortunately died prematurely in 780 AD. His 10-year-old son, Constantine VI, was left to assume the throne. But being too young to make his own decisions, he was left in the regency of the empress Irene.

For the next ten years empress Irene reigned in her son's name. Being an image worshiper (iconodule) herself, she somewhat relaxed the measures against the image worshippers by dismissing iconoclast (anti-icon) officials from civil and ecclesiastic duties and replacing them by iconodules. She was an ambitious iconodule but her iconodule policies unfortunately alienated many of her troops, who were still loyal to the memory of the great warrior emperor, Constantine V. To counter the troop alienation and still maintain her popularity among the icon defenders, she rebated taxes to the themes and also reduced the customs duties levied at the ports of Tsari Grad. Unfortunately, the consequent loss of taxes weighed heavily on the treasury, especially after victories won by the Arabs in Asia Minor in 781 AD and by the Bulgars in 792 AD, which led the victors to demand tributes as the price of peace.

In 797 AD Irene instigated a revolt against her own son. He was seized, had his eye gouged out and was imprisoned in a monastery. She then assumed the throne herself. A revolt in the palace in 802 AD led to Irene's deposition. She was exiled to the isle of Lesbos where she later died.

In the face of a Bulgar menace, Nicephorus I, the empire's finance minister, succeeded Irene to the throne in 802 AD. He re-imposed the taxes that the empress had remitted and also instituted some other money saving reforms. Then, in the tradition of Constantine V, Nicephorus strengthened the fortification of Thrace by settling more colonists from Asia Minor. He even led his troops in battle against the new Bulgar Khan, Krum. Unfortunately his career and life came to an abrupt end when his army was defeated in battle by the Bulgars. The Bulgar Khan Krum, after defeating Nicephorus, had his skull lined with silver (some say with gold) and used it as a drinking cup

Nicephorus I died in 811 AD and was succeeded by his son in law, Michael I. Nicephorus's son, Stauracius, was mortally wounded in battle during the Bulgar war and died on his way home. The succession was thus secured by his brother in law the incompetent Michael I.

Michael's lack of ability led his army into internal dissension just as he was about to face Krum in battle. His incapacity not only brought him defeat but also cost him the throne. He was deposed in 813 AD by an Armenian soldier named Leo.

Leo V as he was then known became emperor in 813 AD and faced another Bulgar attack from Krum. Luckily, Krum died a sudden death in 814 AD as he was preparing for the attack, which never materialized. Krum's son, Omurtag, in the meantime arranged a peace treaty with the Pravoslavs. Omurtag needed the Pravoslavs as allies in order to help him protect the western frontiers of his Bulgar empire against Frankish expansion under Charlemagne and his successors.

With the Bulgars in check, Leo decided to delve into the iconoclastic controversy. Like most soldiers he ended up on the unpopular side. Leo V was assassinated in 820 AD and was replaced by another Michael, Michael II who was also a soldier.

Michael II's reign began in 820 AD and was plagued by outbreaks of rebellion. His nine years of reign were mainly memorable for the loss of Crete to the Corsairs and the invasion of Sicily by the Aghlabids.

Michael II established the Phrygian dynasty and his son Theophilus and grandson Michael III each occupied the Pravoslav throne in turn.

Michael's son Theophilus reigned from 829 to 842 AD during which time hostilities between the Pravoslavs and Muslims were renewed. The Muslims invaded Cappadocia and Theophilus was forced to concentrate all his military efforts on the war against them. The consequence was that he could no longer support the campaign in Sicily and in 842 AD Sicily was lost to the Saracens. Meanwhile the war with the Muslims in the east raged on and neither side was able to gain advantage.

Theophilus died in 842 AD and the government was passed on to a council of regents on behalf of his four year old son, Michael III. At the head of the regency council was Michael's mother, the empress Theodora. Theodora was an image worshipper and did her best to reverse her late husband's iconoclast policies. In no time she began to persecute the iconoclasts.

.

When Michael reached the age of eighteen, in 856 AD, he removed his mother from active duty and ruled the empire with his disreputable drinking companion uncle Bardas, first as councilor than as colleague. When Michael became tired of Bardas he dropped him from council and promoted to Caesar another drinking companion, Basil the Macedonian. About a year later, Basil the Macedonian became tired of Michael and murdered him after a heavy drinking bout.

Already being Caesar, Basil in 867 AD assumed the position of emperor without any opposition, thus inaugurating the Macedonian dynasty, which reigned for nearly two centuries.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 14:47

"Once the government stopped forcing the use of the Latin language and Roman institutions upon its people, the Eastern empire rapidly became more Eastern in its customs and outlook".

www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/justinian.html

Before they were known as the Byzantines or were called the Eastern Orthodox and even before they were barely a separate empire, they were known to the Macedonians as the Pravoslavi; an ancient people unified by a common (Eastern Christian) faith which has survived to this day and carries a strong meaning for the faithful.

By 500 AD Christianity had become the standard religion in Macedonia and the Macedonian language and culture re-emerged with it. As I mentioned earlier, the Latin language began its decline about four hundred years earlier and the Koine language was the language of administration and commerce, far from the reach of the common Macedonian.

Christianity's humble beginnings may have begun with the Koine language but in order for Jesus' message to be understood by the masses it had to be spoken in the language they used. It is well known today that the language of Christianity in Macedonia was Macedonian Church Slavonic, the language of enlightenment made world famous by Kiril and Metodi.

Before we continue with Justinian's story I would like to take a short diversion and explore the Slav connection to the Macedonians.

It is my intention here to show that the Macedonian language of the masses was in existence before Christ and as far back as pre-history.

It has been well documented that the ancient Macedonians, including Alexander's army and Alexander himself, spoke a language known only to Macedonians. Today thanks to linguist Anthony Ambrozic who, through his translations of the Dura-Europos inscriptions, has identified that language to be the root of the same language spoken by modern Macedonians today.

It can easily be deduced that the language in the Dura-Europos inscriptions is of Macedonian origin. According to modern dating methods it has been dated to the first century BC, about 700 years before the supposed "Slav language", according to mainstream history, had reached the Balkans. This new evidence, however, contradicts the old claims that modern Macedonians are the descendants of Slavs who invaded Macedonia in the sixth century AD.

Are modern Macedonians descendants of the Slavs who overran Macedonia during the 6th century AD, or are they descendants of the ancient Macedonians who lived in the Balkans in the first millennium BC?

This is a controversial question that demands attention and it is imperative that we give it much consideration.

"Our present day knowledge of the origin of the Slavs is, to a large extent, a legacy of the 19th century. A scholarly endeavor inextricably linked with forging national identities...." (Page 6, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

"Instead of a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes, I envisage a form of group identity which could arguably be called ethnicity and emerged in response to Justinian's implementation of a building project on the Danube frontier and in the Balkans. The Slavs, in other words, did not come from the north, but became Slavs only in contact with the Roman frontier." (Page 3, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

The Slavs, as opposed to other hordes that invaded the Balkans in the first millennium AD, became very important during the 19th century, particularly in 1833 when Slavic languages were recognized as Indo-European. Like the English language of today, the Slav language of the 19th century linguistically linked many nations together. Some of the 19th century Slav academics, however, intentionally or unintentionally interpreted this linguistic commonality as an ethnic commonality, ethnically linking all Slavs together. In other words, if one spoke Slav then one must have belonged to the "Slav tribe", which in modern terms is the same as believing that if one spoke English then one must belong to the "English tribe".

The idea of searching for the origin of the Slavs was born out of the theory that "all nations must have ancestors in the ancient world". Unfortunately, the study of the Slavs began as an almost exclusively linguistic and philological enterprise ignoring historiography and archeology as a means of identifying ethnicity. Based on linguistic evidence alone, it is estimated that the ancient homeland of the Slavs most probably lay between the rivers Visla, Dneiper, Desna and the western Dniva and the Carpathians or, perhaps, in Polesje, in the triangle formed by Brest - Litovsk and Mohilev - Kiev. If any archeology was used to derive these estimates, more often than not, it was used to illustrate conclusions already drawn from the analysis of linguistic material. The concept of a "Slav ethnicity" was a powerful tool for the nation builders and nationalists of the 19th century who used it to unite their people and the Slav language was the perfect instrument for exploring Slav history. However, Slav history began with the first mention of the Slavs, which happened to take place in Justinian's time in the sixth century AD.

The invention of the "Slav tribe" unfortunately had negative consequences for the Macedonian people, which are still felt to this day. Assuming that Macedonians are Slavs only because their language belongs to the Slavic family of languages has unwittingly turned the Macedonian people into victims of modern politics. After being classified as Slavs the 19th century Macedonians where regarded as invaders in their own ancestral lands. Since there was no historic mention of Slavs living in Macedonia before the 6th century AD it was naturally assumed that the Slavs must have come to Macedonia from somewhere else.

Fortunately, for the last fifty years or so, historians have turned to archeology for answers and are beginning to discover new evidence that, more often than not, contradicts the old beliefs.
Archeological evidence combined with DNA and genetic studies is slowly revealing that the modern Macedonians are not newcomers but in fact are the descendants of the older races of people living in the Balkans.

As I mentioned earlier, the Slavs came into being for the first time as a consequence of coming into contact with Justinian's administration during the 6th century AD. Unfortunately Justinian's administrators left very few clues as to the origins and language of these people. Again most attempts to identify the origin of the Slavs were made by linguistic and philological experts very much biased by 19th century nationalistic ambitions.

Many historians today believe that the widespread use of the Slav language began with the Veneti. During the first millennium BC, the Veneti occupied almost all of Europe including the Balkans. The Veneti are mentioned by Herodotus, Polibius, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Pomponius Mela, Tacitus and Jordanes. Unfortunately, to most ancient historians the Veneti were just another barbarian tribe and very little was known about them. The Veneti were also mentioned in Caesar's book where he gives an account of the conquest of Gaul. Among other things, Caesar compliments the Veneti for offering him great resistance. "The Veneti are by far the strongest tribe on the coast" wrote Caesar. "They possess the most powerful fleet with which they sail as far as Britain". (Page 197, Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community, Boswell, B.C., 1966)

The earliest writer to mention the Veneti was Homer, some 800 years before Caesar. After Troy had fallen, the Enetoi (Veneti), who according to Livy fought on the side of Troy, drove out the Etruscans and the Eugeneis in Liburnia after a long sea voyage along the Illyrian coast and then settled beyond the Timara River. Livy also mentions that Paphlagonia, on the south coast of the Black Sea, was the homeland of the Veneti. According to Tacitus and Ptolemy however, the great nation of the Veneti lived in the area between the Vistula, the Danube and the central Dnieper.

There is a close parallel between Justinian's Slavs and the Veneti. It was most likely that Justinian encountered the Veneti in the Danube region and, not being familiar with them, classified them as Slavs, which was simply an arbitrary administrative label for the barbarian tribes he located beyond the Danube.

The real strength of the Venetic linguistic connection to the Slavs comes to us from Anthony Ambrozic's translations of Venetic inscriptions found throughout Europe. A great many of these inscriptions date back to the first millennium BC. More specifically, Ambrozic believes the Veneti were the proto-Slavs and their presence was felt in Dura-Europos through the Macedonians. (Page 86, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany: a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms. Toronto: Cythera Press 1999).

According to Ambrozic, the Veneti of the second millennium BC existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also on the Morava, Timok and Vardar. In fact the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus recorded them in the 5th century BC. (Page 87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002).

It is not my intention here to debate the origin of the Slavs outside of Macedonia, but rather to illustrate that they existed in the Balkans prior to the sixth century AD. There is enough evidence provided by Savli, Bor, Tomazic, Ambrozic and Curta to connect the sixth century Slavs to the prehistoric Veneti. The evidence presented by these authors, in my opinion, bridges the Slavs with the Veneti and provides linguistic continuity for the modern Macedonians from at least the early years of the first millennium BC.

Ambrozic, through his translations of ancient inscriptions, has also discovered that the ancient Pelasgi, who occupied the southern Balkans before the first millennium BC, and the Phrygians of Macedonia and Asia Minor, who occupied the Anatolian plateau 3, 200 years ago, also have linguistic ties to the Veneti. (Pages 85 to 87 and page 118, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound. Toronto: Cythera Press, 2002). This naturally implies that, at least linguistically, the Veneti left their mark on many races in the Balkan region.

Before I finish with the analysis of the relationship between Macedonians and Slavs I want to dispel the modern myth that the 6th century Slavs invaded Macedonia and killed off all the Macedonians.

History offers no evidence of savage battles between Slavs and the 6th century descendants of ancient Macedonians nor does it show records of any massacres taking place. In fact history portrays the Slavs as peaceful people who, more often than not, were able to co-exist with other races in Macedonia. Outside of the unknown author of book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius, who portrayed the Slavs as savage, brutish and heathen barbarians, there is little evidence of Slavs causing atrocities in Macedonia. "On the other hand, however, one gets the impression that the Slavs were a familiar presence. They are repeatedly called 'our Slavic neighbours'" by the people of Solun. (Page 61, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge, New York, 2001). Slavs it seems, contrary to popular belief, were on good terms with the inhabitants of Solun, supplying them with grain and other goods.

Looking at the problem from a strategic point of view it would have taken a numerically superior Slav army to cross the Danube, descend upon the Balkans, defeat the mighty Byzantine army and then destroy the entire population. History has no record of a great Slav army ever crossing the Danube or of great Slav battles with the Byzantines. In fact records show that most Slavs were displaced refugees, victims of other peoples' wars, traveling peacefully in small numbers together with their families looking for land to farm.

There is no denying that the Roman occupation, barbarian invasions, population movements by the Byzantines and the Ottoman occupation have left their genetic markers on the modern Macedonians as they have on all other Balkan people. However, there is also strong evidence that suggests that a large part of the modern Macedonian population is genetically linked to the ancient Macedonians.

On the issue of Macedonian ethnicity, like other nations in the Balkans, modern Macedonians over the years have developed a unique Macedonian national consciousness that no outsider has the right to challenge, especially on dubious historical issues.

And now back to Justinian's story.

It has been said that Justinian spoke Koine with a heavy barbarian accent. Although they were not specific about which barbarian accent, being born in Taor (near Uskub), present day Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, one can assume that it was Slav, or perhaps Macedonian. There are no valid reasons to discount Justinian's Macedonian background. After all he was the son of a Slavonic peasant from Skopje.

Justinian, the son of Sabatius and Vigilantia, was born in May 483 AD and was originally named Petrus (Petre). Being the son of Emperor Justin's sister, Petre, sometimes called Uprauda (perhaps a pet name), was more privileged than most Macedonian peasants and was given the opportunity of a good education in Tsari Grad (Constantinople). Petre took the name Justinian after his uncle, Emperor Justin I, adopted him.

After his adoption, Justinian was proclaimed consul in 521 AD and sometime later he earned the title general-in-chief. But the real break in his career came in April 527 AD when he was made Augustus and co-emperor to Justin. After Justin's death in August 527 AD Justinian became the sole and undisputed ruler of the Pravoslaven (Byzantine) empire.

Before he became emperor, Justinian had the good fortune to marry a woman who, throughout her life, was an inspiration to his career and an asset to the empire. Justinian married Theodora in 523 AD.

Theodora was one of three daughters whose father was employed by the Green faction as a bear keeper at the Tsari Grad Hippodrome. Her mother was a professional dancer and actress. Theodora's father died when she was young and her mother remarried with hopes that the Greens would appoint her new husband bear keeper. The Greens unfortunately rejected him. Destitute, the family approached the Blue faction who had recently lost their own bear keeper and after some negotiating got the job. As soon as Theodora was old enough to work she became a mime actress and remained loyal to the Blue faction, which would play an important role in the future of her empire.

It has been said, mostly by Procopius, that Euphemia, Justin's wife objected to Justinian marrying Theodora on the grounds that she was not in pristine condition, for actresses and prostitutes were virtually synonymous. Soon after Euphemia's death Justin passed a constitution declaring that a contrite actress who is willing to abandon her profession should recover her pristine condition and marry whomsoever she wants, even a senator. After that the way for Justinian to marry Theodora was clear but unfortunately there was one more obstacle. Theodora was a converted Monophysite of the Coptic Church who believed that Christ had one nature, a composite nature of both the human and the divine. Justinian, however, not only respected his wife's beliefs but he also protected the Monophysites who were considered heretics by the Church in Tsari Grad. This grand gesture on Justinian's part made the Monophysites feel that they had a champion in Tsari Grad and their allegiance to the emperor and the empire remained secure.

The thirty-eight years of Justinian's reign were the most brilliant in the life of the empire and filled with great events, both in peace and in war. Justinian as a contributor to his empire was most famous for his legal reforms, administration of the empire, ecclesiastical and foreign policies.

Justinian is famous and most familiar to the modern world for his work as a legislator and codifier of the law. He was one of the first emperors to take serious action in modernizing the archaic and confusing law. Justinian believed that a great empire must have the strength of organized unity which rested on arms and on law. His process of modernization began by having the scattered decrees of his predecessors collected, ordered and logically organized into a complete codex so that every citizen could quickly learn the law on any subject. Besides the codification, Justinian himself also wrote some new laws.

The entire legislation was compiled by first appointing a commission of ten lawyers to reduce the bulky Theodosian Code, published in 438 AD, to an orderly and concise summary, with a means of inserting new laws into it. The "Codex" was completed in 529 AD.
Next, answers given by authorities over the years, that formed acknowledged precedents, were reviewed, optimized and arranged in fifty books, thus reducing the law library of one hundred and six volumes to about one-fifth of its original size. This became known as the "Digest" or "Pandects" and was published in 530 AD.

Finally a teaching manual known as the "Institutes" for teaching students law was compiled from the commentaries of the 2nd century Gaius and was published in 530 AD.
.
In 534 AD the entire work was revised and a fourth part, the "Authentic" or "Novels", was added, which contained later decisions made by Justinian's courts.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the works of law produced at this time are still the basis of civil law in every civilized country in the modern world.

Justinian was also famous for his contributions to what we now call Byzantine art and architecture. The Byzantine style of architecture, at least in its perfect form, owes its origin to Justinian and the architects he employed. His activity in building was enormous and covered his empire from Ravenna to Damascus with superb monuments. All later building in both East and West were derived from his models. The two most famous of his buildings are the church of Our Lady (now the El-Aqsa mosque) in Jerusalem and, by far the most splendid of all, is the great church of the Holy Wisdom (Sveta Sophia) in Tsari Grad. This church especially, built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus was consecrated on December 27, 537 AD, remains to this day one of the architectural marvels in our world.

Justinian's interests were not limited to church architecture alone. His administration was also involved in grand projects such as building quays, harbours, roads, aqueducts, castles and fortifying and repairing damaged city walls.

On matters of religion, Justinian's ecclesiastical policy was complex and varying. For many years even before Justin's time, the Eastern world had been plagued by the struggles of the Monophysites, mentioned earlier. Monophysites recognized only one nature in Christ, against the view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that the divine and human natures coexisted together in Christ. The latter doctrine was adopted at the council of Chalcedon and was held by the whole Western Church, but Egypt, a great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a considerable minority in Tsari Grad clung to Monophysitism.
At the start of Justinian's reign the Orthodox and the Monophysites resisted the idea of a split in Christendom. By the end of his reign there was a strong Monophysite organization in place and although the schism was not permanent it did exist.

One of Justinian's first public acts was to put an end to this schism. He began his campaign by convincing Justin to persuade the then patriarch to renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion to the creed of Chalcedon. Then when Justinian himself became emperor he attempted to persuade the Monophysites to join the mainstream church by summoning some of their leaders to a conference. Unfortunately, his attempts failed so he began to persecute them but not to the extent that he persecuted the heretic Monastists and Arians.
After a long time, long disputes and endless negotiations the Church schism became worse and eventually permanent.

Justinian's problems were not limited to ecclesiastic schisms alone. In January 532 AD he was faced with street violence inside Tsari Grad which in time became known as the Nika revolt. Like every other large city worthy of any notice, Tsari Grad had its chariot-racing factions, which took their names from their red, white, blue and green colours. These were professional organizations responsible for fielding chariot-racing teams in the hippodromes. But by Justinian's time they were also in charge of shows and other activities. The Blues and the Greens were the dominant groups, but the Reds and Whites also enjoyed support from the crowds and even from important people. The emperor Anastasius, for example, was a fan of the Reds. The fans, as we call them today, of each faction were assigned their own blocks of seats in the Hippodrome.

Justinian and Theodora, as I mentioned earlier, were Blue supporters and when street violence began to escalate under Justin's rule they encouraged it. But after Justinian became emperor he began to crack down on the instigators.

The problem started on Saturday, January 10, 532 AD when the city prefect who had arrested some hooligans and found seven of them guilty of murder, had them hung outside the city at Sycae, across the Golden Horn. But before the prisoners were hung, the scaffolding broke and two of them, a Blue and a Green, escaped. Some monks from a nearby monastery gave them sanctuary at the church of St Lawrence. The following Tuesday while the two men were still hiding in the church, the Blue and Green organized factions begging Justinian to show mercy. Justinian unfortunately ignored their pleas and continued his pursuit of them. Unrelenting, the Blue and Greens continued their appeals until the twenty-second race when their frustration boiled over and united they raised the banner "Nika" and took to the streets. When the riots started the court officials took refuge in the palace and watched the street mobs ransack the city.

Justinian tried to continue the games the next day but only provoked more riots, anger and arson. The rioting and destruction continued throughout the week. Even the arrival of imperial troops from Thrace failed to restore order. Then, on Sunday before sunrise, Justinian appealed to the crowds in the Hippodrome by repenting publicly and promising amnesty. The crowds unfortunately turned even more hostile and forced Justinian to flee for his life.

The worst however was yet to come. The night before Justinian dismissed two of emperor Anastasius's nephews, Hypatius and Pompey, from the palace and sent them home. Instead of going home however, the pair went to the Hippodrome where they were met by the mobs and Hypatius was proclaimed emperor. Fearing that the mobs would turn on his palace, Justinian was ready to flee Tsari Grad and perhaps would have done so if it were not for Theodora, who did not frighten so easily. Theodora along with his trusted commanders, Belisarius and Narses, convinced Justinian to stay and fight back. Almost immediately Belisarius and Mundo were dispatched with their troops and made their separate ways into the Hippodrome. Hypatius and his unruly supporters were surrounded and violently put down ending the 'Nika' riot with 35,000 rioters dead.

The 'Nika' revolt obviously left Justinian firmly in charge of Tsari Grad but it also gave him the opportunity to clean house not only of unruly mobs but of political opposition as well. All those opposing him, including the senators that surfaced during the revolt, were eliminated or went into hiding. The revolt left Tsari Grad damaged in more ways than one. The Nika revolt gave Justinian absolute power over Tsari Grad and at the same time cleared the way for his own building program, mentioned earlier. Work on his new church, Sveta Sophia, to replace the one that was destroyed by the mobs commenced only forty-five days after the riots were over.

On matters of foreign policy, Justinian's empire was involved in three great wars, two of them initiated by him and the third brought on by Persia. The Sassanid kings of Persia ruled a region extending from Syria to India and from the Strait of Oman to the Caucasus. The military character of the Sassanid people made them formidable enemies to the Pravoslavs (Byzantines), whose soldiers at the time were mainly of barbarian stock. When Justinian came to power his military strength on the Euphrates was slowly weakening against the constant Sassanid push. After some campaigning, however, the Pravoslav military skills began to improve and Belisarius obtained considerable success and a peace treaty with the Sassanid's was concluded in 533 AD. Unfortunately the treaty only lasted until 539 AD when the Sassanids declared war again alleging that Justinian had been secretly intriguing against them with the Huns. Justinian at that time was involved in a campaign in Italy and was unable to adequately defend his eastern frontier. So the Sassanids advanced into Syria with little resistance and by 540 AD had captured Antioch and enslaved its inhabitants. While the war on the eastern frontier lingered on for four years, an even fiercer struggle erupted in the mountainous region in the southeastern corner of the Black Sea, lasting for twenty-two years without a clear victor. Then in 562 AD a truce was reached and the contested region was left to the Pravoslavs, under the agreement that Justinian pay the Persian king an annual tribute of thirty thousand gold pieces. This war was not only an embarrassment for Justinian but it greatly weakened his empire and slowed down his campaigning momentum in the west.

In the west the campaigns began in 533 AD with an attack on the Vandals who were then in control of Africa. Belisarius was dispatched from Tsari Grad with a large fleet and army. He landed without opposition and destroyed the barbarian power base in just two engagements. North Africa was again freed from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar to the Syrtes and came under the control of the Pravoslavs. In western Europe the Moors controlled most of Spain but the Pravoslavs managed to recover parts of the southern coast. Considering the strength of the enemy, Justinian's troops were gaining experience and delivering victories with ease.

The triumphs in Africa encouraged Justinian to declare war on the leaderless Ostrogoths of Italy. After the deaths of Theodoric and later his grandson Atbalaric, the Goth leadership deteriorated and they were left almost leaderless. The Goth kingdom was vast and included part of southeastern Gaul, Raetia, Dalmatia, part of Pannonia, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica.

Justinian declared war on the Goths in 535 AD under the pretext of taking revenge for the murder of Queen Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric, who was at the time under the protection of the Pravoslavs. Justinian also alleged that the Ostrogothic kingdom had always owed its allegiance to the emperor at Tsari Grad.

Belisarius, as commander of the Italian expedition, quickly invaded Sicily, overran southern Italy, and in 536 AD occupied Rome. But his quick victories did not go unchallenged. Within a year the Goths chose a new king Vitiges, amassed a considerable fighting force and retaliated. The siege of Rome lasted over a year but Belisarius held his ground. However, it was not Belisarius's determination alone which held back and eventually repealed the Goths. During this period sicknesses were rampant, preying on the Gothic troops. With a diminished army Vitiges had no choice but to abandon the siege. When the siege was lifted Belisarius took the offensive and pushed the Goth army northwards into Ravenna where it eventually surrendered. Vitiges was captured and became Justinian's prisoner in Tsari Grad. Justinian treated him with much compassion, as he had previously treated the captive Vandal king.

The void created by the Goth fall was filled by the Pravoslavs through the establishment of an imperial administration in Italy. Unfortunately, the defeat of Vitiges did not mean the end of the Goths. Much of the Goth nation had not submitted to Pravoslaven rule and the Goth crown was bestowed on another king. Totila, or Baduila as he was known, was a warrior of distinguished abilities who drove the Pravoslav administration out of Italy.

Belisarius was again dispatched but his force turned out to be too small to do the job. During the next several years the Goths took back their cities one by one, with the exception of Ravenna, Otranto and Ancona.

Justinian at the time had problems at home. With the passing of his wife Theodora, who died of cancer in 548 AD, and the endless ecclesiastical controversies, he neither had the resources nor the funds to commit to a large campaign. In time, however, he did succumb to pressure from a number of Roman exiles who urged him to make a move on Italy. In 552 AD Justinian put together a powerful army and under the leadership of Narses, an old but experienced Armenian general, dispatched it to counter the Goths.

Narses marched his forces along the coast of the Gulf of Venice, and faced Totila's army at Taginae, not far from Cesena. It was a catastrophic battle for the Goths. Totila lost his life in battle and his army was devastated. The Goths, however, refused to surrender and made another valiant attempt under the leadership of Teias, on the Lactarian Hill in Campania. Narses delivered another devastating blow and after that the Goths disappeared from history.

The Pravoslavs recovered Italy but by the time they did it was a terribly impoverished and depopulated region whose possession was of little value to the empire. As it turned out, both wars against the Vandals and the Goths were a great drain on the empire's resources, which could have been better spent defending the northern frontier against invading tribes.

Besides these three great wars, Justinian's empire was troubled by a series of invasions. On the northern frontier various Slavonic and Hunnish tribes who were established along the lower Danube and the north coast of the Black Sea made frequent marauding expeditions into Thrace and Macedonia. Sometimes they penetrated as far as the walls of Tsari Grad and as far south as the Isthmus of Corinth.

Even though he did his best to stabilize his empire, Justinian continued to face new challenges. In 556 AD he was faced with another revolt, the next year a great earthquake shook his capital city and the year after that the dome of the new Sveta Sophia church collapsed. If that was not enough, at about the same time, the plague returned. Then in early 559 AD a horde of Huns or proto-Bulgars crossed the frozen Danube and advanced into the Balkans.

The Huns penetrated the Balkans in three columns. One column pushed south and went as far as Thermopylae. Another column advanced into the Gallipoli Peninsula but was stopped by the Long Wall, which was defended by a young officer from Justinian's native town. The last and most dangerous column made its way to Tsari Grad.

Faced with an imminent invasion and no suitable forces for defense, Justinian recalled Belisarius from retirement. Belisarius put together a small force of 300 of his best veterans and set a trap for the Huns. As soon as he ambushed the Huns, Justinian took charge of the battle and forced them into a treaty. The news that Justinian was reinforcing his Danube fleet made the Huns anxious and they agreed to a treaty which gave them safe passage back across the river. But as soon as they were north of the Danube they were attacked by their rivals the Utigurs who were incited by Justinian to steal their booty.

The Huns (Kutrigurs) may have been beaten but were not destroyed and came back in 562 AD to raid Thrace. The Huns and their rivals the Utigurs soon fell prey to a new horde of barbarians, the Avars, who in the early 560s swept out of the Asian steppes.

Justinian died in November 565 AD and was succeeded by his nephew Justin II. Undoubtedly, Justinian was one of the greatest if not the greatest emperor after Constantine, to have ruled the Pravoslaven Empire.

In his quest to build a great empire, Justinian unfortunately also bankrupted his empire's economy. Some believe that that was a contributing factor to the weakening of his frontier defenses in subsequent years, allowing barbarian invasions. "... the disintegration of the military system in the Balkans, which Justinian implemented in the mid-500s, was the result not so much of the destruction inflicted by barbarian invasions, as of serious economic and financial problems caused both by the emperor's policies elsewhere and by the impossibility of providing sufficient economic support to his gigantic building program of defense. This conclusion is substantiated by the analysis of sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which suggest that inflation, not barbarian raids, was responsible for high rates of non-retrieval." (Page 338, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.).

I am not interested at this point in debating the "Slav problem" other than to show that if indeed it was a problem, it must have been a universal problem for the entire Balkan region down to the Mediterranean Sea. If the Slavs indeed invaded the Balkans on mass and wiped out the indigenous populations, then they must have wiped out everyone as far south as they were able to reach. There were no walls, fortifications or armies to stop them. What is most interesting, however, is that even though mainstream history agrees with the claim that the Slavs invaded and overran the entire Balkan region including the peninsula south of Olympus, it contradicts itself on the modern populations' national origins. On one hand it allows claims of continuity connecting the modern nations south of Olympus to the ancient nations, and at the same time denies continuity for the modern nations for the populations north of Olympus. Is this a historical truth or a political invention concocted to serve the interests of one while denying the interests of another? How can the modern Macedonians be Slavs while their neighbours to the immediate south are not? Didn't the Slavs supposedly overrun the entire region?

The modern Balkan historian today is faced with two contradictory problems. On one hand he or she is faced with the unsubstantiated claim that the Slavs invaded the Balkans on mass and killed off its "civilized and non aggressive" indigenous inhabitants and on the other hand he or she is bombarded with contradictory claims of modern racial pre-Slav continuity.

As mentioned earlier, the "Slav phenomenon" is largely a political phenomenon with little historical significance. The reasons attributed to the Slavs as opposed to the Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, etc., as being the culprits for the invasions and devastation of the Balkans is to explain the wide use of the Slav language. In other words, the "Slav phenomenon" is a modern 19th century creation designed to explain the prevalent use of the modern Slav languages. It is most unfortunate, however, that modern scholars choose to ignore archeological evidence that links the 6th century Slavs to the ancient prehistoric Veneti. "Archeological research has already provided an enormous amount of evidence in support of the idea that the Venethi were Slavs." (Page 13, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.). Accepting the hypothesis that the Veneti and the Slavs are connected not only provides linguistic continuity for the modern Macedonians to the ancient Macedonians but also identifies the so-called "elusive" Macedonian language of ancient times. With this in mind, we cannot ignore claims that the Slav language was most probably spoken by Alexander's Macedonian soldiers and settlers and was spread throughout the vastness of the uncivilized regions of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. Also, it would not be far fetched to hypothesize that Alexander's Macedonians colonized parts of European Russia, which would attest to the many common toponyms that Macedonia and European Russia share.

And now back to Justinian's story.

Justinian had no children of his own when he died but there seemed to have been no shortage of heirs. Theodora died seventeen years before Justinian leaving him childless. Justinian had half a dozen or so nephews but it was Justin, the son of his sister Vigilantia, who rose to the occasion to take Justinian's place. Justin or Justin II as he came to be known was married to Sophia, one of Theodora's nieces. Justin first surfaced on the political scene in 552 AD when he was appointed to take charge of day to day business affairs in the palace. His dealings with important people including Tiberius, who would eventually succeed him, gave him the exposure he needed to gain the palace's support. His only rival was Justin, son of Germanus, who at the time of Justinian's death was the Master of the Soldiers in Illyria, guarding the Danube frontier.

When Justinian suddenly died the night of November 14, 565 AD, Justin was in the right place at the right time to receive his acclamation. A group of senators hurriedly went to Justin's palace to meet with Justin and Vigilantia to report Justinian's death. Justin and Sophia were then escorted to the Great Palace where Justin was crowned by the patriarch. The next morning Justin appeared in the imperial box at the Hippodrome wearing the crown and received the acclamations of the people. The day after his inauguration Justin crowned his wife Sophia as Augusta.

Justin II's first order of business, after becoming emperor, was to pay off Justinian's debts. Justinian had accumulated them in his last years by raising money through forced loans. Also, Imperial unity depended upon theological peace. Justinian died and left the church in a crisis. The division between the Chalcedonian and the Monophysite factions was wider than ever and now that the Monophysites had priests and bishops of their own it was less likely that the schism would ever be healed. The empress Sophia, like her aunt before her, had openly been a Monophysite. Justin II had possibly leaned in the same direction but realizing that Monophysite sympathies would be a political liability convinced his wife and they both became orthodox.

In the meantime Justin II wasted no time in assassinating his rival Justin, son of Germanus. With no challengers and confident in his own abilities, Justin quickly settled into the role as emperor and began to receive envoys. Within a week the Avars arrived looking for their subsidies which Justinian had promised, but Justin refused to pay. Soon afterwards Justin became involved in Avar, Gepid and Lombard affairs and as a result lost Italy. The Lombards invaded Italy in 568 AD and occupied it in a few short years. In 572 AD Justin's overtures to the Turks led to a war with Persia and after two disastrous campaigns, the Persians overran Syria. A one-year truce was reached with Persia at the loss of Armenia and at a cost of 45,000 solidi.

The Avars waited until the Pravoslavi were weakened by the Persians before they crossed the Danube in late 573 AD and attacked Tiberius's army. Justin was not prepared for more losses. Unable to cope he fell ill after receiving the bad news. With Justin unable to command the empire, the empress Sophia wasted no time and promoted Tiberius to co-ruler. Tiberius made peace with the Avars and saved the empire from collapse for now. Unfortunately the peace was not meant to last. Even though the Danube frontier still held, it was a matter of time before the Avars would sweep south again. The inevitable did happen around 582 AD during Tiberius II's time when a horde of Avars and Slavs swept south down to Athens.

Justin II never recovered from his illness and in December of 574 AD he appointed Tiberius Caesar with the name Tiberius Constantine.

Justin's wife Sophia was determined to maintain her own position as Augusta as long as Justin was alive. In the meantime she refused to let Tiberius bring his wife, Ino, into the palace. There are some who rumoured that Sophia herself wanted to marry Tiberius and that is why she forced his family to live in another palace. Whether or not the rumours were true, Sophia's tactics eventually succeeded in making Ino move away from Tsari Grad. Tiberius showed no inclination to abandon his wife so, even before Justin II was dead in 578 AD, Sophia was conspiring with Justinian, another son of Germanus, to replace him. Tiberius, however, was much too clever and popular with the people to fall prey to Sophia's intrigues so after Justin's death he became sole ruler of the Pravoslaven empire.

Once Tiberius became emperor, Sophia had to accept defeat. At his coronation in the Hippodrome Tiberius was asked to name his empress. At that point he proclaimed Ino, whom he named Anastasia, to be his empress and lawful wife. Her coronation as Augusta was a blow to Sophia, who moved on to another palace across the Bosporus, which had been built by Justin.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 14:49

During the year 313 AD, from the great imperial city of Milan, Emperor Constantine, together with his co-Emperor Licinius, dispatched a series of letters informing all provincial governors to stop persecuting the Christians, thus revoking all previous anti-Christian decrees. All properties, including Christian places of worship, seized from them in the past were to be restored. This so called "Edict of Milan", by which the Roman Empire reversed its policy of hostility towards Christians, was one of the most decisive events in human history.

What brought on this sudden reversal?

Rational thinkers believed that Constantine had the foresight to realize that Christianity was a growing power and could be harnessed to work for the good of the empire. Christianity was a result of changing times and harnessing its power was of far greater benefit than following the current policy of attempting to destroy it.

Christianity at that time was disorganized and existed in cult form in sporadic pockets spread throughout the empire. Yet Constantine still had the foresight to see potential in it.

Christianity was a peripheral issue in Constantine's mind when he and his co-Emperor Licinius were about to face Maxentius and Maximin Daita in the greatest battle of their careers. It was at this decisive moment that Constantine experienced a vision which, not only changed his life but, was the turning point for Christianity.

In 312 AD, on the eve of the great battle, Constantine had an experience which swayed him towards Christianity. "A little after noon, as the sun began to decline...[Constantine] declared that he saw with his own eyes in the sky beneath the sun a trophy in the shape of a cross made of light with the inscriptions 'by this conquer.' He was astounded by the spectacle, as were the soldiers who accompanied him on the march and saw the miraculous phenomenon...But when he fell asleep God's Christ appeared to him with the sign which he had seen in the sky and instructed him to fashion a likeness of the sign and use it as a protection in the encounters of war." (Page 167, D. Fishwick, The Foundations of the West, Clark, Irwin & Company, Toronto, 1963).

I want to mention at this point that even though Constantine was swayed towards Christianity, he himself was personally devoted to Mars, the god of war, and Apollo, the god of the sun.

Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of "the God of the Christians" and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day forward.

Shortly after becoming involved with the Christians, Constantine discovered that there were many problems and a basic lack of unity within the Christian Church. Within the Christian realm there were those who took strict positions towards the behaviour of others because they had shown a lack of faith during the Christian persecutions. Yet others, like the Gnostics, had taken Jesus' message totally out of context. To work out these problems Constantine organized and chaired two synods, one in Rome in 313 AD and one in Arles, southern Gaul, in 314 AD. Even though much was accomplished there were still unresolved problems. Constantine could not get all parties to agree on a common Christian policy. Differences of opinion drove some factions to leave the main church and start separatist churches. One of these was the church of North Africa which possessed considerable power and resisted assimilation for over two centuries.

The Christian Church was not Constantine's only problem. There were difficulties with sharing power with his brother in law Licinius. The agreement of 313 AD, which had been born out of necessity not mutual good will, was beginning to unravel. Hostilities between the two emperors continued to build and erupted in 316 AD, in what later came to be known as the first war. Two battles were fought, the first at Cibalae in Pannonia and the second on the campus Ardiensis in Thrace. During the first battle Licinius's army suffered heavy losses. In the second battle neither side won a clear victory. A settlement was eventually reached which allowed Licinius to remain Augustus but required him to cede all of his European provinces, except for Thrace, to Constantine.

As part of the agreement with Licinius, Constantine announced the appointment of three Caesars on March 1st, 317 AD in Serdica (modern Sofia). Among the appointees were Constantine's two sons, twelve year old Crispus and seven month old Constantine. Licinius's twenty month old son Licinius was also named Caesar. Unfortunately the new agreement was fragile and tensions between the emperors were again surfacing. This was partly due to Constantine and Licinius not being able to agree on a common policy regarding the Christian religion and partly due to the suspicious nature of the two men. Licinius was growing uneasy with Constantine's relationship with the Christian power base. He saw Christians being promoted above their pagan counterparts and Christian soldiers getting the day off on Sunday. Furthermore a growing list of favours, powers and immunities were being granted to Christians, with which Licinius did not agree.

War erupted again in 324 AD and this time Constantine defeated Licinius twice, first at Adrianople in Thrace and then at Chrysopolis on the Bosporus near the ancient city of Byzantium. Licinius was captured but not executed because Constantine's sister, Constantia, pleaded with him to spare her husband's life. Some months later however, still suspicious of Licinius, Constantine ordered his execution. Not too long afterwards, the younger Licinius too fell victim to Constantine's suspicions and was also executed. Constantine was now the sole and undisputed master of the Roman Empire.

Immediately after his victory over Licinius in 324 AD, Constantine began the construction of his new capital, the "City of Constantine". This would be a Christian city fit for Kings that would not only rival, but would surpass the glory of Rome.

Power was where the Emperor was, and the Emperor was now in his own city in the hub of activity just at the edge of Macedonia. Although this was not purely a Macedonian city, it had the elements of Macedonian culture and tradition. It was a very un-Roman city in language and culture and not only imitated the Macedonian cities of Alexandria and Antioch but with time surpassed their cultural and academic achievements. Constantinople or Tsari Grad ("City of Kings"), as it was known to the Macedonians, was going to be the power base of a new empire, a revival of Alexander the Great's old empire with a Christian twist. "This 'Eastern' or Byzantine empire is generally spoken of as if it were a continuation of the Roman tradition. It is really far more like a resumption of Alexander's." (Page 414, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961).

While Constantine was building his new city, his mother Helena undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and was instrumental in the building of the Churches of the Nativity at Bethlehem and Eleona on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives.

On November 8th, 324 AD Constantine formally laid out the boundaries of his new city, roughly quadrupling the territory of old Byzantium. While his architects were designing his new city, Constantine and his army, numbering about 120,000 troops, were established in Solun. Even before moving to Solun in 324 AD, Constantine had the old Solun harbour renovated and expanded to fit his fleet of 200 triakondores galleons and about 2,000 merchant ships.

By 328 AD the walls of Tsari Grad were completed and the new city was formally ready for dedication in May 330 AD. Soon after the city was opened, Constantine ordered the construction of two major churches, Sveta Sophia (Holy Wisdom) and Sveta Eirena (Holy Peace) and began laying the foundation of a third church, the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Unlike Rome, which was filled with pagan monuments and institutions, Tsari Grad was essentially a Christian city with Christian churches and institutions. While Tsari Grad was shaping to be a Christian city, the prevailing character of Constantine's government was one of conservatism. His adoption of Christianity did not lead to a radical reordering of society or to a systematic revision of the legal system. Generally refraining from sweeping innovations, he retained and completed most of what Diocletian had set out to do, especially in provincial administration and army organization.

While implementing currency reforms, Constantine instituted a new type of coin, the gold solidus, which won wide acceptance and remained the standard currency for centuries to come. Some of Constantine's measures show a genuine concern for the welfare and morality of his subjects, even for the condition of slaves. By entrusting some government functions to the Christian clergy he actually made the church an agency of the imperial government. Constantine also showed great concern for the security of his empire, especially at the frontiers. Even though he made Tsari Grad his capital, Solun still remained a pole around which his empire was defended. Because of its secure harbour, Solun flourished economically and experienced much cultural growth.

Constantine campaigned successfully from 306 to 308 AD and again from 314 to 315 AD. He experienced action on the German frontier in 332 AD against the Goths and again in 334 AD against the Sarmatians. He even fought near his homeland in 336 AD on the Danube frontier. As he was getting of age, Constantine made arrangements for his succession and appointed to the position of Caesars, his three sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, 317 AD, 324 AD, and 333 AD respectively. He then appointed his nephew Flavius Dalmatius, son of Constantius I and Theodora, Caesar in 335 AD. Unfortunately he never made it clear which of his successors was intended to take the leading role upon his death.

Between the years 325 and 337 AD, Constantine continued to support the Christian Church by donating generous gifts of money and by passing helpful legislation. His kindness to the Christians was not restricted to the city of Tsari Grad alone. He also founded the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Golden Octagon in Antioch. Even with all his kindness Constantine was not spared misfortune and shortly after Easter on April 3rd, 337 AD Constantine began to feel ill. He traveled to Drepanum, later named Helenopolis in honour of his mother, and prayed at the tomb of his mother's favourite saint, the martyr Lucian. From there he went to the suburbs of Nicomedia where he was baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. A few weeks later on May 22nd, the day of Pentecost, Constantine died. His body was escorted to Tsari Grad and lay in state in the imperial palace. His sarcophagus was then placed in the Church of the Holy Apostles, as he himself had instructed in his will. His sarcophagus was surrounded by the memorial steles of the Twelve Apostles, symbolically making him the thirteenth Apostle.

Constantine's failure to specifically appoint his successor sparked a conflict among the Caesars in the palace. After eliminating Flavius Dalmatius and other rivals in a bloody coup, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans each assumed the rank of Augustus. Constantine's army, faithful from the day they crowned him until his death, vowed they would have no other but his sons to rule them. The army, in a violent bloodbath, killed everyone who did not qualify, including two of Constantine's half brothers. The only ones to escape were two of his nephews, Gallus and Julian.

At this point I would like to take a short diversion and examine what was happening throughout the empire.

As I mentioned earlier, while the Roman Empire was decaying, Germanic tribes were growing in strength and pressing from the north. Around 236 AD the Franks were descending upon the lower Rhine and the Alamanni were overrunning Alsace in France. Earlier I mentioned the Goths from southern Russia were overrunning the Black Sea pouring into the Aegean and attacking the province of Ducia.

By late third century most barbarian invasions were repealed but not entirely destroyed. During 321 AD the Goths were again plundering what is now Serbia and Bulgaria but were soon driven back by Constantine I. Then in 337 AD, pressed by the Goths, the Vandals were permitted to cross the Danube and enter Pannonia, part of modern day Hungary (west of the Danube). By the mid-fourth century the Hunnish people to the east were again building up forces and pressing on the Visigoths. The Visigoths, following the Vandal example, also entered Roman territory. But before any agreements could be reached they attacked Andrianople and killed the Emperor Valens. In spite of their violent ways the Visigoths were allowed to settle in what is now Bulgaria. Their settlement was conditional however, requiring their armies to submit to Roman rule. Each army was allowed to remain in the command of its own chief.

The major players in the barbarian armies of the time were Alaric of the Visigoths, Stilicho of the Pannonian Vandals and a Frank who commanded the legions of Gaul. Emperor Theodosius, a Spaniard, was in command of the Gothic auxiliaries. The true power, however, was in the hands of Alaric and Stilicho the two barbarian competitors who wasted no time in splitting the empire between themselves. Alaric took control of the eastern Koine speaking half and Stilicho took the western Latin speaking half.

At about the same time the empire was being split in two, the Huns appeared on the scene and began to enlist in Stilicho's army. Frequent clashes between east and west began to weaken the empire and opened the door for more barbarian invasions. Fresh Vandals, more Goths, Alans and Suevi all began to penetrate the frontiers of the empire. In 410 AD, amidst the confusion, Alaric marched down Italy capturing Rome after a short siege. By 425 AD the Vandals, of present day East Germany, and the Alani, of present day southeast Russia, overran Gaul and the Pyrenees and had settled in the southern regions of modern day Spain. The Huns were in possession of Pannonia and the Goths of Dalmatia. Around 451 AD the Czechs settled in Moravia and Bohemia. The Visigoths and Suevi, in the meantime, pressed their way westwards and ended up north of the Vandals in present day Portugal. Gaul meanwhile was divided between the Visigoths, Franks and Burgundians.

By 449 AD present day Britain was invaded by the Jutes, a Germanic tribe, the Angles and the Saxons who in turn were pushing out the Keltic British to what is now modern Brittany in France. The Vandals from south of Spain had crossed over into North Africa by 429 AD, occupied Carthage by 439 AD, and invaded, raided and pillaged Rome by 455 AD. After ransacking Italy they crossed into Sicily and set up a Vandal kingdom which lasted up to 534 AD. At its peak, which was around 477 AD, the Vandal kingdom occupied North Africa, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles. The Vandal kingdom was ruled by a handful of Vandals whose Vandal population numbered no more than eighty thousand men, women and children. The rest of the population consisted of passive non-Vandals who, under the Vandal occupation, found relief from the Roman burden of slavery and taxation. The Vandals had in effect exterminated the great landowners, wiped clean all debts to Roman moneylenders and abolished military service.

While the Vandals ruled the western Mediterranean, a great leader Attila was consolidating his power among the Huns east of the Danube. At its peak, Attila's empire of Hunnish and Germanic tribes stretched from the Rhine to central Asia. Attila was said to be the first westerner to negotiate on equal terms with the Chinese emperor.

For ten years, while he was passionately in love with Emperor Theodosius II's granddaughter Honoria, Attila bullied Ravenna and Tsari Grad. During his rule, Attila destroyed seventy cities, some of them in Macedonia, and came upon the walls of Tsari Grad forcing an uneasy peace on the emperor. The peace treaty however, in spite of her disappointment, did not include Honoria. Even though Honoria voluntarily offered to marry Attila, the emperor would not allow it. Attila was not disappointed.

In 451 AD Attila declared war on the Western Empire and invaded Gaul sacking most of the French cities down to south of Orleans. Just as Attila was ravaging Gaul, the Frank, Visigoth and imperial armies joined forces for a counter offensive. Before the year was over Attila's army was cut off at Troyes and the Mongolian overlord was forced out of France. Beaten but not destroyed Attila turned his attention southward, overrunning northern Italy, burning Aquileia and Padua, and looting Milan. Attila died in 453 AD and subsequently the Huns dissolved into the surrounding population and disappeared from history.

In 493 AD, after seventeen years without an emperor, Theodoric, a Goth, became King of Rome thus putting an end to the rule of god-Caesars and rich men. The Roman imperial system of western Europe and north Africa collapsed and ceased to exist. The Roman had come and gone but what remained was no longer Roman. The west, for almost five hundred years after its fall, experienced a period of decline, which later became known as the Dark Ages.

Out of the ashes of the Roman Empire rose a new empire known as the "Eastern" or "Byzantine" Empire. Many would agree that this was the revival or re-birth of Alexander the Great's old Macedonian empire. Some even called it the "stump" of Alexander the Great's empire.

Along with the re-birth of the Macedonian Empire, the Koine language resurfaced and took its rightful place not only as the language of the intellectuals but also as the language of administration. The Latin language had neither the intellectual vigour nor the literature or science necessary to captivate intelligent men and women. Ever since its humble beginning the new empire was Koine speaking, a continuation of the Macedonian tradition. It seems that Latin even lost its way in the west only to be replaced by the languages of the barbarians. While the Roman social and political structure was being smashed in the west, the east was embracing a renewed Macedonian tradition. Some say Constantine the Great may have been a Slav (page 450, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961) but it is more appropriate to say that he was a Macedonian, building a new empire and following in the footsteps of his ancestors.

As I mentioned earlier, after Constantine's death his three sons inherited the rule of the empire. The west was to be shared between the eldest and youngest sons, Constantine II and Constans, while the middle son Constantius was to rule the east. Unhappy with the arrangement, a conflict broke out in 340 AD between Constantine II and Constans, resulting in Constantine II's death. After that Constans assumed sole rule of the west until he was deposed and executed by his own troops in 350 AD.

After Constans's death the army recognized one of its own officers. But in 351 AD the usurper's authority was challenged in battle and he was defeated. After that Constantius remained the sole ruler of the entire empire.

While Constantius set out west to personally deal with the usurper, he appointed his young cousin, Gallus, guardian of the east. Gallus unfortunately turned out to be a terrible ruler and quickly fell out of favour. After three years of rule Constantius had him executed.

In 355 AD, before embarking on an eastern campaign, Constantius recalled his last surviving cousin Julian and appointed him guardian of the west to defend the western frontier against the Franks and Alamans. Before sending him off, however, he had him married off to his sister Helena.

Unlike his brother Gallus, Julian was good at his job and in his five years of service he cleansed the western provinces of intruders and improved the western economy. Unfortunately, Julian was exceeding expectations and made Constantius uneasy. To alleviate his concerns, Constantius made an attempt to remove Julian but his effort failed. Julian was a great leader and the army in Gaul refused to give him up. In February 360 AD, with total disregard for Constantius's orders, the army in Gaul proclaimed Julian, Augustus. After some hesitation Julian accepted the position. Fortunately Constantius died before he attempted to remove him.

Having no capable heir to replace himself with, on his deathbed in 361 AD, Constantius appointed Julian his successor. Julian accepted the position and reigned as sole Augustus until June 363 AD.

Constantius was anti-pagan and introduced policies to exterminate pagan cults. Julian, on the other hand, was tolerant of all religions, especially Mithraism and encouraged all sorts of religious practices. In 356 AD, when Constantius was sole ruler of the empire, he decreed the death penalty for all those found sacrificing or worshiping idols. Julian, on the other hand, not only repealed the discriminatory decree but also removed Christians from office and discontinued the provision of subsidies for Christian projects including those for welfare. He even took a step further and proclaimed open and all-inclusive tolerance of all religions in the empire. Julian may have been a visionary but unfortunately he was ahead of his time. His policies of tolerance not only didn't work but conflicts between the various religions began to erupt.

One of Julian's accomplishments during his rule was the reformation of the Empire's educational system. He was responsible for widening the scope of subjects taught, made requirements that all teachers be licensed and forbade Christians to teach in state schools. Unfortunately for Julian, Christianity by now was so well rooted in his empire that many of his reforms were ignored. On the positive side, however, Julian initiated a number of great construction projects, including the massive fortification of the walls of Solun.

Julian died on June 26th, 363 AD from a spear wound during a campaign against the Persians in Asia. Julian was the last male of the house of Constantine. Due to his sudden death he had made no provisions for a successor. It was now up to the senior officers of his army to select the new ruler.

The man who accepted the call to duty was a young officer named Jovian, a Nicaean Christian. Flavius Jovianus (Jovian) was born in 331 AD at Singidunum, near modern day Belgrade. Jovian's first priority was to return Christianity to the empire, thus ending paganism and the religious rivalries introduced by Julian's reforms.

Nicaea was located in Bithynia in modern day northwestern Turkey and was an important city for Christianity. It was in Nicaea that Constantine I, in 325 AD, gathered a council to settle disputes caused by the "Arian views" of the Trinity.

Arius was an Alexandrian priest who believed that Christ was not of the same essence as God. After some deliberation the council disagreed with Arius's views. Instead they adopted what came to be known as the "Nicene Creed" which declared that "Christ and God were of the same essence". Among other things, the Nicaean council also decided when Easter was to be celebrated and summarized a number of important articles regarding the Christian faith.

Even under the powerful defense of the Constantine dynasty, which lasted approximately 70 years from 293 AD to 363 AD, the eastern empire was not immune to attacks. Earlier in this document I gave a preview of what happened in the western part of the empire, now let us turn our attention to the east.

Long before the Constantine dynasty came to power, while the Roman Empire was experiencing decay, the Persian Empire began to experience a revival. Iran became the Parthian center of culture, first under the Arsacids and later under the Sassanids. Around 241 AD Sassanian forces, under the leadership of Shapur, defeated the Kushan Empire. After a number of campaigns an Iranian dynasty once again came to rule the lands as far east as Indus. Not long after seizing Iran, Shapur's armies crossed into the Caucasus and seized Armenia, Georgia and Albania (north of modern day Azerbaijan).

After his successes in Asia, Shapur turned his attention westward and attacked Antioch. The city defenses turned out to be more formidable than expected and a stalemate was reached. To end the stalemate, Shapur, in 244 AD, was bribed by the Romans to stop the siege. The prize for Shapur's withdrawal was accession of Armenia and Mesopotamia.

Dissatisfied with what he considered "small gains", Shapur tried again in 256 AD and this time snatched Antioch from the Romans. The city was taken by surprise and ransacked by Sassanian troops. Captives were carried off and resettled in various parts of Iran. Soon after the sacking, Emperor Valerian paid a visit to Antioch only to find the beautiful city in ruins, occupied by Iranian troops. The city was retaken by the Romans but before they had a chance to rebuild it, Shapur struck and took it again in 260 AD. In the process he shattered the Roman army of seventy thousand troops and captured Valerian. Luckily, Valerian had allies in Palmyra who came to his rescue. Even though they came too late to save Valerian, the Syrian and Arab troops attacked the Sassanian army inflicting on them considerable damage. After their defeat the Sassanians were kept in check by the Romans in the west and by the Palmyrans in the east.

While the Sassanians were kept down, the Romans slowly re-took Armenia through appointments of pro-Roman rulers to the Armenian throne. But that did not last long. After Shapur's death, his son Shapur II ceded the Sassanian throne and a new round of hostilities commenced that would last from 338 to 363 AD.

Trouble started when Shapur II, dethroned the Roman installed king of Armenia. Unhappy about the incident, Constantine reacted by making threatening statements about the power of his new Christian God, which provoked Shapur to take revenge on Christians in the Sassanian Empire.

Jovian finally brought the hostilities to an end after Julian's death. Unfortunately the price for peace was costly. Jovian had to give back the trans-Tigrine provinces which Diocletian seized earlier. He also had to concede a large portion of northern Mesopotamia, including the fortress of Nisibis, and the Roman claim to Armenia back to Shapur. If that was not enough, the cities of Singara and Nisibis were also surrendered to Shapur. For all these concessions all Shapur had to do was allow safe passage for the fleeing inhabitants of the cities and guarantee the neutrality of the pro-Roman king of Armenia.

Jovian died at the age of thirty-two on February 17th, 364 AD at Dadastana on the boundary between Bithynia and Galatia. His death was most probably due to natural causes. Some attributed it to overeating.

Was Jovian another Slav, or should I say Macedonian? Although official history does not record him as one, considering his name and where he was born, he could have easily been one.

At this point I would like to take another short diversion and present a famous figure of this era that is not only popular in Macedonia, but is famous worldwide.

To the Christians he is known by several names including Saint Nicholas, Sinter Klaus and Santa Claus. No one is certain when he was born but it was sometime in the middle of the fourth century. St. Nicholas was probably a native of Patara in Lycia, Asia Minor. There are far more legends about his miraculous good deeds than there are clear details about his life.

Nicholas, during his early career, was a monk in the monastery of Holy Zion near Myra and was eventually made Abbot by the founding Archbishop. When the See of Myra, the capital of Lycia, fell vacant Nicholas was appointed Archbishop. It is said that he suffered for his Christian Faith under Emperor Diocletian and was present at the Council of Nicaea as an opponent of Aryanism.

St. Nicholas is celebrated on December 6th the day he died and his soul entered Heaven. But most western countries today combine St. Nicholas's day with that of gift giving and celebrate both days together at Christmas.

The most famous story told about St. Nicholas has to do with three young sisters who were very poor. Their parents were so poor that they did not have enough money to provide for marriages. In those days, every young girl needed money for a dowry, to pay for her wedding and to set up house. Nicholas heard of this poor family and wanted to help but he did not want his involvement known. There are several versions to this story, but in one version, Nicholas climbed up the roof three nights in a row and threw gold coins down the chimney hoping that they would land in the girls' stockings, which had been hung by the fire to dry. As a result of the mysterious donations appearing in the stockings two nights in a row, two of the three girls had enough money to get married. Curious as to who the benefactor was, the next night the girls' father hid behind the chimney in wait. To his surprise, along came Bishop Nicholas with another bag of money. Nicholas did not want to be identified and begged the father not to tell anyone. But the father was so grateful for the good deeds that he could not hold back and told everyone what a good and generous man Bishop Nicholas was. This is how the story and later the tradition of gift giving and the stuffing of stockings started.

Nicholas, as a young man, studied in Alexandria, Egypt. While on one of his voyages during a storm, he saved the life of a sailor who fell from the ship's rigging. His actions earned him the title Patron Saint of Sailors. During another encounter he miraculously rescued some young boys from a vat of brine, thereby becoming the patron of schoolboys. The characteristic virtue of St. Nicholas, however, appears to have been for his love and charity to the poor. Because of this and the many legends surrounding his work, St. Nicholas is regarded as the special patron of seafarers, scholars, bankers, pawnbrokers, jurists, brewers, coopers, travelers, perfumers, unmarried girls, brides, and robbers. But most of all he is the very special saint of children.

Around 540 AD, Emperor Justinian built a church at Tsari Grad in the suburb of Blacharnae in St. Nicholas's honor. History and legend are intertwined in the story of Nicholas's life and he has been widely honoured as a saint since the sixth century. No less than 21 "miracles" have been attributed to him. Nicholas died at Myra in 342 AD.

After Jovian's sudden death in 364 AD a number of leading Imperial officials met in Nicaea to select a new emperor. After some deliberation a forty-three-year-old officer of the Imperial bodyguard named Valentinian was chosen. Valentinian, whose full name was Flavius Valentinianus, was a devout Christian born in 321 AD at Cibalis (modern Vinkovci) in southern Pannonia (perhaps another Slav?). Valentinian was not of noble blood and had risen through the ranks to become a great general. He had no great education but did have a bad temper and contempt for those with education. During his reign he was a competent soldier who took some interest in the administration but was overly trusting of his subordinates.

As soon as Valentinian was proclaimed emperor the army demanded that he select a co-emperor. By now it had become apparent that the empire could not be ruled by a single man. To help him rule his huge empire Valentinian appointed his younger brother Valens, emperor of the east. Although this was not the first time that co-emperors reigned over the empire, this would be the beginning of a permanent separation. Three decades later East and West would briefly be reunited under the leadership of Emperor Theodosius. Upon Theodosius's death, in 395 AD, the empire would again be divided between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. From this time forward the division would be permanent and East and West would be ruled separately.

In 367 AD Valentinian suffered a serious illness. After his recovery he learned that discussions had been taking place as to who might succeed him. To be safe Valentinian had his eight year-old son, Gratian, proclaimed Augustus.

Valentinian spent 365 to 375 AD in Trier where he conducted a number of campaigns against the Alamanni. In November 375 AD, enraged by offensive remarks made by some barbarian envoys, Valentinian died of a stroke. His associates, fearing mistreatment at the hands of Gratian's advisors, proclaimed Valentinian's four-year-old younger son Valentinian II, Augustus. Even though Gratian and Valens had no desire to see Valentinian II made Augustus, they agreed to allow him to rule Italy, Africa and Illyricum.

While Valens was occupied in Syria throughout the early 370s AD, keeping an eye on the Persians, a crisis was developing in the northern frontiers and war erupted. The Goths crossed the Danube in 376 AD, which I mentioned earlier, attacked Adrianople and killed Emperor Valens.

After Valens' disastrous defeat in 378 AD, Gratian appointed Theodosius emperor in the east. Theodosius' father was executed for having fallen out of favour with Valentinian I. In spite of that, Theodosius graciously accepted the job and immediately began to put his military talents to good use strengthening the East. Theodosius chose Solun as his base from which to wage war against the Goths.

On the western front in 383 AD, British troops, led by Magnus Maximus, rebelled and invaded Gaul. Unprepared to meet this threat Gratian's soldiers deserted him. Gratian was not very popular with his troops because he preferred to hunt and participate in sports over leading his men into battle. Unable to escape, Gratian was caught by Maximus in Lugdunum (Lyons) on August 25th, 383 AD and was murdered by Maximus's troops.

After Gratian's death, Valentinian II (Gratian's half brother) should have inherited the entire western half of the empire. Unfortunately, he was no more than a nominal ruler and allowed Magnus Maximus to exist. Italy was all he had and even there the real power was held by his mother Justina.

In 387 AD Maximus invaded Italy, forcing Justina and Valentinian to flee. Mother and son sought refuge in Solun with Theodosius where a counter force was put together which attached and defeated Maximus. Unfortunately Maximus's defeat cost Justina her life.

Valentinian II returned to Italy but quickly fell under the influence of his Frankish General, Arbogastes. Arbogastes was a treacherous man who slowly replaced all of Valentinian's important officers and government officials with his own loyal men. When Valentinian attempted to oust him, Arbogastes had him assassinated.

After Valentinian's death, Arbogastes placed Eugenius, a popular pagan philosopher, on the throne. His actions unfortunately did not sit well with Theodosius who, in 394 AD, sent his army to deal with Arbogastes. The two armies met in the passes of the Julian Alps near the river Frigidus. Theodosius decimated the army and captured and killed Eugenius. A few days later Arbogastes committed suicide.

With the removal of Eugenius and Arbogastes, Theodosius assumed control of the entire empire. Flavius Theodosius was born in Cauca, Spain in about 346 AD. As I mentioned earlier, Gratian appointed him emperor of the east in 378 AD.

Theodosius left his legacy in Macedonia in 390 AD when he massacred seven thousand Solunian civilians. As the story goes, while in Solun the local garrison, consisting mainly of Goths, was in bad favour with the Solunian citizens and during a riot a number of Goth officers were murdered and their bodies abused. Unhappy about the situation, Theodosius retaliated by sending yet another Gothic garrison to the city. During one of the chariot races the hippodrome gates were suddenly shut so no one could escape and the Goth soldiers took their revenge, murdering the spectators in cold blood.

When Ambrose, one of the high ranking bishops, found out about the massacre he was outraged and excommunicated the emperor, denying him access to the church for some months. Such a spectacle was unprecedented and for the first time an Emperor was under the control of a Bishop. After that Theodosius was totally under the thrall of Ambrose and ordered a full-scale assault on pagan practices. In 391AD the law banned all sacrifices, public and private, and all pagan temples were officially closed. Then in 392 AD all forms of pagan religious worship were formally prohibited everywhere in the empire.

Theodosius died on January 17, 395 AD leaving the empire to his two sons. The older son Arcadius was left in charge of the east and the younger, Honorius, was left in charge of the west. Unlike previous divisions where power was shared, this division was decisive and permanent. The accession of Arcadius and Honorius is widely viewed as the final division of the empire into two completely separate parts. Thus 395 AD was the official birth of what later came to be known as the 'Byzantine Empire' or as the Macedonians came to call it, the 'Pravoslaven Empire' (Pravoslavna Imberia).

When Arcadius was made Emperor he was too young to rule alone so Flavius Rufinus his guardian, a praetorian prefect of the east, held the reins of power. Similarly, at his accession Honorius was only twelve years old so Theodosius had appointed Stilicho, as guardian to watch over matters of state for him. While Rufinus was the strong man in the east and Stilicho effectively controlled the west, both men were highly ambitious and unscrupulous.

Rivalries between the two men began to surface when Stilicho made claims that he too was asked by the late Theodosius to guard, at least in part, over Arcadius's affairs. The conflicting claims most certainly implied that the possibility for cooperation between the two rivals was diminishing and the two powers behind the thrones were headed on a collision course.

The inevitable happened when the Visigoths, who were settled along the Danube under the leadership of Alaric, rebelled. The barbarians smashed their way through the Balkans into Macedonia devastating all that was in their path. Stilicho, under the pretext of wanting to help the eastern empire, intervened and marched his troops into Macedonia. He did back off and withdrew when ordered by Rufinus, but not before leaving him a present.

During his withdrawal Stilicho left behind a few legions, commanded by a Gothic general named Gainas, with orders to deliver the troops to the Eastern Empire. As the troops marched into Tsari Grad Rufinus came out to greet them. Instead of extending their hands, the soldiers extended their swords and stabbed Rufinus to death. This was a gift from Stilicho to Rufinus for meddling in Stilicho's affairs. Unfortunately, this incident did irreparable damage to the relations between east and west.

With Rufinus dead and the Visigoths still rampaging Macedonia, Tsari Grad formally requested assistance from Stilicho. But in 397 AD when Stilicho was making his way into Macedonia, Alaric and his Visigoths disappeared. Stilicho's failure to remove the troublesome Goths forced Tsari Grad to negotiate directly with the barbarians. Alaric agreed to stop his aggressions and for his cooperation was made 'Master of Soldiers' in Macedonia and the Balkans.

It was unclear whether Alaric evaded Stilicho or Stilicho intentionally allowed Alaric to escape but Stilicho's failure to capture him cast suspicions that would have future consequences.

The real champion of the east turned out to be a woman named Eudoxia (Arcadius's wife) who mustered enough strength and repelled the Visigoth hostilities away from Tsari Grad. After her success, the strong-minded Eudoxia appointed herself to the rank of Augusta and ruled until she died of a miscarriage in 404 AD. Before dying she made sure her one-year old son Theodosius II was elevated to the rank of Augustus.

Four years later in 408 AD Arcadius died of natural causes leaving his empire to his son Theodosius II.

Stilicho was accused of plotting with Alaric to depose Honorius and for elevating his own son, Eucherius, to emperor of the west. A staged mutiny by his troops in 408 AD forced Stilicho to surrender and Honorius had him executed.

With Stilicho out of the way, Alaric marched on Rome and on August 24th, 410 AD he and his Visigoths sacked the city for three days until there was nothing left. Alaric died at Consentia in 410 AD.

It is my intention from here on to focus only on events that are relevant to the Eastern Empire and to Macedonia.

Even though Theodosius II succeeded his father without any violence, he was still an infant and the regency of Tsari Grad fell to a praetorian prefect named Anthemius. Anthemius was a competent leader and not only averted a food crisis in Tsari Grad but also established good relations with the west, repelled the Hun invasions from the north and confirmed peace with the Persians and with the cities along the Danube. Anthemius also made sure Macedonia and the Balkans were given enough aid to help them recover from the Goth devastations.

The sacking of Rome by the barbarians was a wakeup call for Anthemius who took extensive measures to make sure the same did not happen to Tsari Grad. So in 413 AD a major project was undertaken to build what was appropriately named the great 'Wall of Theodosius', which encircled the city beyond the original Wall of Constantine.

In 414 AD Theodosius II claimed his regency from Anthemius and proclaimed his fifteen-year-old sister Aelia Pulcheria, Augusta. Then in 416 AD when Theodosius II was fifteen years old, in his own right, he was declared ruler of Tsari Grad. Pulcheria continued to play a part in Theodosius's government but only as an administrator. Theodosius II was Augustus for forty-nine years and ruled the Pravoslaven Empire for forty-two years. This was the longest reign in the history of the empire. Theodosius II died in 450 AD from a spinal injury after falling off his horse while riding near the river Lycus.

The most memorable accomplishment in Theodosius's career was the 'Theodosian Code' which was published in 438 AD. The Code, made up of sixteen books which took eight years to put together, was a compilation of imperial edicts stretching back to over a century. After the Code's publication, a university was founded in Tsari Grad to teach philosophy, law and theology from a Christian perspective.

In 447 and 448 AD Tsari Grad experienced a number of earthquakes which destroyed most of the city, including large parts of the city walls and coastal defenses. Through the great efforts of its citizens repairs to the walls were made in haste and soon afterwards new walls with ninety-two towers were added between the repaired wall and the moat. The result was the famous 'triple defense' which repelled invaders and kept the city safe for another millennium.

After Theodosius II's death, the imperial succession was again thrown open to question for the first time in over sixty years. Theodosius left no heir except for his daughter Licinia Eodoxia who had married his cousin Valentinian III. There were, however, rumours that at his deathbed Theodosius willed Marcian, one of his aids, to be his heir. Some believe this story was a product of after the fact propaganda. Whatever the case, Aspar, a high ranking general, engineered Marcian's appointment with the help of Theodosius's sister, Pulcheria Augusta.

In any case, on August 25th, 450 AD Pulcheria was the one who gave Marcian the imperial diadem.

An Illyrian by birth, Marcian was born in 392 AD. He served as a tribune in 421 AD and fought against the Persians but due to illness he never took part in any actual battles. After this assignment, he served for fifteen years as a personal assistant to general Aspar.

Marcian's reign almost immediately began with a change in policy toward Attila and the Huns. In his last years, as I mentioned earlier, Theodosius II had given up fighting the Huns. To appease them and stop their attacks he had resorted to paying them huge indemnities. Shortly after his coronation, however, the new emperor refused to pay the Huns. Not surprisingly, Marcian's decision was supported by the city's aristocracy, which had been strongly opposed to paying indemnities. At the same time, Attila was too absorbed in imperial politics to deal with Marcian and before he could refocus his attention on the east, he died. Soon after his death his empire disintegrated. Marcian then quickly formed alliances with those peoples previously under Hun domination, including the Ostrogoths, and thwarted the Hun re-emergence. The remaining Huns were allowed to settle in Pannonia, Thrace and Illyricum and over time assimilated in the local populations.

Marcian, the last emperor of the House of Theodosius, died of gangrene in his feet in January 457 AD at age 65. He was buried in the Church of the Apostles next to his wife Pulcheria. He left no heirs to succeed him.

After Marcian's death, his son-in-law Anthemius was the most likely candidate for the throne, however, he did not have support from general Aspar. Aspar decreed that emperors should be chosen by the army, in the Macedonian tradition, and recommended Leo as the next candidate. Aspar's commanders dared not reject his choice and Leo was crowned emperor by the patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius. Leo, born in 401 AD, was a Thracian by birth.

Even though Leo was emperor, the real power remained in the hands of Aspar, at least for the next six or seven years. Emperor Leo fond of his grandson, Leo, by his daughter Ariadne, had him raised to the rank of Augustus in October of 473 AD. Shortly afterwards Emperor Leo fell ill and died. He was succeeded by his six year old Grandson Leo II in January 474 AD. Leo II's father Zeno was regent at the time but about a month after Leo's death, Zeno raised himself to the rank of co-emperor. Then within a span of less than a year, young Leo II died. There were rumours that Zeno murdered his son to take away the throne.

Zeno was a Rosoumbladian from the province of Isauria in southeastern Asia Minor. Not long after his son's death, Zeno's misdeeds caught up with him. When he was investigated as a suspect in the murder of his son, other misdeeds surfaced. He was implicated in the executions of general Aspar and Aspar's son.

To avoid being prosecuted, Zeno fled Tsari Grad and went back to Isauria. In Zeno's absence, the senate chose a new emperor by the name of Basiliscus. Basiliscus was Emperor Leo's brother-in-law. Basiliscus, as it turned out, was even less popular than Zeno especially since he elevated his wife Aelia Zenonis to Augusta, his older son Marcus to Caesar and co-emperor, and his younger sons Leo and Zeno to Caesars. Another reason for his deep unpopularity was his open favouritism towards the Christian Monophysite creed. To the people of Tsari Grad this was heresy.

Basiliscus also fell out of favour with the powerful 'Master of Soldiers', Theodoric Strabo. Against Strabo's advice, Basiliscus promoted a notorious playboy named Armatus to the rank of Master of Soldier. Apparently Armatus was the empress's lover. As a result, one of his more powerful Isaurian generals named Illus, who had originally been party to the plot against Zeno, tired of Basiliscus's blunders left Tsari Grad to rejoin Zeno. Without the army's support, Basiliscus was virtually finished. At about the same time, Zeno felt the moment was right to leave exile and on August 476 AD marched on Tsari Grad unopposed. His first order of business was to exile Basiliscus, his wife and sons to Cucusus in Cappadocia, where they starved to death.

Zeno's reign lasted until 491 AD. During his rule, among other things, Tsari Grad experienced a four year Ostrogoth siege. The Balkans, including Macedonia, were ravaged repeatedly and depopulated by onslaughts of war upon war. Zeno left no obvious heir but Ariadne, Zeno's wife, recommended the position be given to Anastasius. Anastasius was an experienced official of the highest character and a credible man universally respected in the empire. He did his best to calm the theological animosities between the orthodox and the monophysite Christians. He built a great defensive wall fifty miles long along the Danube frontier to hold barbarian incursions in check. He also disbanded and sent home the troublesome Isaurian troops, who had made themselves very unpopular in his capital.

Anastasius died in 518 AD, well respected and with a full treasury. Anastasius did not leave an heir to the throne so once again it was up to the military to make the next choice. Being in the right place at the right time and having a lot of friends was all that Justin needed to get into politics. In spite of the fact that he was illiterate and probably more than 80 years old, Justin was elected emperor in 518 AD. Justin's reign is significant for the founding of a dynasty that included his eminent nephew Justinian I.

Justin was born in 435 AD, the son of an Illyrian farmer. Justin joined the army to escape poverty. Because of his military abilities he rose through the ranks to become a general and commander of the palace guard under the emperor Anastasius I. During Justin's later years, the empire came under attack from the Ostrogoths and the Persians. Unable to cope with the pressures of politics, Justin's health began to decline and on April 1st, 527 AD he formally named Justinian his co-emperor and successor. Justin died on August 1st, 527 AD and was succeeded by Justinian.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 14:53

Alexander's ventures into Asia and Africa created trade routes and shipping lanes and opened up a world of new wonders that not only tantalized the senses but also fascinated the mind.

The intellectual bridge connecting Europe, Asia and Africa gave birth to new sciences, astronomies and philosophies that are unparalleled to this day. Scientists in India were debating atomic theory even before any of the Athenians, credited with inventing the subject, were born. The astronomers in Babylon not only possessed astrological charts but they were also aware of the orbits and spherical shapes of our planets, including that of earth. The Egyptians were applying geometry in figuring out property lines after the Nile floods even before the Europeans had any notion of mathematics. After Alexander's conquests all this knowledge became the possession of the Macedonians who centralized it in the libraries of Alexandria, Antioch, Solun (Thessalonika) and later in Tsari Grad (Istanbul), Ohrid and Sveta Gora (Athos).

In exploring the vast reaches of Asia, India and Egypt, the Macedonians, among other things, discovered new gods and new faiths. After studying them they not only enriched their own knowledge of the divine but also brought about a spiritual revolution that, with time, spread throughout the entire world.

After exploring the many deities and their cults, the Macedonians began to believe that the variously named gods might be different aspects of a single divine force. The newly discovered deities were in many ways similar to their own Olympian gods. For example Astarte and Isis were very similar to Aphrodite and Jupiter, Ahura and Baal were similar to Zeus. The intermingling of the various cultures, especially in cosmopolitan centers like Alexandria, Antioch and Solun, opened the door for deep philosophical debates questioning the nature, origins and purpose of the various gods. Fueled by revolutionary ideas, sophisticated theological theories began to emerge leading to the concept of a single divine being, a God who lives in heaven. Obviously there was enough evidence in the universe to warrant the existence of such a being, otherwise how would the universe work? However, there were some problems. How does a Supreme Being living in heaven communicate with his subjects on earth? The evolutionary mind, hard at work, managed to solve that problem as well by proposing the existence of a second God or the Son of God, a concept to which most of the world subscribes to this day. The Son of God would be a living God who would descend from the heavens to earth to spread God's message among his people.

Here I have given a simplified explanation of a complex problem. My intention was to show that as a result of the Macedonian conquests, the world was exposed to new and revolutionary ideas, which not only enriched our knowledge of the world but also revolutionized our religious beliefs. Christianity was born as a direct result of Macedonian intervention. The old Macedonians in the new world knew far too much to remain static and cast their Olympian hypothesis aside for a new reality. The Macedonian world had matured and had come a long way from the Homeric days and the mythical gods. As the millennium turned, the time was right for a new beginning. The new world surged forward with much vigour, challenging old beliefs. Even the well established Jewish religion, which already prescribed to a single supreme being, came under attack. It was precisely the re-interpretation of the Jewish religion that sparked the Christian movement which not only splintered from its Jewish roots but grew larger and enveloped most of the world. Christianity was a new force that would dominate the world, born out of necessity due to the cruelty of Roman rule, which drove the subjugated to a life of despair. Women refused to bear children because they knew their future was hopeless. Life was painful and the world was full of evil. By the turn of the first millennium the familiar old gods were nothing more than instruments of cruelty designed to serve the rich and powerful and cast the poor into oblivion. No nation suffered more cruelty at the hands of the Romans than Macedonia. Was it jealousy of Macedonia's unsurpassed glory, or was it Rome's fear of her rebellious nature?

As I mentioned earlier, after Perseus's defeat at Pydna in 168 BC, Macedonia was partitioned into four regions and became Roman territory. It was particularly during this period that Macedonia was robbed of its cultural treasures including the many monuments of art located in Solun, Pella and other culturally rich cities. Macedonia's treasures were transferred to Rome and paraded as trophies of Roman victories on Roman streets during triumph festivals. After 148 BC the four regions of Macedonia were united again but made into a Roman province with Solun as its capital. What is also interesting is that all city states and jurisdictions south of Macedonia, including Athens and Sparta, were also annexed and added to this large Roman province called Macedonia. This merger lasted for about one hundred and twenty years until 27 BC. In 27 BC Augustus separated the region to form the province of Macedonia and the province of Achaia. For one hundred and twenty years Solun, not Athens, was the capital or "mother city" of this vast province called Macedonia.

Solun was the most important city in Macedonia not only because of its prosperous economy due to its busy harbour and its close proximity to "via Egnatia" but also because of its great cultural and intellectual growth. Solun was an industrial city that profited immensely from its marine trade and from its close proximity to the military highway, via Egnatia, which facilitated much of the goods destined to Europe. Besides being of economic and intellectual importance, Solun, because of its surrounding wall, was also a great military fortress. The Macedonian King Cassander chose its location well and fortified the city for good reason. Solun was about the only city in Macedonia to withstand and repel the barbarian invasions of the 50s and 60s BC. Even Roman dissidents like the orator Cicero fled to Solun for safety during darker times. Solun had the elements of success and was destined to become a powerful city. During the Roman Civil War of 49 to 31 BC, Macedonia was turned into a battleground. At the time Solun backed the Imperial Army of Antony and Octavian turning the tide on the Republicans. After the Imperial victory at Philippi in 42 BC, the Macedonians of Solun erected a triumphant arch at the west gate of Vardar in honour of the victors. This show of loyalty not only saved Solun, but also allowed its citizens to earn their freedom and Solun to earn the status of a free city. A free city at the time enjoyed special privileges including the right to govern itself, hold free public meetings and to protect itself. This new found freedom allowed the city to grow and prosper, but more importantly, it attracted famous scholars, writers, philosophers, poets and teachers who made Solun their home and added to the city's intellectual wealth. By the turn of the new millennium, Solun was becoming an ethnically diverse cultural center that was beginning to rival Alexandria and Antioch.

When it came to philosophical debates about the nature of the gods, Solun was right up there with Alexandria and Antioch. Why was there such a preoccupation with the gods and why at this time?

There were two factors that influenced the creative thinking of the time. The first was the sophistication of an intellectually evolving society which, with the accumulation of knowledge, matured and grew out of its beliefs in the "mythical gods" of Homer. The second was the intellectual disgust in elevating mere humans, and cruel ones at that, to divinity. After Caesar was deified, deifications of emperors became common practice and even the cruelest men were made into gods. Worse were expectations that people of various races, cultures, religions and intellect would pay homage to these cruel men as if they were gods.

Was it not burden enough to live under their harsh rule, let alone pray to them for spiritual guidance?

This callous Roman behaviour led many to question their faith in such false gods. In time it became increasingly less likely that an educated man would support the cult of his parents, let alone his grandparents.

I want to mention here that outside of some mystical cults, no major religion except for Judaism was allowed to practice in the Roman Empire.

During the first century BC Jewish rival sects, called Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes competed for the attention of the Jews. While the Sadducees adhered strictly to the law of the Old Testament, the Pharisees were progressive thinkers, who produced many intellectual leaders. There was very little knowledge of the Essenes, that is, until 1947 when a set of manuscripts was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea. The newly discovered scrolls, dating back to about 70 BC, were a record of some old pre Christian beliefs and practices that compared closely to those of the early Christians. Beliefs like the resurrection, rewards and punishments after death, etc., were already widely held before the birth of Jesus. So too was the notion of the coming of the Messiah to fulfill the destiny of God's chosen people.

The Jews were considered to be privileged citizens in the pre-Roman Macedonian kingdoms and were granted free practice of their faith. Later the Romans, for the sake of keeping the peace, followed suit and allowed the Jews to continue to freely practice their faith.

The Jews believed in monotheism, a single God, the kind of God that philosophers were debating about. The Jews, according to historic accounts, had been monotheists for at least two millennia. They were totally devoted and violently resisted change. Last we recall the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, in 168 BC, attempted to impose Macedonism on Jerusalem and provoked an armed revolt. With time the Macedonian culture and language did take hold and if not with the majority, many Jews accepted Macedonism. After the revolt, Jewish kings began to assume dual roles, those of king and high priest. Unfortunately, as client kings of foreign powers they were influenced more by politics and less by faith. Politics, especially during the Roman period, had more to do with interpreting the scriptures than faith. These differences of opinion over religious policies caused discontentment between the priesthood and regular rivalries broke out, fracturing Jewish society and leading it to irreconcilable disputes.

Rome refused to become entangled in Jewish affairs and entrusted Judea to the province of Syria, which at the time was ruled by a governor from Antioch. Local authority was entrusted to the Jewish client kings. These kings were hand picked by the Romans for their loyalty to Rome and for proving themselves sufficiently ruthless to their own people. One such "King of the Jews" was Herod who seized the Judean throne in 43 BC and was confirmed by Rome four years later. Herod himself was not a Jew and some believe he was a Macedonian or at least half Macedonian. Herod had a good relationship with Rome and in some ways this benefited the Jews. The peace that Herod brought during his rule allowed the Jews to prosper. The Jewish diaspora grew and established itself in all the great cities of the Roman Empire including Rome. Solun was no exception and a Jewish community sprang up there also.

The Macedonian adaptation of the Old Testament, composed in Alexandria and written in Koine, was widely used by the Jewish communities in the diaspora. The new composition unfortunately had an expansionist and missionary flavour which was quite alien to the original Testament and represented a departure from tradition

I want to mention at this point that the Jews believed that history was a reflection of Gods' activity and the Testament was a record of history. God guided man on his daily activities and therefore history was God's doing.

Herod died in 4 BC and his kingdom was divided between his sons Archalaus, Herod Philip and Herod Antipus, as bequeathed in his will. The arrangement unfortunately was not successful and fell apart around 6 AD. Conflict between the various factions continued to escalate until 60 AD when a full-scale rebellion flared up. Roman intervention did stop the extreme violence but did not end the conflict which waged on well into the next century until the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground.

Human cruelty was not singularly a Roman trait but was a factor that preoccupied the minds of the new breed of philosophers. Many dreamt of a peaceful world free of evil and some tried to put their dreams into practice but none so successfully as Jesus of Nazareth.

Historically, little is known about Jesus the person. Most of the information about Jesus comes to us from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which were written in the Mediterranean Koine language after his death. The new faith's destiny, however, was preordained by the writings in the Old Testament, which foretold of the fall of empires through the agency of God, not man. One like the 'son of man' will come on the clouds of heaven, embodying the apocalyptic hope of the Jews, and accompanied by a resurrection of the dead. Simply put, this was the blueprint and code of instructions for shaping the future faith.

It is important to understand that before Jesus' time the Macedonians were not just part of the spiritual evolution but they were the cause of it. In other words, they were the catalyst that accelerated the whole spiritual process and brought it to a boil. "Lightfoot finds in Alexander the Great the proof of the greatness of the step which Luke here records in Paul's work, and even says that 'each successive station at which he halted might have reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Macedonia as the pioneer of the Gospel!'" (Page 199, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

After Jesus' death, the Jews were well established throughout the great cities of the Roman Empire and free, at least from the Romans, to pursue their faith. Through their services to the empire, many prospered and were granted Roman citizenship. It is estimated that by the time of Jesus about four and a half million Jews lived in the diaspora in contrast to one million living in their homeland.

I must emphasize here that before Christianity took hold a large proportion of the people in the diaspora attending Jewish synagogues were not Jewish by race. They were not full Jews in a religious sense nor were they expected to obey all of the Jewish laws. Most of them were God fearing people who accepted and worshipped the Jewish God and were tolerated and permitted to mingle with the Jews. These people, many of whom were Macedonian and communicated with the real Jews in the Koine language, were not expected to become full Jews but were tolerated and allowed to penetrate the Jewish social circles, a precursor to Christianity.

The Jews were admired for their stable family life, the relationships they sustained between children and parents and for the peculiar value they attached to human life. The Jews were also admired for something unusual for the time. During the Herodian period, mainly in the large cities in the diaspora, they developed elaborate welfare services for the indigent, poor, sick, widows, orphans, prisoners and the incurable.
All of these factors led to the development of the earliest Christian communities and were a principle reason for the spread of Christianity in the cities.

The combination of God-fearing people and the destitute produced converts to Judaism from all races and classes of people, educated and ignorant alike.

Judaism had the potential to become the religion of the Roman Empire but in order to do that it had to evolve and adapt its teachings and organization to an alien world. It had to give up the idea that its priests were descendants of the tribes of Aaron, temple-attendants of Levi, king and rulers of David, and so on and so forth.

For the true Jewish priests, heredity and the exact observance of the Jewish laws was very important. Unfortunately in the diaspora, religious rules were not always observed and exact heredity was a matter of guesswork, sometimes even fraudulent. This loose application of rules was resented by the conservative Jews and any corrective action taken was usually met with opposition, violence and schisms. The irreconcilable differences between the old conservative Jews and the new breed of liberal semi-Jews grew wider and eventually gave birth to Christianity, a totally new faith.

It was again the Macedonians, among this new breed of liberal Jews, who were the first to preach Jesus' message to the worshipers of Mitra (Mithra), Astart and Zeus as well as others outside the Jewish faith. It was among the Macedonians in Antioch in about 40 AD that the followers of Jesus came to be known as Christians for the first time.

In its refusal to allow Gentile Christianity, as it was then known, to flourish the conservative Jews employed every means, including persecution of its leaders, to stop its progression. Among the savage persecutors pursuing the Jewish Christians was Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus. Saul was a Jew and a Roman citizen headed for Damascus in pursuit of Christians when he had a vision of Christ which changed his life. After that he himself converted to Christianity, took the name Paul and began to spread the "Good News" of Jesus until his death in Rome in 64 AD.

It cannot be said that Paul created Gentile Christianity but he was responsible for giving it impetus. Paul became an important factor in the spread of Christianity to Macedonia when he had a vision of a man, a Macedonian, urging him to "come to Macedonia and help us". Paul interpreted this vision as God's will to take the "Good News" of Jesus into Macedonia. "And when they had come opposite My'sia, they attempted to go into Bithyn'ia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them; so, passing by My'sia, they went down to Tro'as. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedo'nia was standing beseeching him and saying, 'Come over to Macedo'nia and help us.' And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo'nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them." (Page 1044, The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Holman, Philadelphia, 1952).

There are some who believe that the man in Paul's vision was the Apostle Luke. Luke was a Macedonian, a physician by trade who Paul met for the first time in Troas. Luke may have had some connection to Philippi to have Paul sent there. It is unknown whether Luke was a Christian or not before he met Paul but he was certainly one afterwards. Luke was a great writer and composer of one of the gospels.

It was around 50 AD, when Paul set foot on European soil for the first time. That was in the Macedonian towns of Philippi, Solun (Thessalonica) and Beroea where he preached the word of Jesus (Acta apos., XVI, id. XVII). Around 52 and 53 AD he sent epistles to the people of Solun (Epist. Thess); then in 57 AD he came back to Macedonia to follow up on his progress. In 63 AD he again sent epistles to Macedonia but this time to the people of Philippi (Epist. Philipp).

Even before Paul went to Macedonia legend has it that Macedonia was visited by Jesus' mother Mary. "The Blessed Virgin excluded all other women from Holy Mountain, when she claimed it as 'Her Garden' after she was driven ashore by storms near the site of the present monastery of 'Iviron' USPENIE." (Page 41, Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998). Holy Mountain or Sveta Gora as is known in Macedonia, is the holiest place in Europe and one of the greatest monastic centers of Christendom.

Initially, in his teachings, Paul had insurmountable problems trying to explain the nature of Jesus' doctrines through the Jewish faith and its laws to a Macedonian audience. However, by using well understood concepts of faith, which in themselves were somewhat of a departure from the original scriptures, the message was quickly understood. Paul was creative and by sticking to the most basic principles of Jesus' teachings and avoiding most of the six hundred and thirteen Jewish commands, he was able to convey his message. Surely no man could fulfill all six hundred and thirteen commands of the Jewish law? Was everyone then a sinner? In Paul's mind, this was not what Jesus was about. Jesus was about freedom and the liberation of law. Paul associated freedom with truth and in pursuit of truth he established the right to think. He accepted the bonds and obligations of love but not to the authority of scholarship and tradition.

If not by nationality then by spirit Paul was truly a Macedonian because he preached something familiar to the Macedonians. Paul spoke directly to the Macedonian people and they understood him without the use of interpreters. This means that he knew the Macedonian language well enough to captivate his audience. Paul's first mission to Macedonia took him to Philippi where he met a woman named Lydia, a fabric dealer. Lydia was a widow who sold cloth and textiles and was a rare example of a free woman who lived and worked in Macedonia. For some time, Lydia was exposed to Jewish religious practices which she had observed at a colony of Jews who had settled near her home in Thyatira. Lydia, along with her household, is believed to be the first Christian in Macedonia to be baptized by Paul. After Philippi, Paul's missionary journey took him to the beautiful Macedonian city of Solun where, in 50 BC, he established what later came to be known as the "Golden Gate" church, the first Christian church in Europe. According to the Bible, Paul, along with his friend Silas, spent about three weeks in Solun in a synagogue debating the "Good News" of Jesus with the Solun Jews. But much to his disappointment he could not sway them to see things his way. He persuaded some to join but the majority would not join and became hostile towards him. The real surprise, however, was that many non-Jewish Macedonians accepted the "Good News" of Jesus and embraced Christianity as their new faith.

I must mention at this point that the process of Christianization and the establishment of the Christian church was not that simple. The central and eastern Mediterranean, for the first and second centuries AD, swarmed with a multitude of religious ideas struggling to be spread out. Jesus' message was being rapidly propagated over large geographical areas and his followers were divided right from the start over elements of faith and practice. The new faith may have had spirit but it lacked organization. Many Christian churches sprang up and practiced a kind of diverse Christian faith. Each church more or less had its own "Jesus Story" based on oral traditions and the personal biases of its founders. It would be a very long time indeed before the Christian faith would be amalgamated into a single religion and achieve unity. In the meantime, besides the competing Jews, the Christians had found a new enemy, the Romans.

The Romans were tolerant of all religions and had no problems with what people believed. There were some conditions however. It was mandatory that all people in the Roman Empire participate in Roman religious festivities, pay homage to the Roman emperor and make regular sacrifices as required. This, unfortunately, for the more dedicated monotheistic Christians was not possible because some Roman traditions conflicted with Jesus' teachings.

The Romans did not know what to make of the Christians. For the most part they were peaceful people with no criminal records, they wanted nothing from the Romans but to be left alone to pray in peace yet they were somehow a danger to the stability of the empire. Even though the Christians were peaceful in nature, their attitude towards Roman traditions was in direct violation of Roman law. Besides, if the Christians disrespected the Roman way, what was to stop others from doing the same? It was Pliny the Younger who first made an example of these disobedient Christians by sentencing them to death for simply being Christian. Others then followed suit. During their trials Christians were offered a chance to renounce their Christian faith and obey Roman law. If they did, they were set free but those who refused were sentenced to a gruesome death.

Following the period after the death of Jesus, the Roman Empire began to experience its own problems, the least of which was Christianity. During the first century AD, Roman pursuit of wealth brought about social changes in the empire. Roman citizenship was no longer determined by one's nationality but rather by one's possession of wealth. Social status or position of power could also be achieved by wealth. One no longer needed to be Italian to become a Roman Senator or hold office in the Roman administration or be a high ranking officer in the Roman military. Successive Roman emperors aligned themselves more and more with the rich. Even some of the early Roman emperors like Trajan and Hadrian were not Italian but Spanish. Even the Roman soldiers were no longer Roman. Wherever there were problems in the empire, the armies sent to deal with them were raised from the local populations. Rome itself was also being challenged demographically. Besides the rich, the well off and the educated who were flocking to Rome to live the high life, Roman soldiers were bringing home brides from various places in the empire. As problems began to develop on the outskirts of the vast empire, central control became less and less effective. Military men were sometimes empowered with carrying on the responsibilities of the emperor and when the need arose, the army was empowered with appointing a new emperor general, a practice the Romans adopted from the Macedonians. The frontiers were long and difficult to hold, stretching from Britain, along the Rhine and the Danube, across the Caucasus and Anatolia, along the Tigris and the Syrian desert to Aqaba and from Egypt to Morocco. Even before the close of the first century AD, Roman leaders came to the realization that one emperor could no longer rule such a vast empire. Unfortunately for a long time no emperor was prepared to willingly give up or share his rule with another.

Besides the change in demographics, the Italians in Rome were beginning to be outclassed by a new breed of middle class intellectuals who preferred the use of the Koine language over Latin. Even in Rome local culture was shifting from conservative to intellectual and Romans and foreigners alike, including most emperors, preferred literary works written in the universal romantic Koine language instead of the dry and brisk Latin. Like the 19th century French language of Europe, Koine, fueled by the literary works of the sophists, began to experience a revival. There was a certain ambiance about the language which gave life and expression to its subjects. Koine was utilized heavily by intellectuals and academics all throughout the vastness of the empire, especially in Asia Minor and Alexandria. Koine was very popular not only with the sophists but also with the philosophers who by now had dedicated themselves to defining the new faith. Jesus' message was spreading like wildfire, captivating the minds of a new breed of philosophers and they in turn recorded their experiences not in the Aramaic language of Palestine nor in Latin, but in the international Koine, the language of the Macedonian elite. As evidenced by the inscriptions found in Dura Europos, of which I made mention earlier, the Macedonians also spoke another language, the language that today is referred to as Macedonian. Although history has no name for it, it is often mentioned as the native language spoken by the Macedonian soldiers. Koine may have been the language of the elite and of the institutions but it was useless when it came to bringing the word of Jesus to the uneducated masses living in the vast Roman Empire. It is well documented that, as Christianity spread from the cities to the towns and to the countryside, many of the scriptures written in Koine had to be translated to native languages. While neither the Macedonians before them nor the Romans saw any benefit in educating the peasants, the Christians did. This was happening as much in Egypt as it was in Macedonia. The word of Jesus was good for everyone including the village dueling peasant. But how does one communicate it to the uneducated masses? This was indeed a problem for the early Christians but through the written word Christianity translated the scriptures to the various native languages and began to educate the masses.

I want to make it clear here that the Koine language was the international language of commerce, introduced to the vastness of the Macedonian Empire by Alexander the Great. This was the language of the educated and elite, not of the masses of people throughout the empire. For the most part, the native people of all parts of the empire, who took part in the affairs of the empire, were educated in Koine. That did not preclude them however from speaking their native language. It is well documented that non Europeans in the ranks of the European elite not only spoke a second language, their native language, but were also known by a different name, their local native name.

While the Macedonians and later the Romans had no interest in local affairs, other than harvesting taxes, Christianity showed great interest in everyone irrespective of social status. In Jesus' eyes all men were created equal and in the image of God. The common people could identify with the Christian God and this had appeal for them. In contrast, deities of the Roman faith imitated "the all-powerful" Roman emperor sitting on his throne, far removed from the common man.

By making contact directly with the native people of the empire, the Christians began to institutionalize the local languages by giving them life through the written scriptures and through educating the masses to read and write. Unfortunately at the turn of the new millennium, in Europe at least, there were only three scripts available upon which to base the written word and these were Aramaic, Koine and Latin. Most local languages had far richer sounds than the existing written scripts could accommodate and in time had to be refined. For the Macedonians, this would take a few centuries but eventually a single refined universal script would emerge and bring Macedonia back into her former intellectual glory.

It seems that around the 4th century BC, in the name of progress, Macedonia abandoned its ancient native Venetic script in favour of the international Koine. Unfortunately, half a millennium of neglect left her native spoken language without a script. As we have seen, again as evidenced by the Dura Europos inscription, the Macedonians utilized Koine and Latin scripts, sometimes in combination, to express themselves in their native language. This may have been good enough for scribbling graffiti and writing casual letters but not for compiling literary works.

With time Christianity introduced the gospel to every race in every corner of the Roman Empire and with it came the written word, formalization and later the institutionalization of the modern written languages. The Macedonian language, to which history refers to as the language spoken by Alexander's soldiers, was no exception.

The development of the modern Macedonian language will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters. Look for it in future articles.

There are some who believe that the period between 27 BC and 180 AD was a period of wasted opportunity. It was a period of spending rather than of creating, an age of architecture and trade in which the rich grew richer and the poor poorer. It was an age when man's soul and spirit decayed. There were thousands of well built cities supplied by great aqueducts, connected to each other by splendid highways and each equipped with temples, theaters, amphitheaters and markets. The citizens of these great cities were well refined in attitude and mannerism, indicative of a civilized society. All this unfortunately was achieved on the backs of slaves who came from the vastness of the empire, including Macedonia. The slaves provided the manpower to build the cities, aqueducts, roads, temples and theaters. The slaves provided the labour to cultivate the soil and feed the masses. And the slaves provided the bodies that fuelled the blood sport that entertained the Roman citizenry so much.

It is unknown how many slaves suffered cruel deaths to civilize the glorious Roman Empire, the pride of the west, but I am certain the numbers were horrendous.

It is often asked, "Who were the Roman gladiators, who were the Christians fed to the lions, and who were the slaves that gave their lives to build the Roman Empire and entertain the Roman citizen?" Although history provides us with no answers, all we need to do is look at the aftermath of every Roman victory and count the numbers enslaved.

Macedonia was the last nation in Europe to fall into Roman hands but the first on mass scale to fall into Roman slavery. While the middle class Macedonian, among others, supplied the Roman Empire with enlightenment, the Macedonian slave, among others, supplied her with the necessary labour to build her civilization. Even though Macedonia, more so than any other nation in the history of the Roman Empire, had contributed to its development, modern Roman history mentions nothing of the Macedonians. The Macedonian people have received no credit for their contribution and the willing and unwilling sacrifices they made for the success of the Romans.

Even though it is well known that the Roman Empire was built on the foundation of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, its modern inheritors refuse to give Macedonia and the Macedonian people the credit they deserve.

Today's modern westerner speaks of the Roman Empire's accomplishments with great pride, forgetting that without Macedonia's contributions their precious empire would be an empty shell.

Every historian knows that the only contribution that the lumbering Roman Empire should be credited for is the construction of roads, cities and aqueducts. In terms of government it had none. At its best it had a bureaucratic administration that kept the peace but failed to secure it. The typical Roman was so overly preoccupied with pursuing "the loot" that he forgot to implement any free thinking and apply knowledge. He had an abundance of books but very few were written by Romans. He respected wealth and despised science. He allowed the rich to rule and imagined that the wise men could be bought and bargained for in the slave markets. He made no effort to teach, train or bring the common people into any conscious participation of his life. He had made a tool of religion, literature, science and education and entrusted it to the care of slaves who were bred and traded like animals. His empire, "It was therefore, a colossally ignorant and unimaginative empire. It foresaw nothing. It had no strategic foresight, because it was blankly ignorant of geography and ethnology." (Page 397, H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City Books, New York, 1961). This is only a tiny sample of what an eminent western scholar and author thinks of the contributions of the Roman Empire.

Ironically we refer to the Romans as civilized and to the Macedonians as barbarian, knowing full well that Macedonia employed no slaves and Rome built its empire on the backs of slaves.

"Civilize: bring out of barbarous or primitive stage of society; enlighten, refine and educate." (Page 127, The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 1991). I guess 19th century modern historians forgot to consult the dictionary for the word "civilized" when they wrote the modern history of the Roman Empire.

Without getting into the grossness of the Roman excesses and coliseum blood lusts, I believe I made my point that "the Roman Empire was neither civilized nor did it contribute as much as its proponents would have us believe".

Attacks mounted on Christianity apparently were not restricted to the Jews and Romans. As Christianity began to grow and make its way into Europe, it became a target for the intellectuals who had discovered it and identified it as the enemy.

The sophisticated Athenian intellectual found it difficult to accept Christianity especially since he was expected to abandon his long held beliefs. While the oppressed Macedonian found hope in Christianity, the freer Athenian was not content with leaving behind what truly defined him and his culture.

For better or worse Macedonia gave in and embraced Christianity. Her neighbours to the south, however, were too sophisticated for this modern phenomenon and clung onto their old beliefs.

"Athens in Paul's time was no longer the Athens of Socrates; but the Socratic method had its roots in the soil of Attica and the nature of the Athenian people. In Athens Socrates can never quite die..." "In this centre of the world's education, amid the lecture-rooms where philosophers had taught for centuries that it was mere superstition to confuse the idol with the divine nature which is represented, the idols were probably in greater numbers than anywhere else in Paul's experience." (Pages 238-239, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

Paul's mission to Athens yielded no converts. There is, however, something interesting that came out of Paul's discussions with the Athenians that gives us a glimpse of the Athenian attitude towards Paul and foreigners in general. In the University of Athens certain philosophers engaged Paul in discussion and some said, "What would this spermologos [ignorant plagiarist] say?" (Page 241, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).

Spermolos is an Athenian slang that means "a worthless fellow of low class and vulgar habits, with the insinuation that he lives at the expense of others, like those disreputable persons who hang round the markets and the quays in order to pick up anything that falls from the loads that are carried about. Hence as a term in social slang, it connotes absolute vulgarity and inability to rise above the most contemptible standard of life and conduct; it is often connected with slave life, for the Spermologos was near the type of the slave and below the level of the free man; and there clings to it the suggestion of picking up refuse and scraps, and in literature of plagiarism without the capacity to use correctly." (Page 242, W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL. D., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Hodder and Stroughton, London. 1894).
Is this the superior race of men to whom our modern world owes its foundations?

After a short visit in Athens Paul was kicked out. From there he went to Corinth and after spending some time in Corinth he returned to Solun.

Christianity apparently retaliated against such intellectual attitudes by claiming that their philosophy had nothing to teach the Christians but folly and immorality.

Even though Christianity was beginning to gain confidence and take a more relaxed attitude towards these attacks, its doctrine was still divergent. Gnosticism was particularly strong in many areas of the empire and combined with pagan beliefs and myths not only diverted from Jesus' simple teachings but also infuriated many Christian fundamentalists to advocate the return to "simple faith". The Gnostics, in their attempt to "purify" Jesus' teaching and free them from their earthly bounds, had injected new ideas into Christianity most of which were based on myth and fantasies and were bordering on heresy.

The call to return to the "simple faith" was easier said than done. In the end "simple faith" was universally restored but not without the help of an emperor.

The start of the new millennium witnessed the death of the Roman Republic and the birth of Imperial Rome. The Augustan emperors may have brought peace to the empire but with it they also brought neglect, decline and decay. As I mentioned earlier, by 180 AD, there were unmistakable signs of decay. Besides the agricultural and economic decline, the empire opened its doors to anarchy when the adoptive system of choosing emperors was abandoned in favour of personal appointments.
The first emperor to break with tradition was Marcus Aurelius who appointed his son, Commodus, as his successor. Unfortunately, Emperor Commodus, instead of ruling, spent twelve years (180 to 192 AD) drinking with the gladiators until he was strangled by his trainer.
After a year of civil war Septimius Severus, an African rose to supreme power and in his eighteen years of rule he did his best to restore peace and order. Severus and his relations kept the empire functioning until 235 AD, when the last member of that family was assassinated.

The following fifty years witnessed bloodshed, misrule and civil war. The erosion of central power opened the doors for barbarian invasions and besides attacks from the various Germanic tribes and Franks on the west, a more serious push came from the Goths in the east. The Goths were a maritime people who lived in southern Russia and controlled the waterways from the Baltic, across Russia to the Black and Caspian Seas.

Unable to withstand their advance the Romans lost the eastern seas and allowed the Goths to enter the Aegean coastline and advance on Macedonia. Another group crossed the Danube in a great land raid in 247 AD, defeating and killing the Emperor Decius.
The Romans eventually did muster enough strength and, in 270 AD, Claudius defeated the Goths driving them back to where they originated.

Further east, under the powerful Sassanid dynasty, the Persian Empire was revived and it too attacked the Romans, capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian in 260 AD. In 276 AD the Goths returned to raid the coasts of Asia Minor. Then in 284 AD Diocletian, an Illyrian born general, seized power in Rome and ruled for the next twenty years.

It was Diocletian who first seized the opportunity and introduced the share of rule. The empire was too great a task for one man to rule so Diocletian established a Board of Four Emperors. This was an old idea whose time had finally come. Unfortunately, this idea only worked while Diocletian was in power and fell apart after his retirement in 305 AD. Fortunately, the concept of sharing rule survived and after another round of destructive conflicts in 313 AD, Constantine emerged victorious as co-Emperor with Licinius.

One of the main failures that led to the decline of the Roman Empire was poor communication. Rome's geographical position in relation to its empire made her unsuitable as a world capital. Every order and every official document had to travel northward for half the length of Italy before it could turn east or west. Even though some of the more capable emperors set up their headquarters in the hub of activity this still did not solve the communication problem in its entirety.

One of Constantine's priorities after seizing power was to find a suitable location for his capital where communication would not be problem. Although Solun was contemplated for its cosmopolitan Macedonian culture, economy and defenses, Constantine opted for the city of Byzantium. After all was it not Byzantium that withstood Philip II's siege and survived? From a strategic point, Byzantium offered some advantages over Solun. Byzantium was located on the waters of the Bosporus that linked the Mediterranean with the Black Sea. It was the center of the Roman world and linked east with west. From a military perspective, ships could easily be dispatched east or west up the rivers and outflank every barbarian advance. Even Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Aegean and Adriatic coastlines were within a reasonable striking distance from Byzantium. From a commercial perspective, Byzantium was a lot closer to the eastern trade routes than Rome or Solun. In other words, Constantine chose Byzantium by careful planning and design, which in the long term gave his empire the advantage it needed to survive for nearly a millennium and a half, until 1453 AD.

Flavius Valerius Constantinus, or Emperor Constantine as he was later known, was born in Naissus in the province of Moesia Superior, the modern day Nish in Serbia, on 27 February in either year 271, 272, or 273 AD. His father was a military officer named Constantius (later named Constantius Chlorus or Constantius I). His mother, a woman of humble background, was named Helena (later named St. Helena). It has been said that Constantius and Helena were not married. Having previously attained the rank of tribune, provincial governor, and probably praetorian prefect, Constantius, on March 1st, 293AD, was promoted to the rank of Caesar in the First Tetrarchy organized by Diocletian. On this occasion he was required to put aside Helena and marry Theodora, the daughter of Maximian. Upon the retirement of Diocletian and Maximian on May 1st, 305 AD, Constantius succeeded to the rank of Augustus. Constantine, meanwhile, had served with distinction under both Diocletian and Galerius in the east. Kept initially at the court of Galerius as a pledge of good conduct on his father's part, he was later allowed to join his father in Britain and assisted him in a campaign against the Picts. When Constantius died, on July 25th, 306, at Eburacum (York), Constantine was at his side. The soldiers at once proclaimed him Augustus. Constantine henceforth observed this day as his dies imperii. Having settled affairs in Britain swiftly, he returned to the Continent where the city of Augusta Treverorum (Trier) served as his principal residence for the next six years. There too, in 307 AD, he married Maximian's daughter Fausta putting away his mistress Minervina, who had born his first son, Crispus.

At the same time Constantine was proclaimed Augustus, the Senate and the Praetorian Guard in Rome had allied themselves with Maxentius, the son of Maximian. On October 28th, 306 AD they proclaimed him emperor in the lower rank of princeps initially, although he later claimed the rank of Augustus. Constantine and Maxentius, although they were brothers-in-law, did not trust each other. Their relationship was further complicated by their scheming and eventually by the death of Maximian in 310 AD. Open hostilities between the two rivals broke out in 312 AD and Constantine won a decisive victory in the famous Battle of the Milvian Bridge. This made Constantine and co-Emperor and brother in law, Licinius the sole rulers of the Roman Empire.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 14:55
МГ, ете ти доволно едукација, не замарај повеќе, има уште 12 поглавја мене не ми е тешко да ги постирам, ама тебе ќе ти чади главата соочен со вистината!!
My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:10

To properly reconstruct history, corroborating information from at least two sources must be obtained. One such source might be data collected from analyzing material finds like tombs, artifacts, relics and inscriptions, the type of information that can be derived from archeological research. Another source might be a body of literature derived from stories, legends, myths, folklore, poems, songs, etc. passed down from generation to generation.

Unfortunately, for obvious reasons upon which I will expand, the reconstruction of the Macedonian history has been neglected and as a result has not achieved the desired maturity to be considered adequate.

Scientific interest in the southern Balkan region in general began for the first time in the early 1800’s alongside political and economic interests. While German and British scholars were studying findings from the Bronze Age in the Peloponnesus and Crete, Macedonia was still in the grip of the Ottoman Empire. Later, after 1912 and 1913, in the hands of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian States, anything to do with Macedonia became politically sensitive. Since the time that Greece annexed a large part of Macedonia the Greek authorities have concealed all archeological materials which didn’t agree with their political agenda. Only materials that strengthened their claims to Macedonia and attracted tourists are made public.

Without sound archeological data, reconstruction of history is scant at best. “Early twentieth-century historians continued occasionally to write political biographies of the pre-eminent fourth-century B.C. kings, and when they did consider Macedonian affairs they viewed them only as part of general Greek history. What was required for a deeper understanding of Macedon and its kings were serious source studies and archeology, but archeological interest remained dormant for decades because twentieth-century interest in Macedonia sprang from modern politics rather than from a study of antiquity.” (page 8, Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon).

As for using literature to reconstruct Macedonia’s history, 19th century Western scholars relied heavily on Greek and Roman sources and neglected to reference Eastern, Macedonian and other literary sources. Eastern scholars on the other hand by political motivation or by nonchalance, continued to stagnate.

Unfortunately to this day, Greek and Bulgarian opposition still remains the biggest obstacle to reconstructing Macedonia’s history. Both states occupy Macedonian territory and refuse to cooperate on matters of Macedonian interests, especially archeology. Greece, which occupies the largest and archeologically richest part of Macedonia, will only cooperate if Macedonian history remains peripheral to mainstream Greek events and if it is presented from the Greek point of view.
Bulgaria still refuses to recognize a Macedonian nation and is in agreement with Greece on matters of ancient history.

The academic community to date has been hesitant to become involved in the reconstruction of a mainstream Macedonian history (outside of the 4th century B.C.) partly due to the difficulties in obtaining information from non-Greek sources but mostly due to Greek pressure to keep Macedonia under the Greek periphery. Whatever evidence exists today, is fragmented and derived mainly from biased sources. “What we know about the Macedonians are primarily from Greek sources or from translations derived from the Greek sources and therefore we have a skewed view of them depending upon the views of people who were largely their enemies in antiquity”. These are the words of Dr. Eugene Borza, the “world authority” on ancient Macedonia. Dr. Borza clearly summarizes the conditions under which mainstream Macedonian history has been presented.

I want to emphasize that the Ancient Macedonian history taught in schools today was written during the 19th and early 20th centuries mostly by Western authors who relied mainly on politically motivated Greek sources for their research. Even though the Ancient Macedonian people were a unique and separate nation, their history presented to us always places them together with the people of the Greek city-states. There is no western text where the Macedonian identity is treated separately from the Greek identities of the city-states. Also, the same mainstream history which is taught to our children today, personifies the ancient Macedonian people as a mere vehicle that united the city-states and did nothing more than do their bidding in spreading Hellenic culture throughout the ancient world. Also, Modern Greek historians made sure that the negativity of orators like Demosthenes referring to the Macedonians as “barbarians” and “culturally backwards”, was well portrayed in the minds of western writers.

The fact that some modern authors ascribe Hellenic affinity to the ancient Macedonians should come as no great surprise, given the impact of Johan Gustav Droysen on early nineteenth-century historians where Macedonia is depicted as a natural "unifier" of the Greek city-states. The same role was played by Prussia and Savoy in German and Italian unification in the nineteenth century. "On this false analogy the whole of Greek history was now boldly reconstructed as a necessary process of development leading quite naturally to a single goal: unification of the Greek nation under Macedonian leadership". (Werner Jaeger)
To paraphrase Eugene Borza, it was a dynamic idea in the minds of 19th century German intellectuals and politicians to see something of themselves, of the German State unification, conquests, creativity and culture in the Greeks and Philip as the embodiment of national will and the unifier of Greece.
In other words, the ancient history written for the modern Greeks by 19th century German scholars was nothing more than a German vision of the “Glorious” German unification superimposed on the Greek model.

To Demosthenes and others like him, the Macedonians were an enemy that conquered and subdued them and embodied everything that was vile and despicable. Ignoring all signs of a rich and civilized culture beyond imagination, modern Greek scholars hid the real face of ancient Macedonia under a veil of contemptible words spoken by enemies and by bitter politicians.

Modern day Greeks would like to pass off Demosthenes’s castigations of Philip II as political rhetoric, and yet Demosthenes was twice appointed to lead the war effort of Athens against Macedonia. He, Demosthenes, said of Philip that, “Philip was not Greek, nor related to Greeks but comes from Macedonia where a person could not even buy a decent slave.” Soon after his death the people of Athens paid him fitting honours by erecting his statue in bronze, and by decreeing that the eldest member of his family should be maintained in the prytaneum at public expense. On the base of his statue was carved his famous inscription: “If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares.” (J.T. Griffith) Greece "ruled" not "united" by a Macedonian Ares. Also, was it not the Greek philosopher Lycurgus who said, "With the death of Chaeronea was buried the freedom of Greece?"

The reader should be aware that the word “Greek” is a Latin term that originated during Roman times and should not be used to refer to a people that existed hundreds of years earlier. The people of the ancient city-states could not possibly have been called “Greek” before the word was actually invented. Also, modern Greek academics are more than willing to interpret ambiguous evidence when it serves their political interests, and at the same time, to dismiss the obvious when it doesn’t. If you want to learn more about the differences between the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians please read Josef S. G. Gandeto’s book, Ancient Macedonians, Differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks.

“ There is not a single word or fact written by the ancient authors that shows that the Macedonians are Greek. There is not a single word or fact written where the Macedonians thought of themselves as Greeks. There is not a single book written by the ancient authors, including the ancient Greek authors, that has mixed the lineage and has not shown diverse differences between Macedonians and Greeks.” (Joseph Gandeto)

Since the emergence of the Republic of Macedonia in the 1990’s, research in the field of archeology has increased dramatically but mainly inside the Republic of Macedonia. Also, new Macedonian literature and publications are slowly emerging and in time should provide an alternative to the vast, biased Greek sources.

On the subject of language, it would be evident from the text of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius Rufus that Alexander's army spoke Macedonian not Greek. Any other interpretation would be intolerably difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
“ The main evidence for ancient Macedonian existing as a separate language comes from a handful of late sources describing events in the train of Alexander the Great, where the Macedonian tongue is mentioned specifically. The evidence suggests that Macedonian was distinct from ordinary Attic (ancient Athenian) used as a language of the court and of diplomacy. The handful of surviving genuine Macedonian words - not loan words from Greek - do not show the changes expected from a Greek dialect.” (Eugene Borza)

There are many scholars who will argue that there is ample evidence to place the ancient Macedonians as a distinct nation with a unique culture and language, separate from the ancient city-states. Unfortunately, until recently there was little interest and not much incentive to carry the argument beyond discussion.

If the ancient Macedonians were a distinct nation, then where did they come from? What language did they speak? Has any part of their language survived? What was their culture like?

To answer these questions we need to avoid being bogged down by conflicting arguments. We need to get away from the well-trod mainstream path, free ourselves from the biased modern Greek sources and take a fresh look at the old and new evidence, especially the evidence that has been omitted or intentionally bypassed in the past.

It has been my belief that the arguments presented by Greek historians are not only biased and politically motivated, but are designed to bog down the academic world and keep it on the defensive thus stifling any chance for real progress.

On the topic of new archeological and linguistic evidence, there have been numerous projects undertaken since the 1960’s.

A major archeological discovery was made in 1977 in Kutlesh (Vergina) about 30 miles north of Mount Olympus. Archeologists uncovered what appeared to be the royal tomb (Golemata Tumba) of Philip II. In addition to yielding much information about the Macedonians, the find also unearthed much controversy. Some of the artifacts found, according to Eugene Borza, belonged to a later period of the 4th century B.C., which cast some doubt as to whether it was truly Philip II’s tomb. What is more important however, is the type of treasure found in the tomb. The treasure is physical evidence which “proves unmistakably” that the Macedonians were not a barbarian tribe whose only accomplishment was making war. Archeologists are finding increasing evidence that the Macedonians were a far more sophisticated culture than previously thought.
What was most impressive in this find, besides the solid gold casket with the symbol of the starburst, was the exquisite gold foiled wreath made from 313 gold oak leaves. It is the heaviest and most elegant gold wreath ever discovered.

Since the emergence of the Republic of Macedonia new and exciting archeological discoveries have been made. Rocks with inscriptions never before deciphered were found in several sites inside the Republic of Macedonia. Similar inscriptions have also been found in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and even Crete, Pil and Knosos. Unfortunately, up until now archeologists have consistently failed to decipher them. Thanks to dedicated archeologists like Vasil Ilyov the inscriptions have now been deciphered.

According to Ilyov’s palaeographic and paleolinguistic research, the signs on the rocks are actual letters of an old pre Slavic phonetic alphabet that belongs to the Macedonian language of Aegean Macedonia. In other words, the language of the Pelazgian and other Macedonian tribes, like the Payonian, Piertian, Brygian or Phrygian, Venets or Enets, etc., is in fact the language of the ancient Macedonians which dates back to prehistoric times.

Symbols found on Prevedic solar and cosmographic artifacts that belong to the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, place the inscriptions somewhere between 7,000 to 3,000 B.C. (Page 37, October 15, 1999, number 560, Makedonija magazine).

What is more interesting is that Vasil Ilyov and his team have translated almost every inscription discovered and so far have identified and tabulated 35 characters of the ancient alphabet. (Pages 60 and 61, July 1, 2000, number 577, Makedonija magazine). There is finally proof that a Macedonian written language existed in prehistoric times. In fact, according to Vasil Ilyov, not one but two phonetic alphabets have been discovered. One was known as the common alphabet used by the general public and the other was known as the “secret” alphabet used for religious and ceremonial purposes. To date, the texts of more than 150 artifacts have been translated and about 6,000 ancient Macedonian words have been identified.

According to Ilyov, apart from giving us the oldest phonetic alphabet found to date, the prehistoric Macedonians have also given us clues that they were gazing at the skies. The word “cosmos” which the Hellenes borrowed from the Macedonians, and the modern Greeks without offering adequate etymology pass off as their own, Iliov says comes from the Macedonians.
In the ancient Macedonian language the base of the noun cosmos comes from the adjective KOS (winding slanted) and the noun MOS (bridge). “Kosmos” was the winding bridge that the ancient Macedonian astronomers called the cluster of stars in the Milky Way galaxy looking like a winding bridge when viewed from the earth.

Even before Irodot (Herodotus 484-424 B.C.) gave the world the idea of history as we know it today, the ancient Macedonians were already familiar with the notion. The West considers Herodotus to be the father of history. As for the word “history”, its roots are found in the ancient Macedonian noun “TR” which is the oldest name given to the god of thunder. In time, the word evolved from “TR” to “TOR”, “TORI” and in the past tense, “STORI” which in Macedonian means “happened”. If we apply this action to events that involve people we then come up with the Macedonian words “TIE I STORIA” which in English translates to “they did”. So, when Herodotus published his work under the title “HISTORY” by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, he in fact used a Macedonian word for his title.

If Herodotus, using a similar analogy derived his title from the Atikan dialect, as modern Greeks claim, he would have had to produce a noun from the verb “KANO” or “EKANA” and the actions “they did” would translate to “AVTI EKANAN” which is a far cry from the word HISTORY. (Pages 56 and 57, June 15, 2000, number 576, Makedonija magazine).

I want to mention here that in spite of Greek claims otherwise, Irodot (Herodotus) was not Greek and was not from Athens. Herodotus was Karian born in the city of Halicanassus in Asia Minor.

More evidence that gives credence to the existence of an ancient prehistoric Macedonian civilization comes to us from ancient literature. One such source that greatly influenced our impression of the ancients and inspired Alexander the Great to seek adventure was Homer’s epic poems. About five hundred years after the Trojan Wars, Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer’s work captivated his audience with events that, according to Tashko Belchev, began and ended in Macedonia. Homer was born in the 8th century B.C. and created true literary masterpieces that are enjoyed as much today, as they were in the days of Alexander the Great. Originally, Homer’s stories were folktales told and retold for millenniums until they were immortalized in print in the 6th century B.C.
What is most interesting about Homer’s stories, especially the Iliad, is that they were originally written in the prehistoric Macedonian language. The first paleolinguist to openly proclaim the similarities between the words of the Iliad and those of the modern Slavic languages was the German Homerologist Pasov. Inspired by Pasov and others, researcher Odisej Belchevsky has furthered the study by clearly illustrating the fundamental relationship between the modern Macedonian language and the language of Homer.

“ In the Iliad and Odyssey, attributed to Homer, the great multitude of non-Greek people living around Olympus and further north in Europe were described as being as, ‘Numerous as the leaves in the forests… with chariots and weapons decorated with gleaming gold and silver…like gods.’
Unless destroyed by natural disaster, large nations and their languages do not simply disappear but rather change and evolve over time. This evolution is influenced by the conditions of life and interaction with other nations, called ‘symbiosis’ by Lidija Slaveska in The Ethnological Genesis of the Macedonian People.
A tremendous number of words from everyday life as well as the names of a number of places, rivers, mountains, kings, gods, common people, and numerous tribes can be found in the Homeric poems. The majority of these words have survived until today. This is not a strange phenomenon. What attracts our attention is that these words have retained their basic meaning and can be easily recognized especially by the speakers of the contemporary Slavic languages. This linguistic material clearly shows the existence and strong influence of a language, which surely was neither Greek nor Latin.
After extensive research taking over twelve years, I (Oddisej Belchevski) have studied, analyzed and resolved a large number of linguistic problems through the evidence of that archaic language which profoundly influenced the Greek, Latin, and Germanic languages in their historic development since ancient times.

The question of what constituted ancient Macedonian has been studied by many scholars over many centuries. There have been many attempts to reconstruct it as a “Greek dialect.” My research indicates the following:
1. 1. Not a single linguist nor scholar in any other field has ever conducted a comparative study of this ancient language with the largest linguistic group in Europe and Asia--the Slavic languages--in use today! The question is: Why? It seems that the truth has been hidden in darkness and altered by western scholars and politicians for almost two hundred years. It is easy to suppose that this has been done for nationalistic, political interests and gains.
2. 2. The Macedonian words identified in Homer (1000-800 BC) are a part of the basic everyday life of the Macedonian people today. When compared to the contemporary Macedonian language, there is an incredible similarity and in many cases there are complete cognates.
3. 3. Moreover, those Homeric words which belong to that base are found in the roots of many words in the modern Macedonian language. They form huge families of words--a series of words that are interrelated on a functional basis or are simply built according to the Law Of Functional Etymology.
4. 4. Some of these words have been adopted in the Greek language, but have been assimilated beyond recognition. Others again “stand alone” in the Greek language, without Greek roots or functional relationships. But most of these words are absolutely not related to modern Greek.

Many western scholars think that kinship terms from 1500-1000 BC disappeared long ago. My research proves that they exist today in the largest language group of nations in Europe and Asia, including the modern Macedonian nation. These specific terms were of utmost importance as they were the basis for preserving large family units --clans, tribes, and the prevention of marriages between family members. All this resulted in forming of great nations.

The Pelazgian people are clearly described in Homeric poems as non-Greek, with their own language and traditions totally different from Greek. They inhabited the Balkan Peninsula (known by the names Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, etc.) and they spread throughout south-eastern Europe (under the common name Scythians). Later, they migrated to the east in Asia Minor (Lydians, Brigians-Frigians etc.) and to the west into central and northern Italy (Etruscans, Veneti etc).
Their name, Pelazgians, most logically could be interpreted as the ‘dwellers of the flat lands’. They cultivated the fertile valleys and became a part of the landscape their fecundity only paralleled by the far Eastern nations. In the Iliad, they are identified as Trojans and as the inhabitants of Crete. According to Greek writers, they are credited with building the Acropolis and as those natives that the ‘Greek’ tribes met when they arrived in Southern Europe. How could it have happened that so great a number of Pelazgian tribes disappeared without leaving traces of their language? It should be pointed out that there is forgotten evidence revealed in the linguistic inscriptions on stones in Delphi (Greece) and Asia Minor (Turkey). These are written in Greek and in ‘another language’, which western scholars identify as Etruscan. In his study ‘The Language of the Etruscans’, L. Bonafonte identifies the ‘other language’ as Etruscan. My study of the Etruscan and Lydian languages reveals that these languages were closely related to the ancient and modern Macedonian language. Other apparent lexical correspondences between the Homeric and modern Macedonian are, for example: paimiti(s)-pamti; veido, veiden-vide; ischare-izgara, skara; idri-itar; kotule-katle; okkos-oko; steno-stenka; pliscios-seli, preseli; oditis-odi od odenje. There are a great many examples like this in the 1800 dictionary compiled by the German linguist Ludwig Franz Passoff on the basis of the most ancient extant manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad. The English edition was prepared by Henry George (New York, 1850). Not knowing the Macedonian language, Passoff concentrated on the most contrasting preserved words, unknown in Greek and Latin with the Czech and Slovak languages of that time. So these words were identified, in fact, as Slavic words. Hence, in my opinion the golden rule for analyzing a language is the aforementioned Functional Etymology. Since the functional relations of words are the fundamental building blocks of word forms, I name this rule the ‘GOLDEN RULE OF FUNCTIONAL ETYMOLOGY.’
In studies of the ancient and modern Macedonian language at the Canadian-Macedonian Historical Society in Toronto the priority project based on an earlier understanding is the question of ‘Studying The Macedonian Language--Ancient and Modern’. Another interesting topic is the problem of the ‘Lost Words in the Indo-European Language Exist Today in the Modern Macedonian Language’. In order to illustrate my argument in this respect, I focus on some examples of the genetic relationships between ancient and modern Macedonian language, through the Macedonian word daver, dever ‘brother in law’.

When a young woman marries, the brother of her husband (usually the youngest) becomes a ‘dever’. This is an ancient tradition done to ensure that the young male is entrusted with the care of the family in case the husband dies or is killed.

In such circumstances the youngest brother becomes the new husband and takes over the family. This was necessary to protect the children and keep accrued wealth and property within the same family. The meaning of the word in Macedonian, according to functional etymology could be extracted as follows: vera-verba-doverba-doveri-dever ‘to be entrusted’. This word belongs to a large cluster of Macedonian words containing the root (-verba-).
In ancient Macedonian (1000 BC), according to Homer (p.305 L.L.) there is da-DAVER; dao(s), where the digama stands for/v/ and the word means ‘brother in law’. In the word daver-daer we note the missing consonant /v/ in inter vocalic position. This indicates that the rule of the speech economy has been in force for a long time in the language. Dropping consonants has been a rule quite often occurring in Macedonian as in the examples: to private >to praoite; covekot ojde > coekon ojde, etc. Yet in Greek ‘brother in law’ ginaika delfos ‘ginaika delfoos’, could obviously not be related to the Homeric daver-davero(s).”( Odisej K. Belchevski, Pages 29, 30, 31 and 32, Number 503, III 1995, Makedonija magazine).

If you didn’t know who Homer was and happened to be reading his stories about the customs of the Trojans, you would think that he was talking about modern Macedonia. After three millenium, we find the same customs, crafts, hunting techniques, agricultural methods, etc. being practiced today. Be it spinning, weaving, dowry, hospitality, nature, or house design, everything else described in Homer’s epics, says Angelina Markus, is unchanged and present all around us today. (Page 56 and 57, July 1, 2000, number 575, Makedonija magazene.

Another archeological source that provides evidence for the Macedonians is the work of German Toponimist Max Fasmer. Fasmer in his book “The Slavs in Greece” examines the origins of 334 prehistoric Phoenician toponyms in Epirus and concludes that they are of Slavic origin. Through his studies, Fasmer has discovered that there is a relationship between the ancient Phoenicians and the medieval Slavs. He also clearly emphasizes that that “Slavs” inhabited Epirus. What is also interesting is that in German, the words “Slaven” and “Vinden” are synonymous. Tashko Belchev furthers the idea that the Slavs inhabited the Balkans long before previously thought by connecting the Vindi, Veneti and Phoenician to a single family of people with common origins. (Page 68, February 1, 2001, number 591, Makedonija magazine).

According to the writings of G. S. Grinevich, dealing with the subject of pre-Slavic literacy, the decoding and linguistic coding results show that pre-Slavic literacy existed much before the creation of the letters and coding of the Slavic language by the brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodi. This is more evidence that the proto-Slavs originated in Macedonia and according to Grinevich, the language spoken by the Aegean Pelasti is the same as that spoken by the pre-Slavs (p. 175). Grinevich has also stated that the pre-Slavic written language is very close to the Old Slavic written literary language of all Slavs. (Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994)

According to Alexander Donski, “There are many indications that the ancient Macedonians were of Venetic origin (the term "Slavic" came into use much later), and there is evidence in favor of this.

Historical Evidence We can see from several ancient documentary sources that Macedonians and Hellenes were two different peoples. Some Greek, as well as Roman historians, have explored this view, and have left evidence collected from earlier periods, clearly showing that ancient Macedonians were of Venetic origin.

Linguistic Evidence Although the surviving vocabulary of the ancient Macedonians is relatively small, it gives a good indication in favor of our thesis; which is, that the modern Macedonian language is at least in part the continuation of the language spoken by Alexander the Great and his contemporaries.

Onomastic Evidence There is considerable heritage from the area of burial customs and archaeological remains. They contain many examples of sameness or similarity between the ancient and modern Macedonian, and other Slavic languages. There are also some narrative, oral testimonies pointing in the same direction.”
Alexander Donski has recently published a book on this subject, which will be available in English soon.

A recently published book "Veneti: First Builders of European Community", considered to be one of the most comprehensive works on the early history of Slovenes, presents the Proto-Slavic Veneti as the first known nation of central Europe and the Slovenes as their most direct descendants. The Veneti (not to be confused with Venetians) settled in the alpine area in Slovenia, northern Italy, eastern Switzerland and Austria during the Bronze Age around 1200 B.C. In their original settlement area there are to this day countless Slovene place-names.

These facts presented in the book are not new and have already been studied and reported by earlier researchers but for unknown reasons, have not been taken seriously.

Besides important historical data, the authors of this book have presented numerous Slovene toponyms in the alpine region and to the west and north where the Veneti once lived. Also, the book reveals many similarities between the modern Slovene and the Venetic languages. Research done on the Venetic inscriptions has proven that not only was the ancient Venetic language (contrary to official linguistics) Proto-Slavic, but also that the modern Slovene language is a continuation of it.

The first known nation of central Europe, according to the authors of this book, were the Proto-Slavic Veneti and the original language of central Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans around 2,000 B.C. was Slavic.

The book "Veneti: First Builders of European Community" is a first step towards the gradual correction of the “distorted history” which was “written for us” by foreigners.

Until recently, no one had been able to decipher the Venetic script on the urns unearthed from archeological digs because no one ever thought of using the ancient Slavic language as a basis to try and solve this ancient mystery. So they say!

Matej Bor, a Slovenian linguist, seems to have cracked the Venetic script using the Slovenian language. (Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, “VENETI: First Builders of European Community”)

Soon perhaps, Macedonian researchers will compare notes with Slovenian researchers and shed some new light on this ancient mystery.

In the article “Who is Afraid of Ancient Macedonian Culture, and Why?” Tashko Belchev talks about Deyan Medakovic, President of the Serbian Academy of Science and his attempts to cover up certain archeological facts that do not agree with mainstream Serbian history.

On March 4, 1987 Academic, Vladimir Dediyer, President of the research board of the Serbian Academy, sent a letter to Deyan Madakovic complaining about his involvement in stopping the symposium devoted to the Vincha world which existed 6,000 – 3,000 years B.C. The symposium was organized by the Serbian Academy of Science and Art, the Historical Science Department and the Center for Scientific Research at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. Among other things, the letter chastised Medakovic with the words, “Damn you Deyan Medakovic, for your petty ambitions to be President of the Serbian Academy of Science. You are a sycophant to the authorities, breaking all human principles of behaviour. (L. Klyakic, ‘Beginning of the Road’, p. 56.)” (Page 69, August 1, 2000, number 579, Makedonija magazine).

On the subject of the Vincha Group, Vasil Iliov, in an article in the Makedonija Magazine, talks about a discovery of a rather imposing monument containing an ancient script found in Sitovo cave, located near the city of Plovdiv in Bulgaria. The monument has two lines of inscriptions about 3.4 meters long and the text is about 40 centimeters high, written from right to left. According to Ilyov, the text can be dated back to 4,500 B.C. and is written in the ancient, prehistoric Macedonian phonetic language. The text, although not deciphered at the time, was published in 1950 and again in 1971. With Ilyov’s assistance, the text was finally deciphered in 1995. In a crude attempt, here is what it says in English “and the father-in-law ran in (flew in) and in the flight horrors have haunted him and there the house psalms (in the house they sing psalms) and in roast you are a guest of the ducks-go dream!” (Page 71, December 15, 1999, number 564-565, Makedonija magazine) You can decide for yourself what the ancient scribe wants to say. More importantly, it is not what the message says but rather that it has been deciphered and translated. Perhaps it is not a message meant for us. In any case here is Iliov’s interpretation. The duck in this message refers to an ancient swamp bird, which rises from a deceased person and carries his/her spirit to the blue sky. Ilyov has based his interpretation on an artifact in the shape of an anthropomorphic figure standing on a chariot drawn by harnessed swamp birds. The central figure is decorated with symbols of the sun and planets.

Yet another source of archeological data in support of a Macedonian civilization comes from Bronze Age research. According to Vangel Bozhinovski (page 61, June 1, 2000, number 575, Makedonija magazine) the Neolithic civilization in Macedonia appeared 3,000 years before it appeared in Western Europe. Similarly the Bronze Age appeared in Macedonia 1,200 years earlier and the Iron Age 200 years earlier. The tragedy of the Bronze Age is reflected in the death and destruction it brought to Macedonia after it was introduced to Western Europe. In the hands of the Europeans to the North and to the West, the metal that once shaped art in Macedonia became a weapon of death and destruction. Was it mankind’s nature to crave war above peace? If we examine our behaviour by the amount of money we spend on our military budgets today, I would say yes.

Almost all of the valuable artifacts made between 1,200 and 800 B.C. were discovered in cemeteries. Macedonia dubbed “the culture of the fields of urns” has an abundance of cemeteries. It seems that no matter how many are unearthed or destroyed there are plenty more to be found. It is in mankind’s nature to be this way says Vangel Bozhinovski, just look at the textbooks from which our children learn in school today and you will realize that civilization is nothing but an endless war. War is a western invention which was imported to Macedonia during the Bronze Age and has become our way of life ever since.

It has been said that thousands of years ago many small tribal kingdoms occupied the region where the three continents meet (Europe, Asia and Africa). They lived off the land, traded, and peacefully co-existed with each other for many centuries. Even though they were known by many names, the people had a common ancestry and spoke dialects of the same language.
For a thousand years the masters of the crafts possessed the secret of the metals with which they made their cities beautiful with sculptures and decorations.

It was foretold that if the secret of the metal (bronze) was allowed to escape, the gods of peace would curse the people and allow disaster to befall them for a thousand years. Unfortunately, after a thousand years or so of contentment, ignoring the ancient warnings, the old masters became arrogant and careless and let the secret of the metal escape. No one could have predicted the outcome of what was about to happen, especially the gentle tribes who knew nothing of evil, violence or bloodshed.

When the gods of war who lived to the north and west of the gentle tribes learned the secret of the metal, they forged mighty weapons. With promises of power and glory, they bewitched the tribesmen’s leaders to use the weapons against their enemies. Greed and lust for power soon blinded the tribesmen who unleashed bloodshed, death and destruction. When the cities of light turned to dust the wars ended and the dead were buried in cities of tombs below the surface of the earth where their bones lay in peace, undisturbed for all eternity or until archeology unearthed them.

In 800 B.C. when the catastrophic wars were finally over, the survivors of the small tribal kingdoms were left weak, devastated and vulnerable. One of those small kingdoms was Macedonia. But Macedonia’s story does not end with the tribal wars, it only begins.

There are those who believe that the name “Macedonia” was first spoken by the child warriors who longed to return home during the tribal wars. What they affectionately called “Makedon” was not their kingdom but their wish to return to “mother’s home”.

“Make” (mother) and “don” (home) or Makedon as it came to be known to the outside world, was “mother’s home” to the children of Macedonia.
There are other stories that make reference to the meaning of the name “Makedon” but this, I believe, is the most realistic meaning.

One of the oldest sources of evidence written on stone in the ancient Macedonian phonetic language dates back to the Neolithic period, to the time of the “Zets”. I want to mention here that a “Zet” is a “son in law”. From the deciphered inscriptions, it appears that the Zets of various tribes seemed to be involved in some sort of conflict with each other.

Perhaps one of the most characteristic documents ever found was the text engraved on a stone in the shape of a long fish found in Osinchani, near Skopje. Here the inscription describes a battle between Zets expressing how one Zet subdued another.

Another description that dates between 2,100 B.C. and 1,200 B.C., tells a boastful story of how the Zet Ig’Lal destroyed the Ege kingdom. (Vasil Ilyov, page 51, August 15, 2000, number 580, Makedonija magazine).

Yet another Neolithic inscription from the Tsrna Loma or Ilina Gora locality, near the village Osinchani, conveys the following message: “taa, rechta, zasega e uteha na majkite, koishto loshoto voinata, niv gi oshteti”, which in English translates roughly to, “the word for now is consolation for the mothers, whom the wicked war damaged”.

Outside of Homer’s epics, nothing has captured the young imagination more than the adventures of the ancient mythological gods and heroes.

Were these gods and heroes exclusively Egyptian, Greek and Roman? Because that is exactly what the modern Greeks would want us to believe.

Contrary to modern Greek claims, Professor Tashko Belchev believes that the mythology as we know it today originated in the fertile minds of much older people than the ancient Greeks, the ancient Macedonians. The Greeks simply took the mythology and adopted it for themselves. Even the word “mythology” comes from the ancient Macedonian words “mit” and “log”. In modern Macedonian the word “mit” means “telling” or “bribing” (potmiti go, bribe him) and the word “log” (logika) means “logic” or “science”. Putting the two words together we come up with “Mitlog” or, in modern Macedonian, “Mitologija” the science of telling or the science of “bribing” the young imagination. (Page 58, June 15, 2000, number 576, Makedonija magazine).

Taking all evidence into consideration, it is not difficult to piece together a theory of what the pre-Macedonian world looked like. We already know a lot about the ancient city-states and how they dealt with overpopulation and expansion. For example, as each of the ancient city-states grew beyond the city’s ability to support its population, people were driven out or left voluntarily to start a new city. New settlements followed the coastline indicative of the peoples’ desire to pursue a familiar means of livelihood.
The same principle can be applied to the pre-Macedonian inland dwellers who lived in what we today call geographical Macedonia.

For personal protection and for companionship, the ancient people built their homes in close proximity similar to those of today’s modern villages. As the community grew in population beyond the land’s ability to support it, people moved and started new communities. This practice continued uninterrupted as long as there was space to expand. In time, the entire region of Macedonia became dotted with settlements. Unchecked by war, disease and pestilence, the populations grew and expanded outwards.

Since the people of the various towns were related to each other, they maintained close contact through visits, celebrations, etc. which kept their traditions and language from diverging.
The maximum population an ancient town could hold was dependent upon the land’s ability to support it. If a family could no longer make a living because it was too large for its land holdings, it either moved away in whole or split up. Some family members moved away to a smaller town or started a new community elsewhere. Newly founded towns usually took the name of the founding family.

Keeping track of genealogy was very important for several reasons. Family size usually dictated social status in the community. The family clan protected its family members and expected certain loyalties from them in return. Marriages between family members were avoided by knowing who belonged to which family. It was common practice in those days for a young man to leave his own family, marry and become a Zet (son in law) in another family. Based on the ancient scripts, being a Zet had its privileges, including those of waging war on other Zets for control over the family.

Because the Balkan terrain could not support uniform population growth, clusters of settlements developed usually with the larger towns in the fertile lowlands, surrounded by smaller towns in the highlands. As the older settlements grew and matured they began to trade with other settlements and developed transportation routes, commerce and a written language. They also developed a central administration, a security force and appointed central tribal leaders, who in time evolved into tribal kings. With the expansion of trade beyond the boundaries of the local community, the ancient people came into contact with other people who had new ideas and innovations.

With the discovery of metal, powerful weapons were built and bloodshed and destruction was not too far behind. Even family squabbles over small matters turned violent and ugly. A society that valued kinship and family above all else had the tendency to stick together and interact freely and peacefully. Unfortunately, at around 1,200 B.C. something went terribly wrong and war erupted between the various groups (families?), bringing four centuries of death and devastation to the peace loving people of ancient Macedonia.

Documented but not well understood are ancient “kinship and family ties”. Kinship was very important to the ancient people of Macedonia who ranked it at the top of their value system. A good example of this is Philip II’s marriages to various women from his annexed worlds. Marriages were a powerful symbol for bonding family ties and for forging powerful alliances. This custom may seem bizarre today but it was common practice in ancient Macedonia.

From a cultural and linguistic standpoint, the close relationship between the ancient societies allowed free interaction between the various peoples and kept their language and culture from diverging. This could account for the widespread Slav language commonality we are witnessing today.

Thus far, I have given you a glimpse of the remnants of an old prehistoric world with a rich culture and language. The sources of information that I have referenced provide valuable evidence of the existence of a world never before acknowledged. Also, the deciphered inscriptions and translated texts not only suggest that a pre-historic civilization existed, but also that the people of this old world are the ancestors of the modern Macedonians.

Some of the artifacts, like the stone writings and the “Iliad” translations, have been discovered and deciphered since the 1990’s but to this day they have not attracted the attention of mainstream archeology and paleolinguistics. Why?

I believe there are several reasons for this:

1. There are some who think the work is not serious enough to warrant their consideration.

2. Others, especially the highly paid administrators, are satisfied with the status quo and don’t want to rock the boat.

3. Yet others believe that any involvement on their part could undermine the entire foundation of ancient history as we now know it.

4. Unfortunately, there are also those, myself included, who believe that mainstream ancient history as we know it today, had been fabricated to support the political objectives of the 19th century Great Powers and their allies.

As George Orwell once pointed out, "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." History is written by the victors.

As I mentioned earlier, when the foundation of ancient history was laid down by the 19th century revisionists, it was done in aid of political objectives. Modern Greece was created by the Western Powers expressly to curtail Slavic expansionism. Moreover, Greece was created to divide the Slavs and stop Imperial Russia from achieving her long ambition of sailing the waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

In their zeal to satisfy their own ambitions, the 19th century Powers, perhaps unbeknownst to them at the time, unleashed a “Balkan turmoil” that would have long lasting consequences for the Balkan people.

People that existed together, united for centuries by a common faith, were divided without their consent and thrown into disarray by artificially imposed values and ideals.

A century has passed and peace has not been achieved. Why?

When the Western Powers superficially created Greece in 1829, they launched her on a polemic course, her survival to be made possible only at the expense of the Macedonian nation.
The problems experienced between Greece and Macedonia today are nothing new but another stage in a continuous and timeless struggle.

Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia have generated more literature to disprove the existence of a Macedonian nation than they have written books about their own histories. This is truly sad and such a waste of effort.

 
 
И така започнува сагата која им предизвикува главоболки на нашите чувашки коњообљубни соседи како и на останатите педери во комшилук.
My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:11
References:

Josef S. G. Gandeto, Ancient Macedonians, The differences Between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks

Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon

Jozko Šavli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, VENETI: First Builders of European Community

George Nakratzas M.D., The Close Racial Kinship Between the Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Macedonia and Thrace

Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994

Makedonija Magazine – Ilustrirana Rebija za iselenitsite od Makedonija, Broj 503, 560 - 591
My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:14

"History has often been referred to as a record of the winners. A more accurate definition might be, 'a record of how the winners wish to be seen.' Many governments, in a reptilian effort to justify their conduct, have distorted the past in order that it serve the present." (Michael Dimitri)

Weakened by the tribal wars, the small kingdom of Macedonia was vulnerable to outside attacks. The people, who for thousands of years knew nothing of war, after four centuries of it, had grown weary and apprehensive. Their long time kin, friends, and allies were now the enemies who had them surrounded. Too weak to stave them off by force, the Macedonians of the 10th century BC devoted their energies to diplomacy.

In the last article (Part 1), I provided some archeological and linguistic evidence which hints to the idea that the ancient Macedonian people, including those of the 4th century BC, were of non-Greek origins. As much as it is contrary to official history, this evidence can no longer be ignored.

Macedonians are not alone in their arduous task of setting the historical record straight. There are also Slovenes, Poles, Russians and even Italians and Americans who believe the European continent was settled by different groups of people than official history would have us believe.

My intention in this article is to provide more evidence that will dispute Greek claims on Ancient Macedonia and that will prove that not only were the ancient Macedonians not Greek, but that they were an ethnically unique people with a prehistoric Slav identity. My main focus, however, will be to analyze the factors and events from the 10th century BC onwards, which created the conditions that elevated Macedonia from a tribal kingdom to a Super Power.

Four centuries of war did not only bring death and destruction to the prehistoric tribal kingdoms, but also isolated them from each other. Forced to look for trade elsewhere and away from their traditional trading routes, the warring tribes were brought into contact with and exposed to new and different people. With new exploration came external influences and exposure to new ideas and new blood. Tribes closest to the sea began to traverse the waterways, crossing the Mediterranean which brought them into contact with much more advanced civilizations than they had ever encountered before. Besides trade, the primitive seafaring people began to acquire new skills and knowledge never before encountered.

Isolated from each other and influenced by external factors, in time, the warring tribes began to diverge ethnically and acquired varying linguistic and cultural characteristics.

Even though they may have shared a common ancestry in the past, isolation and cultural evolution made them unique and different from one another. The tribes closest to the Mediterranean Sea influenced by the more advanced middle-Eastern civilizations evolved into democratic city states with unique languages and cultures. The mainland people, on the other hand, influenced by their northern neighbours took on a different character, which will be the subject of this study.

For the sake of the Modern Macedonian Nation, which for political reasons has been exploited by the Great Powers and its allies, my interest here is to show that the Macedonian people living in geographical Macedonia today, contrary to official history, are the descendants of the Ancient and prehistoric Macedonians. The Macedonian lineage has survived and remained intact from prehistoric times to today. My arguments do not imply racial purity but rather cultural and linguistic continuity. It is well known that many outsiders have invaded Macedonia and there is no doubt that many have left their mark as well. However, in spite of all attempts to subdue it, the Macedonian character, over the ages, has survived.

Aided by the rough and impenetrable terrain the Macedonian village has become the bastion and saviour of the Macedonian language and culture. Invaders of cities and fertile lands rarely showed interest in villages that were poor, arid, secluded, and impossible to reach. Ironically, Macedonia's ethnic strength, in numbers, lies in its villages. Anyone wishing to conduct business in Macedonia has to learn "the ways of the village" including the village language and culture. This is as true today as it was in Homer's time.

In spite of great efforts by the Greek authorities in the last century to eradicate the Macedonian consciousness in the villages, the Macedonian language and culture have survived and in time, will flourish again.

Why do people still live in virtually inhospitable places? Such human behaviour defies logic. Those, myself included, who were born in such places, have an unexplainable "deep love" for them. In spite of all hardships, we demonstrate great admiration for "our piece of rock" but provide no logical explanation as to why that is.

My point here is that the preservation of the Macedonian language and culture over long periods of time has been due to the stubborn and unyielding nature of the Macedonian peasant whose way of life over the long years, has been bound to the land by age-old traditions.

Once the threat of the invader was gone, the Macedonian language and culture seemed to percolate right back, even from virtual extinction. This has certainly been proven true through the century old Greek occupation and the five-century old Ottoman occupation. The villages managed to survive because they posed no threat and offered no great benefits to the invaders. For the invaders to influence any change in the lifestyle of the self-supporting, soil dependent peasant, was simply a waste of time.

Mainstream history, outside of the exploits of the Great Macedonian Empire, offers very little in terms of Macedonian prehistory. In fact, Eugene Borza, the leading expert on ancient Macedonian history, is the first to admit that the construct of Macedonian prehistory does not exist. "Anyone interested in this early period would do well to remember Geyer's comment, made nearly half a century ago, that the 'time for Macedonian prehistory has not yet come'."

(Page 283, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

There are many historical sources, including Josef Gandeto's well-documented claims that the ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks. Unfortunately, as of yet, I don't know of anyone who has made any attempt to explain who the ancient Macedonians were and where they came from.

In order to explain the origin of the Ancient Macedonians, one has to widen the scope of research and not "just endlessly analyze the Greeks".

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of today's modern Macedonians speak a variation of the Slav language, enjoy a variation of the old Slav culture, and practice the Pravoslaven (Eastern Orthodox) religion. Also, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Macedonia today is a multicultural nation with unique customs and social characteristics.

The identity, origins, and time of the arrival of the minorities living in Macedonia today can be easily traced back to past events. Five centuries of Ottoman occupation produced the Turkish and Albanian minority, four centuries of Roman occupation produced the Vlach minority, etc. As for the identity, origins, and time of arrival of the Macedonian majority, there are no straightforward answers. Most Macedonians including archeologists and linguists today do not trust the politically motivated mainstream history for answers and are thus dissatisfied with its explanations.

"The study of history developed a strongly nationalistic trend in the latter half of the last (19th) century. The goal of the field was no longer to document the development of culture and history through new and improved methods, but rather to create history that would assure cultural prestige and even superiority. Uncovering historical truths was of secondary importance.

These ideological foundations remain to the present day in the minds of many scholars and even entire schools of thought and method. Most studies on history and linguistics in Central Europe have been suffused with these nationalistic attitudes, with historians guided by predetermined aims. Their primary concern has often been to maintain the belief that the Slavs are not indigenous to Central Europe. With the tragic events in the region (Yugoslavia) since 1990, the debate has become increasingly polarized, with little hope of real progress in developing a true history of Central Europe that serves no agenda.

The principle aim of this work (the book Veneti, First Builders of European Community) is to draw attention to the need for a new attitude and a new vision of the early history of Central Europe, and hopefully to promote unbiased research methods. It is a plea for more openness and honesty, as well as recognition of the common heritage of the peoples of Central Europe regardless of nationality, language, and religion." (Page xi, Foreword by Professor Dr. Tareq Y. Ismael, University of Calgary Alberta, Canada, May 1996, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, Veneti, First Builders of European Community, Tracing the History and Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes)

Fortunately, today there is evidence emerging that promises to cast a new light on Macedonia's past as part of a new understanding of European prehistory.

At this point I will digress for a while in order to acquaint you with some of the new discoveries that not only provide hints as to who the prehistoric Macedonians were, but also challenge mainstream history on its accuracy in presenting the identity of the first Europeans.

The following is an essay written by Anthony Ambrozic, author of several books including the "Gordian Knot Unbound", "Journey Back to the Garumna", and "Adieu to Brittany", that deals with the translation of stone inscriptions found throughout Europe and dating back to prehistory. Here is what Anthony Ambrozic has to say.

[Widely accepted since the 19th century, the k*rgan Theory of Indo-European origins has since the 1970's come under severe attack and calls for reexamination. Its basic proposition has been that Indo-European beginnings were on the north shores of the Black Sea in what today is southern Ukraine. From there, the Indo-Europeans, primarily shepherding nomads, were to have expanded and, in the 4th millennium BC, to have subjugated, if not exterminated, the then peaceful agricultural society of Europe. As a result, the Indo-European k*rgan culture and language were imposed on the agricultural remnants of a subjugated continent.

What had persuaded archeologists and historians to adoption of this theory for such a long time were the artifacts found in excavated k*rgans since the 19th century. A k*rgan is a circular burial mound constructed over a pit grave and containing grave vessels, weapons, bodies of horses, and a single human body. The earliest k*rgans were found to have been in use in the Russian Steppes, but in the 3rd millennium BC spread into eastern, central, and northern Europe.

Supported by evolving research into linguistic similarity among the extant Indo-European languages, excavation of these k*rgans led scholars to presuppose a common origin for the Indo-European shepherding horsemen, all speaking a mutually-understood, undifferentiated language still in the 4th millennium BC.

As a regrettable ideological adjunct, the k*rgan Theory also spawned the hybrid myth of Aryan superiority, still quite widely acclaimed and practiced with unfortunate consequences into the first half of the 20th century.

From accumulating scrutiny and new developments in the last 30 years, however, the k*rgan Theory has been subjected with every passing year to more and more stress. As a result, it has lost much of its former credibility.

The main thrusts of this discomfiture come from three sources. The chief among them is the scientific advance in the C 14 carbon-dating measuring. Not far behind are the newest findings in the field of genetics. But of major significance is the discovery in the Near East during the last 30 years of over 10,000 inscription-bearing clay tablets.

Instigated by this new information, claims of archeologist Colin Renfrew already in the decade of the 1980's seriously cast doubt on the k*rgan Theory. The gist of Renfrew's assertions is that archeology simply does not support the conclusions of conflict and suppression of the pre-Indo-Europeans in the 4th millennium BC theretofore postulated by the k*rgan Theory. By extension, therefore, the hypothesis of a common Indo-European protolanguage still having been in existence as late as the 4th millennium BC was also put in doubt.

According to Renfrew, the Indo-Europeans were only the first agriculturalists in Europe. What we are witnessing, he states, is a latter Stone-Age revolution during which farming-cattle raising succeeded in replacing the economy based on hunting and gathering. And based on the evidence of the new clay-tablet discoveries, this revolution expanded from Anatolia to Western Europe. And further, what is most significant for the quest of Indo-European origins, he asserts that such expansion took place 3,000 years earlier than claimed by the k*rgan Theory.

So, what we are faced by are two fundamental departures from the k*rgan Theory. One, the Indo-European expansion into Western Europe had been peaceful and not accompanied by genocidal invasions; and two, it took place 3,000 years earlier.

Foremost in espousing the compelling force of these reasonings today is Mario Alinei. Now dean emeritus of the University of Utrecht, he is director of several linguistic reviews and president of the Advisory Council in related matters to UNESCO. As author of an 1,800-page examination of the historical aspects of the Indo-European beginnings, he concludes that Indo-Europeans have lived in Europe basically in the same territories they occupy today ever since the Stone Age. As the linchpin to his theory, Alinei deals especially with the Slavs (and specifically mentions the Slovenes) and concludes that they had since antiquity lived in the area of southeastern Europe and, further, that they had from there expanded northward and northeastward.

Arguing for an Indo-European dispersion to have taken place even a few millennia earlier than claimed by Renfrew, Alinei provides evidence for a continuity of settlement ever since then. Appropriately, his theory became known as the Theory of Continuity.

As evidence for the foregoing, Alinei reminds us that in Anatolia 4,000 years ago we already have three distinct Indo-European languages spoken by three different peoples (Hitites, Luwians, and Palaiks). And since we know that the speakers of these languages had come into Anatolia already 5,000 years ago, it is difficult to imagine that during the 4th millennium BC a common Indo-European language could still have existed. Such a hypothesis would necessitate the Indo-European to have so rapidly diffused itself into three separate languages in such a limited area in just a few centuries. This would run counter to every established linguistic observation.

The Theory of Continuity has shaken the foundation of the k*rgan Theory and exposed the sandy underpinning on which it rests. Mired with it in inextricable quicksand is the Aryan myth of an ancestral super warrior horseman's élan vital bursting with godlike energy upon a primitive pre-Indo-European and supplanting his genes, language, and culture on all who submit and eradicating those who do not.

The Theory of Continuity is in full alignment with the recent advance in the field of genetics. According to Joseph Skulj of Toronto, genetics points to the Balkans having been a place of refuge during the Ice Age and having had a relatively undisturbed history of indigenous settlement since then.

The Theory of Continuity is also a challenge especially to the Slovenes, the inheritors of a linguistic telescope into the misty past. It is a timely prod for them to cast aside the postulates of the dated k*rgan Theory and join the quest for a new perspective.

To this end, research has been undertaken on the Old Phrygian and Early Thracian inscriptions from Anatolia and Thrace. By placing Old Phrygian and Slovene words side by side, it has been demonstrated in my book "Gordian Knot Unbound" how very little the two have departed from each other in close to 3,000 years. In half the interval allotted by the k*rgan Theory for diffusion of the bedrock Indo-European into separate languages, the Old Slovene (i.e. Old Phrygian) has changed hardly at all. Especially in the dialectal forms, it still reverberates across 26 centuries, little altered in the speech, morphology or meaning, the syntax or sentence structure of the contemporary Slovene. It yet echoes in the diction of the Alpine redoubt of Slovenia 2,700 years after the empire of the legendary kings Midas and Gordius had crumbled under the Cimmerian onslaught.

The unyielding granite of the Slovene clinging stubbornly to its linguistic salient, buffeted through centuries by gales from the north and south, by itself is proof positive that Indo-European origins are shrouded in the recesses of a much more distant past than the 6,000 years the k*rgan Theory presumes to accord them.

In this respect, to fix a definitive focus on the Slavic perspective of the issue, a few poignant excerpts from Mario Alinei's Theory of Continuity are being quoted:

"I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the 'arrival' of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times."

"Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs... because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The southwestern portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands."

"The surmised 'Slavic migration' is full of inconsistencies. There is no 'northern Slavic language', it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic... The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic... and connected with Anatolia... Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age... The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture... agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs... The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven...]. This was a sobering analysis by Anthony Ambrozic.

I realize that I am taking you deeper and deeper into academia but I believe it is necessary in order to build a solid foundation for my arguments.

The following is an English translation of the last part of a talk given by Charles Bryant-Abram, PhD, FSO at the World Slovenian Congress at Ptuj Castle, near Maribor, Slovenia, on the 20/21 September 2001.

"But indeed I do suspect that history is about to be written, or rather rewritten. We stand on the threshold of a new world of insight into the prehistory of Europe and of the Mediterranean.

Parallel to the ongoing analysis of the Venetic inscriptions, a thorough search must be undertaken throughout the Balkan Peninsula for all extant lapidary evidence of its former presence there. Foremost - and I have called attention to this elsewhere - an investigation must be made of all inscriptions associated with the age of Philip of Macedon preceding the Hellenization of his son, Alexander, under the tutelage of Aristotle. The close collaboration of Macedonian and Greek scholars must be solicited and sustained for this effort. We are encouraged in this direction by the findings of Anton Ambrozic who has successfully demonstrated Venetic presence in the Hellenistic city, Dura-Europos, founded by Alexander in the Syrian Desert and destroyed by the Sassanids in AD 256, some 400 years before the supposed first penetration of Slavs into the Balkan Peninsula. These Venetic inscriptions from Dura-Europos lend weighty if still circumstantial evidence to my original conjecture that Alexander and his Macedonian people may very well have been Veneti. If this does prove to be the case, then the Macedonian people today will have every justifiable reason to reclaim their own linguistic patrimony." (Charles Bryant-Abram, PhD, FSO Linguistics, Medieval Castilian philology, Université de Montréal). The article in its entirety can be found at "http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/anthony_ambrozic.htm" under the sub-heading "Refinement and Future Directions in Venetic Scholarship".

I included the three quotations (above) to highlight the fact that:

1. Mainstream scholars are beginning to admit that mainstream ancient European history, including that of Macedonia, is politically motivated and does not provide a realistic interpretation of past events.

2. Mainstream theories of prehistory are being challenged and are losing ground to new and revolutionary ideas backed by archeological and linguistic evidence and by science.

3. Finally, there is archeological and linguistic evidence that provide clues to the true identity of the prehistoric and ancient Macedonians.

As indicated in Ambrozic's essay (above), mainstream history is not only being challenged over the identity of the prehistoric Balkan people but also over the identity of all Indo-European nations that occupied all of Central Europe during prehistoric times. Traditional thinking is that the ancestors of the present day Germans were the first people to settle Central Europe. With archeological, scientific, and linguistic evidence however, that thinking is being challenged and is losing ground. Supported by DNA, genetic, and archeological evidence, more and more scientists are convinced that the prehistoric Indo-European people of Central Europe, known by many names, were not proto-Germans but proto-Slavs. Contrary to mainstream beliefs that the Slavs migrated to the Balkans around the 6th century AD, this "new evidence" seems to lead us to the conclusion that the Slavs were always there and have always lived where they live today.

If you wish to learn more about the prehistoric identity of the Central Europeans or if you wish to study the translations of the various prehistoric inscriptions, please consult the works of Anthony Ambrozic, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic (see reference section for book names).

If you wish to learn more about Vasil Ilyov's work, Macedonian artifacts, ancient inscriptions, and translations, please go to the "Macedonian Civilization" website http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/index.html.

With the emergence of more new evidence, there will be proof that the Macedonian continuity from prehistoric times to the present has never been broken. This will vindicate the Macedonian nation and expose all Greek falsifications for what they truly are. The Macedonian people have always known where their roots lay but never had the evidence to prove it. Now for the first time there is tangible evidence that will prove, without any doubt, that the modern Macedonians are the descendents of the ancient Macedonians and that the ancient Macedonians were never Greek.

We are on the verge of an historical revolution, poised to cast away the shackles of the 19th century's politically motivated and nationalistically energized, historical mentality. For the first time we have evidence to set the record straight.

During the fall of 2002 when I was thinking about writing these articles, I mentioned my idea to Vasil Bogov, the author of Macedonian Revelations, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Thinking that I would be writing conventional "Classical History", his immediate reaction was to plead with me not to do it because it would promote the falsehood of classical history and further legitimize Greek claims to ancient Macedonia. To make a long story short, something that Vasil told me during that conversation stuck with me.

While doing research for his book, Vasil visited northern Italy to have a look around. On one of his guided trips, the tour guide took them on a diversion to a remote village. This was her ancestral village where her family was still living. In typical Italian fashion, the young woman's mother came out of her house and loudly greeted the tourists in Italian. But when she spoke to her daughter, she used a different language, a language that did not seem to belong to that region. To Vasil's surprise, he understood most of the words, which to him sounded like Macedonian words from the Kostur/Lerin region. Dying to find out, Vasil immediately inquired. Expecting the family to be Macedonian, to his surprise, the young woman told Vasil that the language they spoke was an old Italian dialect that existed before the Roman period and that many remote villages still used it.

I knew Vasil well enough and trusted him not to be telling me stories, so I found myself puzzling over this "anomaly" for a long time. How could people so far back in time be speaking Macedonian? There had to be some mistake? We were led to believe that the Slavs came from north-eastern Europe during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries AD, so what was a Slavic speaking people doing in northern Italy before 100 BC? I had never heard anything like this before. I could find no answers. In fact I could find no documentation to indicate that Slavs had ever settled northern Italy. Then, around the beginning of March 2003, after reading Anton Skerbinc's English translation of the Slovenian texts on the Veneti, it all started to make sense.

Macedonians are not alone in their quest for the truth. Other Slavic speaking people who have also been shackled and bound by the same politically motivated historical ideologies are also looking for answers. Leading the search are the Slovenes who have dared to challenge the old mindset and are now in the process of setting the record straight.

There are those who believe that the Slovenes are the closest relations and have the least disturbed links to the prehistoric Indo-Europeans. Nestled in the Alps, the Slovenes have survived many invasions and many attempts at assimilation. The Slovenes also believe, with ample evidence to prove it, that Central Europe, including Italy, were settled by the Proto-Slav Veneti long before the so-called 6th century AD Slav migrations. This agrees with independent findings in the Republic of Macedonia, which not only confirm, but reinforce the idea that the prehistoric Macedonians belonged to the same group of Slavic Veneti.

At this point, irrespective of exactly who the prehistoric Macedonians were (more on this later), there are two important facts that seem to emerge:

1. The prehistoric Macedonians were not Greek.

2. Like the modern Macedonians of today, the prehistoric Macedonians also spoke a Slavic language.

And now for the skeptics! Since I am a skeptic myself, there is no doubt that there are those who may find this a bit unbelievable.

That which was taught to us from youth and re-enforced by repeated exposure becomes familiar and comforting. Sometimes however, in view of new evidence, we must dispense with our comforts and start facing facts. I want to tell you that I carefully examined Anthony Ambrozic's translations and I must admit they are brilliantly well done. Ambrozic is a master of simplicity who uses a sound methodology to achieve his translation. I am convinced his work is genuine and I invite all skeptics to examine it for themselves. While they are at it, they should also examine the works of Vasil Ilyov, Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, Ivan Tomazic, and Anton Skerbinc to judge for themselves. (See the reference section for book titles and URLs).

By the 10th century BC, there was a small group of people living in the region between present day Kostur and Lerin who identified themselves as Macedonians. The great wars of the Bronze Age had devastated the region and the Macedonians felt themselves surrounded and squeezed by the larger tribes. Large disturbances in the East caused population shifts in the region, thus pushing invaders into Macedonian lands.

It would appear that the Macedonians became a nation after the great wars when they collectively began to work together for unity and for the defense of their small kingdom. Intimidated by the constant invasions, the small group of people collectively fought to repel their neighbours whom they no longer considered kin.

Who were the Macedonians before they became a nation? Here is what conventional mainstream history has to offer. "As an ethnic question it is best avoided, since the mainly modern political overtones tend to obscure the fact that it really is not a very important issue. That they may or may not have been Greek in whole or in part-while an interesting anthropological sidelight-is really not crucial to our understanding of their history." (Page 96,Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon,) I have great respect for Eugene Borza's work, but I do not agree with his assessment.

Current theory is that the prehistoric Macedonians came from a mixture of people that occupied the small Macedonian prehistoric kingdom. Among these people were the Pelasgian, Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian tribes. The people that constituted the 10th century BC Macedonians, in earlier times, belonged to the Central European family of the proto-Slav Veneti.

I could not find much information about the Pelasgi beyond old sources like Herodotus who claims that they occupied parts of Macedonia and parts of Greece even before the Greeks came into existence. The Pelasgi were one of the indigenous groups of people from the Indo-European era that Herodotus called barbarians who spoke a barbarian language. Later, even though some Pelasgi lived among the Athenians, they were considered by the Athenians, to be non-Greek, a barbaric race indigenous to the region. (Herodotus: from The History, c. 430 BC, I.56-59). Given that they were non-Greek speakers, and the fact that they were seen as barbarians even though some lived in Athens, it is conceivable that the Pelasgi belonged to the larger family of Indo-Europeans, the proto-Slav Veneti.

Legend has it that the first Phrygians settled geographical Macedonia a long time ago (3rd millenium BC). The Phrygians (or Bryges as they were known to the Macedonians), lived and mingled with the Macedonian people for centuries before their migrations to Anatolia.

While living in Macedonia, it is believed that they established their capital at Voden (Edessa) and mixed culturally and linguistically with the local populations of the region.

By the 9th century BC, the Phrygians became a kingdom in Anatolia with its centers located at Gordium and Midus City.

"Old Phrygian comes to us from a small number of unfragmented rock inscriptions in a script which in several characters resembles those found also in the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic alphabets.

Even though the Old Phrygian and Greek alphabets share most of the letters, Old Phrygian contains half-a-dozen letter symbols not used by the Greek alphabet. It would appear, therefore, that the two alphabets drew their writing from a common source, each adapting the relevant symbols to the dictates of their phonetic needs." (Page 23, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound, Cythera Press: Toronto, 2002) In his analysis, Ambrozic, without much difficulty, manages to translate Old Phrygian scripts using the same methodology employed to translate proto-Slav Venetic scripts found in present day France. "Even though the language of the Old Phrygian appears to be of a somewhat earlier cast in the Old Early Slavic mold than the Slavenetic of Gaul, there are many words they have in common." (Page 4, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound )

"The Greek tradition that the Phrygian migration into Anatolia in the 12th century BC having originated in Macedonia and Thrace was based on another often-encountered claim, namely, that both of their northern neighbors spoke the same language." (Page 58, Anthony Ambrozic,Gordian Knot Unbound) In other words, according to the ancient Greeks, both the Phrygians and the Thracians spoke the same language which today is proving to have Slavic origins.

In his conclusion of the Gordian Knot Unbound, with regard to his findings on the Phrygians, Ambrozic leaves us (in part) with the following words. "They are enough to give us insight into the ethos of their culture and the spirituality which guided it. Above all, cast in stone, the passages give us an unadulterated imprint of an Old Early Slavic spoken on the Anatolian plateau 3,200 years ago. (Page 118, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound)

The Illyrians to the west and to the north of Macedonia were a tribal people governed by tribal chieftains. It is believed that they settled the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the Bronze Age around the middle to late second millennium BC.

The Illyrians were bearers of the Hallstatt culture - a period in history that denotes the transition from bronze to iron in Central and Western Europe.

Of the many explanations I encountered regarding the origins of the Illyrian name, I found this one most interesting; that they were named Illyrians because they worshiped Iliy, their sun god. (Page 56, July 15, 2000, number 578, Macedonian magazine)

"The ancient western movement of the Slavs (Veneti) and the later eastern movement of South Slavs met on the Balkan peninsula, resulting in the development of a new Slavic language group. Did this process include borrowing from the Illyrian and Thracian? If so, can we determine the extent of these borrowings? If the ancient Illyrians and Thracians had been Latinized and Greekocized, there would have been preserved in South Slavic (Macedonian) languages some of the Latin and Greek vocabulary; also, we cannot imagine that, as the Slavs advanced, both (Illyrian and Thracian) established ethnic groups collectively ran and took refuge behind the walls of the coastal (Greek) cities or disappeared in the 'sea' of Slavs. On the contrary, the native inhabitants remained in their places and merged with the newly-arrived Slavs. The fact that Thracian and Illyrian vocabularies are not clearly distinguishable in present South Slavic languages can be explained by the probability that Proto-Slavic as well as Thracian and Illyrian were still very close to Indo-European, which means they were related to each other." (Page 92, Anton Skerbinc, taken from the book "Veneti, First Builders of European Community" by Jazko Savli, Matej Bor and Ivan Tomazic).

Falmerayer's assertions seem to agree with Skerbinc's idea, which extends the hypothesis that the Slavs were a major presence in the Greek peninsula before and after the so-called Slav migrations to the south. Falmerayer wrote his assertions about 170 years ago, unfortunately, due to Greek protests his work has never been widely publicized.

"Falmerayer's work deals with proving that the ancient Greek races had totally vanished from the lands where they had once achieved great things. Falmerayer writes that these peoples underwent a natural extermination by consecutive waves of nomadic peoples and that, at the end of a 10-century period, what has come to be present-day Greece was inhabited by Slavs, Albanians, and Greek-speaking Byzantine populations that had moved there from Asia Minor. This substantive racial repudiation has always been difficult to doubt and is becoming more and more so. Falmerayer's fundamental adversaries, Zinkeisen, Kopitar and Paparrigopoloulos, attempt to refute him mainly by interpreting the scant historical documents available from that dark period of the Greek Middle Ages. However, they have never been capable of making a convincing response to his most crucial, most concrete argument - the almost exclusively Slavic and Albanian toponymy or place-names, especially the microtoponymy or names of uninhabited places such as fields and small places in the geographic region of Greece. To solve this problem, the Greek State developed a "science" of para-etymology. That is, it corrupted linguistic history and, to make it more effective, recruited ethnologists to change the entire main toponymy of the country. But these devices assuage only the average, parochial conscience - not that of the scholar. So official Greek ideology had to seek its last hideout in the continuity of culture, at the core of which stands the argument of the continuity of the Greek language.

According to Falmerayer, the modern Greek language is what the Byzantine administration taught its new populations through the Orthodox Church and through the transferred Greek-speaking Byzantine populations. The Orthodox Church also continued to play a hegemonic role in matters of culture during the years of Ottoman rule. However, Falmerayer has demonstrated that, in each period, Byzantine culture and the Byzantine Orthodox Church was not the continuation of ancient Greek culture - but its complete negation. In fact, this rejection was its most energetic enterprise for it meant the use of flame and sword and untold violence and coercion to uproot any surviving vestiges of ancient Greek culture on the peninsula." (The above quotation was taken in part from Info Zora - The Rainbow/Vinozhito Newsletter December 2002/January 2003 - No.9. The article in its entirety can be found at http://www.mhrmc.ca/reports/info9.html ). (More on this in future articles).

While analyzing his discoveries, here is what Ambrozic has to say. "A tangible connection between the Old Phrygian and the Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan and Venetic on the other is established. This confluence brings into question the conventional wisdom that the source of early writing had its origins only in the Middle East. It insinuates the need for reexamining assumptions heretofore regrettably far too often taken for granted. If the Pelasgi, the ancient pre-Hellenic people, who occupied Greece before the 12th century BC, and who were said to have inhabited Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice, had their own alphabet, it unquestionably predated the alleged import of the Greek from the Phoenician. And again to quote the Encyclopedia Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 624), if the Etruscan alphabet had been the prototype for the Greek, we can not look upon the Greek as having been the precursor of either the Early Thracian nor the Old Phrygian. Both of these appear to have too many home-grown elements.

Concrete evidence for such reevaluation comes from excavations of the Vincha culture sites in the Balkans itself. The archeological site at Banjica (near Belgrade), in particular, is of significance. According to the C-14 method, its artifacts have been assessed as dating no later than 3473 BC. This makes the script found there 373 years older than the Proto-Sumarian pictographic script. (See Radivoje and Vesna Pesic, Proceedings of the First International Conference, 'The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population,' Ljubljana, 2001, p. 66).

According to Pesic, it has been the sea-faring, merchant rivermen, the Veneti, who had disseminated the Vincha script to the Etruscans as early as the end of the second millenium BC. The Veneti at the time are attested to have existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also in the Morava, Timok, and Vardar (69). In fact, the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus records them in the 5th century BC (I,196)." (Pages 85-87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound)

We have to give Vasil Ilyov and Anthony Ambrozic a lot of credit for the fantastic works they have done in translating the many prehistoric inscriptions found in Macedonia and all over Europe. While Ilyov has concentrated in the lower Balkans, Ambrozic's work includes translations from inscriptions found in Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Italy, and France but unfortunately, not from Macedonia. By Macedonia, I mean the Greek occupied part of Macedonia. "I (Ambrozic) have been trying to find non-Greek, pre-Hellenic-Age inscriptions from Macedonia. So far, unfortunately, in vain." (Page ii, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound) I wonder why that is?

Macedonia, the tiny tribal kingdom that exploded into a super power in a matter of a century and swallowed up the entire known world in a couple of decades has, according to the Greeks, no past. In spite of thousands of prehistoric relics and tens of thousands of inscriptions found and translated in the Republic of Macedonia in the last decade, "there are no non-Hellenic prehistoric inscriptions found in Greece". If we are to believe Greek sources, then I suppose we should also believe the Greek propaganda that the Macedonians had no alphabet, no writing ability, and not even a language, and, that they learned "everything" from the Greeks. I suppose the old Macedonians "grunted" their way around before they met and learned everything from the Greeks.

It seems that the Macedonians are not the only ones to owe everything to the Greeks. I have in my personal library a history book, left over from my high school years, entitled "The Foundations of the West" by D. Fishwick, B. Wilkinson and J. C. Cairns, 1963. I have enjoyed reading this book and kept it for years because, like many young minds interested in history, I was captivated by it. After reading it again however, impressed as I was with the authors' skills, confidence, and abilities to present the subject, the accuracy and bias of its contents left a bad taste in my mouth. Besides endlessly praising the Greeks for "knowing all", "telling all", and "civilizing all", the book distastefully denigrates the ancient Macedonians. It seems, according to this book, that the leaders of the empire that conquered the world, were mere "Greek puppets". The book has dedicated four chapters or 47 pages to the Greeks and one chapter or 11 pages to the Macedonians. The one chapter on Macedonia entitled, "Expansion and Dispersion" begins as follows; "The most significant event of the 4th century BC was the rise of Macedon to a position in Greek affairs." Even the chapter on Macedonia is about Greece. Is this is what our children are learning today?

I wonder, when the western authors were composing these texts, if they were even remotely aware of their actions and what this duplicity, in the hands of the Greeks, would unleash against the innocent Macedonians? I wonder if they were at all aware of the injustices they would bring to the Macedonian people?

Now that evidence is piling up against them, which in time will undoubtedly expose all Greek historical fabrications, I wonder what explanations the Greeks will have for this moral misconduct? How will they explain themselves to the world and to their own people, from whom they kept the truth and have lied to, for so many years?

There is one more piece of prehistoric evidence I would like to introduce before I continue with the main presentation.

It has been said that about fifty thousand years ago Europe was covered by a thick sheet of ice. It has also been said that the Balkans were one of the first places in Europe to gradually thaw out from the prehistoric freeze and to harbour the first life on the European continent. It only makes sense then, at least in the last fifty millenium, that life started from the Balkans and progressed inward into Europe as the ice sheet melted. It also makes sense then to say that the Balkans were one of the first places in Europe to be settled by humans.

Even before humans were capable of writing or communicating by using written words, they had an uncanny ability to draw. On the rocks in caves they drew symbols of everyday objects like people, animals, etc. or they drew phenomena which represented major events in their lives.

What is most interesting about these rock carvings, more commonly known as "rock art", is that they are far more numerous and prevalent in Macedonia than anywhere else in the world. Macedonia seems to be a major source of rock art with over 460,000 pieces found in just over 10% of the Macedonian territory which has been explored. Some of the pieces seem to be over 40 thousand years old and hold a myriad of carvings from fertility symbols to stars in the sky. For a long time the meaning of these symbols seemed to be a riddle for science but Dr. Dusko Aleksovski, a Macedonian scientist, unraveled their mystery. Aleksovski published his finding in an article, which he presented at the Rock Symposium in Capo de Ponte, Northern Italy in 1977. By observing rock art from the Paleolithic period through the ages, scientists were able to record the evolution of the development of the written language from simple schematic forms to symbolic shapes and finally to geometric drawings and letters, the kind of we use today. If you wish to learn more about Rock Art click on http://www.unet.com.mk/rockart/angliski/prva.htm.

Just recently a World Rock Art Congress was held in Macedonia during which the World Rock Art Academy was launched to which Dr. Dushko Aleksovski, its founder, was elected President.

1,000 BC seems to be a crucial period in the development of the Macedonian nation. While still in its tribal stages, the Macedonian kingdom began to gain military strength and political influence in the region. Their desire to free themselves from their invading neighbours fostered unity and organization among the first Macedonians. Then, as their Phrygians neighbours (to the east) began to retreat to Anatolia, a power vacuum was created which in time the Macedonian kingdom began to fill. Also, the fertile lands abandoned by the retreating Phrygians were too much for the mountain dwelling Macedonians to resist, so in time the Macedonians too began to migrate eastward and occupy those lands. It took the Macedonian people about a century to build up their populations but by the 9th century BC they made their presence felt in Central Macedonia.

It is believed that the first known Macedonian center before the eastward migrations, was Rupishcha (Argos), located about eight kilometers south of Kostur. Over the years, as the Macedonian kingdom expanded, its center was moved to a new place called Aegae located near present day Voden. "Herodotus (8.183) wrote that '[Perdicus] came to another part of Macedonia and settled near the gardens named after Midas, son of Gordias...above the garden rises the mountain called Bermion, unassailable in winter'." (Page 65, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

 

 

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:19

"Although the darker side of modern politics has cast its shadow in Macedonia and its people for decades, new light is beginning to shine in this area. Some of that incandescence derives from continuity in the past. The ancient Macedonians did not vanish, but continue to provide the world with endowments in education, religion, art, and architecture. They also provided their inheritors with ideals of world unity, religious freedom, and the invincibility of the human spirit. The brightness of the ancient Macedonians, therefore, shines into the present like the sunburst which best represents the radiance of ancient Macedonia." (Michael Dimitri)

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of articles I introduced various independent discoveries relating to rock art, translations of prehistoric inscriptions, translations of words from ancient texts, and a number of prehistoric linguistic assessments.

In this article I will summarize the findings from parts 1 and 2 and provide my own assessment. For the remainder of the article, my main focus will be to present Macedonian events and actions, from the time of Perdiccas I to the time of Perdiccas II, which have been recorded in the annals of history.

It has been estimated that approximately fifty thousand years ago a glacier covered Europe. It is also known that the glacier's retreat began from the south and advanced northward. It is therefore safe to assume that the Balkans were the first lands in Europe to be thawed and to support life. It is also safe to assume that the first humans to resettle Europe came through the Balkans making it the oldest hospitable place in Europe since the latest ice age.

From analyzing cave drawings and rocks in Macedonia, we can deduce that the earliest "rock art" came into existence about forty thousand years ago. Rock art represents the earliest and most primitive form of written communication.

It is my belief that rock art began with the drawing of stick objects depicting simple messages. Over time rock art evolved into sophisticated shapes and patterns depicting more and more complicated messages. Once the artists realized the power of their "written message" there was no stopping them. Over time, pictographs evolved into symbols not only of objects, like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but also of sounds, which make words. From the evidence discovered, Neolithic Macedonians, if I can call them Macedonians, may have been the inventors of the "phonetic language".

Because of the great number of rock art objects found, scientists are becoming convinced that the first phonetic alphabet may have originated in Macedonia. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of people like Dusko Aleksovski, the Republic of Macedonia is becoming the leader in rock art research.

Many prehistoric inscriptions and artifacts discovered in the southern Balkans in the past thirty years or so, were deemed to be of unknown origin. Scientists were unable to decipher them because they did not fit any of the "known" ancient or prehistoric languages. Thousands of these inscriptions have now been translated thanks to the efforts of dedicated scholars Vasil Ilyov, Anthony Ambrozic, Matej Bor, Anton Skerbinc, and many others. What was deemed an "impossibility" for mainstream scientists proved to be a simple task for the scholars of the Slavic languages. "Even an ordinary Slovene at a simple glance can tell you what they mean", says Anthony Ambrozic.

What is most interesting about these inscriptions, which puzzled scientists for many years, is that they are of "Slavic" origin. "No one ever thought of looking at them from a Slavic perspective because it was thought that Slavs did not exist in that region during this period." At least that is what mainstream science claims.

Archeologists and linguists are now in the process of collecting evidence that will not only prove that prehistoric Macedonians spoke a proto-Slav language but that they have Venetic roots which originated in Macedonia.

In part 2 of this series I mentioned that six inscriptions of Venetic origins have been found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian desert founded by Alexander the Great, or more correctly by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire.

"The Macedonians built Dura as a frontier town to control the river trade. Goods including silks, jade, spices, ebony, ivory, and precious stones were brought from the east and transferred onto camels for the desert leg of the journey, via Palmyra, to the Mediterranean.

Dura was an outpost bordering a clutch of kingdoms in unsettled times. It became an ethnic melting pot. Greeks, Byzantines, Persians, Christians and diaspora Jews lived and worked side by side. In 140 BC the nomads of Parthia in the east captured the city, which was then passed backwards and forwards between the Romans and the Sassanians, another Persian people. It was the Sassanians who finally destroyed Dura Europos in AD 256, possibly because of a revolt by the inhabitants." (http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/dura.htm)

I have seen all six Dura-Europos inscriptions and translations but for the sake of saving space, I will only show one of them. Here is what Anthony Ambrozic, the translator of the inscriptions, has to say:

"The following six passages were found in different places of the Roman fortress of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River. In view of the fact that the commander of the archers makes his dedication to Mithras in the Venetic language, as can be seen in the passage that follows, it is highly likely that there are other Venetic inscriptions at this site. Further research will undoubtedly reveal them. The passages that follow are only representative samples and by no means exhaustive." (Page 74, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The passage I am going to describe appears on a relief of Mithras in a temple at Dura-Europos along the Roman Euphrates defense line. One of the dedicators (in the company of two distinguished acquaintances) is commander of the archers, Jaribol.

The Oblate is marked passage XXXXIV.

{Division and alphabetization:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H IO SDRAIE IA JE I RASIA RIBOLEUJC

..."AT JE" (?) GOSTOJETOT ON JE TOJI DE I TE ROJ...J

Transcription:

...DI MI HRANET TO JESEN ZHENO H JO SDRAJE JA JE

I RASJA RIBOLEUJC

..."AT JE" (?) GOSTOJEDOT ON JE TOJI

DE I TE ROJ (VAR) J!

Translation:

"...May you save me the wife this fall so that she is healthy and that the fisherman grows...'AT JE' (?) [Guest-food] he is yours. May heaven also protect (?) you!"

Looser Translation:

"...May you save my wife in the fall so that she stays healthy and the little fisherman grows...'AT JE' is your [guest-food]. May heaven also protect you!"

Explanation:

DI (DE) - "so that, may" - DA is the current literal usage but DE and DI are also still in dialectal use. Please note that the last sentence DE is used with the same meaning.

MI - "to me, me" - dat., sing. of JAZ - "I"

HRANET - "save" from HRANITI - "to save, to preserve, to keep" - The symbol "8" for "H" had to be sought from Venetic sources since neither Greek nor Latin had anything undiacritical for the sound.

TO - "this"

JESEN - "fall, autumn"

ZHENO - "wife" - fem., acc,. sing. of ZHENA- the ZH comes from as far back as the ancient Venetic writings at Este, Italy.

H (K') - "so that" - still very much in dialectal usage - Again, please also note the "8."

JO - "her" - shortened from fem. acc., sing. form of ONA - "she"

SDRAJE - "health" - The form of a phonetic twin of ZDRAVJE, the current literal use.

JA - "to her, her" - This archaic and dialectal form is a repetition of JO (above) and has the same meaning, but the reflexivity of it is an idiom. The literal form now - fem., dat., sing. of ONA "she" - is JI.

JE - "is"

I - "and"

RASJA - "grows" - from RASTI - "to grow" - The form used has discarded the T between the two consonants.

RIBOLEUJC - "the fisherman" - "the fetus", in a colloquial fashion - This is a combination of RIBA - "fish" and LOV - "to catch, hunt."

"AT" (?) - It is impossible to guess what precedes these two letters.

JE -"is"

GOSTOJETOT (GOSTOJEDOT) - from GOST - "guest" and JESTI - "to eat" - This combinational form has no comparable dialectal, archaic, or literal form and will therefore have to remain rendered only in its basic components. It is realized that an exact translation is called for since the word is at the very core of Jaribol's votive intent, but anything more than the above would be presumptuous.

ON - "he"

JE - "is"

TOJI - "your, yours" - a somewhat archaic form in that even dialectically the current form would be TOJ and not TOJI

DE - "may, so that" - see DI supra

TE - "you"

ROJ - "paradise, heaven" - dialectal of RAJ

I - "and, also"

(VAR)J - "protect"}. (Pages 74-77, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

After translating the six passages here is what Ambrozic had to say. "Since scholars ascribe passage XXXXIV to 170 A.D., passage XXXXVII to 61 A.D., and passage XXXXVIII to 3 B.C., we can safely conclude that the Venetic speaking presence at Dura-Europos preceded the Roman annexation of 165 A.D.

Throughout the Seleucid (Macedonian) ascendancy between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C., the position of the commander (strategos) had been the privileged preserve of the scions of the original Macedonian conquerors. Upon the annexation of the site, the Romans adhered to this practice, if for no other reason than the lack of other sources of leadership in the far-flung border zone. Accordingly, we see a descendant of the erstwhile Macedonian rulers make a dedication to his god in the still extant Venetic language of his ancestors some four-and-a-half centuries after the conquest. The survival of the language may be attributed to the closed-circle, tight-knit Macedonian plutocracy reigning over the indigenous peoples in an hegemonic desert bailiwick.

Founded by Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals (whose father had been a general of Philip of Macedon's), Dura-Europos, having languished buried mute on the banks of the Euphrates all these many centuries, now speaks to us about a people on another river, in another time, on another continent. In the fifth century B.C., Herodotus (I, 196), having found them on the lower Danube, called them Enetoi (Veneti)." (Page 86, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

Coincidental to the inscription research, linguistic research has also been conducted independently on various ancient texts. Hundreds of Macedonian words of Slavic origin have been found and translated from Homer's books. Macedonian inscriptions from Alexander's time have also been translated and proven to contain words of Slavic origin. Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Donski, Tashko Belchev, Odisej Belchevski, and others these discoveries have been brought out into the open.

Let's not forget that there are also vast regions in southern, central, and eastern Europe, including the Pelloponisos, which to this day still bear many Slav toponyms, some of which date back to prehistoric times.

On a different subject, it is my belief that a number of great wars took place in Macedonia between 1,200BC and 800BC which may have been responsible for the destruction of Macedonia's proto-Slav civilization. Based on Bronze Age evidence, found in the many urn-filled tombs in Macedonia, these wars may also have been responsible for decimating the Macedonian population.

Independent evidence of these wars can be found in Homer's epic stories, which places them before the 8th century BC.

I have not been able to find information about the scope and duration of these wars, however advancements in metal weapons made them lethal and devastating to Macedonians and surrounding populations.

Traumatized by the devastation, the war survivors lost their modern ways, became isolated, and sank back into tribal life. Defenseless and devoid of population the small Macedonian kingdom was now vulnerable to invasions.

After the wars, the sparsely populated, war torn regions experienced population influx from neighbouring tribes. At the most southern tip of the Balkans, near the Mediterranean coast, the influx was predominantly from the Middle East. Further inland the influx was predominantly from the north and east.

It is believed that the prolonged isolation and unusual population influx caused great changes in some places in a relatively short period of time and almost none in others. The coastal people to the south, influenced by the more advanced Middle Eastern civilizations, developed a democratic political system and advanced agriculture, capable of sustaining large cities. The inlanders, on the other hand, influenced by their primitive neighbours advanced very little.

I have not found any information that would show whether or not a Macedonian civilization existed before the great wars. If it did, we can say that by 800BC Macedonia was on its way back to recovery, again re-asserting herself as a major force in the region and again headed on a collision course with her neighbours. It was now only a matter of time before another great war would take place and again engulf the entire region. Fortunately however, it would not be for another five hundred years.

Mainstream historians have attributed much to the ancient Greeks and almost nothing to the ancient Macedonians. The Greeks for example were civilized, "spirited and intelligent, were able to govern themselves. But the barbarians, being 'servile by nature', or spirited but stupid, or both servile and stupid could not govern themselves." (Page 7,8, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia). If that were the case shouldn't the Greeks have won the battle at Chaeronea?

If the Greeks were the most civilized and dominant people in ancient times as Hammond puts it, why don't they dominate the world today? Why are there so few Greek speakers in the world today (there were almost none at the start of the 19th century)?

Putting it another way, why are there virtually no Greek yet so many Slav speakers in Central and Eastern Europe today if that region was supposedly dominated by civilized Greek speakers? It has been scientifically proven that civilized people have greater influence over uncivilized ones. Conversely, uncivilized people have very little influence over civilized ones regardless of which ones are more dominant. Egypt is an excellent example of this.

Why are there so many people in such a vast territory today speaking derivatives of the prehistoric Macedonian language if the Greek language was supposedly the most dominant language?

Why is there not a single pre 1912 village in Macedonia that bears a Greek name or speaks the Greek language? If the primitive Slavs conquered and assimilated the so-called Hellenized and civilized Macedonians, why did they not adopt their more advanced language, culture, and toponomy?

The answer is very simple. The Macedonians were never Hellenized and thus retained their Slav language and culture from the time of the Veneti. Recent and independent DNA and genetic studies confirm that the Modern Macedonians are one of the oldest people living in the Balkans today. To think that an intellectually inferior race would replace a superior one is not only remote but also unscientific.

There is no doubt that today's Slavic languages are literary derivatives of Slavic dialects that existed in the various regions before the Slavic States were formed. Nevertheless, in order for dialects to exist, there had to be a common root or mother language at some point earlier in time. It is impossible for dialects to form without a root language. Also, the divergence in language and the formation of dialects is directly proportional to the age of the root language. The more divergent the dialects, the older the root language. Divergence in a language can be attributed to two factors, prolonged isolation and external influence. We know that the brothers Kiril and Metodi instituted a revision of the Macedonian language during the 8th and 9th centuries AD. We also know that the brothers did not invent but rather updated the Macedonian script to properly represent the natural evolution of the spoken language. The Macedonian oral language always existed and naturally evolved. Unfortunately, due to prolonged Roman influence, the written form of the Macedonian language was neglected. The brothers updated the written part of the Macedonian language in order to take advantage of its natural evolution and keep it phonetic. This is something the English language desperately needs. With a phonetic language no one would ever need years of lessons to learn how to spell.

Unlike the Macedonian language, which was spoken by all Macedonians through the ages, the Greek language was lost to a point of extinction, only to be resurrected and artificially imposed as the "katharevusa" in the late 19th century.

During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, free from Roman oppression and positively influenced by Christianity, the Macedonian civilization flourished and again rose to its former glory. (More on this in future articles). The Greeks, on the other hand, lost their ways and remained subordinate to the Byzantine and later to the Ottoman up until the 19th century.

According to Mario Alinei's theory of continuity, the Slavs have always existed where they exist today. With much certainty, I can make the same claim about the Macedonians. Supported by the theory of continuity and by recent independent DNA and genetic studies, the Macedonians are one of the oldest groups of people to exist in the southern Balkans. I have to also emphasize that this negates old beliefs that the modern Macedonians migrated to the Balkans during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries AD during the so-called Slav invasions. These politically motivated assertions are purely concoctions of 19th century Greek and Western scholars, fabricated to allow Greece to lay claims to Macedonian territory. Serbian and later Yugoslavian authorities went along with this idea for the sake of keeping the south Slav people unified under the slogan "one Slav people, one Slav nation". This, however, is not true. As has been shown, the Macedonians are a unique nation, different from other Slav nations, and have been this way for at least 3000 years. The Slovenians too, are making similar claims in that their roots also may run back to the prehistoric Proto-Slav Veneti.

There is evidence that shows "people moving" during the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries AD but these were not invasions as described by modern scholars, but rather refugee movements. Pressure and terror tactics from the invading proto-Turk and Tartar tribes from the north pushed the indigenous people off their lands sending them deeper and deeper into the Balkans. (More on this in future articles).

The fact that there are so many Macedonians today who have retained their Macedonian language and culture without institutionalized support and have endured much oppression and many attempts at assimilation by other nations, shows that they have an immense desire and great determination to remain Macedonian. What is true today was probably true three thousand years ago when the small Macedonian kingdom was re-awakening in the aftermath of the horrible wars.

It is unknown who the first tribal kings of Macedonia were and how far back their line extended. Mainstream history places the birth of Aegae (the Argead Macedonian Royal House) around the start of the 7th century BC, with Perdiccas I as its first ruler. (Page 98, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990)

Before the Macedonians expanded their territory beyond the Kostur/Lerin mountainous regions their center was located at Rupishcha (Argos). Legend has it that the first ruler to establish the Argead house in Rupishcha was Caranus. He is believed to have been the first king to rule the Macedonian kingdom from approximately 808BC to 778BC. (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/timeline.html)

It is my belief that Caranus was not a ruler at all but the name of a starting point used by the Macedonians to establish the beginning of their royal lineage. We can derive a more appropriate meaning for Caranus if we strip the Latin "us" to form Caran. Now if we convert Caran to its Macedonian equivalent we have Koren. The English meaning of the Macedonian word "koren" translates to "root" or "beginning". In other words, it is estimated that the lineage of the Argead Macedonian royal house began in approximately 800BC. Alexandar Donski has a different interpretation for Caran(us). "This name might be connected to the present day Macedonian noun 'kruna' (a crown). The name 'Karanche' is present in today’s' Macedonian onomasticon."

It took the small Macedonian kingdom about 200 years to build up its population before it was able to fully occupy the lush and fertile Phrygian abandoned lands of Voden.

We know from Herodotus that Perdiccas and his brothers moved the Macedonian center but no date for the move was given. "Herodotus (8.183) wrote that '[Perdiccas] came to another part of Macedonia and settled near the gardens named after Midas, son of Gordias...above the garden rises the mountain called Bermion, unassailable in winter'." (Page 65, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990). I believe this other part of Macedonia, to which Herodotus is referring is located near the city of present day Voden. Being capable of living in mountainous terrain, the Macedonians, I believe, descended to Voden via a more direct route over the mountains rather than following the Bistritsa River, as some historians have argued. Unconfirmed, is my belief that Aegae was established near Voden during the 7th century BC and became the second Macedonian capital. Hammond estimates that Perdiccas came to the throne in 650BC. (Page 11, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

Beyond some stories about his younger days, there is little information written about Perdiccas and his accomplishments as the first king of Aegae.

Translated by George Rawlinson, here is what Herodotus has to say about Perdiccas. "Three brothers, descendants of Temenus, fled from Argos to the Illyrians; their names were Gauanes, Aeropus, and Perdiccas. From Illyria they went across to Upper Macedonia, where they came to a certain town called Lebaea. There they hired themselves out to serve the king in different employs; one tended the horses; another looked after the cows; while Perdiccas, who was the youngest, took charge of the smaller cattle. In those early times poverty was not confined to the people: kings themselves were poor, and so here it was the king's wife who cooked the victuals. Now, whenever she baked the bread, she always observed that the loaf of the labouring boy Perdiccas swelled to double its natural size. So the queen, finding this never fail, spoke of it to her husband. Directly that it came to his ears, the thought struck him that it was a miracle, and boded something of no small moment. He therefore sent for the three labourers, and told them to begone out of his dominions. They answered, 'they had a right to their wages; if he would pay them what was due, they were quite willing to go.' Now it happened that the sun was shining down the chimney into the room where they were; and the king, hearing them talk of wages, lost his wits, and said, 'There are the wages which you deserve; take that- I give it you!' and pointed, as he spoke, to the sunshine. The two elder brothers, Gauanes and Aeropus, stood aghast at the reply, and did nothing; but the boy, who had a knife in his hand, made a mark with it round the sunshine on the floor of the room, and said, 'O king! we accept your payment.' Then he received the light of the sun three times into his bosom, and so went away; and his brothers went with him. When they were gone, one of those who sat by told the king what the youngest of the three had done, and hinted that he must have had some meaning in accepting the wages given. Then the king, when he heard what had happened, was angry, and sent horsemen after the youths to slay them. Now there is a river in Macedonia to which the descendants of these Argives offer sacrifice as their saviour. This stream swelled so much, as soon as the sons of Temenus were safe across, that the horsemen found it impossible to follow. So the brothers escaped into another part of Macedonia, and took up their abode near the place called 'the Gardens of Midas, son of Gordias.' In these gardens there are roses which grow of themselves, so sweet that no others can come near them, and with blossoms that have as many as sixty petals apiece. It was here, according to the Macedonians, that Silenus was made a prisoner. Above the gardens stands a mountain called Bermius, which is so cold that none can reach the top. Here the brothers made their abode; and from this place by, degrees they conquered all Macedonia." (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

I will not, at this point, get into the details of the family makeup of the Macedonian Royal House because it is very vague and conjecture at best. If you wish to learn more about it consult page 31, Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia or page 80, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon.

Herodotus continues "From the Perdiccas of whom we have here spoken, Alexander was descended in the following way Alexander was the son of Amyntas, Amyntas of Alcetas; the father of Alcetas was Aeropus; of Aeropus, Philip; of Philip, Argaeus; of Argaeus, Perdiccas, the first sovereign". In other words, the known kings of Macedonia before Herodotus's time reigned as follows: Perdiccas I, Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus I, Alcetas, Amyntas I, and Alexander I.

Again, I have not been able to find much about the Macedonian Royal lineage and the accomplishments of the reigning kings up to Alexander I's reign (498-454).

Borza, in the beginning of chapter 5, in his book, "In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon" describes the Macedonian kingdom during the reign of Amyntas I as weak, thinly populated, and surviving in the absence of external threat. Amyntas's territory of control during his reign included the central Macedonian plain and peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain (Katerini) beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia (Meglen). To the south lay the people of Thessaly and on the western mountains were the Molossians or people of western Epirus, tribes of non-Argaed Macedonians. Beyond lay the fierce Illyrians and east of the river Bistritsa lay the Paeonian and Thracian tribes.

As the Macedonian kingdom expanded and made its way to the lowlands and to the shores of the Aegean Sea, it was no longer isolated and began to enjoy the economic and cultural currents of the Aegean world as well as tangling in its politics.

After moving their capital to Aegae the Macedonians were no longer seen as a tribal but rather as a monarchic kingdom. Then, just as Alexander I was about to be crowned, the Macedonian Kingdom was seen as a power of influence. Unfortunately, it was still too weak to hold its own, militarily, against its powerful neighbours.

Unlike his father, Alexander I was born into a world of social turbulence and political change. With the rise of the Persian Empire and its westward movement, new conflicts were about to take place that would forever alter the balance of power in the Balkans.

In an attempt to encircle the Black Sea, Persian forces crossed over the Bosporus Strait around 513 BC, defeated eastern Thrace, and marched westward up to the Struma basin. Victorious over the Thracians, King Darius left Megabazus, one of his commanders, in charge of his forces and returned to Persia. After making peace with the rest of the Tharacian tribes, Magabazus deported some of the captured population to Asia, presumably for slave labour, and sent envoys to Macedonia to offer the Macedonians an opportunity for a peaceful settlement.

Fearing the Persian wrath, king Amyntas offered no resistance and graciously accepted the envoys. As the story goes, everything went well until the Persians demanded that Macedonian women entertain them for the night. That demand did not sit well with the Macedonians and the Persian envoys disappeared, never to be found.

Here is what Herodotus had to say. {As for Megabazus, he no sooner brought the Paeonians under, than he sent into Macedonia an embassy of Persians, choosing for the purpose the seven men of most note in all the army after himself. These persons were to go to Amyntas, and require him to give earth and water to King Darius. Now there is a very short cut from the Lake Prasias across to Macedonia. Quite close to the lake is the mine which yielded afterwards a talent of silver a day to Alexander; and from this mine you have only to cross the mountain called Dysorum to find yourself in the Macedonian territory. So the Persians sent upon this errand, when they reached the court, and were brought into the presence of Amyntas, required him to give earth and water to King Darius. And Amyntas not only gave them what they asked, but also invited them to come and feast with him; after which he made ready the board with great magnificence, and entertained the Persians in right friendly fashion. Now when the meal was over, and they were all set to the drinking, the Persians said- "Dear Macedonian, we Persians have a custom when we make a great feast to bring with us to the board our wives and concubines, and make them sit beside us. Now then, as thou hast received us so kindly, and feasted us so handsomely, and givest moreover earth and water to King Darius, do also after our custom in this matter." Then Amyntas answered- "O, Persians! we have no such custom as this; but with us men and women are kept apart. Nevertheless, since you, who are our lords, wish it, this also shall be granted to you." When Amyntas had thus spoken, he bade some go and fetch the women. And the women came at his call and took their seats in a row over against the Persians. Then, when the Persians saw that the women were fair and comely, they spoke again to Amyntas and said, that "what had been done was not wise; for it had been better for the women not to have come at all, than to come in this way, and not sit by their sides, but remain over against them, the torment of their eyes." So Amyntas was forced to bid the women sit side by side with the Persians. The women did as he ordered; and then the Persians, who had drunk more than they ought, began to put their hands on them, and one even tried to give the woman next him a kiss. King Amyntas saw, but he kept silence, although sorely grieved, for he greatly feared the power of the Persians. Alexander, however, Amyntas' son, who was likewise there and witnessed the whole, being a young man and unacquainted with suffering, could not any longer restrain himself. He therefore, full of wrath, spake thus to Amyntas:- "Dear father, thou art old and shouldst spare thyself. Rise up from table and go take thy rest; do not stay out the drinking. I will remain with the guests and give them all that is fitting." Amyntas, who guessed that Alexander would play some wild prank, made answer:- "Dear son, thy words sound to me as those of one who is well nigh on fire, and I perceive thou sendest me away that thou mayest do some wild deed. I beseech thee make no commotion about these men, lest thou bring us all to ruin, but bear to look calmly on what they do. For myself, I will e'en withdraw as thou biddest me." Amyntas, when he had thus besought his son, went out; and Alexander said to the Persians, "Look on these ladies as your own, dear strangers, all or any of them- only tell us your wishes. But now, as the evening wears, and I see you have all had wine enough, let them, if you please, retire, and when they have bathed they shall come back again." To this the Persians agreed, and Alexander, having got the women away, sent them off to the harem, and made ready in their room an equal number of beardless youths, whom he dressed in the garments of the women, and then, arming them with daggers, brought them in to the Persians, saying as he introduced them, "Methinks, dear Persians, that your entertainment has fallen short in nothing. We have set before you all that we had ourselves in store, and all that we could anywhere find to give you- and now, to crown the whole, we make over to you our sisters and our mothers, that you may perceive yourselves to be entirely honoured by us, even as you deserve to be- and also that you may take back word to the king who sent you here, that there was one man, a Greek, the satrap of Macedonia, by whom you were both feasted and lodged handsomely." So speaking, Alexander set by the side of each Persian one of those whom he had called Macedonian women, but who were in truth men. And these men, when the Persians began to be rude, despatched them with their daggers. So the ambassadors perished by this death, both they and also their followers. For the Persians had brought a great train with them, carriages, and attendants, and baggage of every kind- all of which disappeared at the same time as the men themselves. Not very long afterwards the Persians made strict search for their lost embassy; but Alexander, with much wisdom, hushed up the business, bribing those sent on the errand, partly with money, and partly with the gift of his own sister Gygaea, whom he gave in marriage to Bubares, a Persian, the chief leader of the expedition which came in search of the lost men. Thus the death of these Persians was hushed up, and no more was said of it.} (From the first Book of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, ~440 BC THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS, translated by George Rawlinson).

Borza does not quite agree with Herodotus's story but does agree that Gygaea's marriage to Burbares was real. Borza believes that it was Amyntas, not Alexander, who arranged the marriage as part of negotiating the Macedonian-Persian alliance. (Page 102-103, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Outside of the tall tales surrounding Alexander, I couldn't find any more information about Amyntas's reign. It is believed that Amyntas died in 498 or 497 BC and was succeeded by Alexander I the same year.

Life in Macedonia was relatively peaceful until 492 BC when a Persian expeditionary force, under the command of Mardonius, crossed over into Europe with orders to attack Athens. But before marching into Athens and with total disregard for the Macedonian-Persian alliance, Mardonius decided to attack local towns, captured Tracian and Macedonian civilians and made them slaves. The Persian action provoked the local people and prompted a counter attack. The Persian fleet was attacked and sunk by the Bryges (Phrygians) of Thrace as it attempted to navigate around Athos (Sv. Gora). Weakened by the attack, Mardonius could not fulfill his mission so he returned to Persia. Seeing his people enslaved by an ally did not sit well with Alexander.

The loss of the Persian fleet in 492 BC was only a minor setback for the Persian plans. The next scene to be played out would be two years later on the Athenian plains of Marathon.

With the accession of Xerxes to the throne in 486 BC, an enormous Persian force was prepared and in 480 BC, was led into Europe. The force was allowed to pass through Macedonia unchallenged.

As a Persian envoy, Alexander's diplomatic skills were tested in the winter of 480/479 BC, when the Persian commander Mardonius dispatched him to Athens to negotiate an Athenian surrender. In spite of his accomplished skills, no peaceful settlement could be reached and war broke out. The Macedonians fought on the Persian side against the Athenians. Although there is no reason given for his motives, Alexander seemed helpful to the Athenians. Some say that he was a double agent and played both sides against each other. There is evidence however, that suggests that Alexander did, on several occasions, warn the Athenians of Persian plans.

The Persian invasion of Athens proved unsuccessful. After Mardonius's death the invasion collapsed and the Persian expeditionary force abandoned its plans and made a hasty retreat back to Persia. With the Persians gone, Alexander was left with a couple of problems. On the one hand, he was facing the powerful Athenians to whom he had to answer for his involvement with the Persians. On the other hand, the Persian devastation in Thrace weakened the Thracian strongholds and made them easy prey for adventurers. The Thracian lands were rich in mineral deposits, very valuable, and very attractive to possess.

From what Herodotus tells us, Alexander played his part convincingly well with the Athenians. He was quick to point out the great deeds he did for them and the good will he had towards all Greeks. His pleading must have worked because the Athenians brought him no harm and most importantly, they continued to purchase lumber from his kingdom.

As for the eastward expansion, the Macedonians were not the only ones with desires to possess the mineral rich Thracian lands. After the Persians withdrew, the Greeks also made it clear that they too wanted a piece of the action. But Alexander was first to make his move and occupied the abandoned Crestonian territory, the hilly region between the Vardar plain and the Strumitsa valley. The Thracians, who disliked the Persians, chose to abandon their homes rather than submit to Persian rule, leaving their land unprotected.

With the newly acquired territory came the rich Dysoron silver mines that would yield much needed silver for the Macedonian mint.

Athens, unfortunately, was not pleased with Alexander's move so in 476 BC an Athenian expedition was sent to seize the lower Strumitsa valley, an area that was once a vital Persian supply base. After defeating and expelling the remnant Persians and local Thracians, Athens settled the area with some 10,000 Athenians. This was indeed troublesome for Alexander and by 460 BC, conflict between Macedonia and Athens was imminent. It appears that the Athenians were preparing to invade Macedonia. But, before they got their chance, rebellious Thracians who did not appreciate Athenian presence on their lands, especially the settlers, attacked them and annihilated their armies. This latest encounter not only saved Macedonia but also indirectly created a new Thracian-Macedonian alliance. As for the Athenians, for the next ten years or so they redirected their interests to the south and west leaving Macedonia and Thrace alone.

Herodotus seems to be silent about the last years of Alexander's reign, perhaps nothing happened which was of significance or worthy of reporting. It is believed that Alexander I, died of old age, at age 80, in 454 BC. Alexander's reign lasted 43 years from 497 to 454 BC.

Alexander fathered at least six children. Three were male and legitimate heirs to the Macedonian throne but it was his son Perdiccas who rose above all and became ruler and king.

What began as Athenian interests in the Aegean coastline to protect the Balkans from Persian invasions, over time, turned into an Athenian empire. By late 450 BC, Athens was exploiting the region for her own economic and military interests.

Coincidental with Alexander's death, Athens resumed her interests in the north and began to import more settlers. Her plans were to settle the northern and eastern coasts of the Thermaic Gulf near the Vardar-Galik delta. This was indeed a bold move but her crowning achievement did not materialize until the establishment of Amphipolis in 437 BC. I could not find any information about the Macedonian reaction to this but I am certain that Perdiccas was not too happy. It is unknown whether Perdiccas was a friend of Athens before this, but now for certain he had become an enemy. To make matters worse, Athens started an anti-Perdiccas campaign by openly supporting his enemies, including the rebellious factions within his own family. The stakes for Macedonia were high. Athens was a powerful empire, too powerful to challenge militarily. Also, she was a good customer of Macedonia's timber and pitch, which Perdiccas could not afford to lose. If he did nothing Perdiccas could risk losing the Dysoron mines, something he could not afford to do either. Athens, on the other hand, could profit from gaining the mines and could set up her own lumber industry on Macedonian land if Perdiccas did nothing to stop her.

As it turned out Athens had no intention of starting a war with Macedonia. Instead she believed that by supporting rebellious factions within the Argead house she could keep Perdiccas busy at home, too busy to notice Athenian incursions into the Struma basin where she was hoping to set up her own timber industry.

Because of this Athenian treachery, Perdiccas faced two decades of rebellions and unrest. Too weak to do anything, he allowed the Athenians to further settle the region uninterrupted.

"By 432 BC Perdiccas and Athens were at odds, and their hostility produced the opening northern volleys of the Peloponnesian war. To counter an Athenian policy directed against his throne, Perdiccas, sensitive to events building in Greece, attempted to start a general war by involving Athens in hostilities against the Peloponnesians, Sparta in particular. He encouraged the Corinthians to support a revolt of their loyal Chalcidic colony at Potidaea, which had been tributary to Athens since at least 446/5, and he stirred up rebellion against Athens among the Chalcidians and Bottiaecans. It was an aggressive foreign policy, and one wonders how Perdiccas hoped to support it with force." (Page 141-142, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Predictably, the Athenian reaction was quick and decisive. In early summer of 432 BC, Athens sent a strike force to attack Perdiccas and quell the uprising. When they arrived, the Athenians realized that their force was too weak to do the job. They remembered what had happened to them the last time they clashed with the Thracians. Prudently, no engagement took place.

The Athenian commander sent for reinforcements and when they did arrive, they joined with the Macedonian rebels hoping to cut off Perdiccas from Chelcidice. Knowing he could not successfully engage them, Perdiccas convinced his allies to abandon their defenses and flee to the mountains. Even in the safety of the mountains the Macedonia-Chelcidice coalition was still no match for the reinforced Athenian army, but as luck would have it, time was on their side.

Concerned for their own interests, the Corinthians intervened by sending an army to counter Athens. In view of this counter check, Athens abandoned her plans and instead of attacking Perdiccas, she turned to him for assistance. But, as it turned out, this was another treacherous Athenian ploy to break up the Macedonian-Thracian alliance. In the end, Athens did prevail, but just barely.

Athens then turned her attention to suppressing the rebellions in Chalcidice and left the Macedonian king alone. The uneasy peace unfortunately, had its price. Perdiccas was forced to abandon his allies and withdraw his support from Chelcidice. For his cooperation and for his promise to protect Athenian interests in the north, Athens returned the occupied lands at Therme and withdrew her support from the rebellious factions in Perdiccas's family.

This uneasy relationship between Macedonia and Athens didn't last too long. In 429 BC, Athens was again preparing to invade Macedonia, this time with Thracian help.

At the same time Athens was squeezing Perdiccas for concessions, she was befriending the Thracian tribal chiefs with handsome tributes and gifts.

Athens planned to have the Thracians attack Macedonia from the north while her fleet attacked from the south. The Thracians did as expected and emerged from behind the Rhodopi mountains, invaded Macedonia, and moved into the lower Vardar valley. Outnumbered, the Macedonians fled up the mountains and regrouped in their traditional strongholds.

Borza believes that this latest Athenian change of heart towards Macedonia was provoked by Perdiccas's secret dealings with Athens enemies, the Peloponisians. (Page 146-147, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

This time Athens was determined to destroy Macedonia and rid herself of those meddlesome Argeads once and for all, but circumstances would rob her of this victory as well.

While the Thracians were advancing on Aegae, a sizable cavalry force from western Macedonia arrived just in time to repel them. The force was not strong enough to subdue the Thracians, but it was intimidating enough to stop their advance. Even though no engagement took place, the Thracian attack was averted.

Problems at home prevented Athens from sending the fleet so the attack from the south never materialized.

With the Thracians roaming the Macedonian lowlands, Perdiccas knew there would be no easy solution so he turned to diplomacy and offered the Thracians a peaceful way out. To show that he was sincere, he offered the marriage of his own sister Stratonice to the nephew of one of the Thracian chiefs.

Perdiccas's problems unfortunately, were not over. A new threat was beginning to surface, this time from within Macedonia. I couldn't find any information detailing the problem but in 424 BC, king Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia (Bitola/Ohrid region) became hostile to Perdiccas. Unable to quell him on his own, Perdiccas turned to the Spartans who themselves were desperately looking for allies in the north. By acquiring the assistance of a Thessalian friend, Perdiccas was able to provide passage for 1,700 Spartan hoplites through Thessaly. When Athens got wind of this, she immediately reacted by breaking relations with Macedonia and sent reinforcements to her colonies in Chalcidice. Still desperate to make allies, when the Spartans arrived in Lyncestia, instead of attacking Arrhabaeus as they had agreed with Perdiccas, they asked him to become a Poloponnesian ally. Given the choice between fighting the Spartans or joining them, Arrhabaeus chose the latter and agreed to finance part of the Spartan campaign. Arrhabaeus was spared for now but Perdiccas was unhappy with the outcome.

Loose on the northern frontiers, the Spartans wreaked havoc on the Athenian towns and outposts. As a result of these encounters, Athens, in the future, would be re-considering policies regarding venturing to the north.

Unhappy with the Spartan outcome, Perdiccas turned to the Illyrians who were more than happy to subdue Arrhabaeus. After arriving in Lyncestia however, the Illyrians had a change of heart. Instead of attacking Arrhabaeus, they decided to join him and attack Perdiccas instead. When Perdiccas's army got wind of this they broke ranks and fled to the mountains in panic.

Perdiccas was now in serious trouble. Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies closing in on his kingdom, Arrhabaeus from the north, the Spartans from the south, and the fierce Illyrian fighters on the loose.

What was Perdiccas to do?

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:20

Besides the Athenians, Perdiccas now had three more enemies. Arrhabaeus was still alive and well and prepared to attack from the north. The Spartans, upset with Perdiccas, were preparing to attack from the south and the fierce Illyrian mercenaries were loose in his kingdom.

What was Perdiccas to do?

Perdiccas considered his situation carefully and decided to go to the Athenians for help. He was certain that Athens would welcome his alliance just to counter the meddlesome Spartans. Sure enough, the Athenian generals in Chalcidice accepted Perdiccas's offer but not without conditions. For securing an alliance, Perdiccas had to provide Athens exclusive rights to his timber industry and join her in fighting the Peloponnesians. Perdiccas hesitantly accepted and honoured the agreements.

As for Arrhabaeus, Athens offered him a friendship agreement and a chance to reconcile his differences with Perdiccas. The Spartans on the other hand, after losing financial backing from Perdiccas and Arrhabaeus, scaled down their campaigns. Additionally, Perdiccas used his influence and persuaded Thessaly not to allow any more Spartan reinforcements to pass through.

The deal Perdiccas received from Athens may seem skewed in Athens favour, but it had its advantages for the Macedonian king. Athenian presence maintained peace and stability in the region and with the loss of Amphipolis, Macedonia became the main supplier of timber for the large Athenian market. I couldn't find any information as to what happened to the Illyrian mercenaries, but I am certain that after losing Arrhabaeus's support, they went back to Illyria.

All through the first phase of the Peloponnesian war, Perdiccas kept his alliance with Athens and tried not to become embroiled in Athenian affairs. But in 421 BC Athens reached a peace agreement with the Peloponnesians and regained control of parts of her northern empire. Although the Peloponnesians sanctioned the agreement, the Chelcidicians, who preferred autonomy to occupation, did not. Refusal of the agreement brought the war back and the region was again engulfed in hostilities. The war lasted until Amphipolis gained her independence. Perdiccas meanwhile, managed to stay aloof and avoided becoming involved in the conflict.

With peace in place, Athenian power was again on the rise, which troubled Perdiccas. But Perdiccas was not the only one troubled. Sensing Athenian assertiveness in the north, in 418 BC, Sparta attempted to counter Athens by recruiting Perdiccas into a Macedonian-Peloponnesian alliance. Athens, on the other hand, had hoped for an Athenian- Macedonian alliance. The prospect of losing Perdiccas, especially to the enemy, infuriated the Athenians. Athens was counting on Macedonian help to aid her fleet in challenging the Chelcidice coalition.

In view of the Spartan offer, Perdiccas considered his options carefully and decided to join the Peloponnesian alliance.

As punishment, in the winter of 417 BC, Athens blockaded the southern Macedonian coast and stopped all shipments of lumber. The blockade didn't hurt Macedonia as much as it did Athens, so in 414 BC a new arrangement was reached and Macedonia and Athens once again became allies.

Perdiccas died a year later and was succeeded by his son Archelaus in 413 BC. Archelaus's reign, which lasted approximately fourteen years from 413 BC to 399 BC, was a little more stable than that of his father. Unlike his father, Archelaus remained loyal to Athens, which gave him a firm market for his timber industry and the security he needed to take care of business at home. Archelaus maintained his father's policy with regard to the Lyncestians and Illyrians along the western frontier and managed to keep them at bay. Along the eastern frontier, the absence of Athenian influence and the decline of Thracian power granted Archelaus an opportunity to gain control of Basaltia and its valuable mines.

Due to political and social changes in Thessaly, Archelaus was given the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the ruling faction for which he was awarded Larisan citizenship and the lands of Perrhaebia, an important strategic location to the west of Olympus which connects Macedonia to Thessaly.

As for internal changes, Archelaus made improvements to roads, built fortresses in the countryside, fortified entry points into Macedonia and modernized his army. But most importantly, Archelaus is credited for moving the Macedonian principal city from Aegae to Pella. Aegae still remained a royal city but Pella became a royal residence for Archelaus and an administrative and military centre for his kingdom.

The main reason for making Pella the principle city was its strategic location within the Macedonian kingdom. "The largest of the Macedonian towns in classical times, Pella, was constructed on a low plateau where Mt. Paiko merges with the marshland of the central plain, and where the route of the Via Egnatia hugged the northern edge of the swamps. Pella might have been (or had) a seaport, as the head of the Thermaic Gulf extended some distance into the plain in those days. Pella's strategic position lying across the main east-west route near the west bank of the Axios gave it an importance surpassed only by Salonica at a later time." (Pages 41-42, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Archelaus chose Pella to be his principle city because it gave him easy access to the many waterways which would provide him passage to a wider area than just the central Macedonian plain. Pella was built by design, laid out on a grid plan, using blocks approximately 100 meters by 50 meters. Archeological excavations of the site have revealed "a series of elaborate private houses, in which were discovered the well-wrought floor mosaics... These large pebble mosaics, which formed the floors of rooms and passageways of Pella's villas, depict a variety of scenes, including Dionysus riding a panther, a lion hunt, an Amazonomachy, and a magnificent stag hunt..." (Page 170, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

The move to Pella was the first step on the road to greatness for Macedonia. Pella was becoming an impressive Macedonian political, military and cultural showcase, which in time would become the birthplace of Alexander III, the greatest conqueror that ever lived to earn the title "Great".

I would like to mention at this point that Archelaus is also credited with establishing the uniquely Macedonian Olympic festival that took place at Dion in honour of Zeus and the muses. Dion was an important place where Macedonians participated in their own Olympic games, dramatic contests and celebrated many of their religious rites.

Archelaus was accidentally shot during a hunting accident in 399 BC and died of his wounds. His premature death cast the Argaed house into chaos for almost six years after which Amyntas III surfaced as the leading figure who would rule Macedonia next. Amyntas III was the great grandson of Alexander I.

The shakeup of the Macedonian kingdom due to the early and unexpected departure of Archelaus, was a signal for Macedonia's enemies to make their move. Just barely on the throne, in 394 BC, Amyntas found himself at odds with the Illyrians. Ever since the incident between Perdiccas II and Arrhabaeus of Lyncestia, Illyrian-Macedonian animosities had been on the rise. The situation climaxed in 394/93 BC when a powerful Illyrian force attacked and invaded Macedonia, driving Amyntas off his throne and out of his kingdom.

Only with a great deal of diplomacy, land concessions and Thessalian help did Amyntas appease the Illyrians, allowing him to regain his throne. As it turned out, the Illyrians raided Macedonia for her booty not political gain, which was common practice in those days.

Amyntas was lucky this time but his enemies were too numerous to allow chance to guide his fate so he worked hard to establish an alliance with his immediate neighbours to the southeast, the Chalcidic cities. The treaty, signed in desperation, seemed one-sided favouring the Chalcidic cities. It was, however, necessary for Amyntas, if Macedonia were to survive.

Free to help themselves to Macedonian timber and pitch, the Chalcidic cities grew wealthy and powerful with each passing year.

Feeling uncomfortable by this unfair alliance and by the steady buildup of Illyrian power, Amyntas was not happy with the Chalcidians and felt compelled to seek new allies.

In 386 BC, he made his move and through his adopted son, who was married to the daughter of a prominent Thracian chief, Amyntas established contact with the Thracians.

Sensing the Macedonian-Thracian alliance, the Illyrians bypassed Macedonia and made their move against Epirus. In 385 BC the Illyrians attacked Epirus, unaware that they would provoke a Spartan counterattack. Sparta was quick to react and invaded the region. This bold move became worrisome not only to the Macedonians but also to the Thessalians who soon would become willing partners to a Macedonian-Thessalian league.

Having secured his western boundaries, Amyntas now turned his attention to the greedy Chelcidic cities. Having greatly benefited from this unfair alliance, the Chelcidites were not enthusiastic about breaking it off. When Amyntas turned to the Spartans for help he found them to be willing partners. An allied Spartan force under Spartan leadership was dispatched from Sparta and arrived in the vicinity in the spring of 382 BC. With some Macedonian and Thracian assistance, the Spartans attacked the Chelcidic League but were unable to subdue it. The Spartan commander called for reinforcements and in 381 BC the attack was renewed and by 379 BC the Chalcidic League was dissolved.

Athens and her allies did not approve of the Spartan presence in Chalcidice, so within a year or so a new and more powerful anti-Spartan alliance was formed. Being clever enough not to be caught on the losing side, Amyntas slowly withdrew from the Spartan alliance and began to draw closer to Athens. The new relationship not only strengthened Macedonian security but also brought back an old and dependable timber and pitch customer. Unfortunately, there was never a "good" relationship with the "Greeks" without a catch. Soon after establishing ties with Macedonia, Athens demanded that Amyntas support her claims for control of Amphipolis. This called for a total reversal on the long-standing Macedonian position, which had always been in support of an independent Amphipolis. Giving Athens control of Amphipolis was a disaster waiting to happen for Macedonia's economic and political interests.

Having left his kingdom's affairs unsettled, Amyntas III died in 370 BC (perhaps assassinated by his former wife?) leaving his throne to his eldest son Alexander II. "The decade of the 360s plunged the kingdom of Macedon into a new dynastic crisis, intensified by continuing external threats. Early in his reign, Alexander was forced to buy off the Illyrians, although it is problematic whether he also gave his younger brother, Philip (the future Philip II), over as a hostage." (Page 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Hammond believes that Philip was an Illyrian hostage before he was turned over to the Thebans. Borza, however, believes that the chronology of events does not support this occurrence.

The new Illyrian campaign against Macedonia did not start until after the winter of 370/69 BC. "Within a year (368, by Hammond's own chronology) Philip had been shipped off as a hostage to Thebes. It seems unlikely that Prince Philip would have been shunted around so (what prompted the Illyrians to give him up?), the chronology is too tight, and our best sources for Philip, Diodorus, gives mixed signals to the matter of an Illyrian hostageship. Griffith (HM 2: 204 n. 5) also has some doubts about Philip in Illyris." (Page n 189, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Young Alexander did not have enough experience to maintain a strong and stable kingdom, or to secure any permanent alliances. He was given a chance in Thessaly but he couldn't make it work.

Experiencing internal problems, the feuding royal families of Thessaly turned to Macedonia for help. Alexander intervened, occupied Larissa and restored one of his former allies to the throne. This, unfortunately, disappointed another ally to whom Alexander had also promised the throne. While unable to secure peace by diplomacy, Alexander continued to occupy Thessaly by force. Discontent with Alexander's inability to resolve the impasse, the faction in power abandoned Alexander and turned to the Thebans for help. The Thebans accepted without hesitation and brought a force to drive Alexander out. Unable to resist, Alexander withdrew from all Thessalian territory.

Dissatisfied with his inability to rule and especially with the way he handled the Thessalians, Alexander's position as ruler was challenged at home by Ptolemy. Being unable to resolve the challenge, Alexander agreed to bring in an outside arbitrator. On Ptolemy's request, the arbitrator chosen was a Theban commander, the same Theban commander who drove Alexander out of Larissa.

The dispute was eventually resolved in Alexander's favour but not without a price. To ensure Alexander would not take action against his rivals or renew activities in Thessaly, prominent members of his family, including his younger brother Philip II, were taken to Thebes to be held hostage. Philip at the time was only thirteen years old.

Even though he was secure back on his throne Alexander's problems, unfortunately, were not yet over. He was assassinated while taking part in a festival. Ptolemy of course was suspected since he had the most to gain.

Alexander II died in the spring of 367 BC and the rule of Macedonia was passed on to Ptolemy.

A woman named Eurydice, it is believed, was allegedly involved in plotting Alexander's assassination. During the investigation it was noted that before Alexander's death, Ptolemy and Eurydice closely collaborated and may have planned Alexander's deposition. When that failed, they conspired to have him assassinated.

Just to give you an idea of who this woman was, her mother was the daughter of the Lyncestian king Arrhabaeus and her father was Sirrhas, an Illyrian tribal chief. Eurydice was the wife of Amyntas III from an arranged marriage. Her relationship to Ptolemy is unknown (perhaps a lover?) but she was instrumental in his rise to power.

Eurydice's deeds, even though disreputable, have been etched in the history of the Macedonian royal court as the acts of a strong willed woman who wished to rule.

It goes to show that unlike their neighbours to the south, the Macedonians showed respect and admiration for their women both as leaders and as equals. In fact the Macedonians were vastly different from those to the south when it came to customs, culture and mannerisms. "The Macedonians were a thoroughly healthy people, trained not by Greek athletics, but, like the Romans, by military service. But alongside much that was good, they had many rougher habits,... which tended to make them appear as barbarians in Greek eyes. The dislike was reciprocal, for the Macedonians had grown into a proud masterful nation, which with highly developed national consciousness looked down upon the Hellenes with contempt." (Page 26, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

Alexander's death seemed like an easy victory for Ptolemy, but in actual fact it was not. Ptolemy's relations with Eurydice, a known troublemaker and a suspect in the plotting of her own husband's assassination landed him in hot water. Even though Ptolemy was a legitimate heir to the throne, the way he achieved his appointment upset many Macedonians. New challengers rose to the task and for the next three years the kingdom was in turmoil.

One of the more serious challengers was an exiled Macedonian named Pausanius. He put together a small army and occupied parts of central Macedonia. Unable to drive him out, Ptolemy and Eurydice called on Athens for support. Eager to regain influence in the north and hoping to regain access to Amphipolis, Athens accepted the challenge and helped Ptolemy drive Pausanius out of Macedonia.

Another challenge came from a faction loyal to the dead Alexander who called on the Thebans for support. Losing no time, the powerful Thebans invaded Macedonia and forced Ptolemy into an undesirable alliance imposing more conditions on his kingdom and taking more hostages. One good thing that came out of this alliance was the breakup of Macedonian relations with Athens putting an end to Athenian ambitions in Amphipolis and in the north.

Ptolemy died in 365 BC, probably assassinated by Perdiccas, Amintas III's second son who became the next ruler of Macedonia.

Soon after Perdiccas III was installed ruler of Macedonia, he brought back his younger brother Philip from Thebes. Philip was sixteen years old at the time.

Since the Spartan defeat in 371 BC, Theban power was on the rise and by 365 BC it was formidable enough to challenge the Athenian navy at sea.

Being a Theban ally under these conditions had its advantages. In exchange for Macedonian timber, Thebes was willing to provide long-term guarantees of security for Macedonia as well as protection of her frontier interests, especially against Athenian interference in Amphipolis.

Athens however, wasn't at all phased by this Theban generosity and had some plans of her own.

When a formidable Athenian naval force made its presence in the Thermaic Gulf and began to seize Macedonian ports and threaten the sovereignty of Macedonia, Perdiccas quickly gave in to the Athenian will. When informed that Thebes was about to attack the Athenian fleet, Perdiccas reconsidered and withdrew his support for Athens. Furthermore he reverted back to opposing Athenian desires for Amphipolis. The expected Theban naval attack unfortunately never materialized but that didn't stop Perdiccus from continuing to oppose the Athenians anyway.

Just as the war started to stabilize in the southern frontier, a serious Illyrian attack materialized from the north drawing Perdiccas's army into a second conflict. With his forces divided Perdiccas bore the full brunt of two fronts. His army, well trained and equipped, could have met the challenge. Unfortunately, Perdiccas's luck ran out and he was killed in one of the battles.

Perdiccas III died in 360 BC defending his homeland and like his father before him, left his kingdom in disarray. It was now up to his younger brother Philip to make things right.

Philip II replaced his brother Perdiccas III as ruler of Macedonia in 360 BC.

Philip was well aware that in order for Macedonia to achieve peace and economic prosperity she needed to free herself from outside interference and from the constant bickering and infighting. Philip was also aware that this was only possible through a strong defense.

It is my belief that historians misunderstood Philip II. Given the weakness of his kingdom and his experience in a world of turmoil, Philip's only desire was for the security of his kingdom. By his actions and not by the words of others, we can see that Philip's early ambitions were not of conquest but of defense. His idea of achieving security and peace was through building a protective zone or buffer all around his kingdom. What made Philip truly great was the fact that he achieved this economically and in a relatively short period of time.

By his actions alone one can see that Philip had no ambition to "unite" the Greeks but rather to extinguish their desire to interfere in his affairs. Philip knew that by destroying his enemy's ability to wage war, his enemy would no longer be a threat to him.

At this point I would like to digress for a moment and take the opportunity to analyze some other issues.

We have been repeatedly bombarded with information, mainly from Modern Greek propaganda sources, that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek language, worshipped Greek Gods etc., and as such were Greeks.

Trivial as this may sound, there are people today who still subscribe to this idea. Since we have no genuine data to concretely dispute them and almost all the information that we have is derived from Greek or Latin sources, we have no choice but to challenge them purely on merit.

Given that our basic understanding of the ancient Macedonians comes from non-Macedonian sources that had little or no understanding of Macedonian affairs, makes such claims questionable and perhaps biased.

Since Modern Greece occupied Macedonian territory in 1912-1913 no Macedonian has ever been allowed to conduct archeological research. Greek authorities control all archeological discoveries; the very sources of data needed to conduct such studies. Any new evidence that may surface is automatically scrutinized and is either hidden or distorted to protect Greek interests.

With regard to the ancient Macedonians speaking a Greek language, I offer you this:

If 19th century archeologists were to dig in Macedonia instead of Greece, and if they were to find inscriptions written in the language of the ancient Macedonians, would they have called it Greek?

If the same archeologists continued digging in Greece and Egypt and found the same language spoken there as well, would they have called it Greek?

The logical answer, of course, would be no! They would have realized their error and called it a "common" language to all three nations.

In my estimation it is more accurate to state that "besides speaking their own languages, the more enlightened of the ancient people, including the Macedonian royalty, also spoke a 'common' language or 'lingua franca' if you prefer".

It is more accurate therefore to state that "Koine" was not a "Greek" but rather a "common" language or "lingua franca", spoken by the various educated and enlightened people.

Modern Greeks make such outrageous claims not because they are interested in the pursuit of truth but rather because it serves their political interests. Given that the Modern Greeks have vested political interests in the ancient Macedonians would naturally make their claims dubious at best.

The real question however, is not what language the royal Macedonian families spoke but rather what language did the common ancient Macedonians speak?

To find out I will again take you back to Dura-Europos, this time to 3 BC,

[XXXXVIII

3 B.C.

This inscription on a slab of stone is ascribed by scholars to 3 B.C.

Division and Alphabetization:

NOS TOJ JE TOJ, SMRDOT

FILOPATRASTES, DIO DO TOJ. TOJ DA NI

MOJ MI DIO NOS D'JE TOJ AL JE SAN

D'ROJ GYNAIKOS.

Translation:

"Your nose, yours, having smelled the pederast, spoke to you. Your nose itself, and not mine, said to me that it is yours that prefers women."

Explanation:

NOS - "nose"

TOJ - "yours, your" - TOJ, for the literal TVOJ, is dialectally still very much in use.

JE - auxiliary to DIO (DJAV) to form the past tense

SMRDOT - "having smelled" - If we insert the Italian

MERDA - or French MERDE ("sh*t") for the

punctuated O, the Indo-European SMERHD -

"stink" ensues to odorize the Venetic.

FILOPATRASTES

- "pederast, professional sodomite" - in Greek

DIO - "said, spoke" - The dialectal variant now is DJAV

- "said, spoke" which is here governed by the

auxiliary JE above.

DO - "to, at, towards"

TOJ - "you" - The form is very archaic and dialectal and

no longer in use. DO TOJ in current usage would be described by TEBI or TI in the genitive case and not via a preposition.

TOJ - "your, yours"

DA - "that, but" - Here it means "but not" together with NI, however, in the sense of "and not." This is still the literal form.

NI - "no, not" - still exactly the same literally and dialectally

MOJ - "mine" - exactly the same literal and dialectal form

MI - "me, to me" - still the same dialectally and literally

DIO - "said, spoke" -see supra - It is governed by the auxiliary JE, which follows three words later.

TOJ - "your, yours"

AL - "but, and, or" depending on context

JE - auxiliary to DIO which is not repeated but the meaning is clear that the nose was very emphatic in saying it itself by repeating JE.

SAN - "itself, the one, the very one" - The present literal form SAM still has dialectal SAN echoes. (Prekmurje)

D' - "that" - Dialectally this is still current.

ROJ - "would rather, likes, prefers" - The current literal and dialectal usage is RAJ.

GYNAIKOS -"woman" in Greek]

(Pages 81-83, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms).

The meaning of the inscription is not as important to us as the language in which it is written. Granted these are not words of wisdom but they are clearly of Venetic (Slav) origins.

The following quotation was taken directly from Anthony Ambrozic's book "Gordian Knot Unbound".

I decided to include this in its entirety to give you a glimpse of Ambrozic's work. My main motivation however, was to show you that he makes a connection between the Old Phrygian and Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic languages on the other.

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[

Reflection

Even though the transcriptions for the Early Thracian and the Old Phrygian inscriptions by Vladimir Georgiev, Claude Brixhe, and Michel Lejeune have, with minor exceptions, been accepted in both Part I and Part II of this study, a dilemma in respect to several characters in each group stands out begging for answers. The | | symbol for N in the Kjolmen inscription is the most glaring. No other alphabet of the time has it. Not the Pelasgic, nor the Etruscan, Old Phrygian or Greek, nor the Venetic. Plainly and simply, it is unique to that inscription, which, incidentally, is the oldest of the five Early Thracian passages. In the same vein, the Early Thracian and Old Phrygian sigmoid S and snaking S have no ancient counterparts.

The inverted ) character, to which Georgiev incorrectly ascribes the value of a gamma, is found also in the Palasgic and the Etruscan alphabets, where it has the sound value of a C. The Venetic mirrors it in the symbol >.

The symbol I, prominent especially in the Ezerovo inscription, and according to Georgiev having a Z sound value, is not repeated in either the Kjolmen Z (i.e. in Zesasan) nor the Duvanli one. However, we find the same character in the Pelasgic alphabet, and as a variant, in the Etruscan (single vertical bar with two horizontal crossbars).

Again, the Pelasgic and the Old Phrygian contain the symbol (PSI) for H (and G on occasion). The Greek PSI approximates it but has a different sound value. On rare occasions, the Old Phrygian and the Etruscan make use of the arrow (the Old Phrygian pointing up and the Etruscan pointing down). However, each assigns different sound value to it. And lastly, the Old Phrygian and the Dura-Europos 8s resonate with the same sound value in the Venetic (fat 8).

From the foregoing a tangible connection between the Old Phrygian and the Early Thracian on one side and the Pelasgic, Etruscan, and Venetic on the other is established. This confluence brings into question the conventional wisdom that the source of early writing had its origins only in the Middle East. It insinuates the need for reexamining assumptions heretofore regrettably far too often taken for granted.

If the Pelasgi, the ancient pre-Hellenic peoples, who occupied Greece before the 12th century BC, and who were said to have inhabited Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice, had their own alphabet, it unquestionably predated the alleged import of the Greek from the Phoenician. And again, to quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1973-74 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 624), if the Etruscan alphabet had been the prototype for the Greek, we can not look upon the Greek as having been the precursor of either the Early Thracian nor the Old Phrygian. Both of these appear to have too many home-grown elements.

Concrete evidence for such reevaluation comes from excavations of the Vincha culture sites in the Balkans itself. The archeological site at Banjica (near Belgrade), in particular, is of significance. According to the C-14 method, its artifacts have been assessed as dating no later that 3473 BC. This makes the script found there 373 years older than the Proto-Sumerian pictographic script. (See Radivoje and Vesna Pesic, Proceedings of the First International Conference, "The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population," Ljubljana, 2001, p.66).

Indeed, Vesna Pesic, the co-author of the above article, has made a comparison study of the Vincha script with the known ancient scripts. The number of identical letters in the said comparison scripts was as follows:

1. The Brahma script -5

2. The Cretan Linear A - 4

3. The Cretan Linear B - 2

4. The West Semitic -8

5. The Old Phoenician -10

6. The Cyprian - 9

7. The Palestinian - 7

8. The Old Greek - 12

9. The Anglo-Saxon Runic - 4

On page 67 Pesic concludes as follows: "The comparison of the Vincha and Etruscan scripts is very interesting; the complete Etruscan alphabet is totally identical with the Vincha script."

According to Pesic, it had been the sea-faring, merchant rivermen, the Veneti, who had disseminated the Vincha script to the Etruscans as early as the end of the second millenium BC. The Veneti at this time are attested to have existed not only on the great bend of the Danube, but also on the Morava, Timok, and Vardar (69). In fact, the etymology of several toponyms in the area points directly to them. They join a host of others named after them. Invariably found along the waterway turnpikes of the ancient world, these range from as far afield as Vannes on the Atlantic to Banassac on the Lot, and Venice on the Adriatic. We find them on the lower Tisza in Banat, down the Morava to the river banks of northern Thrace, where Herodotus records them in the 5th century BC (I, 196). ] (Pages 85 to 87, Anthony Ambrozic, Gordian Knot Unbound).

With regard to ancient names, I want to inform you that in South-Western Macedonia, there is a tributary running into the River Bistritsa named "Veneticos". This tributary is located about ten kilometers southeast of the city of Grevena in southwestern, geographical Macedonia. The tributary lies south of Kostur (Orestikon), inside the heartland of what once was prehistoric Macedonia. Could this be a coincidence or a sign of Venetic presence in prehistoric Macedonian origins?

With regard to Macedonians worshiping Greek gods or worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, I offer you this:

Gods by definition do not belong to a race but rather to a sect of people sometimes encompassing many races and cultures. Worshiping the same gods as the Greeks, does not make the ancient Macedonians Greek.

The following quote was taken from John Shea's book "Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation". It is included here in order to provide you with an alternative to the modern point of view regarding the ancient Greek language and religions.

"Linguistic evidence and the ancient model. Bernal provides evidence in support of his view that Egyptian and Phoenician elements were powerful in the development of ancient Greek culture. He notes that it is generally agreed that the Greek language was formed during the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Its Indo-European structure and basic lexicon are combined with a non-Indo-European vocabulary of sophistication. He argues that since the earlier population spoke a related Indo-European language, it left little trace in Greek; thus the presence of that population does not explain the many non-Indo-European elements in the later language. Bernal suggests that it has not been possible for scholars working in the Aryan model over the last 160 years to explain 50 percent of the Greek vocabulary and 80 per cent of proper names in terms of either Indo-European or the Anatolian languages supposedly related to "pre-Hellenic." Since they cannot explain them, they simply call them pre-Hellenic.

Bernal suggests to the contrary: that much of the non-Indo-European element can be plausibly derived from Egyptian and West Semitic and that this would fit very well with a long period of domination by Egypto-Semitic conquerors. He claims that up to a quarter of the Greek vocabulary can be traced to Semitic origins (which for the most part means the Phoenicians), 40 to 50 percent seems to have been Indo-European, and a further 20 to 25 percent comes from Egyptian, as well as the names for most Greek gods and many place names. Thus 80 to 90 percent of the vocabulary is accounted for, as high a proportion as one can hope for in any language.

Bernal argues that the Indo-European component of the Greek lexicon is relatively small. There is a low proportion of word roots with cognates in any other Indo-European language. Further, the semantic range in which the Indo-European roots appear in Greek is very much the same as that of Anglo-Saxon roots in English, another culture strongly influenced by invaders (in this case, the French-speaking Normans). These roots provide most pronouns and prepositions, most of the basic nouns and verbs of family, and many terms of subsistence agriculture. By contrast, the vocabulary of urban life, luxury, religion, administration, political life, commercial agriculture and abstraction is non-Indo-European. Bernal points out that such a pattern usually reflects a long-term situation in which speakers of the language which provides the words of higher culture control the users of the basic lexicon. For example, he claims that in Greek the words for chariot, sword, bow, march, armor, and battle are non-Indo-European. Bernal explains that river and mountain names are the toponyrns that tend to be the most persistent in any country. In England, for instance, most of these are Celtic, and some even seem to be pre-Indo-European. The presence of Egyptian or Semitic mountain names in ancient Greek would therefore indicate a very profound cultural penetration. Bernal presents many examples of these and notes that the insignificant number of Indo-European city names in Greece, and the fact that plausible Egyptian and Semitic derivations can be found for most city names, suggest an intensity of contact that cannot be explained in terms of trade.

Bernal maintains that when all sources, such as legends, place names, religious cults, language and the distribution of linguistic and script dialects, are taken into account alongside archaeology, the ancient model, with some slight variations, is plausible today. He discusses equations between specific Greek and Egyptian divinities and rituals, and the general ancient belief that the Egyptian forms preceded the others, that the Egyptian religion was the original one. He says that this explains the revival of the purer Egyptian forms in the fifth century B.C. The classical and Hellenistic Greeks themselves maintained that their religion came from Egypt, and Herodotus even specified that the names of the gods were almost all Egyptian.

Using linguistic, cultural, and written references, Bernal presents interesting evidence connecting the first foundation of Thebes directly or indirectly to eleventh-dynasty Egypt. He argues that both the city name Athenai and the divine name Athene or Athena derive from Egyptian, and offers evidence to substantiate this claim. He traces the name of Sparta to Egyptian sources, as well as detailing relationships between Spartan and Egyptian mythology. He says that much of the uniquely Spartan political vocabulary can be plausibly derived from late Egyptian and that early Spartan art has a strikingly Egyptian appearance. For Bernal, all these ideas link up with the Spartan kings' belief in their Heraklid - hence Egyptian or Hyksos - ancestry, and would therefore account for observations such as the building of a pyramid at Menelaion, the Spartan shrine, and the letter one of the last Spartan kings wrote to the high priest in Jerusalem, claiming kingship with him.

Bernal claims that there has been a movement, led mainly by Jewish scholars, to eliminate anti-Semitism in the writing of ancient history, and to give the Phoenicians due credit for their central role in the formation of Greek culture. A return to the ancient model is less clear with regard to Egyptian influence. However, Bernal proposes that the weight of the Aryan model's own tradition and the effect of academic inertia have been weakened by startling evidence showing that the Bronze Age civilizations were much more advanced and cosmopolitan than was once thought, and that in general the ancient records are more reliable than more recent reconstructions. He believes the ancient model will be restored at some point in the early twenty-first century. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that even the current acknowledgment of the significance of Phoenician influence in the formation of ancient Greek culture indicates some of the ethnic mix that made up ancient Greece". (Pages 81 to 83, John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation).

There is one more item I would like to mention before I continue with Philip's story. Unlike the ancient Greeks who despised everything foreign, the ancient Macedonians on many occasions adopted other peoples' customs, religions and ideas in order to enrich their own. This was most prevalent and well documented during Alexander's exploits to the east. Wherever Alexander went he took with him craftsmen, philosophers, poets, physicians, etc. Wherever Alexander found people of skill and wisdom, whom he admired, he sent them back to Macedonia.

It is grossly misleading to state that the ancient Macedonians were just mere conquerors.

From what the ancient authors (Diodorus Liculus) tell us, Philip was no ordinary man. When he was taken hostage to Thebes he was only thirteen years old and yet at that young age he was more interested in the affairs of the Theban government and military than playing with his peers.

At age fourteen, Philip studied the equipment and tactics of the Theban army including those of the elite Sacred Band. Becoming eighteen in 364 BC, he was given a force of Macedonians to command.

After Perdiccas's death, Philip was recalled to the Macedonian court where he was given the position of leader of the military. "Philip knew the Macedonians as soldiers and they knew him, when they elected him not as king (that office having been given to Amyntas IV, the infant son of Perdiccas) but as guardian and deputy of the king as commander-in-chief." (Page 58,Nikolas G.L. Hammond, The Miracle that was Macedonia).

There is some disagreement between Hammond and Borza with regard to Philip's appointment. Borza (and others) believe that Philip may have been appointed king and not guardian to Amyntas.

In any case, it was Philip who took over the reign from Perdiccas and who prepared his army to defend his kingdom. With the Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and Athenians poised to invade no one would have predicted what was going to happen. But as Diodorus tells us, Philip dealt with all issues directly.

Philip's first act as ruler was to buy off the Paeonians and Thracians. To deal with the Athenians however, Philip had to learn to use his famous diplomatic charm.

Athens had a long-standing ambition to possess Amphipolis; her motives were made very clear. Reassuring that he would not interfere in her affairs, bought Philip some time to continue reorganizing his military and building his power.

After some success in his reorganization, Philip got the chance to test his troops in action. During the spring of 358BC the Paeonian king died and an opportunity to secure the northern frontier presented itself. A short campaign gave Philip a decisive victory and a secure northern frontier.

The invading Illyrians were next on his list as he approached them with a warning to vacate western Macedonia. Perched atop the western mountains of Lyncus, the fierce Illyrians were confident they could hold their own and ignored Philip's warnings. In fact they were so confident of a victory that they made Philip a counteroffer "peace for status quo". Philip was not amused and a battle ensued.

Equally matched, the Macedonians fought bravely and decimated the Illyrian army giving Philip another victory. "The antagonists were equally matched, each side fielding about 10,000 foot, with the Macedonians maintaining a slight edge in cavalry, 600 to 500. More than 7,000 Illyrians lay dead on the field, according to our source, Diodorus." (Page 202, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Was this overwhelming victory a result of Philip's superior military training, his tactics or simply Illyrian overconfidence? In my estimation, at this point in time, it was a combination of all three. This victory against a feared opponent not only saved Macedonia but also gave Philip and his military the needed confidence to take on more formidable foes.

Philip wasted no time and began his reorganization the day he took over running his kingdom.

Despite what historians may claim, I believe Philip's main motivation for rebuilding his military was to create a formidable and lasting defense barrier around his kingdom. The Macedonia Philip inherited was surrounded by warlike, aggressive tribes who desired conflict. Philip's vision was to achieve peace through strong defense. To do that he had to subdue the aggressive elements all around his kingdom and ensure that they were kept down. There was also the matter of the greater powers who would not agree to a strong and large Macedonia and would challenge him just to safeguard their own interests and survival.

As problems presented themselves, Philip used his extraordinary talents to seek solutions.

To fight a mightier opponent, Philip had to invent better military strategies and superior weapons. To keep a lasting peace Philip needed a well-trained, professional and full time army. To keep his opponents down, he needed to crush their military abilities and to hinder them from rebuilding. All these factors were combined to produce the greatest military might the ancient world had even seen.

Up to Philip's time, soldiers were selected from the nobility and usually lived and trained at home only to be called to duty before battle. Philip, on the other hand, raised and rigorously trained a full time professional army. Additionally, Philip combined the use of infantry and cavalry in coordinated tactics in ways never before applied. In terms of weapons, Philip used his experience from Thebes to enhance his military techniques and created modern weapons for his army. The most effective weapon was the Macedonian Phalanx which employed sixteen to twenty foot spears or pikes known as Sarissas. The body of the pike was made of dogwood (Dren) while the tip was made of a foot long, sharp metal blade. The Phalanx was employed in a rectangular or oblique battle array of soldiers each holding a pike underhand tipped at an angle. The first row held the pikes parallel to the ground while succeeding rows elevated them slightly. The twenty-foot long sarissas extended five rows beyond the first row of soldiers making the Phalanx an impenetrable fortress of very sharp pikes. The front and rear rows of soldiers wore body armour and heavy shields while all inside rows wore no armour and carried only light shields.

Despite popular beliefs otherwise, it took Philip a long time to transform his army into an efficient fighting machine. Much time was needed to recruit men, develop the administration, build up finances, train soldiers and gain field experience before his army would be ready for serious engagements.

"The new Macedonian army was marked by its great speed in movement, by versatility in tactics and weapons, and by the coordination of cavalry with infantry. Finally, there can be no doubt that unusual skills in personal and military leadership created, reflected, and depended upon excellence in the Macedonian army, as kings and men complemented one another". (Page 205, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

Let's not forget the contributions of the Macedonian corps of engineers who designed the magnificent machines and built the siege engines that made Alexander famous.

Again I must emphasize that there is no evidence to indicate that Philip possessed consistent policies for empire building or plans for conquest beyond his own needs to secure his kingdom. Philip simply reacted to events as they unfolded and, judging from his actions, he preferred to use diplomacy over force. I believe it was Greek hatred and mistrust that gave Philip a bad wrap. "...it was Philip's ill fortune to be opposed by the most skilled orator of his era, and most nineteenth- and twentieth-century classical scholarship, impressed by the power of Demosthenes's oratory, has seen Philip as a barbarian determined to end the liberty of Greek city-states." (Page 198, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon, New Jersey, 1990).

"At this most critical moment of Macedonian history, Philip, who was then twenty-four, acted with astounding energy and skill. By brilliant feats of arms and by most subtle and cunning diplomatic skill, he promptly succeeded in removing perils from without and within, and was soon acclaimed king by the Macedonian army.

In the first year of his reign Philip has reached the height of his powers. His extraordinary capabilities as general, statesman and diplomat, which made possible this rapid and thorough salvation of the state, explain to us also the extraordinary success of his career. Yet the greatness of this man was not understood till the nineteenth century. Not merely was his fame obscured by the glittering achievements of his son Alexander. His memory has suffered from this disadvantage too: the greatest orator produced by Greece, Demosthenes, was his political opponent, passionately attacked him in his incomparable speeches, and, in the interest of his policy, presented to the Athenians a picture-distorted by hatred-of Philip 'the barbarian'. In the age of classicism especially, everyone was dazzled by the fine periods of Demosthenes, and accepting them literally, judged the life work of Philip purely from the Athenian standpoint-and that too from the standpoint of Demosthenes. This was accentuated by the political tendencies of the period. Barthold Georg Niebuhr had a passionate hatred for Philip, in whom, with his vivid conception of history, he saw a parallel to Napoleon, and before Austerlitz published a translation of the first Philippic of Demosthenes, to produce a political effect against the Gallus rebellis, as is shown by the motto he affixed to it. To reach a just estimate of Philip, historical science had first to be liberated from the Athenian-Demosthenic point of view. It is modern research alone that, following the lead of J. G. Droysen, has tended more and more to set out from the one correct point of view; the Macedonian King Philip must be judged by the standard of Macedonian interests only.

If we do this, Philip stands before us as one of the great rulers of the world's history, not only because he laid the foundations for the exploits of his still greater son Alexander, on which Alexander, in conformity with his own genius, erected a new world, but also as a man in himself of far-seeing aims and achievements". (Pages 27 to 29, Ulrich Wilcken, Alexander the Great).

The drive to secure his kingdom took Philip west to Orestis and Lyncus where he erected defensive barriers and created new frontiers which to this day mark the western borders of geographical Macedonia. To the south in 357 BC, Philip sought and secured the alliance of Epirus sealed in part by his marriage to Olympias, a very important figure in Macedonia's future and the Epirian Chieften's niece, and in part by taking Olympias's brother, Alexander into the Macedonian court. Being Philip's protégé, in the long term, Alexander proved himself a good ally to Macedonia.

Macedonia's neighbours to the north and to the south viewed all these good things that were happening in Macedonia with great suspicion.

What happened so far was only a prelude of things to come and the major battles for Philip were yet to be fought.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:21

Philip II was born in Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia, in the year 382 BC and ruled Macedonia from 359 to 336 BC. Philip was the youngest son of King Amyntas III and Eurydice.

After the death of Amyntas III, Macedonia's stability began to decline as Alexander II and later Perdiccas III unsuccessfully fought to keep it intact.

The instability was triggered mainly by external attacks from the neighbouring Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks. The Thracians occupied parts of eastern Macedonia while the Illyrians were making their threats from beyond northwestern Macedonia. Thebes, the mightiest military power at that time, often interfered in Macedonia's affairs while the Greek colonies in Chalcidice posed obstacles to Macedonia's economic prosperity and were often a threat to Macedonia's security.

From what Diodorus Siculus tells us, while the Thebans held him hostage between 368 and 365 BC, Philip showed extraordinary interest in studying their military techniques and weapons. Philip was especially interested in understanding the fighting style of the Theban elite Sacred Band, which would become important to him later in his career while reforming his own military.

After Philip was released from Thebes, at his brother's (Perdiccas III) request, he immediately began to implement his reforms and reorganize the Macedonian military.

Unfortunately, before Philip was finished he lost his brother. While fighting the Illyrians in northwestern Macedonia, Perdiccas III was mortally wounded and died in battle. Worse yet, during the same battle, the Macedonians suffered a demoralizing defeat losing about 4,000 soldiers, which constituted most of the Macedonian army.

Victorious, the Illyrians moved in and occupied northwestern Macedonia. Perched on the mountains of Lyncus they became a threat to the very existence of the Macedonian kingdom.

Appointed by the Macedonian army, after his brother's death, Philip ascended to the Macedonian throne in the most difficult times. His kingdom was virtually on the brink of collapse and his neighbours, hovering like vultures, were poised to put an end to his existence.

Besides the usual threats from outside, Macedonia was further weakened by internal strife. There were pretenders from inside who wanted to usurp the Macedonian throne for themselves. Some of them were encouraged and supported by foreign powers.

Despite tremendous pressure, the 21-year-old king was not discouraged and soon demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler but also as a skilful diplomat.

Soon after taking control of his kingdom he bribed the Thracian king with gifts and convinced him to execute the first Macedonian pretender who, at the time, was hiding in the Thracian court. The second pretender, supported by Athens, he defeated in battle. Careful not to upset the Athenians, he appeased them by signing a treaty ceding Amphipolis to them.

In a little more than a year he removed all internal threats and secured his kingdom by firmly establishing himself on the throne.

Determined to free northwestern Macedonia, in 358 BC Philip put his improved army to the test and fought the Illyrians face to face in a fierce battle. Setting aside all fears from the previous battle, the mighty Macedonian army faced the legendary Illyrians and won an overwhelming victory. The Illyrians fled in panic leaving 7,000 dead behind, almost three-quarters of their entire army.

"Without delay he (Philip) convened an assembly, raised the war-spirit of his men by suitable words, and led them into the territory held by the Illyrians, his army numbering not less than 10,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. Bardylis (the Illyrian chief) had not yet mustered the huge forces he had intended to lead into lower Macedonia. He therefore offered peace on the basis of the status quo. Philip replied that peace was acceptable only if Bardylis would evacuate his troops from all the Macedonian cities. This Bardylis was not prepared to do. Confident in the marvelous record and the numerous victories of his elite Illyrian troops, numbering 10,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, he advanced to engage in the open plain of Lyncus. The battle-cries of 20,000 voiced resounded from the hills.

Whether there was a preliminary cavalry engagement or not, Bardylis realized that he was outclassed in cavalry. In order to protect the flank and rear of his spearmen-phalanx from attacks by the enemy cavalry, he made his infantry form a hollow rectangle, of which the front facing the enemy was held by his best men and the other sides by less skilled troops, all facing outwards. The disadvantage of this formation was its immobility. The initiative lay now with Philip, who saw at once the merit of an attack on the enemy's leftmost front and left-hand side. He marched his phalanx forward at an oblique angle to the enemy's front, his right being advanced and his left retarded, and he massed his cavalry on his right. The king and the Royal Guardsmen were the leading infantrymen of the Macedonian right. As they approached the stationary Illyrians, they charged the enemy's left front with their massed pikes lowered (pikes never before seen by the Illyrians), smashed the corner of the square completely and let the cavalry in to attack the disrupted formation in flank and rear. The Illyrians broke and fled. The pursuit by the cavalry over the plain caused huge casualties: 7,000 out of 10,500. Bardylis sent envoys to sue for peace. Philip buried his dead on the battlefield in accordance with Macedonian custom, and made terms for peace, which included not only the recovery of all Macedonian cities but also the cession of territory up to the north-east shore of Lake Lychnitis. The peace with Bardylis was cemented by the marriage of Philip to an Illyrian princess, Audata". (Page 62, Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Miracle That Was Macedonia).

Northwestern Macedonia was now free, all the Upper Macedonia cantons, including Lyncestia, the birthplace of Philip's mother, were now firmly under Macedonian control and loyal to their liberator Philip II.

Philip was aware that with a small army of 10,000 he could not defend his kingdom, not even against the defeated Illyrian chief who had even more reserve troops at his disposal. To secure his kingdom and create a pool of new recruits, Philip convinced the chiefs of the smaller kingdoms to join him. To those who did he offered honourable positions in his court.

With his western frontier secure, Philip moved on to the east to secure the Struma basin north of Chalcidice. His presence there alarmed the Greek colonies, especially Amphipolis, and sent them in panic complaining to Athens. But Athens, having problems of her own, was powerless to act and allowed Philip to conduct his operations unabated.

After unsuccessfully trying to secure an alliance by peaceful means, Philip amassed a larger army and attacked Amphipolis. By using his improved siege-train he was able to quickly break through the city's heavily fortified barriers. "In 357, after breaking through the walls with his siege engines (Diod. 16.8.2), he took Amphipolis, thereby accomplishing in a few weeks what the Athenians failed to achieve in more than sixty years". (Page 213, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

As promised before the siege and true to his word, Philip after occupying her, gave Amphipolis independence under the supervision of Macedonian overseers.

During the same year (357 BC), Philip, in spite of Athenian opposition, acquired the city of Potidaea in Chalcidice. Turning northward Philip also conquered Pydna, a Greek colony on the Macedonian coast.

A couple of years later, Philip acquired the city of Methone, a long time Athenian base located near Pydna. Unfortunately, this particular victory was bittersweet as Philip, during the siege, lost his sight in one eye to an arrow. In the same year, the Macedonian army advanced eastward into Thracian territory and took the town of Crenides (located near modern day Drama) which its residents later renamed Philippi.

Crenides was not just an ordinary outpost; it was also the processing headquarters for the hinterland and mountain gold mines, which Philip added to his Macedonian possessions.

Some of the revenues derived from gold mining were reinvested to drain the nearby marshlands making the region around Philppi a showcase for new development.

The Macedonian eastern frontier extending to the River Mesta was now secure.

Before I continue with Philip's exploits to the south, I want to digress for a moment and talk about Philip's many marriages.

The Macedonian tradition of securing alliances by marriage was practiced long before Philip's time. It was probably invented during the Stone Age to strengthen family ties.

According to Borza, the best source to explain Philip's complicated marriages is the biographer Satyrus. I doubt however, if Satyrus ever understood the true meaning of this tradition.

I also want to make it clear that ancient behaviour towards marriages has nothing to do with our modern perception and values of marriage.

Here is what Borza has to say:

"He married Audata the Illyrian and had from her a daughter, Cynna. And then he married Phila, the sister of Derdas and Machatas. The, he wanted to appropriate the Thessalian people as well, on grounds of kinship, he fathered children by two Thessalian women, one from whom was Nikesipolis of Pherae, who bore him Thessalonike, and the other, Philinna of Larisa, by whom he fathered Arrhidaeus. Then he acquired the kingdom of Molossians as well, by marrying Olympias. From her he had Alexander and Cleopatra. And then, when he conquered Thrace, Cothelas, the King of the Thracians, came over to him bringing his daughter Meda and many gifts. Having married her too, he brought her into his household besides Olympias. Then, in addition to all these, he married Cleopatra, the sister of Hippostratus and niece of Attalus, having fallen in love with her. And when he brought her into his household beside Olympias, he threw his whole life into confusion. For immediately, during the actual wedding celebration, Attalus said, 'Now surely there will be born for us legitimate kings and not bastards.' Now Alexander, when he heard this, threw the cup, which he was holding in his hands, at Attalus; thereupon he too threw his goblet at Alexander. After this Olympias fled to the Molossians and Alexander to the Illyrians. And Cleopatra bore Philip the daughter named Europa." (Page 206-207, Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus The Emergence of Macedon).

The following quote is a small part taken from the book "The Daughter of Neoptolemus" describing Olympias's wedding to Philip, masterfully conceptualized and dramatized by Michael A. Dimitry.

"Guests were arriving from not only Epirus, but also Macedonia, lliyria, Paeonia, Thessaly, Athens, and Sparta. Polyxena and Sophia had nearly gone insane with preparations since Polyxena had resigned herself to being a priestess and thus had not prepared much of a trousseau. Troas, her elder sister, did as little as possible to help and merely went through the public actions which were required of a sister at this time.

Because Arybbas also did as little as he could get away with since he liked neither Polyxena nor Philip, the Macedonians who had arrived began holding their own celebrations. Some of these customs seemed strange to Polyxena, but sweet in their intent. For Polyxena had been curious as to why Philip would go to such elaborate extremes since this was his fourth marriage, not his first. Sophia then explained that it was because Philip wanted his bride to know how special she was to him and that she would not be just another mistress. 'Philip,' Sophia said at each opportunity, 'loves you which is why he is paying attention to every custom and superstition no matter how silly. He wants to insure that your marriage is not cursed as the others but fruitful.'

Sophia was right. Besides, all were enjoying themselves.

The night before the wedding, for example, there was a lot of commotion in the hall outside of Polyxena's chamber. Sophia opened the door and welcomed a small band of dancers who apparently had arrived to entertain the bride. Sophia, little Alexander Amaxis, who had remained close to his sister's side since her return from Dodona, and the other servants began to laugh. When Polyxena looked more closely at the dancers, she realized why; they were men dressed as women! One elderly male/female played the flute as the others twirled and gyrated like maenads in a frenzy. When they had at last finished their dance, Sophia served them honey-cakes and wine before sending them on their way.

When the Macedonians had gone, Sophia explained, 'It is an ancient custom. The purpose of the visit is to distract the bride's family so that the groom's side can steal something from the house. Perhaps this represents the groom stealing the bride from the father's house since the superstition decreed that if the raiding party were successful at stealing the object, the marriage would be successful too. If they fail, so does the marriage.'

Everyone immediately looked around and with relief discovered that a small vase which had allegedly been passed down from Achilles by means of his son Neoptolemus through generations of Molossians was missing.

'The marriage will be a success!' Sophia shouted and she along with the other women present offered repeated toasts to the bride.

But the evening's festivities soon faded and Polyxena, left alone in her bed and rooms, stripped of her belongings which had been packed for her journey, could not rest. Something inside her would not let her rest and the short time she did sleep a nightmare tormented her. When Sophia and Troas arrived in the morning to help Polyxena get ready for the day's long awaited event, the bride was unwilling.

'I cannot marry Philip,' she announced.

Troas rolled her eyes but Sophia replied, 'Of course you can. Everything is ready. You have nothing to fear.'

'No!' Polyxena snapped back crying into her pillow.

Sophia ran over and grabbed Polyxena by the shoulders to turn her around. 'What is it? What is wrong?''

'She's a stupid, selfish girl,' interrupted Troas who had walked to the end of the bed. 'She only went through with the preparations to make fools of her uncle and me as well as our ancestors. Why, I've often said...'

But Sophia's stare stopped Troas's words in her throat. Sophia turned to face Polyxena again and began to wipe the tears off her young face.

'I've had a dream,' Polyxena began, 'a warning. I will not offend the gods.'

'What dream?' asked Sophia. 'Share it with us.'

'Yes, share it with us,' mocked Troas.

Looking deep into Sophia's warm eyes, Polyxena began, 'I was lying here, trying to rest when there was a loud clap of thunder and a flash of light.'

'Too much wine,' Troas added.

'Will you shut up?' Sophia snapped back.

'I had very little wine last night. No, it was Him. The Oak-god I am to serve. He appeared in his youthful form as Dionysus, god of epiphanies, but in the same instant, he disappeared. There was silence for a moment, then another crash of thunder. Just then a lightning bolt struck my womb. There was a blinding flash and flames exploded in every direction. I was in the flames and yet not harmed by them. I felt the whole world burning because of me until it finally burned no more.'

Polyxena, Sophia, and Troas were all silent.

'Don't you see?' Polyxena begged Sophia. If I marry Philip, I am ruined. Many will suffer.'

'Especially Philip,' Troas quipped. 'You are a curse to your family, you will be a curse to your husband's, but you will marry and you will leave Passaron for good. You have no choice.'

Polyxena began to cry. Sophia stood up and rushing over to Troas, grabbed her by the arm and pulled her out of the room.

'Who's the queen here?' Troas protested as a timid warning. 'Who is the slave?'

'I am a servant, but I am no more a slave than you are truly a queen,' Sophia shouted back as she slammed the door shut.

Polyxena heard Sophia approach the bed again and felt her friend's arms go around her to offer her comfort. 'Ignore your sister,' Sophia said. 'She wants you out of Passaron because you and your brother are a threat to her rule. You'll avenge yourself someday.'

'But what of my dream?' Polyxena asked.

'It may well be from the gods, but it is not the kind of warning you believe. Dreams like lightning are sent by the gods and both have meaning. You said the bolt struck you in the womb and there lies its significance; you will become pregnant and your child, like its ancestor Achilles, will have a short but glorious life.'

'How do you know this?'

'Trust me. Now let's get you ready for your wedding. It's normal to have cold feet, but we can't let it keep you from going to your future husband.'

Polyxena climbed out of bed and gradually followed Sophia through the motions of the day.

First, after breakfast, Polyxena with Sophia and the other women of the palace, went to the household altar with her childhood possessions. One by one, Polyxena dropped her toys, clothing, and other belongings of youth into the fire and watched them burn. Last, she placed a doll that her father Neoptolemus had given her into the flames.

'You are now no longer to be known as the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' the women said. 'You are now the wife of Philip of Macedonia.'

After spending the rest of the afternoon greeting well-wishers in her chamber, it was time to get dressed. Sophia managed to get everyone else out of Polyxena's quarters and Polyxena, feeling the anticipation of seeing Philip overwhelm her, was grateful for Sophia's help. After bathing, Sophia brought out the wedding dress and veil that she had made herself for Polyxena out of a shiny, soft purple cloth that the bride had never seen before. As she put it on, Polyxena couldn't help but stop repeatedly to admire the beauty of the gold embroidery on it. Finally, Sophia attached the soft veil to Polyxena's hair.

'We can't forget this,' Sophia said suddenly as she rushed to open a nearby package. 'This is from your future husband.'

Polyxena watched as Sophia slowly pulled a crown made of gold beaten into the form of an oak-leaf garland from the package. Its leaves were so thin that Polyxena could see the light shining through them as Sophia placed it on her head.

'Now do you believe you will live as Philip's queen?' Sophia asked.

Polyxena smiled weakly.

'Now there is one more gift...' Sophia said as she pulled a plain, gold-chain necklace from her pocket. 'This was a gift from my mother to me. It was to be passed down again to my daughter on her wedding day. I am giving it to you because you are like my own flesh and blood.'

Sophia began to cry and Polyxena joined her in an embrace of tears. After a few minutes, Sophia stepped back, and said, 'Well, it must be nearly time. I'd better go check if everything is ready.'

Polyxena watched Sophia leave the room. She stood there alone in her nearly empty room. A melancholy sadness began to overcome her. What would happen when she left Passaron? What would life in Pella be like? Would Philip keep his promise not to make her just another mistress? And if he did keep his word, how could she possibly know how to be a good wife and 'queen' in a more sophisticated society like that in Macedonia?

And what about the dream? Was she betraying the god for the weak mortal need of love? Would she be punished again? Would Sophia's prediction come true? Or Troas's?

But, no. There is no turning back now. Polyxena knew that the treaty had already been signed and she, whether for love or alliance, was a part of the agreement. She would have to marry Philip. She would have to live in his house according to his customs and traditions. 'I am no longer the Daughter of Neoptolemus,' Polyxena told the room, 'I am the wife of Philip of Macedonia.' Still, she was glad that Sophia would be going to Pella with her.

A knock at the door interrupted her thoughts. She opened it to find Arybbas standing there. Without saying a word, he hooked his arm under hers and led her down the hall and down the stairs into the banquet hall where the wedding was taking place.

As she descended the steps with her uncle, for the first time in her life, Polyxena felt like a princess. She looked out over the hall with its garlands, ribbons, flowers, and other elaborate decorations and couldn't help but feel proud. She was a Molossian princess, a descendant of Achilles, the greatest warrior who had ever lived, a daughter of one of the most noble kings of Epirus, and now, the wife of the new leader of the Macedonians. When Polyxena came into view, all the guests stood up in honor of the bride. Loud cheers and applause broke out and rang through the hall as she took her seat next to Philip.

Briefly as she approached her couch and turned to lie upon it, her eyes met Philip's. In the two years which she had not seen him, he had become even handsomer. His dark piercing eyes seemed a bit more recessed and he had been hardened by his recent wars and troubles at home. He had even grown a beard which made him look more dignified and serious. As she sat next to him she could feel the same excitement radiating from him as she had felt at Samothrace what seemed like an eternity ago. She wanted to touch him or to look at him as she had then but resisted so as not to disgrace her family in public at seeming anxious for this union for a lower reason.

But the ceremony itself seemed to be taking place in a fog. Polyxena barely remembered the symbolic yoking of the couple with its ritual blessing by the priest, the cutting and sharing of the bread by she and her husband, the dancing, the food, the wine, or the endless jokes and toasts. As soon as each of these events occurred, it became a hazy memory due to her love for Philip. At last Philip stood up to end the evening. Offering his wish that this marriage would provide a fruitful union of their two nations as well as of their two families, Philip thanked everyone for coming to help him celebrate one of the happiest occasions of his life. Polyxena forgot to raise her glass to the toast when, at it conclusion, Philip turned toward her and winked. After Philip and his groomsman had departed to bring the wedding coach to the front of the palace, Arybbas again took his niece by the arm and led her gently through the crowd to the front doors of the palace. The procession was interrupted briefly by the crying of little Amaxis. Polyxena wanted to run to him, to hold him one more time before leaving, but she knew she could not. They had said their goodbyes earlier and she had promised to send for him as soon as she could.

Polyxena thought briefly, as she walked by him, of her silly childhood wish to marry her Uncle Leonidas but as they reached the outside and Arybbas gave her hand to Philip, she forgot the past.

Philip then led Polyxena down the stairs to the street and helped Polyxena into the coach. Philip then climbed in and as the couple waved goodbye to the crowd, Philip introduced Polyxena to his groomsman, Antipater. Without taking his eyes from her, Philip explained how Antipater had been a loyal page to Philip's father, Amyntas and later a general to Philip and his three brothers who preceded him as leader of the Macedonians. Antipater, Polyxena was told, was about fifteen years older that Philip and had been like a father to him since his own father's death. Antipater seemed to enjoy the role and had fulfilled it during the wedding by giving Philip his final shave before the celebration and had even sat in the place of honor that evening holding a tray for collecting gifts from well-wishers. 'Antipater even cried!' Philip exclaimed to Polyxena. All the while, however, she knew why he rattled on so about Antipater. Each had a number of questions for the other that they were asking with their eyes and the answer to the most important one was reciprocated over and over again: Yes, I still love you.

The night was warm and there was a gentle breeze as the coach progressed through the streets to the guest-house Polyxena and Philip would consummate their marriage in. Molossians, Macedonians, and others lined the route to throw garlands and flowers in their path.

Finally, as they reached the house and stopped in front of its doors, Antipater handed Polyxena down to Philip according to tradition, and Philip carried his new bride across the threshold to begin their new life together. After two lonely years, thought Polyxena, Philip had fulfilled his promise to take as his wife the Daughter of Neoptolemus." (Pages 42-50, Michael A. Dimitri, The Daughter of Neoptolemus). If you wish to obtain the book, click on http://www.michaeladimitri.com/.

From the union of Philip and Polyxena (nicknamed Olympias by Philip), in 356 BC, was born Alexander who in a few short years would become king Alexander III.


Before I continue with Philip's story, I want to take you to Dura-Europos, to a time before the arrival of the Romans, to a place where only Macedonian soldiers ventured and dared to leave their mark. Unbelievable as it may sound, that mark buried for centuries and long forgotten has recently surfaced and speaks to us not in ancient Greek but in ancient Macedonian, the very same language that the modern Macedonians speak. The same language that the modern Greeks have tried so hard to extinguish. The very language that the modern Greeks claim does not exist.

How is it possible that Alexander's army spoke the same Macedonian language spoken today, when according to "mainstream history" the modern Macedonian language is the language of the Slavs, a people who did not arrive in the Balkans until after the 6th century AD?

You may believe what you like but you can't deny the evidence, which in spite of all denials, points to one truth which is that the modern Macedonians did not come from anywhere but rather have always been where they are today.

It is well documented that the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language, an unknown language that was NOT Greek.

We now know that the language of the ancient Macedonians is the same language the modern Macedonians speak today.

Here is what Ambrozic has to say:

[ XXXXV

The Spoof

This graffiti which appears clearly near the head of a soldier in a votary representation at Dura-Europos is a mocking spoof of the reverence shown in the solemn scene found on the north wall of the anticum in the temple of the Palmyrian gods.

Division and Alphabetization:

KON ON NI KOS TRATOJ

KON ON NI KOST RATOJ

Translation:

"The horse, it did not waste its portion; the horse, it did not become bone."

Loose Translation:

"The horse ate every morsel; therefore, the horse did not become skin and bones."

Explanation:

KON (KONJ) - "horse" -dialectal form of the literal KONJ - still very much in current use

ON - "it" - Since the reference is to KON which is masc., ON has to agree in gender.

NI - "not, did not" - still the same dialectally and literally

KOS - "portion, share, piece"

TRATOJ - "waste, squander" - very archaic - past tense, third prs., sing. form from TRATITI - "to waste, to squander"

KOST - "bone" - still exactly the same now - By underlining OST, the inscriber of the graffiti indicates that the second time KOST comes around it is not to be split up.

RATOJ - "became" - very dialectal third prs., sing., past tense form from RATATI - "to become"]

(Pages 77-78, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms)

It is most curious to be able to find evidence of Slav heritage in the ancient Macedonians, especially since we have all been brainwashed for so long to believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek.

Fortunately at last, there is "evidence" that proves that the ancient Macedonians were not only "non-Greek" but had a "Slav" heritage, which was passed on to the modern Macedonians of today. The so-called "unknown" language the ancient Macedonians spoke has now been identified and has many elements of the same language the modern Macedonians speak today!

Strange as this may sound it is "natural" and makes "perfect sense" that Macedonians live where they always lived, speak the same (but evolving) language they always spoke and share in the same traditions that the ancients practiced and enjoyed.

In spite of all evidence, ironically modern Greeks today still insist that the ancient Macedonians were 100% Greek and that the modern Macedonians are not at all (0%) related to them. What is even more ironic is that while denying the modern Macedonians their heritage, modern Greeks, proven to be of mixed races, are officially still claiming to be homogeneous and pure descendants of the ancient Greeks. Worse yet the Pontic Turks, forcibly relocated from Asia Minor to Macedonia in the early 1920's, are now claiming to be more Macedonian than the Macedonians they displaced. Bizarre as this may sound, the new generations of the transplanted people now fully Hellenized and poisoned by Greek propaganda are themselves claiming to be "pure Hellenes" and direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

And now back to Philip's story.

Early in his career Philip realized that in order to defend against ongoing aggression he needed a full time army. He built his army by making the military a way of life for the ordinary Macedonian. Soldiering became a professional occupation that paid well enough to make a living, year-round. Unlike before when soldiering was a part-time job, something that men would do during their free time, Philip's soldiers could be counted on at all times. The new Macedonian soldier was given the opportunity to develop team skills, unity, cohesion and trust in his peers, the kind of qualities a part time soldier would lack.

The Macedonian soldiers were not the only ones to benefit from Philip's reforms. A full time army required arms, shelter, food and clothing. To support it, a whole new industry had to be developed employing a variety of people and skills.

I also want to point out that we must not forger the general contribution of the Macedonian population who not only supplied their king with soldiers but also provided the labour to cultivate his lands and feed his army, build his roads, weapons, siege engines and ships. Philip would have been powerless without the support and loyalty of the Macedonian people.

With his army reorganized, full of confidence, and equipped with modern weapons, Philip turned his attention south. He first went to Thessaly where he won an easy victory and by 352 BC, was in firm control of a region extending as far south as the pass of Thermopylae. As part of the peace deal with the Thessalians, Philip married Nicesipolis, a local woman of prominence. Nicesipolis bore Philip a daughter whom he named Thessalonika to commemorate his victory over Thessaly.

With Thessaly on his side Philip was now staring down at the northern gate of Greece, which at the time, was well guarded by powerful Athenian, Spartan and Achaean forces.

With his southern frontier secured, Philip returned to Macedonia to take care of business closer to home. In 348 BC, he sent his Macedonian army to the Chalcidice peninsula and cleared out some of the Greek encroachments, starting with the city-state of Olynthus. Olynthus was the grand city of the northern Greeks, a symbol of Greek power that stood in Macedonia's way. Philip sacked Olynthus and sold its population into slavery, a practice which at that time was expected of Greeks but not of Macedonians. Like Methone before, Olynthus and some 31 other Chalcidician cities were cleared of intrusions and their lands were redistributed to the Macedonians. One of the cities sacked was Stageira, the birthplace of Aristotle.

When Philip was finished, he ended foreign encroachment and reclaimed the entire Chalcidice peninsula for his Macedonians.

Up until 348 BC, even though Philip controlled virtually everything north of the Lamian Gulf, he was never a real threat to the powerful Greeks in the south. He may have annexed Greek colonies, cut off access to some of the Greek markets but was never a threat to the Greek way of life or existence.

In 348 BC, however, things started to change. It began with Philip's intervention, on Thessaly's behalf, to free Delphi from rebel elements. Delphi was a religious center whose neutrality was guarded by the Amphictyonic League, an ancient and mainly religious association of central Greeks. When a rebellious splinter faction of the Amphictyonic League broke away and threatened the center's neutrality, Philip was called in to sort things out.

Philip was more than willing to oblige his Thessalian allies but at the same time he had to be cautious not to upset the Athenians and Thebans who opposed each other but also had vested interests in Delphi. At this stage, an Athenian-Theban alliance would have been catastrophic for Macedonia and had to be avoided at all costs.

Being already allied with Thebes, Philip considered a diplomatic move with Athens by offering the Athenians joint participation in removing the rebels. Unfortunately, the Athenians in Athens, being suspicious of Philip's motives, declined and among themselves proposed to take countermeasures to stop Philip from intervening altogether, even by force if necessary. Fortunately, before any damage was done, wisdom prevailed and the Athenians decided to talk to Philip before attacking him. Being a master of diplomacy, the wily Philip convinced his elder Athenians that he meant no harm and only wished to see this matter solved peacefully. To appease the Athenians he went a step further and personally offered guarantees of Athenian hegemony over several regions near Attica, something the Athenians had desired for a long time.

Philip's latest proposal was a success and gained full Athenian acceptance. It even gained support from Demosthenes, Philip's staunchest critic.

Unfortunately, what was viewed as fair by Athens was obviously viewed as unfair by Thebes and problems began to arise.

To get himself out of this, Philip turned to the Amphictyonic Council and asked the council members to disbar the rebel group by vote and replace it with the Macedonian king.

In a stroke of genius Philip evaded an impending war with Athens, ended the rebellion at Delphi, saved the Amphictyony, averted a war with Thebes, made an alliance with Athens and made himself a voting member of the Amphictyonic League. This indeed was a diplomatic victory, worthy of the Macedonian king

.

Philip's antagonists unfortunately, viewed what was good for Macedonia with suspicion. This included the great Athenian orator, Demosthenes.

Demosthenes in 351 BC delivered his first Philippic, a series of speeches warning the Greeks about the Macedonian threat to their liberty. His second Philippic was delivered in 344 BC, his third in 341 BC and his three Olynthiacs in 349 BC, all directed to arouse Greece against Philip.

Demosthenes's most famous oration was the third Philippic which speaks of Philip as being "not only not Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Third Philippic, 31). Words which echo the fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as "dangerous neighbors" but never as kinsmen.

Despite Demoshenes's castigation, peace held out, at least for now, and having an equal seat in the council of Greek power, Philip was free to return to Macedonia.

Most of 345 BC, Philip spent leading his army against the Illyrians, Dardanians, and the Thracians and generally quelling rebellions. In 344 BC the Thessalians rebelled but were put down swiftly. In 342 BC, Philip marched into Epirus and replaced King Arybbas with his young protégé and brother-in-law Alexander (Amaxis).

Sensing growing discontentment in the Athenians, Philip estimated that it would be a matter of time before war would break out between Macedonia and Athens, especially since Athens amended the Macedonian-Athenian peace agreement hoping it would be unacceptable to Philip.

Determined to attract Greek states to his side, Philip continued to make alliances with the smaller cities. He was determined to attract the cities that were hostile to the more powerful states in hopes of dividing and weakening the Greeks.

By 340 BC, a point of no return was reached with Athens when Philip could no longer accommodate Athenian demands to sustain the peace treaty, especially after Athens sponsored anti-Macedonian uprisings in the northern Aegean.

In retaliation for this latest Athenian treachery, in 340 BC while campaigning against internal rebellions in the east, Philip captured the Athenian grain fleet. This was the last straw for Athens and under the personal leadership of Demosthenes the Athenians persuaded the Thebans to jointly declare war on Macedonia. The weaker states, having little choice in the matter, also joined the declaration. What Philip tried to avoid at all costs was now unavoidable.

Before Philip could accommodate the Greeks to the south, he had some unfinished business to take care of in the north. He quickly assembled a large army and marched deep into Thracian territory and by 339 BC, conquered most of Thrace. Unfortunately, he was unable to subdue the eastern coastal cities of Byzantium and Perinthus, which withstood even his most severe sieges. It was certain that neither city would have survived had it not been for the assistance received from the Greeks and Persians. Ironically, even though Persia, for more than a century, had been the most hated nation in Greece, still the Greeks sided with the Persians against the Macedonians.

Responding to a Scythian challenge Philip abandoned the eastern city sieges and, in the spring of 339 BC, led his Macedonians beyond Thrace. There, near the Danube River, he clashed with the Scythians and won a stunning victory crowned only by the death of Areas, the Scythian king.

Unfortunately, on his return trip home Philip's convoy was attacked and his booty was lost to Thracian Triballians. During the skirmish, Philip suffered a severe leg injury, which left him lame for life. After returning home he spent several months recovering.

While Philip was recovering, the Greeks to the south were making alliances and amassing a great army to invade Macedonia.

On hearing this, Philip decided it was time to meet the Greek aggression head on and end this treachery once and for all.

On August 2nd, 338 BC, in the shallow Cephisus River valley near the village of Chaeronea on the road to Thebes, the two opposing armies met face to face.

On the north side stood Philip's Macedonians with 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest Macedonian army ever assembled. Among Philip's commanding generals was his 18 year-old son, Alexander, in charge of the cavalry.

On the south side, stood the united Athenians, Thebans, and the Achaeans who assembled 35,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest army ever assembled since the Persian invasion.

Closely matched, the armies clashed and while the battle ensued the Macedonian right flank fell back and began to retreat. Seeing the Macedonians weakening, the Greek general gave orders to push on and drive the Macedonians back to Macedonia. As the Macedonians retreated, the Greek flanks broke rank and began the pursuit. Not realizing it was a trick, the Greeks found themselves surrounded and slaughtered by Alexander's cavalry.

When it was over, the majority of the Greek army, including the elite Theban Sacred Band lay dead in the fields of Chaeronea.

Philip erected a statue of a lion to commemorate the sacrifice of the Theban Sacred Band who upheld their tradition and fought to the last man.

Ancient Greek and Roman historians consider the battle of Chaeronea as the end of Greek liberty, history and civilization.

Victorious, soon after the battle, Philip proceeded to secure his newest conquests by strategically placing Macedonian garrisons in Thebes, Chalcis, Ambracia, Corinth and the Peloponnesus. He then summoned the representatives of all Greek states to a grand peace conference at Corinth where he made peace with each one of them. Sparta was the only one that abstained. Being no threat to him, Philip decided to leave Sparta alone.

Philip organized the Greek City States into an alliance known as the "League of Corinth". It was an alliance among the Greeks and an alliance between the Greeks and the king of Macedonia. The league formed a separate alliance with Macedonia, but Macedonia itself was not a member of the Greek league. This was an alliance that treated all nations great and small as equals. Conversely, the lesser states looked up to Macedonia, as a great power, to guarantee their rights and existence among the greater states.

Living in peace with his neighbours is what Philip had envisioned ten years earlier. It could have been achieved through diplomacy. Even at this stage I believe Philip wanted to secure his kingdom by peaceful means and only resorted to war when all other means were exhausted. If there is any blame to be placed, it should be placed on the Athenians for their suspicions and mistrust.

Having secured peace with the Greeks, Philip was now looking at neutralizing the next major threat, Persia. The idea of subduing Persia appealed to some but not all Greeks. Those who favoured the idea, especially those who belonged to the League of Corinth, elected Philip as the commander-in-chief of the Asian expeditionary force. Those who opposed the idea, especially the Greek military and its commanders who were now out of work, made their way to Persia to swell the ranks of the Persian mercenary and fight for pay against the Macedonians.

According to the Roman historian Curtius, by the time the Macedonian army set foot in Asia, a force of 50,000 Greeks had joined the Persian king's army and lay in wait to face the Macedonians.

Philip, being more or less satisfied with the conclusion of Greek affairs, returned home to prepare for the Asian campaign.

It has been said that if Philip ever made a mistake, it was in "marrying for love", a rare luxury for any monarch let alone one that had been married not once but six times before. The woman of his desire was Cleopatra, a Macedonian girl of nobility.

Blinded by his love for young Cleopatra, Philip neglected to see that his marriage to her would lead to his break up with Olympias and the estrangement of his son Alexander. Olympias was a proud woman and very protective of her son. Philip's marriage to a younger woman and a Macedonian at that, made her feel both unwanted and an outsider in her own home. To her, Philip's latest marriage was a dishonour to her reputation as a wife and a threat to her son's legitimacy as heir to the Macedonian throne.

Not knowing what else to do, Olympias and Alexander left for Epirus. Immediately after taking his mother home, Alexander left Epirus and went to the Illyrians. From there he negotiated his way back to Pella where his father forgave him for his misdeeds.

Unfortunately for Olympias, Philip's marriage to Cleopatra lasted longer than expected and she bore him a child.

During the following spring (336 BC), in preparation for the Persian offensive, Philip decided to send ahead an advance force. Commanded by generals Attalus and Parmenio, 10,000 Macedonian soldiers were prepared and sent across to Asia Minor to pave the way for the next spring's offensive.

While the soldiers were making their way across the Hellespont, the Macedonians in Aegae were preparing for a grand celebration. Philip's daughter Cleopatra was about to be wed to Prince Alexander (Amaxis) of Epirus. It was indeed going to be a lavish festival with much entertainment and games. Philip had invited various guests from all over his kingdom to partake in the activities and witness the marriage of his daughter. Also among the invited was Olympias. Being the sister of the groom, Olympias was obliged to attend. At first, she was apprehensive, but after being assured that Philip would welcome her, she accepted the invitation. True to his word, Philip was courteous and made up with her the same day she arrived.

It has been said that after the first day's activities, Philip visited with Olympias and among other things discussed Olympias's concern about Alexander's chances for the throne. Philip promised her that she had nothing to fear and reassured her that Alexander was his first choice to replace him, when the time came.

The first day's activities concluded without incident, but disaster struck on the second day. During a procession in the theater at Aegae while standing between his son Alexander and his new son-in-law Alexander, a member of the royal guard named Pausanias, struck and killed Philip with a dagger thrust. Pausanias ran to escape, towards some waiting horses, but tripped and fell down. His pursuers caught up to him and speared him to death.

The "Greatest of the Kings of Europe" who liberated Macedonia from foreign occupation, brought her back from the edge of extinction and made her into a world power, now lay dead in his own palace, killed by his own body guard.

Philip II King of Macedonia from 360 BC to 336 BC died a senseless death and was succeeded by his son Alexander.

Many historians have laboured looking for reasons to explain why Philip was murdered. Was it a foreign plot? A conspiracy premeditated by his son Alexander? Was it an act of rage by a demented soldier? Or was it Olympias's revenge for embarrassing her by marrying Cleopatra? I guess we will never know for sure.

Philip's plans for Persia now lay in the hands of his successor. He did whatever he could to make Macedonia great but even he couldn't have imagined how great she would become.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
Lazycat Кликни и види ги опциите
Сениор
Сениор
Лик (аватар)

Регистриран: 16.Август.2006
Статус: Офлајн
Поени: 179
Директен линк до овој коментар Испратена: 30.Август.2006 во 15:24

Alexander, son of Philip II and Polyxena (Olympias) was born in Pella on July 22nd, 356 BC. Alexander's father Philip was the son of the Macedonian king Amyntas III and of Eurydice, an Illyrian princess. His mother Polyxena, or Olympias as she became known in Macedonia, was the daughter of the Molossian king Neoptolemus.

Alexander was born into a dynamic world where violence was a way of life. He enjoyed war stories told around the palace and no doubt relished in his father's victories. Philip was very fond of his son and spent a great deal of time giving him affection and telling him stories.

Alexander's earliest education was entrusted to Leonidas, a relative of Olympias. But as Leonidas found out, Alexander was no ordinary student and his defiance could not be influenced by the usual methods. So in 343 BC, when Alexander was thirteen, Philip summoned Aristotle to tutor him. Aristotle, at the time, was not the famous man we know today but simply a teacher with a good reputation. Philip chose him on the recommendation of others.

Aristotle was born in Stagira (a city in Chalcidice, conquered by Philip) and was the son of Nicomachus (once physician to Amyntas III). At age 40 (or more), Aristotle left his newly opened school in Mylitine, Lesbos and went to Pella where he was given residence in the quiet little village of Mieza. There, near the sanctuary of the Nymphs, away from the hustle and bustle and constant disruptions of Pella, Aristotle spent the next three years, educating Alexander along with a few other children. One of those children was Hephastion, whom Alexander befriended for life.

Aristotle, in addition to teaching Alexander of life's wonders, inspired in him a passionate love for culture and intellect that profoundly affected his life and the way he viewed the world. But it was Homer's books that inspired Alexander the most. The Iliad, the best book ever written, and his two heroes Heracles and Achilles where the driving forces that championed Alexander's desires for conquest and seeking the unknown.

In addition to teaching him how to be king, Aristotle also inspired in Alexander a keen interest in the natural sciences.

In 340 BC at age sixteen, while his father Philip campaigned against Byzantium, Alexander was made regent of Pella. It was then that Alexander got a taste of what it was like to be in command, especially to command a battle and put down a rebellion. It was an insignificant rebellion instigated by the Thracian Maidoi but none-the-less it was a joy for the young prince to command. After defeating the enemy, Alexander took the town, resettled it with Macedonians and renamed it Alexandropolis after himself. This would be the first in a line of many cities to be named after the young conqueror.

Two years later in 338 BC, at age eighteen, Alexander had gained his father's confidence to be given command of the Macedonian cavalry during the most important battle of Philip's career. This was a pivotal battle that not only thrashed the allied Greeks but also ushered in a new age of warfare. Eighteen years old, Alexander was part of it in every respect.

Unfortunately, on that dreaded day in 337 BC when Philip decided to marry Cleopatra, the niece of general Attalus, Alexander's pleasant relation with his father came to an abrupt end. Some say that at the marriage feast Alexander exchanged bitter words with Attalus and then caused a scene with his own father. Be it as it may, Alexander's feelings were badly hurt.

Feeling let down by his own father, Alexander, along with his mother, left Macedonia for Epirus. After taking his mother home Alexander left and went to live with the Illyrians, with a Macedonian client king. There, through the work of a mediator, he reconciled his differences with his father and soon after returned home to Pella.

Even though his father forgave him, Alexander still felt insecure and his insecurity surfaced when Philip offered the marriage of the daughter of a Carian ruler to his illegitimate son Arrhidaeus, instead of to Alexander. The Carian ruler happened to be a vassal to the Great King of Persia. Philip felt it was unsuitable for his son Alexander, heir to the Macedonian throne, to marry the daughter of a Persian vassal.

Alexander, feeling insecure, unfortunately did not believe his father and listened to some bad advice given to him by his friends. Ignoring his father, Alexander secretly offered himself as the son-in-law to the Carian ruler. When Philip found out, one would expect him to be furious but he wasn't. He consoled his son and explained to him his real motives behind the marriage, then pardoned him for his misdeeds.

As for Alexander's advisors Nearchus, Harpalus and Ptolemy, they did not get off that easily. For their misdeeds and bad advice to the prince, Philip had them exiled from the Pelan court.

The next year in mid-summer 336 BC, Alexander's life was changed forever as tragedy struck and his father was assassinated. The incident took place in the theater of Aegae at the worst possible time for Alexander's sister Cleopatra. Expecting to be away on the Asian campaign, Philip took the opportunity to marry off his daughter Cleopatra to his protégé Alexander, king of Molossia. No one expected that during the procession, the crazed bodyguard Pausanius would lunge at Philip and stab him to death right in the middle of Cleopatra's wedding.

Fortunately for Alexander, Philip and Olympias had resolved their differences and Olympias was back in the Macedonian court at Philip's side when it happened so Alexander had his mother's support when he needed it the most.

Philip was forty-six years old, at the height of his power and fortune, when his life was taken. There were many rumors as to why he was assassinated but none were proven since his killer was also slain before he was interrogated. It was now up to Alexander to set things right.

When a king or head of state is assassinated, the state and its foreign relations are shaken to the very foundation. Macedonia, after Philip's death, was no exception. The question on everyone's mind, especially his enemies, was who would succeed him?

In Philip's case a group of Macedonian soldiers and ex-soldiers loyal to the king, mostly from the near vicinity, were quickly assembled in Aegae. Without hesitation they chose Alexander as Philip's successor, the new king to lead them. The following day, one by one, his soldiers took an oath of loyalty as was required by Macedonian custom.

Alexander chose his own bodyguards and was given his personal Royal Infantry Guard. His first task as king was to investigate his father's murder.

The fact that there were horses involved for Pausanius's getaway suggests that Philip's murder was premeditated and accomplices were involved. But who would have had the audacity to murder a powerful king and at his daughter's wedding at that? That, we will never know for sure! What is important, however, is to examine how Alexander used this tragedy to secure his own position in the Macedonian kingdom and rid himself of some undesirable elements.

For killing Pausanius before he could be interrogated, Alexander placed blame on the bodyguards and had them executed. For Pausanius's act as a traitor, his three sons were also executed. Many of the people present in the theater that day were suspects and found guilty of conspiring to murder both father and son. Of those found guilty, Alexander pardoned few while most he condemned to death. Later that same year new evidence came to light and general Attalus became a suspect. It was Alexander's belief that Attalus had something to do with Demosthenes's secret communication conspiring to prevent Alexander from becoming heir to the Macedonian throne. Alexander dispatched an officer to Asia to arrest Attalus or kill him if he resisted. As I mentioned earlier, Attalus along with Parmenio were leading an expeditionary force into Asia. As expected, Attalus resisted and was killed.

After his death an assembly of soldiers tried and found him guilty of treason and, in accordance with Macedonian custom, his relations were condemned to death. Among his relatives were his niece Cleopatra and Philip's newborn infant.

Over the course of the winter, Amyntas, son of Perdiccas III, was also found guilty and condemned to death. In fact, before contemplating crossing into Asia Alexander had killed all the male members of his family who could potentially threaten his position.

The news of Philip's murder attracted the attention of the whole world, especially the Greeks who rejoiced in knowing that he was gone. Alexander was quick to let them know that he expected from them the same loyalty as they had for his father. He reminded the Greeks that the treaty of the League of Corinth was perpetual and gave him a legal claim to be Hegemon, same as his father. But Alexander's words did not phase the Greeks in the least, for in Athens they were dancing in the streets with joy. Demosthenes, intoxicated with the prospect of liberty, appeared in council dressed in white with a wreath on his head making offerings to the gods for the joyful news. The call to freedom from Athens spread like wildfire to the rest of the Greeks. The Aetolians recalled all those exiled by Philip, the Ambraciots expelled the Macedonian garrison, the Thebans took up arms to liberate Cadmeia and there were signs of rebellions in Peloponnese, Argos, Elis and Arcadia.

When news was received that Alexander was to take Philip's place, Demosthenes became enraged, immediately sending a secret communication begging Parmenio and Attalus to intervene.

Fortunately, Attalus and Parmenio were loyal to their new king and allowed Alexander to be seated on the throne without interruption. So in the end, like his father before him, Alexander became Demosthenes's mortal foe and worst nightmare.

Failing to enlist help from Macedonians inside Alexander's circle, Demosthenes entered into strange relations with the Persian King and continued to work against Macedonia.

The revolts after Philip's death were not exclusive to the Greeks. Reports were also coming in from the north with claims that were disturbances and rebellions there too.

On hearing this Alexander moved quickly, put a strong force together and with lightning speed descended upon his enemies. The Greeks were first on his agenda to subdue as he force- marched his army in a surprise visit to Thessaly. Upon seeing Alexander, the Thessalians not only submitted but they showed an eager willingness to recognize him as their Hegemon. They even offered to help him punish Athens and the other Greeks for their misdeeds.

After subduing Thessaly, Alexander pushed southward overrunning all who stood in his way, including Thermopylae. After quelling Thermopylae, he summoned a meeting with the Amphictyonic Council who, without hesitation, also gave him recognition as Hegemon. He then quietly slipped out, marched to Boeotia and set up camp near Cadmeia. His sudden appearance in Thebes frightened the wits out of the Thebans and sent shock waves of chilling terror to Athens, especially after delivering an ultimatum demanding to be recognized as Hegemon or prepare for war. The Athenians, expecting the worst, were prepared for war but were relieved by the alternative. Through their ambassadors they asked for pardon for not having his hegemony recognized sooner.

At the conclusion of his campaign, Alexander summoned all members of the League of Corinth for a meeting. Here he asked the Greeks to give him recognition as Hegemon of the League in accordance with the agreement made with Philip. The Spartans, whose response was, "It was their custom to follow themselves and not others who wish to lead them." did not attend.

When his business with the Greeks was finished, Alexander turned his attention to the troublemakers in the north. First on his list were the Thracian Triballian tribe, living between the Balkans and the Danube, who Philip fought but did not subjugate. This was Alexander's first campaign carried out without the tactical brilliance of general Parmenio or the trusted help of friend and advisor general Antipater. The success of this particular campaign has to be attributed singularly to Alexander's own genius.

Before setting off to meet the Triballians, Alexander sent his war ships from Byzantium via the Black Sea into the Danube and ordered them to sail upriver and hold their position at a pre-designated location.

In the spring of 335 BC, Alexander marched his army northward until he found the Thracians. The Thracians had occupied the Shipka Pass and had secured their position atop a hill behind a fort made of wagons. Perched on top of this hill they waited until Alexander's army attempted the climb. Before they reached the top the Thracians released a barrage of wagons hoping to run the Macedonians down. Alexander, however, anticipated their plan and ordered his men at the top to form columns with alleys for the wagons to hurtle down and the men further down the hill to lie down in close formation with their shields over their heads.

As the wagons hurtled downhill, they were guided into the alleys by the formation and as they gained momentum, the wagons rode over a roof of shields without doing any damage to the men. With superb discipline exercised, not a single man was lost.

Alexander stormed the Shipka Pass and descended upon the northern plains in pursuit of the Triballian king who sought refuge on an island in the Danube. The Triballian army, which withdrew southwards, suffered an annihilating defeat.

Three days later, when Alexander reached the Danube, he found his fleet waiting. He ordered his ships to pursue the Triballian king but the banks of the island were so steep that they couldn't land.

Although frustrated, Alexander was not about to give up and came up with a new plan, which at the time may have seemed irrational to his officers but they gave him their support anyway. Alexander's plan was to "frighten the king into submission". He figured that by a surprising demonstration of force he would break the enemy's inclination to resist him. The idea was to cross the Danube undetected and force the Getae, who lived on the opposite bank, into flight and by this demonstration, startle the king to surrender. An irrational plan indeed!

Having earned the loyalty and trust of his Macedonians, they did as he ordered and made silent preparations to cross the river. They collected as many local fishing boats as they could find, filled their canvas tents with hay and under the cloak of darkness put as many troops as possible across the river. Before dawn 1,500 cavalry and 4,000 infantry were on the opposite side of the bank. Before they could be seen the troops hid in the cornfields, which masked their approach. Then, like wild animals, the cavalry burst out and charged the Getae who were encamped in front of their town. Completely surprised, the Getae, far superior in numbers, rushed back into town, grabbed their wives and children and ran north to safety in the steppes. The town was taken and not a single man was lost.

Alexander's bluff not only worked with the Triballian king who made his submission to Alexander but, when word spread, neighbouring tribes send their envoys to pay Alexander homage. Even the Celts, who had ventured eastward from the Adriatic, asked Alexander for his friendship.

When his northern campaign was over, Alexander was preparing to return home when he received news of an Illyrian revolt.

Alexander marched his army at great speed to western Macedonia and, just beyond his frontier, found a very large Dardanian army assembled and waiting. A battle ensued and the Illyrians were driven back into a fortified town. Alexander set camp for the night intending to besiege the town the next day. Unfortunately, by morning another enemy army had arrived. A large Taulantian army had joined the Dardanians and cut off Alexander's retreat and supply line. The Macedonian army of some 25,000 men and 5,000 horses were quickly running out of supplies. Alexander had to do something and soon, but what? He was completely surrounded. Leave it to Alexander to come up with another uncanny plan. He ordered his men to put on a show. Ignoring the enemy, he ordered his phalanx into formation to quietly march back and forth as he motioned their maneuvers with his arm. The show attracted onlookers around his camp who not only were surprised but mesmerized by this action.

When the time was right, Alexander motioned and the soldiers, in unison, slapped their shields hard with their javelins. The sudden thundering roar, after the mesmerizing silence, startled the enemy causing some of the horses to bolt in fright. At lightening speed Alexander's best cavalry, supported by his archers, bolted through the pass, making an opening for the army to escape through. The army, with catapult, archers and cavalry support, then punched a hole right through the middle of the enemy forces and landed on home territory in the meadows around Lake Little Prespa. Not a single man was lost.

Three days later in a surprise attack at night Alexander led an assault force through the pass and inflicted a decisive defeat on his enemy. As the enemy bolted, the Macedonian cavalry pursued, chasing them for over one hundred kilometers, instilling fear and causing them severe damage. Both kings submitted to Alexander's will and instead of being punished for their misdeeds they were made client-kings with thrones of their own.

No sooner were the Illyrian revolts put down than Alexander received news of a dangerous uprising in Greece requiring his immediate intervention. It appears that the Thebans were in revolt and had killed Macedonian officers stationed in a local garrison.

Alexander quickly assembled his army and set out on a fast paced march, living off the land as he traversed south through the mountainous terrain. After crossing the Pass of Thermopylae he headed for Thebes. Alexander arrived just in time to prevent his garrison from being attacked so no serious damage was done. But to his surprise, it was not just Thebes that was causing trouble. Athens too had become involved when she entered into an alliance with Thebes and sent arms and her citizen army to support the Theban rebellion. Encouraged by Demosthenes and supported by Persian gold, other Greeks also joined the rebellion.

The whole thing was started by rumors, no doubt spread by Demoshenes himself, claiming that Alexander had been killed and his army defeated in Illyria.

But when Alexander arrived alive and well with an intact Macedonian army a chill must have run down their spines. Being the rightful Hegemon of the Greek League, Alexander asserted his rights and demanded that the rebels disband. In the presence of Alexander, some of the Greek armies obeyed and turned away. Some, like Athens, remained stationary and made no attempt to engage him. The Thebans decided to break away and fight, hoping that an engagement would draw others into the war. They relied mostly on their own forces and the strong fortifications of their city to defend them.

After hearing rumors of his supposed death, Alexander endeavoured to give the rebels a chance to end the impasse peacefully and gave them three days to surrender. Unfortunately, instead of submitting peacefully their cavalry charged his outposts.

The next day Alexander marched his army all around the city and stopped in front of the south gate. Angered by the reply of the previous day, Alexander ordered an attack. In no time the Theban defenses were breached and the Macedonian and League armies penetrated the city. The Thebans fought fiercely but were no match for the well trained, battle experienced Macedonian army. The battle turned tragically when League soldiers turned on the general population massacring everyone in sight.

After sacking it, Alexander left the final fate of Thebes to the League to decide. Those in the League who for many generations suffered under the supremacy of Thebes finally found an outlet to vent their anger. Without hesitation they found Thebes guilty of treason for their current misdeeds as well as those in the past. In a resolution backed by the entire League Alexander ordered the city to be leveled to the ground. Women and children were sold into slavery.

Alexander allowed the resolution to pass so that an example could be made to remind the rest that this kind of behavior would no longer be tolerated. As for the Athenians, the real instigators of the rebellions, Alexander left them unpunished. Alexander was careful not to drive them further into the Persian King's arms. But, as fate would have it, those who were unhappy with the League's resolution left for Persia anyway.

After restoring peace in Greece, Alexander and his army returned to Macedonia. By the time he arrived it was already October (335 BC) and still much preparation was needed before he could depart for the Asian spring offensive. Alexander also needed time to secure the route to Asia and strengthen Macedonia's defenses. Being mistrustful of the Greeks, Alexander in his absence left Antipater, a competent soldier, a man of strong character and a trustworthy friend, in charge as regent of Macedonia. He gave Antipater special powers to represent him as deputy-Hegemon of the League of Corinth. To keep the peace, Antipater was given 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry from Alexander's best Macedonian troops.

During the winter of 335 BC, Alexander convened a meeting with his officers and advisors and discussed his plans and general strategy regarding the Asian campaign. In addition to his own troops, who formed the core of his army, it was decided that Alexander would appeal to the Greek League to supply him with infantry, cavalry and a fleet of ships and sailors. The League approved Alexander's request and supplied him with approximately 160 war ships and 29,000 crewmen, 7,000 infantry and 2,400 cavalry. Some believe that Alexander only took these men so that he could hold them hostage to prevent the Greeks from attacking Macedonia while he was campaigning in Asia. If we take into consideration that Alexander was always suspicious and never trusted the Greeks, and the fact that he relied solely on the Macedonian soldiers to do his fighting, then I would agree that the League forces were redundant and with no other purpose. By solving one problem Alexander created another. The Greek soldiers taken as hostages could possibly, in a moment of weakness, be a danger to him. Alexander trusted his Macedonians with his life and he knew that they would never intentionally let him down, however, there was always the possibility that they could be overwhelmed in battle. If that were to happen, Alexander was certain the Greeks would turn on him. So after crossing into Asia, Alexander separated his forces. He took an all Macedonian infantry and a mixed Macedonian Thessalian cavalry force and placed the League forces in Parmenio's command.

Even though Antipater was a trusted friend, Alexander was always cautious and well aware that in his prolonged absence anything could happen. To counterbalance Antipater's power, Alexander appointed his mother Olympias to be in charge of religious, ceremonial and financial matters in Pella.

Alexander selected and took with him the best and most battle hardened troops in his army consisting of 12,000 infantrymen and 2,700 cavalrymen. Philip himself had trained and campaigned with most of these men in all hazards of war.

While Alexander was preparing his Asian force, Parmenio's vanguard in Asia was struggling to regain control of the Hellespond. In 336 BC Parmenio had won control of the Dardanelles bridgehead but lost it again in 335 BC when he was driven back by Greek mercenaries commanded by general Memnon. The Greeks had taken control of an area near the crossing, killed off and expelled the Persian juntas, and had taken over the local cities. It didn't take long, however, before the pro-Persian factions rebelled. Parmenio sought his chance and again took control of the crossing. The Macedonians now controlled the waters of the Hellespond and held them until Alexander arrived.

In early spring of 334 BC, with the help of some 160 ships, the main body of the Macedonian expedition force was ferried across the strait. While the army was helped across, Alexander took a diversion to explore the various sacred sites of the Iliad. While visiting the Ilium he dedicated his armour to Athena and in exchange took back an old, sacred shield supposedly dating back to the Trojan War.

Soon after rejoining his army, Alexander set out to find the enemy. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander separated his forces and took with him only Macedonians and some Thessalians, leaving the Greeks behind with Parmenio. In all 13,000 infantry and 5,100 cavalry set off in search of the Persian army. Another reason for not taking the Greeks was that Alexander had no money for provisions. When he crossed the Hellespond he was almost broke. Some say he only had 70 talents in cash and that was hardly enough to feed his army for more than a couple of weeks. But that did not stop Alexander because he had confidence in his Macedonians to give him victories and then his enemies would be obliged to feed the army.

Besides his military, Alexander also enlisted the services of historians, philosophers, poets, engineers, surveyors, doctors, botanists and natural scientists to accompany him on his Asian expedition. His official historian was Callisthenes of Olynthus, nephew and pupil of Aristotle. The surveyors were there to measure distances traveled by the army as well as make notes of peculiarities in the terrain traversed. The engineers were engaged in building bridges, rafts, ladders, siege engines and equipment to scale steep slopes and cliffs. The botanists and natural scientists were there to investigate the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of the newly discovered lands. Right from the start the Asian expedition was not just a military campaign but a great research and discovery mission.

As luck would have it, on the third day of his search, Alexander's scouts spotted the Persian army holding its position on the far bank of the river Granicus. As Alexander made his advance, he noticed a much superior cavalry force holding its position on the level ground. Beyond the steep riverbank he could see a large, Greek mercenary infantry force holding the ridge behind the level ground. He estimated the enemy to be about 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry.

Alexander immediately formulated his battle plans and took the offensive. The Macedonian infantry phalanx took the center while the cavalry formed the wings with the archers posted on the extreme right. Alexander's battle line now matched the three-kilometer wide enemy line. According to Peter Green, Alexander badly needed a victory in order to secure booty to pay off his loans and to finance future campaigns. At the moment, Alexander was badly in debt.

Among the Persian commanders was general Memnon. Memnon was well aware of Alexander's financial predicament and wanted to starve him out. During an earlier meeting with the Persians, Memnon opposed a direct confrontation and proposed to deprive Alexander of all provisions. This would have required burning all the crops in the vicinity and withdrawing the Persian army. Having no provisions to sustain him, Alexander would have had to turn back and return to Macedonia. When he did, Memnon proposed to go after him by means of the huge Persian fleet. The Persians, however, due to their army's numerical superiority felt confident that a battle with Alexander would give them victory.

After surveying the situation, Alexander noticed that the best Persian cavalry stood atop the steep, eight-foot riverbank. From that position a cavalry charge would have been difficult to execute. In spite of Parmenio's advice to retire for the evening and attack the next morning, Alexander exploited the situation and ordered a surprise attack.

The battle of Granicus started with a blare of trumpets and with the terrifying battle cry of Alexander and his Macedonians. His men quickly took their positions as Alexander's horsemen rushed across the swollen river and swooped up the steep bank violently engaging the Persian cavalry. His infantry phalanx, which by now was used to forming a battle line on the fly, maneuvered into an oblique battle-array and positioned itself to follow suit. As the army frontlines clashed, Alexander and his companions rode back and forth behind the lines looking for weaknesses and to confuse the enemy. Moments after the engagement started, most of the Persian cavalry was pinned down by the Macedonian phalanx as both armies desperately tried to push forward. The Persians were expecting Alexander to attack at the extreme left where the terrain was easiest to navigate. Memnon's most experienced mercenaries were placed there in thick columns in close proximity and ordered to lay in wait. But instead of doing what was expected Alexander took a defensive stand and attacked the position with a light force of infantry and some cavalry, with just enough men to hold the mercenaries back.

As the battle raged on Alexander himself became engaged and fought several Persian nobles, among them the son in law of Darius the Great King. While Alexander was dealing a deathblow to the King's son in law he nearly became a casualty himself. The world would not have been the same had it not been for Cleitus who came to his rescue.

As the phalanx succeeded in pushing back the Persian cavalry, Alexander's horsemen charged the center and punched a whole right through the enemy formation. The enemy took flight and the Macedonian cavalry went in pursuit leaving many dead in their wake.

No sooner had the Macedonians moved in for the kill than they were confronted from the rear by the Greek mercenaries who had lain in wait throughout the entire battle. Alexander turned his phalanx around and ordered a frontal attack while his cavalry took on the flanks. In a matter of minutes the elite Greek mercenary force was annihilated leaving only 2,000 survivors out of a force of 20,000. By sacrificing themselves, the Greek mercenaries saved the Persian cavalry.

Before the evening was over, in a few short hours on a bright day in May 334 BC, the Macedonians won a great victory.

The day after the battle all the dead, including the Persians, were buried with honour. Special attention and care was given to the wounded, each receiving a visit from Alexander himself.

Compared to the enemy Macedonian losses were insignificant, totaling about a couple hundred.

Soon after the battle of Granicus, Alexander organized an administration to manage his lands "won by his spear". Instead of incorporating these lands as part of a Greater Macedonian kingdom, Alexander did the unexpected and appointed a Macedonian "satrap". By that I mean Alexander left the old Persian government and way of governing intact. He only replaced the top Persian official (satrap) with a Macedonian. His only demands were that the Persians now pay him what was owed to the Great King. In addition to taking taxes, Alexander also took possession of the Great King's crown lands.

Alexander's idea of replacing the Great King with himself instead of incorporating the conquered lands into a "Greater Macedonia" had its merits. After seeing that no harm had come to their neighbours, other parts of Asia Minor began to surrender peacefully. When Alexander reached Sardis, the Lydian city, the people surrendered without a fight entrusting Alexander with the city's treasures, satrapy and citadel. In return, Alexander freed the Lydians from Persian rule and gave them back their old culture, laws and way of life. He also replaced the Persian satrap with a Macedonian. Here again Alexander demonstrated his respect for other cultures choosing to liberate instead of enslave.

After looking at the vastness of Asia, Alexander quickly realized that he could never hold a world that size with a spear. This foresight, along with the Macedonian values instilled in him (to respect people of all classes and cultures), Alexander became a liberator and a champion of the oppressed nations. His conquests became a mission of liberation not enslavement. He did NOT do this to spread Greek culture, as many authors claim, he did it to spread Macedonian values for the glory of Macedonia and the Macedonian people.

The Greeks are credited with being the fathers of democracy but in reality they were not democratic at all. Athens, the most democratic of all Greek states, was ruled by a small faction of wealthy men who employed slave labour to toil for them and amass their wealth. Athenian women had no rights and neither did the majority of the Athenian population. Ironically Athens is credited as being the cradle of democracy. In case you were wondering, The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as "government by all the people, direct or representative; State having this; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views". (Page 193, The Oxford Dictionary of Current English). Ironically our modern concept of democracy is nothing like the "brand" of democracy the ancient Greeks practiced. Modern democracy is more like the practices of the ancient Macedonians. Even though ancient Macedonia was a monarchy, in practice, it was more closely linked to the common man than the best Greek democracy could ever dream of being. Through Alexander's exploits we find that the Macedonians not only tolerated other cultures but also took great care to preserve them. The Greeks, on the other hand, loathed other cultures. The Macedonians saw the world as many states with various cultures, customs and languages. All we ever hear from the Greeks is that the world was populated by "Greeks and barbarians". Even though the Greeks called other cultures barbarian, the worst case of barbarism was demonstrated by the Greeks themselves in the way they treated one another.

This modern infatuation with the ancient Greek culture is nothing more than a lingering side effect of 19th century British and German "supremacist" romance with "a white intellectual male dominated society", run by a small minority of men in robes.

It is time to reveal the ancient Greeks for who they truly were and give the ancient Macedonians the credit they deserve.

The ancient Macedonians, as I mentioned earlier, were a tolerant people when it came to respecting other peoples' cultures, customs and languages but there was one thing they would not tolerate and that was Greek arrogance.

Here is another Dura-Europos inscription as translated by Anthony Ambrozic -- (pages 78-80, Anthony Ambrozic, Adieu to Brittany, a transcription and translation of Venetic passages and toponyms):

XXXXVI

PLUS CA CHANGE ...

Inscription found on a separated block of stone dug up within the grounds of the temple of Artemis.

Division and alphabetization:

GOT ATHENOI: LA LEJ KOJ PID JE NOS D' JE TOJ, DA NI POJ GINA I KOS.

Translation:

"To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is a span's length, so that then the cock does not perish."

Looser Translation:

"To all Athenians: See to it that your nose is so keen as if it were a span's length, so that you do not end up losing your cock."

Explanation:

GOT - "whosoever, whoever, all" - GOD is an all-encompassing combinational form which in SC. joins with KO and TKO - "who" and STO - "what" to become "whosoever" and "whatsoever." - It seems that the Venetic does not join in this combinational discrimination between objects and persons.

ATHENOI - "Athenians" in Greek

LA - "make sure that" among others, depending on context and idiom - This is an archaism of the current LE.

LEJ - "see, see to" - second prs., sing., pres., imp. of GLEDATI - "to see, to watch, to see to" - The guttural G is abandoned for easier speech without any damage to recognizability of LEJ in rapid vernacular.

KOJ D' JE - "so that it is" - This idiom is a dialectal archaism of the current literal KO

DA JE, having the same meaning.

PID - "span: (measure of length) - PID is Cz. for the gsl. PED

JE - "is"

NOS - "nose"

TOJ - "your, yours"

DA - "that, so that"

NI - "no, not, is not"

POJ - "then, later, after" - This very dialectal form is somewhere between PO - "after" and PO-TEM - literally, "after this, after that" but invariably meaning "then."

GINA - "perishes, dies, disappears" - third prs., sing., pres. of GINITI - "to perish, to die, to disappear" - This is very dialectal form of the current literal GINE.

I - "and, also"

KOS - "piece, portion, cock" (depending on context) - see passage VIII supra

Words of wisdom for the Athenians, perhaps?

Again I want to remind the reader that this inscription was found in Dura-Europos, a city in the Syrian Desert founded by Alexander's lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator, of the post-Alexander Seleucid Empire. The script was written using Greek and Latin letters but the language is Slav or, as Ambrozic calls it, Venetic. The script predates the Roman invasion of that region and could only have been written by Macedonian soldiers stationed at a nearby garrison.

What is most curious is that the words are very similar (some are exactly the same) to those of the modern Macedonian language and NOT AT ALL like those of the ancient or modern Greek languages.

Some of Alexander's Macedonians resisted change and managed to preserve their language for many generations, as demonstrated by the Dura-Europos inscriptions. Alexander, however, encouraged change and believed that in order to win over the hearts of the conquered people one had to become one of them or at least act like them. He believed that, that was only possible with a clear understanding of language and custom. So in time, as Alexander moved deeper into Asia, to some he became a liberator, to some a ruler and yet to others a god.

If Alexander is to be judged for his deeds let it be for all his deeds and not just for his conquests and military genius. Alexander was a seasoned politician with a vision of uniting all the world's nations together as equals in a democratic system (in the modern sense). Besides his political qualities Alexander also had a great interest in culture and the natural sciences. Wherever he went he built cities, libraries, cultural centers, museums and many other wonders. He listened to poetry and comedy and took part in debates. He met many people with varying interests and the people whose accomplishments he admired most, he sent to Macedonia for the Macedonians to enjoy. He had his natural scientists study and document the flora, fauna and mineral wealth of this new world. Techniques and knowledge learned then still apply today. He adorned all the gardens of Macedonia, including those in Pella, with plants bearing the best fruits and flowers that Asia had to offer. Wherever he went, he taught the local people culture, artistic skills and natural medicine. As Michael Wood found out, "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great", these gifts that Alexander gave the Asian people are still remembered to this day.

As he proceeded to free the Asian people from Persian dominion, Alexander was greeted with enthusiasm and celebrated as a liberator.

With the victory of Granicus under his belt, Alexander turned southward encountering little or no resistance until he reached Miletus and Halicarnassus where Greek mercenaries were found in large numbers. The Persian commander in Miletus was ready to surrender his city but convinced that the Persian fleet was on its way he resisted. Before the Persian fleet has a chance to enter the bay, Alexander's navy intervened and closed off the mouth of the harbour. Without the help of the Persian fleet, the city defenses were no match for Alexander's siege engines. Alexander stormed the city but did not harm its population.

In an unexpected turn of events, after the battle of Miletus, Alexander disbanded his fleet. Even though his ships were of help to him during the battle, Alexander decide to disband them anyway, retaining only twenty Athenian ships as hostages. At that time there was no obvious reason given but, as we later learned, he did it to save them. He did not have the naval strength to take on the powerful Persian fleet and win, so why waste his ships? Also, he did not trust the Greek navies behind him for they too, in a moment of weakness, could have turned on him and cut off his retreat and supply lines. As for destroying the powerful Persian fleet, Alexander had a different plan.

At the city of Halicarnassus, the capital of Caria, Alexander met with his old adversary Memnon, who at the time was supreme commander of the Asian coast and of the Persian fleet. With a division of Persians ships guarding the waters, the fortified city gave Alexander much resistance but it could not hold out indefinitely and fell to his superior siege-craft. When it was over Alexander appointed an old woman, a princess named Ada of the Carian dynastic house, to the satrapy. Ada met Alexander earlier when he entered Caria. She offered him her city of Alinda and a proposal to adopt him as her son. Alexander was so impressed that he accepted her adoption proposal and gave her back her city. After that Alexander was known in Caria as the son of the ruler. Caria was liberated and free of foreign dominion and her satrapy granted to a native woman. Here for the first time Alexander separated civil from military responsibilities. Ada was given charge of civic functions while a Macedonian officer was responsible for the military.

During the winter of 334 BC, before heading south, Alexander sent his newly wed soldiers home on leave to visit their families and wives. Parmenio, who earlier was given command of the League troops was dispatched to occupy Phrygia. Alexander, with the Macedonian army, spent late fall securing the western coast of Asia Minor before heading for Gordius.

Alexander's plan, as I mentioned earlier, was to paralyze the enemy fleet by occupying all the ports of the western Asia Minor seaboard.

Alexander's coastal trek was mostly trouble free except when he passed through Pisidia. There he encountered stiff resistance and severe fighting from the mountain men whom he subdued. After his victory, Alexander went to Gordium, the Phrygian capital, to spend the winter.

While Alexander was making his way to Gordium, Memnon, his old adversary, was convincing his Persian lords to allow him to resurrect the old idea of bringing the war to Europe. Using the Persian fleet he began to invade the Aegean islands one by one starting with Chios then Lesbos, hoping to get Alexander turned around. News of this brought excitement to the Greeks who had hoped that Memnon's intervention would turn the tide of the war in their favour. Unfortunately, their enthusiasm was cut short when suddenly Memnon fell ill and died. I can't say that Alexander was not relieved.

Next spring, the soldiers on leave and some reinforcements arrived from Macedonia and joined Alexander at Gordium as he prepared for departure.

In April 333 BC, Alexander came across the famous Gordian Knot which many tried but failed to untie. Legend has it that he who untied the knot would become King of Asia. Alexander tried his luck but found the tangle too complicated and impossible to untie. But Alexander was not about to give up so he did the next best thing; he drew his sword and hacked it to pieces. The end result was the same, the knot was removed and the yoke-pole of King Gordius's chariot was now bare. That night thunder and lightning followed which was interpreted as a good sign and that the gods were pleased.

With his army ready to march, Alexander passed by Ancyra before turning south to continue to occupy more Persian ports. His intention was to quickly march south through Cappadocia and occupy the passes of the Taurus mountain range on the southern coast of Cilicia. Having no time to conquer all of Cappadocia, he appointed a native satrap, instead of a Macedonian.

When Alexander arrived in Cilicia he took the Persian garrison by surprise when his men climbed up the strongholds in the night. Surprised by the sudden appearance of Macedonians in their midst, the guards ran off and left the pass unguarded. The pass was taken without a fight.

Alexander then marched down the mountain to seize the city of Tarsus but at the mere sight of the approaching Macedonian cavalry, its defenders also ran off.

His victory at Tarsus was bittersweet as Alexander contracted an illness from swimming in icy cold waters. He would have died had he not been so physically fit. His recovery unfortunately was long and arduous.

As soon as he was well enough, Alexander and his troops were on the move. To recover lost time, he divided his army and sent Parmenio east to secure the Cilicia to Syria pass. Alexander, meanwhile, went west to secure the western coastline as well as reinforce his supply line. On his way back he took time off near Tarsus to rest and celebrate his eventual victory at Halicarnassus. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander conquered the city of Halicarnassus but not all the citadels. After he left, a couple of citadels were still intact so he left that job to his officers to finish.

Soon after departing Tarsus, Alexander got word from Parmenio that the Great King Darius, with a large army, was encamped on the plains of Northern Syria, about two days journey from the pass that Parmenio was now holding.

After finding out what Alexander did to his army at Granicus, the Great King was furious with him and wanted to squash him like a bug. Who was this insolent man who dared challenge the Great King and prance in his backyard?

After finding out that Alexander was in Cilicia in the fall of 333 BC with plans to head south, the Great King amassed a great army and prepared a trap. Expecting Alexander to come after him, Darius picked a suitable place with battle advantage and lay in wait. Because of his numerical superiority, Darius was convinced he could crush Alexander's little army in battle.

When Alexander didn't show up as expected, the Great King became anxious. Thinking Alexander was afraid to face him, Darius decided it was time to pursue him instead. Alexander did not show up because he had fallen ill. But now that he learned Darius was out there, he mustered his forces and went after him. Unfortunately, as Alexander moved south quickly through the Cilician Gates along the Syrian coast, Darius moved north towards Cilicia on the opposite side of the same mountain range.

Unbeknownst to Alexander, Darius had broken camp. Alexander left his sick and wounded at Issus and continued to travel south, hugging the coastline. Camped overnight and weathering a storm, Alexander expected to do battle the next day, but to his surprise he learned that Darius had already broken camp and was now after him.

Without any knowledge of each other's positions the two armies passed one another over the mountain range of Amanus. Darius was first to learn of this from Alexander's wounded at Issus.

It has been said that Darius was so frustrated that he took his anger out on Alexander's sick and wounded by ordering his soldiers to cut off their hands so that could they never fight again.

By cutting off his retreat and supply lines, Darius was now resolved to follow Alexander into the plains of Syria and trample him and his little army to death with his cavalry. Unfortunately for Darius, Alexander had different ideas. On finding out that Darius was behind him and pursuing him, Alexander expediently turned his army around. Determined to meet Darius on his (Alexander's) terms, Alexander ordered a battle plan for the next day. After allowing his troops to have a quick meal, he mobilized the entire army and marched through the night until he arrived at the battlefield of his choice. The battle was going to take place not in the broad open plain of Syria, but in the narrow plain of Pinarus, encircled by the mountains and sea.

Hidden from view, Alexander's army spent the rest of the night laying in wait. At the crack of dawn, Alexander ordered their descent to the plain, infantry first in long narrow columns followed by the cavalry. In the face of a large enemy, Alexander formed the battle lines with ease as if performing a routine exercise. The Macedonian troops displayed great discipline and courage as they took their positions, knowing that they were about to face the largest army they have ever seen.

With only about 16,000 Macedonian infantry and 5,600 cavalry troops, Alexander was facing a huge Persian cavalry force of 450,000, a Greek mercenary infantry force of 30,000, a light infantry force of 20,000 and 60,000 Persians armed as hoplites.

The Persian battle line (this time) had the Greek mercenaries placed front and center, while right and left of them stood the hoplites with the bulk of the cavalry stationed to the right of the Greek mercenaries. The remaining troops stood behind the lines in column formations. Darius, sitting on his magnificent chariot, stood in the center behind the Greek mercenaries.

Before the battle started, Alexander secretly rearranged his cavalry formation moving some of it behind and to the left of the frontline. Alexander was in command of the right wing while Parmenio was in command of the left wing with strict orders not to break contact with the sea.

Alexander charged first in an oblique formation, the right wing cavalry followed closely by the phalanx. As (bad) luck would have it, soon after the charge, Alexander received a leg wound. At the same time the phalanx had become dislocated and had broken line while attempting to climb the steep bank of the river. While Alexander seemed to have regained his composure, the Greek mercenaries sought the opportunity and entered the gap in the open phalanx formation. The Greeks fought like demons displaying their hatred for the Macedonians. But soon after overwhelming the enemy's left wing Alexander turned inward and attacked the center. The moment Darius saw Alexander coming for him, he turned his chariot around and fled. Choosing not to pursue him, Alexander first turned on the Greek mercenaries and then on the numerically superior cavalry which had engaged Parmenio in a fierce battle across the Pinarus River.

Darius's flight left his army in disarray and confusion, running in all directions. As soon as the Persians began fleeing the Macedonians gave chase. Alexander, hoping to catch up to Darius, went after him. Anticipating a chase, Darius gave up his chariot for a horse and was nowhere to be found. The pursuit inflicted catastrophic losses on the Persian army especially since it had to exit through a narrow pass. The pursuit finally ended when darkness fell.

When it was over, only 8,000 of the Greek mercenary force was left intact. It is unclear how many Persians died but according to Ptolemy, who was there at the time, the pursuit at the narrow pass alone yielded a ravine full of enemy corpses.

So before the year 333 BC was over the Great King's army was beaten and the Great King himself became a fugitive, leaving his royal family and great wealth to Alexander.

After the long pursuit, Alexander returned to the Pinarus and took a stroll through Darius's camp to find Darius's mother, wife and three children weeping for him. They presumed he was dead and were worried about their own fate. Here too Alexander showed compassion by not harming the royal family and treating them with utmost respect. He informed them that Darius was still alive.

Alexander's victory at Issus was welcome news in Macedonia and a crushing disappointment for Persia and her Greek allies. I can just imagine the thoughts that went through the minds of the various Greek members of the Corinthian League at the 332 BC, Isthmian Games when it was suggested that a golden wreath be sent to Alexander to congratulate him on his victory.

The worst disappointment, however, goes to the Persian admirals in the Aegean who by now were fed up with the poor performance of the so called "superior Greek fighting skills" and opted out of their strange partnerships.

After his victory at Issues, Alexander became confident that he could win over all of Asia but there was still the matter of the Persian fleet in the Aegean and the Spartans were starting to make noise.

My name is Cat, Lazycat, and I'm an assh*le. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers!
Кон врв
 Внеси реплика Внеси реплика страница  12>
  Сподели тема   

Скок до Овластувања Кликни и види ги опциите

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd.

Страницата е генерирана за 0,313 секунди.