|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 26, 2008 18:47:10 GMT -5
Colonists...what does that mean?? From the dictionary. col·o·nist - n. 1. An original settler or founder of a colony. 2. An inhabitant of a colony.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 26, 2008 18:57:36 GMT -5
Colony = a colony in politics and in history, is considered a territory under the political control of a state.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 26, 2008 21:30:25 GMT -5
Alexander the Great had Illyrian stock. His father was partly Illyrian and his mother was fully Illyrian. difference at all, except that Greeks are thick-minded, they can't recognize the truth, the origin and ethnic purity is what Greeks are most sensitive about OK I’ll take the bait … I know that’s what it is … Actually Albanian thick-headedness is proverbial in Greece – at least that of the Arvanites. There is an expression “Arvanitiko kefali’ which encapsulates this idea and it is spelled out by the author Strati Mirivilis in his ‘Vasili o Arvanitis’ in which the central character Vasilis is given that nickname because of his stubborn thick-headedness. For the life of me I cannot fully understand this insistence of Albanians to count Epirus as somehow theirs from time immemorial – something that flies in the face of all available evidence. Sure, in more modern times there were many Albanians (or people of Albanian origin) in Epirus mainly along parts of the coast and largely restricted to the district of Thesprotia (Chamuria) and there were Vlachs on the Pindus - both groups flanking a central Greek core. Historical records are very clear as to the arrival of both Albanians and Vlachs into the area; the relevant chronicles are unambiguous and talk of the native Greeks’ distress at their arrival. There is, however, no record of a mass invasion from southern Greece into Epirus to account for their dominant presence there. These simple facts alone make the conclusion an obvious and unavoidable one: the Greeks were there from the start and by the time of the arrival of Albanians and Vlachs in the 14th century they had long absorbed whatever Slavs may earlier have been there. The argument that the Greek zone of Epirus is explained through the hellenization of Illyrian inhabitants there simply does not hold water in the light of evidence from all available sources. I won’t tire you (and myself) with endless primary quotes which will probably be ignored anyway – at any rate these can be readily sourced – but I will leave you with some thoughts … Who? When? How were the Epirotes hellenized? How remarkable it is that only the Epirotes were hellenized and not the Illyrians! Why is it that there is ALWAYS a differentiation between Epirotes and Illyrians despite their undoubted sharing in many respects, of similar culture and tribal institutions; elements that were usually looked down upon as barbarous by the city-state Greeks in respect of both groups. If both were Illyrian-speakers why did the Greeks invariably talk of Illyrians as separate to Epirotes? How is it that there was a clear demarcation in their (the southern Greeks’) thinking as to what tribe was Illyrian and what tribe Epirote? In the absence of any real and salient geographical barrier between the two groups why was it clear to the ancients which were Epirote lands and which Illyrian? Why did this geographic definition change with the southwards advance of recognizably Illyrian groups? What was the ‘trip-wire’ that caused ancient geographers and other observers travelling up the Ionian coast, for instance, to stop talking of Epirotes and to start talking of Illyrians? [In the classical period the ‘boundary’ between the two settled at a ‘line’ in present day south Albania]. How is it that the Epirote tribes – said to be fourteen - can be so readily and (generally) consistently enumerated? What were the criteria for this grouping given that the tribes were not all, at all times, part of one unified ‘Epirote’ state (if this was where your mind was heading)? After all, an Epirote alliance/confederacy was achieved only in the mid-fourth century under the hegemony of the Molossians; talk of Epirotes long preceded this. What of the constant evidence about Illyrian ‘outsiders’ … invaders … marauders – a menace that needed to be addressed? What about the ‘Illyrian mountains’ that overlooked Pelagonia (I mentioned these in the other thread)? Let’s not forget that the Pelagones (like the Orestians, Lykestians and Elimeians) were also Epirotes before later becoming politically Macedonians = ‘Upper Macedonians’. They were probably the most outlying Epirotes at that point in time. Just imagine for a moment you are a Pelagonian in ancient times living in the plain-lands in the vicinity of today’s Bitola and Prilep in the FYROM. You look towards a mountain region to your north or north-west from where marauding bands of Illyrians would periodically come down and devastate your lands. It is not surprising that you know those mountains as the ‘Illyrian mountains’… And we haven’t even mentioned the overwhelming bearing that linguistics has on this discussion ... which is of-course the most direct and unambiguous type of evidence. Why do the available Epirote texts indicate clearly that the Epirotes spoke their own distinct version of North-West Greek, as one would expect them to have done? If this was a product of hellenization why do we see them speaking a version of North-West Greek rather than a dialect carrying some cultural force – Attic for example? From where did they obtain their regional/rural/’peasant’ patois/dialect? The simple answer is that it was their own dialect. So as Epirotes, both Alexander’s mother Olympias and his paternal grandmother Eurydice were NOT Illyrian. As for the Makedones, well, they were even further removed geographically from the Illyrians. Their historic homeland was in the northern foothills of Mount Olympus and thus they originally had the Epirote Pelagones/Orestians/Lynkestians/Elimeians (who would later become the ‘Upper Makedones’) as a geographic buffer between themselves and the Illyrians. The Makedones eventually expanded out of their Olympian home to take alluvial Emathia and later the rest of lowland regions now known as the ‘Salonika’ plain. Eventually they would incorporate their cultural and linguistic cousins, the ‘Upper Macedonians’, into their kingdom thus creating an area of greater territorial depth and the main engine of their state. It is entirely logical to expect a fairly ‘organic’ absorption of these regions into the Macedonian state in a way not possible with the various other non-Greek-speaking peoples (largely, but not exclusively, Thracian and Illyrian) many of whom they obliterated in the early stages of Macedonian expansion. The fact that they shared a very similar dialect with the Upper Makedones (as evidenced, for instance, by the Pella katadesmos – and again why are the Macedonians speaking a rough form of North-West Greek?) makes this amalgamation entirely ‘natural’ (for want of another word) and an efficient step which contributed greatly to the state’s growing strength and resources and allowed it eventually to put an end to the Illyrian menace. I cannot imagine the viability of an ‘Austro-Hungary’ set-up in such a restricted area where there was a union of sorts between a Greek and non-Greek entity. That is, between Greek ‘Upper Makedones’ and non-Greek Makedones or vice versa. The strength of the Macedonian kingdom lay in the creation of a state built around the enlarged Greek-speaking ‘Macedonian/Upper-Macedonian’ core sharing basically the same dialect, a reservoir of similar onomastics, culture etc etc. This idea is succinctly captured in the quote from the Oxford Classical Dictionary which I think is useful to repeat here: “ The potentiality of the Macedonian kingdom was realized by Philip II. By defeating the northern barbarians and incorporating the Greek-speaking Upper Macedonians he created a superb army, which was supported by other peoples who were brought by conquest into the enlarged kingdom: Illyrii, Paeonians and Thracians – with their own non-Greek languages – and Chalcidians and Bottiaeans, both predominantly Greek-speaking. ‘He created a united kingdom from many tribes and nations’”. The Macedonians’ own traditions indicate that in getting to their historic home in the Pierian mountains north of Olympus, they travelled down the Aliakmon river probably from what would later become Orestis. Let’s not forget Herodotus’ reference to their dwelling as ‘Makednoi and Dorieis’ in the Pindus. In my opinion this large Makednian/Dorian group splintered into the various tribes that would later make their own destinies in different parts of the Greek world while some of the remnants coalesced in Orestis retaining the Makednian name. Eventually they migrated down the Aliakmon to land in their historic homeland in the northern foothills of Olympus and from there the rest ‘is history’. It is also significant in my opinion that the Aliakmon basin, Pieria and Emathia - representing most of the lands of the Upper Makedones and the original homelands of the Makedones themselves - remained Greek-speaking until modern times and were apparently the areas to which the Greek Macedonians receded in the wake of the Slavic flood. I won’t bother with discussions about the prehistory of Epirus and western Macedonia ie the ‘Proto-Greek zone, and the traditions of so many Greek tribes in antiquity pointing to origins in those areas. There is literally a world of documentary evidence underlining the fact that Epirotes and Makedones were essentially Greek. But, other than esoteric mumo-jumbo name-playing, what do the Albanians have for these groups’ supposed Illyrianess? … that they were often called ‘barbarians’ and the inferences of some nineteenth and early twentieth century historians drawn from this… So, in conclusion, Alexander was Greek from both sides of his family. But ultimately, even if this wasn’t the case, as BR pointed out … would it really have made a difference?
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 26, 2008 21:45:09 GMT -5
Thank you BBB... for clearing that up.... it's always pleasant to read your posts..... no matter how long they are... I always make a point of going through them .
I think this has been discussed to the bone... in the last 6 years that I have been here and like Anittas said there is no new evidence brought to the table... so this thread will be closed very soon....
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 0:12:37 GMT -5
Thank you BBB... for clearing that up.... it's always pleasant to read your posts..... no matter how long they are... I always make a point of going through them . I think this has been discussed to the bone... in the last 6 years that I have been here and like Anittas said there is no new evidence brought to the table... so this thread will be closed very soon.... Thanks Kanari ... I realise I write a 'little' too much most times. I don't usually have the time to respond piecemeal and tend to save it up for when I can sit in front of the computer for a long enough period of time ... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 27, 2008 1:54:11 GMT -5
And I have the same question: How were the Epiriotes Albanised??
|
|
|
Post by albquietman on Jan 27, 2008 1:54:50 GMT -5
You mean my ex-wife...yes she is greek.
Well, being a grekofile doesn't mean you have to be married to a greek, but if by your greek standarts you should, then I'm not officially a grekofile anymore...
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 27, 2008 2:23:19 GMT -5
Sorry to hear that ALbq....
|
|
|
Post by albquietman on Jan 27, 2008 2:28:30 GMT -5
Thanks...that's life I guess...
|
|
|
Post by areianos on Jan 27, 2008 5:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 6:55:39 GMT -5
And I have the same question: How were the Epiriotes Albanised?? ?
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 27, 2008 6:59:41 GMT -5
BigBlackBeast,
You are telling lies and denying the facts. Why are you denying the fact that many Macedonian kings had Illyrian wifes and mothers?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:04:17 GMT -5
And I have the same question: How were the Epiriotes Albanised?? Teuta, when were the Epirotes ever Albanised? The only answer that could be salvaged for such a question is: "sometime after the Albanians migrated/invaded Epirus in the early fourteenth century ... and then only in certain districts". I guess your question is similar to asking: How were the inhabitants of the Argocorinth and Attikoboiotia Albanised? If anything the Albanian settlers in Epirus were Epirotised ... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:04:53 GMT -5
BTW What's with this karma thing?
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 27, 2008 7:38:45 GMT -5
BigBlackBeast, You are telling lies and denying the facts. Why are you denying the fact that many Macedonian kings had Illyrian wifes and mothers? I'm not denying anything and I certainly do not set out to tell lies. I never professed to be an expert in ancient Macedonian royal genealogy and you may very well have information in this sphere of greater depth than what I possess. If you paid attention you would have seen that my focus was on outlining the ethnic affinities of the Epirotes and Makedones. That royalty in both these areas (and I'm not just talking about the major royal houses but also of smaller houses in those areas) married foreigners there is no doubt. Philip II for example made a habit of marrying a new woman whenever political/military circumstances dictated. Thus he was first married to Phila from the royal line of the Elimeians; to Olympias of the Molossian royal house; to Cleopatra the daughter of one of his generals; to Philinna of Larissa in Thessaly; to Nikasopolis of Pherae in Thessaly; to Meda of the Getae and to the Illyrian Audata whose name was promptly and very tellingly hellenized to Eurydi.ke upon her marriage. (This thing doesn't let me place an 'i' in Eurydike where the asterisk is?!) Thus there were certainly marriages with various non-Macedonian groups including Illyrians but how many Illyrian women actually bore Macedonian kings - I don't know. However, neither Philip nor Alexander were one of them. If you have facts to supply .... supply them and cut the accusations**. [** polite internet tone used rather than actual tone employed in real life]
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 27, 2008 10:55:34 GMT -5
Kasso..provide facts to your accusations... or risk being censored for the upteen time...
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 27, 2008 11:00:35 GMT -5
Weather or not the Epirotes were Greeks or Illyrians is not a established fact, they could very well be a population of their own with Hellenic & Illyrian influence.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 27, 2008 11:16:55 GMT -5
I am going somewhat off topic here... most of you say that Northern Epirus did not have many Greeks... they got there after WW2 to escape government forces..... yet I found a query made to the U.S. guvmint in 1917..that they wanted to join the Motherland.... the place had so many Greeks.... NyTImes
|
|
|
Post by kasso on Jan 27, 2008 11:21:47 GMT -5
According to official Post Ottoman statistics, there were about 37,000 Greeks in Albania out of a population of one million people.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 27, 2008 11:28:47 GMT -5
Post Ottoman? Link?
|
|