Archive for the ‘Ancient Macedonia’ Category

dvd on the history of Macedonia

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008

The Rosetta Stone…

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Latest theories coming from the Fyromians is that the 3rd language on the Rosetta Stone is “Macedonian” well we have now found the total facts….


Bosevski and Tentov were probably in a delusional state of mind. Electric engineers are not linguists + the supposed decoding they used is based on a system giving infinite solutions. In the same way i could make it be chinese.


The text from the British Museum says
Macedonian ptolemaic dynasty from Greece> and the languages are Greek, Demotic Egyptian and Hieroglyphic



 The below are abstracts from the book of R. Parkinson, The Rosetta Stone (London, British Museum Press, 2005)

 A reconstruction of the original stela, based on other copies of the Memphis Decree and the Canopus Decree, page 10

Chamollion’s chart of Demotic and hieroglyphic alphabetic signs with theirs Greek equivalents from his Lettre a M. Dacier, 1822(page 42) [/quote]

Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs – Page 7

by James P. Allen – Social Science – 2000

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems – Page 444

by Florian Coulmas – Language Arts & Disciplines – 1996 –

Decrees of Memphis and Canopus – Page 17

by E. A. Wallis Budge – History – 2003



Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt – Page 686

by Kathryn A. Bard – Social Science – 1999 –

Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity : Papers from a New … – Page 3

by Lawrence H. Schiffman- 2003


Saturday, October 25th, 2008


Excerpt from “The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians”
Apostolos Dascalakis, Professor, University of Athens
(Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessalonike, 1965)

(Ed. M.D.Stratis)

The founding of the Macedonian kingdom and the ancestor of its royal house are both veiled in the mists of prehistoric Greek antiquity. Greeks belonging to the 5th century B.C. city-states first came into direct contact with their brethren who were isolated among the barbarians north of Olympus and Pindus, mainly after the Persian Wars (499-479 B.C.) and more so during their subsequent quarrels during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), many events of which took place on Macedonian soil among the Chalcidice colonies.

But this was some centuries distant from the foundation of the state of Macedonia. During the centuries, poetic legends and traditions had arisen and given the classical Greeks a basis on which to account for and interpret Macedonia’s historical past. Herodotus and Thucydides, the foremost historians of the 5th century, limit themselves to these traditions whenever they happen to speak of the Macedonians’ past and the foundations of their realm, while Euripides makes of the Macedonian legend, as he does of others belonging to Greek prehistory, a subject for dramatic poetry. Historians, chroniclers and biographers from the middle of the 4th century on, caught up in the dazzle of events almost beyond human ken, which occurred during the reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great, destined to change the fate of Greece and the whole course of her history, had but to collect, or on occasion to link in a more fascinating way, the legends and traditions concerning the founder of the glorious, and by then renowned Argaed dynasty, to the beginning of the state, for which so splendid a destiny has been reserved.

As was natural, modern historical research has been devoted since the last century to studying this question of the founding of the Macedonian kingdom and the origin of its royal house with the keenest interest, the more so for its close affinity with the whole ethnological subject of ancient Macedonia and its people.

Greek popular legends of antiquity, which reflect beliefs and in many cases facts whose historical root is lost in centuries past, attributed divine origins to the most prominent royal houses of the prehistoric and early historical period. Traditions developed from these myths placed the kingly house of Aegae (Vergina) in Macedonia among the Heracleid Temenids, thus linking it “warp and woof” with the full cycle of archaic Hellenism’s sagas.

It can be considered certain that the kings of Macedonia did not shape these traditions of their descent from the Heracleids of Argos, drawing them from Greek literature of classical times, nor made them up to imitate the myths current in Greek cities about the divine descent of their most illustrious regal families, but had cherished them, handed down from one generation to another since time immemorial, as the Lares and Penates of their hearths and folk. In fact, when shortly before the Persian Wars the kings of Macedonia appeared on the Greek historical scene, they themselves announced their origin, proudly proclaiming the Argaead legends as their very own, unquestionably so on the ground of a family tradition centuries old.

Ancient Traditions about the First Argaead King

As the first written record of the Greek legend about the Macedonian Argaeads we may regard Aeschylus’ lines in the play “The Suppliants,” where the poet introduces Pelasgus, king of Argos, common ancestor of the Doric branch of Greeks, boasting that his race rules as far as the pure waters of the Strymon (end note 1). On the basis of the age-long legend handed down by the Greeks from prehistorical times, Aeschylus indirectly proclaims the descent of the Macedonians from the Doric branch and directly tells us about their origin from the Argive Heracleids, as those who ruled “the land of the Perrhaibians,” “beyond Pindus,” “near the Paeonians,” “in the Dodona mountains” and “all the territory through which the pure Strymon flows.”

Because of the generally believed descent of these people from the Dorians, who claimed Pelasgus as their common ancestor and revered Heracles as their nonpareil national hero, Aeschylus with poetic elation somewhat broadens the legend about the Argaeads, to include the peoples of Thessaly and Epirus, whose royal families had their own traditions of descent from the gods. But it is clear that it chiefly concerns those living between Pindus, the Dodona mountains and the Strymon, in other words the Macedonians whose royal house traced its descent to the Argive Temenids. Thus, the poet who is the bearer par excellence of pan-Hellenic traditions and ideals, the fighter at Salamis and singer of the all-Greek surge against the invader from Asia, believes Macedonia to be a Greek land, and broadcasts its royal house’s descent, according to Greek legend, from the Hellenic pantheon.

But Herodotus, the father of history, himself hands on to us the legend of Macedonia’s Argaeo-Temenids in no uncertain way. What is more, he does not confine himself to one graphic vivid account, but repeats or alludes to this saga at many points of his work, in order to interpret historical facts or support the thread of his own narrative.

According to his version of the story, three brothers descended from the Heracleid Temenos, who founded the Heracleid dynasty of Argos, namely Gauanes, Aeropus and Perdiccas, left Argos and went to Illyria, whence they reached Upper Macedonia and were employed as shepherds by the king of the small city of Lebaea. This monarch, warned by divine portents of the future glory destined for the youngest brother Perdiccas – the bread baked for him by the queen swelled to double its size – sent them away, giving them in mockery the sun which came through the chimney hole as their wages. Young Perdiccas circumscribed the space occupied by the sun with a knife and with symbolic gestures put it three times in his pockets, clearly meaning that he was taking possession of the region. The king, realizing rather late what the youth had implied, sent horsemen after the fugitives to slay them. But the three brothers succeeded in crossing a river, which immediately after miraculously flooded, so that it became impassable to the horsemen. In this fashion the Temenids of Argos were saved and settled near the so-called “Gardens of Midas” beside Mount Bermion, where Perdiccas, the youngest, became founder of the Macedonian kingdom’s dynasty, with Aegae for its capital (2).

Unlike later authors who have preserved traditions about the first Argaeads, Herodotus does not speak of warlike operations or other exploits of the first Argaead king of Macedonia. He says nothing of Aegae, the capital of the newly founded kingdom, as having been captured by assault, but rather leaves it implied that they themselves built it in that flowery region of the “gardens of Midas.” The three Argaead brothers were being led to their lofty destiny by the gods and the foundation of the Macedonian state by Perdiccas, the youngest of them, appears not as a military achievement but as the work of divine providence. Thus the tradition kept for us by Herodotus, a local Macedonian one in all respects (Herodotus himself interposes “as the Macedonians say” in his story; this shows it was a local tradition), does not try to give a down to earth interpretation of the realm’s origins and of its Argaead dynasty, but cloaks the whole matter with the glamour of supernatural power, as an act of the gods’ will.

Even though Herodotus does not precisely mention Aegae, or that the region which the Argaeads either captured or settled was in Emathia, the admirable description of the gardens – where sixty-petal roses of rare fragrance grew wild – leaves us in no doubt that he referred to that area, which to this day the abundant waters pouring in headlong torrents turn into a park abloom with flowers and fruit-trees, an earthly paradise. In addition, Herodotus’ statement that “a mountain called Bermion overhangs the gardens and is impassable during the winter,” tallies with this region which does indeed lie under snow-covered Vermion (its name now).

No stranger to Greek tradition is Midas of Gordion, the figure found in Herodotus either as lord of the region or former occupant of the wondrous gardens which bore his name, also mentioned by the historian Justin as having been evicted by the Argaeads (3). He is a personage half way between legend and reality, and evoked the admiration of the Greeks who included him in their national mythology though he was a Phrygian. Herodotus sets the legend of Silenus’ capture by Midas in these gardens of Emathia, while Xenophon and Pausanias refer to Thymbrium in Asia Minor as the scene of the event (4). Herodotus also tells us that Midas had presented to Delphi the famous royal throne on which he sat to dispense justice (5).

Thus preserved by Herodotus out of local tradition, the name of that mythical Phrygian king, who won the admiration of the Greeks for his wealth and wisdom, is tied up with that of the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, as is that of the equally revered king Pheidon of Argos through other legends.

Herodotus affirms in the same account that even in his day the members of the Argaead royal family went to sacrifice beside the river which had saved their ancestors the Heracleids, founders of their dynasty, when they came from Argos. This means that the tradition had long been deep-rooted in Macedonia, interwoven with the whole national growth of the Macedonians for centuries already. It must not be forgotten that in Herodotus’ time and even more so during that of Alexander I the Philhellene, and of the Persian Wars, when this tradition concerning the kings of Macedonia was first officially brought to the fore, there was no close cultural contact between Athens and that country, nor had the Macedonian court yet become a center for men of letters and artists, as it did in the time of Archelaus later on.

Consequently we must reject the theory that this legend was invented by the “hellenizing” kings of Macedonia who worshipped Greek letters and legends. It is unquestionably a local tradition, comparable to that existing in Greece, perhaps some folk-ballad garnished with the miraculous saving of the three brothers. Herodotus, while including the legend of the royal Macedonian house’s origin, culled as is his wont from local sources, at the same time believes in its historical ground and cites it in many parts of his history as proof that the Macedonian kings were Hellenes (6). Thucydides, limiting himself as usual to recognized historical data, when speaking of the Macedonian kings, simply records their descent from the Argive Temenids as something historically accepted in his day (7).

The tradition concerning the migration of the Temenids from Argos to Macedonia first recorded by Herodotus appears often in the works of later authors, particularly those of the Alexandrine and later periods, i.e. since the illustrious house of Aegae had become the pride of the whole Hellenic nation through the exploits of its last scion, Alexander the Great.

Nevertheless, the legends concerning the origin of the Macedonian kings recorded by later writers merit special attention , since they themselves did not invent them, but based them on earlier historical, poetical or chronicle sources, which in most instances have not come down to us. Considering that each of these authors could draw on data or rely on legends immortalized in poetry, and that each writer could draw on different ones to those used by another author of the same or some later period, it stands to reason that we have a great variety of accounts, all of which however stem from the same root – the migration of the Temenids or of a Temenid from Argos, to found the Macedonian state and the Macedonian dynasty of Aegae.

Unlike the tradition drawn from local Macedonian legends by Herodotus, later Greek authors relied on stories which had already become common property to the whole of Greece, recording another Temenid as migrating to Macedonia and telling other stories of his adventures, before he founded the state of Macedonia. Thus Theopompus of Chios, a pupil of Isocrates, recounts how Caranus the Temenid, the brother of Pheidon the king of Argos, emigrated to Macedonia and settled at Aegae which he had conquered (8). This tradition, also to be found in its basic lines in Diodorus, was adopted by George Syncellus, the Byzantine chronicler, with a wealth of added detail (9). He represents Caranus as being the seventh in descent from Temenos and the eleventh from Heracles. In this author’s view (he is regarded as reliable since he took his facts from a large number of ancient sources), this Caranus did not arrive in Macedonia as a humble and much traveled refugee, but sallied forth from the Peloponnese at the head of a paid army with the object of conquest and to found a kingdom of his own, just like the medieval knights who went out to the East during the Crusades. Following favorable prognostications from the Delphic Oracle, he reached the mountain chain of Pindus, thus arriving at the Macedonian kingdoms of Lyncestis and Orestis. He came there at a fortunate moment since the king of Orestis was making war on the king of Eordaea and Caranus agreed to aid him in return for half his enemy’s kingdom, in order to found his own. In fact, according to this tale, after Caranus and the king of Orestis defeated the king of Eordaea, the former received the lands on which he built the kingdom of the Temenids, making Aegae his capital (10).

In its general lines this story is repeated by the Roman historian Justin, whose work is mainly an epitome of the lost Macedonian history written by Pompeius Trogus on the basis of earlier versions and on facts diligently collected. The tradition saved by Justin is embellished with great detail. He tells us that after Apollo’s oracle had told him to settle in Macedonia, Caranus, coming to Emathia with a great mass of Greeks, followed a flock of goats hastening to seek shelter in the town of Edessa from a violent rainstorm and mist. The inhabitants of Edessa resisted him, but Caranus, evidently aided by the rain and mist, and led by the goats as the oracle had predicted, succeeded in entering with his army and taking the town, which he made capital of his newly founded kingdom. In memory of the godsent sign of the goats, which from then on he was in the habit of putting at the head of his army to lead it in the field, he gave Edessa the name of Aegae (goats).

Afterwards Justin says that Caranus, evicting Midas, who owned part of Macedonia, and dethroning some other kings, united the kingdoms of Macedonia into a single realm and laid firm foundations for his expanding power (11). Though Justin makes Caranus founder of the dynasty, not Perdiccas as Herodotus claims, he is the only later writer who brings in the name of Midas. The difference between them is that whereas Herodotus simply tells us that the Macedonian kingdom was founded in the district of the mythically beautiful Gardens of Midas. Justin either drawing on another tradition, or else very freely adopting what Pompeius Trogus had taken more accurately from Herodotus, speaks of Midas as the ruler of the district, who was driven out by the Temenid founder of the Macedonian dynasty.

This tradition, doubtless closely knit with the legends (later subjected to much literary elaboration), concerning a movement of Greek tribes from the Peloponnese does not differ substantially from the local Macedonian tradition preserved by Herodotus. The essentials which interest us here are to be found in both, namely that it was believed both in Macedonia and by the Greeks in general that the royal house of Aegae was Greek and traced its descent from the Heracleid Temenids of Argos. In the main, independent of the poetic adornments about an expedition from the south, distribution or conquest of Macedonian territory, assault on Edessa and so on, in which as we shall show later some historical significance can be found, the difference lies in the fact that Caranus instead of Perdiccas, whom Herodotus records, emigrated from Argos and founded the Macedonian dynasty.

The name Perdiccas is purely Macedonian. This alone would provide the historical clue that here we have a local tradition so deeply rooted in the country, that many later kings of Macedonia, to say nothing of princes and generals, were given this name in honor of their mythical ancestor and founder of the dynasty.

It is a name which does not occur in the works of Greek poets who drew on tradition or adopted the Greek legends, nor does it appear to have been used in the Greek city-states during classical times. On the contrary, the name Caranus is derived from very ancient Greek traditions; Spartans are mentioned as called either Caranus or Carenus (12). It is doubtless of Doric origin and the Heracleids among whom the kings of Macedonia were included by tradition were regarded as the chief representatives of the Doric branch of the Greek race. It was therefore natural that the poets, instead of using the name Perdiccas, which was unusual to them, when adapting ancient tradition should provide the Heracleid Temenids of Argos, ancestors of the Macedonian dynasty, with the genuine Doric name of Caranus (13).

Besides, the name Caranus is obviously very closely related to the most archaic Greek word “koiranos” or in the Doric dialect “karanos” (ruler) (14).

It is certainly possible to identify these two words, as they both stem from the same root “kara” meaning head, hence leader, royal master. The word “koiranos” already had the meaning of ruler or king in Homer (15). Thus in the Doric dialect the word “karanos,” from its meaning as an epithet (leader, ruler) and as a substantive (king), came to be used as the proper name of a person with, at least in the first period, the same attributes.

According to this, we can regard the two traditions of Perdiccas and Caranus as one, given the fact that according to Macedonian local legends the Heracleid coming from Argos migrated to Macedonia and founded the royal house of Aegae, while at the same time he was “koiranos” in the Homeric sense of the word, which became Caranus, king of the Doric branch to which the Macedonians also belonged. Perhaps it will not be too hazardous if we reason that the mention of the two names in Justin’s account of the tradition, first Caranus and then Perdiccas, leads us to the solution of the problem (16). In other words, they were one and the same person and the Perdiccas of Herodotus’ story, at the time when the ancient Doric word “karanos” was still in use with its Homeric meaning of lord, would have been known as “Lord Perdiccas” or “Lord,” if the first king had been called something other than Perdiccas. In later times, when the ancient Doric word :karanos” lost its original meaning, the remembrance of it may have survived with reference to the first king and have been isolated into being used as a proper name. In other words, the first Heracleid king and “karanos” of Macedonia might have been divided by tradition into two personalities. This is only an attempt at the logical solution of the question arising from the differences in traditions known to us from much later sources. The lack of clear historical data requires critical study leading to sure facts.

The legend of Caranus’ goats contributed to the belief that the name of the Macedonian capital Aegae was thus derived. Nowadays it is generally admitted that the name Aegae is due to its situation with abundant water pouring headlong down to the plain in scenic waterfalls. Actually the root “aig-” in ancient Greek meant a spring of water or simply water.

All the same, it may be regarded as very probable that the myth of Caranus’ goats, having a basic start in later misunderstanding as to the name of the capital of Macedonia’s first kings, is supported by the most ancient Doric traditions which Greek Dorians brought with them where they settled.

Actually Pausanias records a tradition surviving at Sparta in his day, according to which the Lacedaimonians alone among the Greeks were allowed to sacrifice goats to Hera, who on that account was called “aigosphagos” (the goat-eater). The Lacedaimonians attributed this to the legend that Heracles founded the temple of Hera in Sparta and first sacrificed goats in it to the goddess, grateful because she had not opposed his fight against Hippocoon and his children. He sacrificed goats then, because he had nothing else to slaughter for the sacrifice (17). The Lacedaimonians were the main representatives of the Dorian world and the Macedonians adhered reverently to the same religious traditions which they had adopted before they departed to their centuries of isolation beyond Olympus and Pindus. Besides, Heracles who first sacrificed goats and was worshipped by the Dorian branch of Greeks, was the principal national hero of the Macedonians, claimed as the ancestor of their Argaeo-Temenid kings. A different tradition is to be found in the surviving fragments of Euphorion, a writer of the 3rd century B.C. Here Caranus, led by the oracle, came into Macedonia neither as an unknown shepherd boy nor as leader of a conquering army, but at the head of Greek colonists with whom he built a city and was proclaimed king of Macedonia (18). The city is not named but at all events it was not Aegae, as he later states that the town of Edessa, which he says was formerly inhabited by Phrygians and Lydians brought into Europe by Midas, was then renamed Aegae by Caranus (19). Evidently by giving first place in the foundation of Macedonia to the prophecy of the oracle, Euphorion follows the legend which Euripides used in his drama, although the latter names the ancestor of the dynasty Archelaus, while the former remains faithful to the tradition of Caranus handed down in the Greek world.

Pausanias mentions a tradition that takes in many of the mixed details found in the stories we have enumerated. According to him, Caranus the first king defeated Cisseus, ruler of a neighboring country, in battle. In honor of his victory he erected a trophy in accordance with the laws of Argos, but this was overthrown and destroyed by a lion which came down from Olympus. Caranus was then convinced that it was not right to perpetuate his enmity with the surrounding tribes by erecting a trophy. From then on neither he nor the later Macedonian kings ever erected trophies. The tradition was also respected by Alexander the Great, who did not do so in Asia (20). It is noteworthy that while Pausanias calls the first Macedonian king Caranus, with Syncellus and Justin following him, he gives the name of Cisseus to the ruler of a neighboring country in Macedonia. This name occurs only in poetic legend known from Euripides’ work.

Long after this, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, also a writer who undoubtedly took his material from older sources, stated that the kingdom of Macedonia began with Caranus (Karanos), regarded as the third son of Heracles. He adds that the kings of Macedonia called themselves descendants of Heracles and that instead of a crown and royal purple they wore the pelt of a lion’s head, regarding this a crown and adornment better than any precious stone or pearl (21).

End notes:


  1. Aesch. Suppl. 250 ff.
  2. Herod. Hist. VIII, 137-139.
  3. The well-known tradition from Euphorion [fr. 15] says simply that Edessa – the Phrygian predecessor of Aegae – “was inhabited in the old days” by the Phrygians who were brought into Europe by Midas, without saying whether Midas was a contemporary of the first Argaead, who expelled him.
  4. Herod. VIII, 138; also, Xen. Anab. I, 2, 13, and Paus. I, 4, 5.
  5. Herod. I, 14.
  6. Herod. V, 22.
  7. Thuc. Pelop. II, 99.
  8. Theop. in F.H.G. fr. 30, 1, 283.
  9. See Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. vol. II, 2, p. 615 [Geo. Syncell. p. 499, 5] and Diod. VII. frag. 15.
  10. Geo. Syncell. p. 373 [198]; this tradition is found as taken from Diodorus, in the surviving section translated into Latin in Eusebius’ Chronicle [Euseb. Chron. I, p. 227, ed. Schoene. See also Diod. fr., bk. VII, No. 15-17, ed. Vogel, vol. II, p. 144 etc.
  11. Justini, Historiae Philippicae, VII, 1, 7-12.
  12. This very ancient Doric name is also met with in Sparta during the 6th cent. B.C. It is mentioned by Herodotus (VII, 173) as Karenos (Ionic form of Karanos) father of Euanetus, the Lacedaemonian general on the Tempe expedition during the Persian Wars).
  13. The name Caranus is not met with in the royal house of Aegae until the time of Philip II, who having already been made commander-in-chief of the Greeks and evidently influenced by the tradition that the Temenid Caranus had founded the royal house, gave it to his newly born son shortly before his death.
  14. The Doric forms Caranus, "karenon" (or "karanon") and "karano," are often met with and always with the same meaning of ruler, commander. The exact meaning of the word "kara" is head and thus highest point, summit of a mountain, etc. and "karano" means take to the top. Hence metaphorically the word comes to mean the man at the head, ruler, etc. [Xen. Hell. I, 4, 3]. It is true that according to Hesychius the Cretans called the goat “karano” and the word “karnos” meant a sheep or horn or horned beast. But the attempt to identify the meaning of the words with the name of the first king Caranus as coming from the age of animal worship when Caranus was adored as a goat god is not convincing. The zoolatric tradition had long ceased to influence the Hellenes when Macedonia was founded and the words “karanos” and “koiranos” had definitely taken on the meaning given them in our text. Besides, there is no record of an ancient Macedonian tradition or later reference to words in the Macedonian dialect to support this theory. Thraco-Phrygian animal worship traditions cannot in any circumstance be identified with basic notions in the beginnings of Macedonian history. The tradition about the goats which according to the oracle’s prophecy led the first king may be correlated with Aegae and perhaps with primeval Dorian tradition, but not with Caranus.
  15. Hom. Od. I, 247; the verb “koirano” means I am the leader, I rule.
  16. Note the tradition handed down by the Roman historian Solinus, according to which Perdiccas was the son and heir of Caranus, but was also the first to be styled king of Macedonia (C. Julii Solini, Polyistor. IX, 10).
  17. Paus. III, 15, 9.
  18. See article by E. Pandermali-Poulaki “Olympus and the Macedonians” for substantiation of the theory that Mycenaean colonists settled on Olympus and blended with the Macedonians – listed on Pan-Macedonian Network History selections.
  19. Euphor. frag. 30.
  20. Paus. IX, 40, 8. Pausanias’ interpolation “It is said by the Macedonians” indicates that he did not take this tradition from the earlier writers on whom he drew but collected it on the spot during his travels in Macedonia. According to Pausanias, the sacred rule against erecting trophies existed in pre-classical times among the Peloponnesian Dorians, coupling this common law with Herodotus’ information about a Doric and “Makednon” race which lived north of Pindus before emigrating to the Peloponnese.
  21. Const. Porphyr. Peri Thematon [ed. Bonn], p. 48.

FYROM’s Slavomacedonism, Part I: a Historical overview

Monday, October 20th, 2008

FYROM’s Slavomacedonism, Part I: a Historical


Athanassios Boudalis’s ZSpace Page


FYROM’s Slavomacedonism, Part I: a Historical overview

The Russian reemergence as a global power after years of absence following the end of the Cold War, has had many repercussions and has therefore provided the incentive for US foreign policy to accelerate certain processes and tie up loose ends. One of these has been the military encirclement of Russia (the discovery of the “new Europe” during the second Iraq war, the installation of the anti-ballistic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, the NATO enlargement with former Soviet Republics and Warsaw-pact countries on the Russian borders, etc). Another has been the “Balkanization” of the Balkans, meaning their slicing into small, weak and quarrelling states subservient to the US, a policy also followed by the EU. This new reality is expected to greatly benefit the US-Turkish hegemony over this geopolitically vital region (many oil and natural gas pipelines already pass, or are planned to pass from there in the near future, circumventing Russian oil routes). This policy was inaugurated during Bill Clinton’s presidency, with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia after 1992, and continued with the NATO bombings of Serbia in 1999 and its own subsequent dismemberment. It has now culminated with the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and its secession from Serbia.

Often these two policies coincide, e.g. as happens with the US goal of including into NATO the states formerly belonging to Yugoslavia. As part of this acceleration, George W. Bush has decided to recognize FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) with the contested (by Greece) name of “Republic of Macedonia”. And he chose to do this on November 4th 2004, only hours after his reelection. His aim was to stabilize FYROM’s inherently unstable government in view of a very controversial referendum just three days later (November 7th 2004). The stabilization of FYROM as a state is still an open question, due to its competing Slav and Albanian populations (violent fights had broken out on 2001); its Euro-Atlantic integration is considered as the remedy for all ills. This is why G. W. Bush pushed so hard to include it in the NATO enlargement during last April’s NATO summit.

The conflict with Greece stems from FYROM’s demand to be internationally recognized as the “Republic of Macedonia”, asserting that it is the state of the descendents of ancient Macedonians (the kingdom of Alexander the Great), implying claims to the Greek province of Macedonia in Northern Greece. I will be referring to this doctrine “Slavomacedonism“. I will not go into the historical veracity of these claims, as this would take too much space and time (very briefly, ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom, while modern “Macedonians” have a Slavic descent as FYROM’s first President Kiro Gligorof had admitted in 1992, when he said: “We are Slavs, we have no connection with Alexander the Great, we came to this area in the 6th century A.D.“). Besides, 25% of FYROM’s population are ethnic Albanians (2002 census), who do not ascribe to this “Macedonian” descent. Thus, I will rather analyze the roots of Slavomacedonism, the ensuing conflict and its implications on Greek security and sovereignty. And eventually on regional stability, should these claims be considered useful for regional destabilization.

Northern Greece (Province of Macedonia) and FYROM.

Brief historical overview

Macedonia in antiquity was a Greek kingdom, mostly known by the reign of King Phillip II and the legacy of his son, Alexander the Great. The whole debate of ancient Macedonians being ethnically, genetically, linguistically, and culturally related to the present Slavophone populations of the region has been created (as will be described) for particular geopolitical purposes. It is not worth spending time and space to debunk it here. Instead, I would rather proceed to describe the creation of Slavomacedonism.

Macedonia till the mid 19th century

Slavs started migrating into Central Europe and the Balkans (including the region of Macedonia) from the Ukraine, in the beginnings of 6th century AD. In medieval times, Slavs managed to create several state-like formations (Bulgaria, Moravia, Russia, Poland, Serbia and Croatia, in chronological order). However, many Slav populations did not do so. Instead, they were assimilated by neighboring states, as distinct linguistic communities, but without a distinct national identity. For example, when the “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” was formed in 1918, a referendum was held to determine the luck of the Austrian province of Carinthia, on the Northern border of the newly established Kingdom. Carinthia was populated by a 2/3 Slovene-speaking (Slavophone) majority and a 1/3 German-speaking minority. Despite that, however, 59.1% of Carinthians (22,025) opted to stay within Austria, while only 40.9% (15,279) opted to join the Slavic kingdom. Thus, most Slavophone Carinthians opted to remain within Austria, showing that their national identity diverged from their linguistic one.

In Macedonia things were similar. Kofos writes: “Until the middle of the 19th century, Macedonia was generally regarded  primarily as a Hellenic region and there was good reason for this. During four centuries of backward Ottoman rule, the national consciousness of the illiterate peasants, with the sole exception of the Greeks, had receded to a point near non-existence. Only the common Orthodox Christian heritage acted as a link between the Balkan peoples and set them apart from Mohammedan Turks. The Church was in the hands of the Greeks and the Greek language was a characteristic of a social and cultural superiority to such an extent that even the Bulgarian elite in order to raise itself from the masses had to learn it.” In a report of 1885, the Secretary-General of the Bulgarian Exarchate writes: “It is a sad fact but we must admit that the largest part of the Bulgarian population of Macedonia does not have a Bulgarian national consciousness… If Europe were to demand today that the Macedonian people decide on their fate and say to which nationality they belong, we are certain that the largest part of the Macedonian people and of Macedonia would slip away from our hands. If we exclude two or three regions of Northern Macedonia, the inhabitants of the other regions are ready to declare that they are Greeks… If the Great Powers were to intervene and demand a plebiscite to solve the Macedonian problem the Greeks would come out as winners.[1]

As Lunt puts it: “the majority of Slavs in Macedonia in the middle of the nineteenth century probably had no strong ethnic consciousness and were content with the label Christian, essentially meaning non-Muslim. The remaining minority included some, particularly in the south, who would accept the label Greek, others, particularly in the north, who allowed themselves to be called Serbian, then another–surely larger–group who as non-Greek and non-Serb would use the ethnonym Bulgar, and finally those who insisted they were non-Bulgarian as well and who, for lack of any better name, declared themselves to be Macedonians.[2]

During the Byzantine and subsequently the Ottoman empire, other peoples had joined the Greek population of Macedonia: Christian-orthodox populations like Albanians and Vlachs; Sephardic Jews; Roma; Muslim populations like Turks, and Islamized Pomaks and Islamized Albanians. And of course Slavs, that through time had been Christianized and some of which were later Islamized, like Bosnians. Travelers of the time (like the Turks Evlia Tselembi and Catzi Kalfa, the French Robert De Dreux and the English Ed Brown (1674) and John Covel (1667)) often speak of all these populations, but none speaks of “Macedonians” in an ethnological sense of the term.

A turning point in the Balkan affairs came after the Russian defeat in the Crimean war (1854-56). It was than that Russia reverted from its Pan-Orthodox doctrine (Catherine the Great had assisted the Greek struggle against the Ottoman rule) to Pan-Slavism, a “theory and movement intended to promote the political or cultural unity of all Slavs“.[3] This change in strategy required that many Slavophone Orthodox populations of Macedonia, that previously identified themselves as Greeks (like the Carinthian Slavs identified themselves as Austrians), should now revert to a different national identity. This coincided with the rise of the Bulgarian and Serbian nationalisms, and of their “Great Ideas”, i.e. the renaissance of the state of Hegemon Symeon (893-927) and Tsar Samuel (976-1014), for the Bulgarians and of the state of Stephan Doussan (1331-1355), for the Serbs. This new identity was to be the “Slavo-Macedonian” one. These two “Great Ideas” were to collide with the Greek “Great Idea” of unliberated Greek populations, which had fought against the Ottoman empire in the Greek Revolution (1821-1828). These were dreaming the renaissance of the Byzantine empire.

Bulgarian Slavomacedonism

Slavomacedonism was initially put to the service of the Bulgarian nationalist movement. In 1870 the Bulgarian bishoprics seceded from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to form the Bulgarian Exarchate. This secession was validated by a firman (decree) of the Sultan on February 28th, 1870. The Exarchate thus included the areas today occupied by Bulgaria and FYROM, as well as parts of today’s Northern Greece, Serbia, Albania and Romania. In 1878 (February 21st), Russia obliged the Ottoman Empire to sign the Saint Stefan Treaty, with which the Ottoman empire recognized the independence of a Bulgarian state (Hegemony) that lay from Danube river to the Aegean Sea and from the Black Sea to Salonica (without Salonika, Chalkidiki, Kozani, Servia). This was unacceptable by the Greek populations, which had the Great Powers intervene and cancel this treaty with the Treaty of Berlin (July 1st, 1878). In 1893 the VMRO (Vnatresšna Makedonska Revolucionerna Organizacija, or IMRO, Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) was founded as a Bulgarian autonomist organization. It proclaimed the creation of an independent multiethnic “Macedonian” state that might later be annexed to Bulgaria.

The Balkan Wars

Between 1904-1908, violent fights between Greeks and Bulgarians took place for the capture of the region of Macedonia. These stopped in 1908 when the Young Turks movement (a reformist, antimonarchic and antitheocratic Turkish group) took power and promised reforms. However, the Young Turks’ policies were even more resented by the Balkan populations. As a result the Balkan League was formed on 1912, after a series of treaties between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, with independence as its main request. This led to the Balkan Wars. During the First Balkan War (1912-13), Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia formed an alliance and successfully fought the Ottoman Empire, freeing most of its Balkan territories. However, the division of these territories among them, and especially of the region of Macedonia, triggered the Second Balkan War (1913). This started when Bulgaria attacked Greece and Serbia to capture Macedonia and led to the quick defeat of Bulgaria and the loss of most of the regions it had freed from Ottoman rule.

First World War

The First World War started with an attack of Austro-Hungarians on Serbia in 1914. Serbia was not overrun until Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire aligned with the Central Powers. Greece was initially neutral due to the internal division of the Germanophile King Constantine I and the Anglophile PM Eleftherios Venizelos. When, however, the Bulgarian army entered Greece in 1916, capturing newly-won Greek areas of Macedonia, Venizelos proceeded with various army officers to stage a coup (Movement of National Defense). He then set up a second government in Salonica which fought on the side of the Entente powers (Britain, France and Russia). In 1918 the Central Powers and Bulgaria were defeated. Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegvina, Slovenia and Montenegro formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca).

Interwar period

After an administrative redistribution (1922) of the newly found Kingdom, the former Serbian District of Skopjie was renamed to Oblast of Skopjie. After King Alexander’s January 6th Dictatorship (1929) the kingdom was renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Yugo-slavia meaning South-Slavia). Following another administrative subdivision of the kingdom the same year, it was subdivided into nine provinces (banovinas), one of which was Vardarska Banovina with Skopjie as its capital; the denomination “Macedonia” still carried many negative connotations, associated with Bulgarian claims and was, therefore, avoided. The purpose of this administrative subdivision on geographical criteria, was the artificial intermixing of the various Slav ethnicities, on the premise that they were anyway all members of the same nation (recent developments proved that this was not exactly so).

In that same time period, the problem of mixed populations was “solved” by a series of forced relocations. Between 1922-26, 500-700 thousand Muslims were relocated to Eastern Thrace and Asia Minor. 150-200 thousand Bulgarians or Slavs abandoned Greece. Also, 2 million Greeks left Asia Minor, Eastern Thrace and the Black Sea, while over 300 thousand were forced to abandon territories under Serbian or Bulgarian rule. As a result, the populations of those countries were separated according to their nationalities for the first time. A 1926 census of the League of Nations reported that 77 thousand Slavophones remained in Greek Macedonia (the bulk of the historical region), with a Greek population of 1,341,000. Bulgaria, still under the influence of the treaty of Saint Stefan and the vision of a Great Bulgaria, never abandoned its territorial claims. It still coveted Greek Macedonia and Yugoslav Vardarska and insisted upon the issue of “Slavomacedonians”. The Bulgarian Communist Party never ceased to proclaim the creation of an autonomous Republic of Macedonia and Thrace.

Of paramount importance at that time was Comintern’s (Communist International) position on the Balkan issues. As early as the 1920’s, the goal of the expansion of Communism in the Balkans was clearly set and Bulgaria was considered as the ripest of the countries for this expansion to commence. This would allow the Soviet Union access to warm waters, a goal dating back to the Russian Tsars. The position upheld by Bulgaria and endorsed by the International meeting (March, 1924) of the Balkan Communist Federation (in which all Balkan Communist parties were represented) was that of an “independent and united Macedonia” consisting of Greek, Yugoslav and Bulgarian territories. According to it, Bulgaria had the most to gain, while Yugoslavia and Greece had the most to lose. The 5th International meeting of the Comintern (May, 1924) ratified this resolution. Bound by the Soviet-dominated Comintern requirements, the Greek Communist Party (KKE) delegates also acquiesced to this position. This was a disastrous choice, as it brought them against Greek public opinion, particularly in Macedonia, which was very sensitive about that matter. As a consequence, in 1928 KKE faced a crushing electoral defeat (1.41% of votes) and was left out of the parliament. This position held until December 1935, when during its 6th congress the KKE backpedaled to another position, of equality of all minorities, dropping the subject of an “independent and united Macedonia”.

The Second World War and Yugoslav Slavomacedonism

When the Second World War broke out, Bulgaria (allied to the axis forces) invaded and occupied a large portion of Greek Macedonia and the Yugoslav Vardarska. However, a portion of Slavophones in Yugoslav Vardarska enlisted in the newly-formed Yugoslav Partisans of Josip Broz Tito (member of the outlawed Communist Party of Yugoslavia at that time). Another portion enlisted in the communist Greek Liberation Army, ELAS (in Greek Macedonia), against the axis forces. Now, Tito found it useful to use the “Slavomacedonian” ideology himself to draw Slavophones of the region of Macedonia into his own camp against the Bulgarian fascist forces.

From the Bulgarian side, it was the nationalist VMRO that continued to profit from the use of the “Slavomacedonian” ideology.[4] After Germans invaded Greece, the leader of VMRO, Ivan Mihailoff helped organize the Slavophones of non-Greek identification. This was done with Mussolini’s help at first, and after mid-1943, with Himmler’s as well. Thus, the “Bulgarian Committee” was founded by Anton Kalchev, as an annex to the Bulgarian Ohrana (”Defence”) organization. After the Italian capitulation, several VMRO militia regiments were organized with Himmler’s permission, and armed by the Nazi to fight against the ELAS. The 4th SS division assisted the VMRO in these battles.

When, in 1943, the axis appeared to be losing the war, many Slavophone Nazi collaborators, Ohrana members and VMRO regiment volunteers fled to the opposite camp by joining the newly founded “Slavomacedonian National Liberation Front” (Slavjano ?akedonski Narodno Osloboditelen Front, SNOF). SNOF, was created by Yugoslav communists with the reluctant acquiescence of the KKE, in the hope that it would draw Slavophones away from the Bulgarian fascist propaganda. KKE was bound by Comintern to recognize the existence of a “Slavomacedonian” population. SNOF regiments fought with ELAS, until they were disbanded by ELAS itself (October 1944) due to SNOF’s overt secessionist propaganda, and driven off Greece.

The Cold War and the Greek Civil War

Bulgarians definitively left Greek territories in October 1944 and reduced (though not abandoned) their “Macedonian” claims. It was now Tito that made use of Slavomacedonism, making the Macedonian issue a Greek-Yugoslav one. In 1945 the largest part of Vardarska formed one of the federate states of Yugoslavia and was renamed to People’s Republic of Macedonia. It was the first time that an official entity bore the name “Macedonia” outside Greece. Until that time, the Greek Province of Macedonia was the only official entity to carry that name. Around that time the terms Vardar, Pirin and Aegean Macedonia were coined, to denote the Yugoslav, Bulgarian and Greek territories of “Macedonia”, respectively, implying that these territories should be united. This irridentism was Tito’s way of projecting expansionist claims over Greek Macedonia. This time also brought a qualitative differentiation of Slavomacedonism. Up till that time, Greek, Ottoman, Bulgarian, or other records, spoke about Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish, Armenian, Jewish, etc, populations of Macedonia. In that way, the term “Macedonian” was only used to describe the place of one’s residence. As of that time, however, the meaning of that term was transformed to denote a new ethnicity, that of “Macedonians”, whose ancestry dated back to the ancient Macedons. Thus, a new “nation” was born. The language of that “nation” was dubbed “Macedonian”, disregarding the fact that it was mainly Bulgarian, whereas all ancient coins and inscriptions excavated throughout Macedonia are in Greek.

At that time, SNOF was succeeded (April 23rd, 1945) by the NOF (National Liberation Front), a secessionist organization calling for the independence of the “Macedonian people”. Although KKE and its leader Nikos Zahariadis initially denounced NOF for adopting this line, at the end of 1945 they chose to “overlook” it, being in need of Yugoslav cooperation. The imminent Greek Civil war between Communists (Democratic Army of Greece) and the official Greek National Army, dictated that the KKE-NOF relations be “normalized”. Thus KKE again changed its position vis-a-vis Slavomacedonism (which now became more acceptable) and NOF (which it fought on the side of the Democratic Army during the Greek Civil war).

In 1947, under the Bled Agreement (or Tito-Dimitrov treaty, August 2nd, 1947) between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, Bulgaria agreed to recognize a Macedonian nation and language and to prepare the way for a unification of the “Vardar Macedonia” with the “Pirin Macedonia”. Tito envisioned a Balkan Federative Republic with him at the helm. This, among others, angered Stalin. The subsequent Tito-Stalin split in the summer of 1948 brought this agreement to an effective collapse, as Bulgaria withdrew from it under Soviet pressure, while denouncing all their bilateral accords and breaking diplomatic relations.

This rift between Tito and Stalin brought KKE between a rock and a hard place: it collaborated with the Yugoslav-influenced NOF, but received Soviet aid through Bulgaria. In trying to please both, it tepidly accepted Cominform’s decision to denounce Tito, without however overtly turning against Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, this caused the pro-Yugoslav wing of NOF to start organizing desertions of Slavophone fighters of the Democratic Army into Yugoslavia. Under these developments, and to counter these desertions, Zahariadis imposed yet a new line during the 5th Plenary Session of KKE in 1949: he called for “national reinstatement and self-determination of the Macedonian people”, while it was announced that the 2nd NOF conference would rally for “a united and independent Macedonia in a People’s Balkan Federation”. This decision brought him against not only Tito, whose Yugoslav-centered Slavomacedonism he questioned. It also brought him against Greece, whose territorial integrity was thus jeopardized.

At the same time, Tito’s defiance toward Stalin and the USSR, dictated that NATO offered a preferential treatment to Yugoslavia. Therefore, during the Cold War, Greece (albeit a NATO ally after 1954) had to “go along and get along” since the Macedonian issue was considered secondary. During the Cold War period and under Tito, the “Macedonian history” was rewritten in order to create a new “Macedonian” national identity. Slavomacedonism was officially introduced in schools and Universities and used to raise new generations. The “Macedonian language”, an idiom very close to, and intelligible with Bulgarian was codified at that time. And the links between Alexander the Great and modern Slavs started to be forged. This systematic work persisted throughout this period and raised new generations:

1983: Toronto Ethnic Heritage Festival. “Ethno-geographical” map of Macedonia

1983:  A group of “Macedonian” folk dancers.


1992: 7th and 8th grade FYROM schoolbooks (pp. 155 and 162, respectively) depicting the “geographic and ethnic” boundaries of Macedonia.

After the Cold War

This “Pandora’s box” reopened with the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation and the independence of its constituent states. The “Socialist Republic of Macedonia”, as was formerly named within Yugoslavia, dropped the “Socialist” and demanded recognition as “Republic of Macedonia” after seceding from the Yugoslav Federation (1991). Its Slavophone inhabitants, after decades of indoctrination, could not bear the blow of abandoning their glorious “links” with Alexander the Great, as that would deprive them of an equally glorious past. As acknowledged by Roudometof: “By 1983, only 10% of FYROM’s population had been born before 1923. This means that a considerable portion of FYROM’s current population has been socialized into the Macedonian national culture (as it evolved through the course of the post-1944 period) and has no personal experience of the Macedonian Question as it was expressed during the interwar period (1918-1941) or earlier“. [5]

After two years of dispute with Greece, the newly independent state was admitted in the UN under the provisional name of “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (April, 1993), pending settlement of the naming issue. This decision of the Greek government (of the conservative New Democracy party) was so controversial that it caused its collapse, when several of its deputies split from the party, thus toppling its slim majority. The government of PASOK, that took power after the next elections, imposed an embargo on FYROM as of February 1994. This lasted until September 1995, when under US pressure the embargo was lifted and the Interim Accord was signed. Under that accord the two countries pledged to continue negotiations, while FYROM was obliged to remove the Vergina’s sun from its flag (a symbol of the ancient Greek kings of Macedonia) and promised to revise its constitution so as to remove from it any expansionist allusions.[6] However, the use of the term “Macedonia” which Greece vehemently opposed and which FYROM refused to drop, led to an effective halt of the discussions. This changed in 2004 after the recognition of FYROM by the USA under its constitutional name, as we mentioned in the beginning.

This unresolved matter has not assisted the stability of FYROM, which is inherently unstable due to its ethnic composition. Its Albanian minority adheres to the vision of a “Great Albania” rather than to that of Slavomacedonism. Their language is Albanian and not the Slavic spoken by the Slav majority (very close to Bulgarian). In addition, they are Muslim, in contrast to the Christian Slav majority. The Albanian minority had repeatedly protested regarding its treatment by the government. In January 2001 the National Liberation Army (NLA), an Albanian paramilitary, started attacks against government forces, in a way similar to that of the KLA in Kosovo. The armed conflicts reached the brink of civil war, before the US and the EU intervened, by having the two sides sign the Ohrid Accord in August 2001.

Today, FYROM remains unstable, with the US acting as the guarantor of its territorial integrity. The centrifugal forces due to the Albanian minority are certainly far from quenched by the financial adversities of the country. With an official 35% unemployment rate (the grey market is estimated to more than 20% of the GDP) and about a third of its population below the poverty line, it is heavily dependent upon foreign investment for its economy to function. In 2007, Greek capitals invested in FYROM had reached 950 million Euro (US$1.42 billion), rendering Greece the largest foreign investor of the country. The 300 Greek businesses active in FYROM account for 20,000 jobs.

In the second part, we will review the recent developments in the Greece-FYROM conflict and their geopolitical context.



[1] D. Missev-Obreikov, 1885, “Report on the Present Situation of Bulgarism in Macedonia”, by the Secretary-General of the Bulgarian Exarchate. Cited by Evangelos Kofos in “Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia“, 1964, Institute of Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, pp. 12-13. Taken from D. Vogazlis, “Macedonia: a Comparative Historical, Ethnological nd Legal Study“, 1962 Athens, unpublished.

[2] Horace G. Lunt, 1984 “Some Sociolinguistic Aspects of Macedonian and Bulgarian.” In Language and Literary Theory, edited by Benjamin A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik, and Lubomir Dolezel, 83-132. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

[3] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. The first Pan-Slav Congress, held at Prague in 1848 [...] was confined to the Slavs under Austrian rule and was anti-Russian. The humiliating defeat suffered by Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56) helped transform a vague, romantic Russian Slavophilism into a militant and nationalistic Russian Pan-Slavism. [...] Pan-Slav publicist [...] Rotislav Andreyevich Fadeyev [...] claimed that it was Russia’s mission to liberate the Slavs from Austrian and Ottoman domination by war and to form a Russian-dominated Slavic federation. [publicist Nikolai Yakovlevich] Danilevsky predicted a long conflict between Russia and the rest of Europe, to be followed by a federation of states including the Greeks, Magyars, and Romanians as well as the Slavs.

[4] VMRO is Mr Gruevski’s party currently governing FYROM. During the 30’s it was led by Ivan “Vancha” Mihailoff. Mihailoff was a close friend and collaborator of Ante Pavelic, the leader of the Croatian Nazi organization of Ustashe. In fact, it was Mihailoff that introduced Pavelic to Heinrich Himmler, leading to the Croatian-Nazi alliance during the war. For more information on Pavelic see here and for more of his photos see here.

[5] Victor Roudometof, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 1996, 14:2, 253-301.

[6] The following articles imply territorial claims and have been recently commented here.

Article 3. Par. 1: The territory of the Republic of Macedonia is indivisible and inviolable.
Par. 2: The existing borders of the Republic of Macedonia are inviolable.
Par. 3: The borders of the Republic of Macedonia can only be changed in accordance with the Constitution and on the principle of free will, as well in accordance with generally accepted international norms.

Par. 4: The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial pretensions towards any neighboring state.

Article 49. Par. 1: The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian expatriates, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them. In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.

Article 68. Par. 1: The Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia:…
- makes decisions concerning any changes in the borders of the Republic;

In red, are the amendments to accomodate Greek concerns, which nevertheless, leave the core of the articles intact.

Macedonia – More than a name

Monday, October 13th, 2008

Macedonia – More than a name -

A great five part history of Macedonia!…eature=related