Talk:History of North Macedonia

Untitled
I should kindly ask The Free Encyclopedia-Wikipedia, why the Greek language is not included, but there are smaller populations' languages (such as "makedonski") and why the FYROM (that is the United Nations' official name of that country)is called "Republic of Macedonia"...

On the Title & Nationalism
Just so we keep the names of the articles consistent, shouldn't this article be titled History of the Former Yoguslavian etc.? --Dante Alighieri 22:29 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be logical. There are about 9 "subpages" that would need to be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.37.106 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2002 (UTC)


 * HISTORY OF FYROM IS NOT HISTORY OF MACEDONIA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.34.67 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2002 (UTC)

Whatever you say, whatever you do, you won't be able to deny me and my nation. You can claim that I am Bulgarian, Greek, Serb or Chineese, but it won't change the fact that I am only Macedonian and very proud to be one.

My grandfather was shoot 3 times from the Bulgarians, because he was Macedonian and didn't wanted to accept the presure from Bulgarians to become a part of them.

My other grandfather was runned away from Kukus (Kilkis) in the Macedonian part of Greece because he was Macedonian. His house was burned and he had to choose between death and leaving his birthland.

Please, all of you nationalistic minds, just visit some area where the Macedonian live. You will see how wrong you are and all your words go in vain, because the Macedonian nation exist for thoulsands of years and it can not be destroyed with words of people who haven't read any other history book except their schoolbook published by their own goverments.

The antique Macedonians were high, light haired people. Just pass through Macedonia and Greece and analise the look of the people.

Or read about some scientific experiment that includes DNA test for origin of the nations. You will conclude by yourself who is more luckily to be ancestor of the Antique Macedonians and how different are nowday Macedonians from any other nation that surround us.

If Macedonians were a product of Tito, how can you explain the 1000s of Macedonians which feel of Macedonian nationality that live in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania, where Tito was not the leader? Or the 1000s that live all over the world that left Macedonia far before Tito appeared?

One more fact. Macedonians are the ONLY nation of many in the region that is strictly concentrated in the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. Not Greeks, not Bulgarians, not Albanians, not Serbs. Try to deny this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I sterbinski (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your nation exist for sure but I believe it's quite new. How is that I never met none of these thousands of Macedonians living in Bulgaria? In my personal opinion a nation exist if there are people that feel like part of this nation. However I seriously doubt there were people that felt Macedonians before the end of the 19th century.


 * I don't understand what you expect. The whole Bolkan Peninsula given back to Republic of Macedonia because it was part of ancient Macedon state? I don't understand why the Greek guys flame either. You want the whole Bolkan Peninsula to be given back to Greece because it was a part of ancient Greece? Come on guys just stop it don't you see we have a common history and I'm sure the DNA research you suggested will prove just this. -- --Naib Stilgar 23:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Check this out. Here are several links that show that Macedonians were present at least since the 15th century: []. I can bet my life that your school book does not say that. Macedonian(talk)Flag of Macedonia.svg 00:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bulgars, a Central Asian Turkic tribe, merged with the local Slavic inhabitants in the late 7th century to form the first Bulgarian state. In succeeding centuries, Bulgaria struggled with the Byzantine Empire to assert its place in the Balkans, but by the end of the 14th century the country was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. Northern Bulgaria attained autonomy in 1878 and all of Bulgaria became independent in 1908. Having fought on the losing side in both World Wars, Bulgaria fell within the Soviet sphere of influence and became a People's Republic in 1946. Communist domination ended in 1990, when Bulgaria held its first multiparty election since World War II and began the contentious process of moving toward political democracy and a market economy while combating inflation, unemployment, corruption, and crime. Today, reforms and democratization keep Bulgaria on a path toward eventual integration into the EU. The country joined NATO in 2004.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html#Intro

In this study we have established the frequencies of the DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 haplotypes in a large cohort of Sardinian new-borns and found that the most frequent haplotypes were detected at frequencies unique to the Sardinians. Other haplotypes, common in other Caucasian populations, are rare or absent across the island. Next, the DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 haplotype frequencies obtained in Sardinians and those reported in other human populations were used to compute genetic distances and construct phylogenetic trees. A clear-cut pattern appeared with a split between the three major human groups: Caucasians, Asians and Blacks. Among the Caucasians there were three major clusters: a group representing the North-Africans, a group including most of the European-derived populations and a group encompassing Bulgaria, Greece and Sardinia. When we increased the resolution of the tree using the genetic distances calculated from both DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 haplotypes and class I HLA A, B, C allelic frequencies, the Sardinians clearly emerged as the major outlier among the various European populations considered in this study. These results indicate that the genetic structure of the present Sardinian population is the result of a fixation of haplotypes, which are very rare elsewhere, and are most likely to have originated from a relatively large group of founders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmacedon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited by true MACEDONIAN: This is the biggest bullshit I ever heard of... If you wrote it down with capital letters it doesen't mean that you're right or on second thought that you're not talking crap. You can read and searc you'll see what your granddas did to my people. Go to hell you, for telin lies and fuck Wikipedia for supporting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.78.9 (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriously!? You mean the name Makedonia, probably... Because the people in Republic of Macedonia, the Pirin Macedonia and the Aegean Macedonia since 1000 years was, is and will be bulgarian. There's no other nation, which in three states is called in three different names - in Bulgaria - bulgarians, in RM - macedonians, in Greece - slavs or "voulgarophoni ellines" (bulgarian-speaking greeks), and finally in Albania, some call itself Bulgarians, other - Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.139.48 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2005 (UTC)


 * Before the Ottoman Turks occupied territory of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that region was part of Serbia, under the rule of Serbian kings and local Serbian lords. Hundreds of churches and monasteries were built by Serbian lords and kings. Skopje was the capital city of Serbian kings.


 * Macedonia is a historic region in Northern Greece. Everything that is related to the name Macedonia is related to Greece. That was the reason that in Serbia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they never use that name. They used name South Serbia or Old Serbia.


 * After communists took power in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, they supported communist guerilla in Northern Greece (Macedonia), hoping to establish communist government in Greece and took control over the Northern Greece. That was the reason why they created Republic of Macedonia in South Serbia.


 * The Slavic population of modern FYR Macedonia is a mix of Bulgarians and Serbs. However, they feel they are distinctive people. I have no problem with their feelings except I do not like idea of using Greek name Macedonia. That name has nothing to do with ethnic background of inhabitants of FYR Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.69.85 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, I do not want to offense anybody. I am Bulgarian, but I think that Republic of Macedonia is noone's land but to the people who live and are born in Republic of Macedonia. Everybody has the right to feel him/herself Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian etc.... Some of my forefathers are Macedonians, but I can assure you they were not Greeks, though they spoke Greek.
 * But there is one interesting fact:
 * Have you ever watched old Macedonian movies from the 1950s, have you ever heard the language they speak - it is just pure Bulgarian (now called "old macedonian"). And now Macedonians have to use subtitles to understand some of the words in their "new macedonian"!?! It is more than weird :))))
 * Some people in Bulgaria say that "New Macedonian language" is spoiled bulgarian typed by Serbian typewriter.
 * About Serbia who ruled Macedonia and bla-bla-bla - it happened once, i think about 1350, it was not very long (shortly after that turks came ... and you know...) Do the Serbians know that name of their capital now - Belgrade, comes from Bolgrad (Bulgarian city; Болгарски град). What can I say GIVE BACK BELGRADE TO BULGARIANS hahahaha :)
 * And about the fanatic Greek guy, I read somewhere "Macedonia is Greek...blabla etc." I have just one queston: Why nowadays Greece(Elada) is called Greece and not Byzantium. Just compare: Bulgaria has always been known as Bulagria in the Balkans!!! Bregmatorie 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny - we Macedonians think that Bulgarian is a very uncomfortable and, I should say - ugly language. Bomac 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as ugly as your momma :)))))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CernSwiss (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, your aunt/sister/poor old granny can't even compare with it! :-D)) Bomac 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not offense each other. All I did was to represent some facts (about the so called "old" and "new" Macedonian). We can say lots of things about our relatives, but we write here with the only purpose to show each/everybody's point of view, and we can do that only with facts and not with my mom, your sister or his aunt. And about that Macedonians never have liked Bulgarian language - that's your point of view. I like that. You are honest, I think. And my question is: Have ever watched Macedonian movies from 1950s?

I hope, after watching some movies, you'll be honest again with your answer?

I am not telling you that you are Bulgarian, I do know you are Macedonian, and I do know Macedonia is not Bugarian, all I want you to admit is that, let's say so, both countries have common origins... Bregmatorie 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's true that both - Macedonia and Bulgaria shared common moments in their history, which is a fact. But, anyway, that doesn't means that Macedonians are "separated Bulgarians". The main problem is that noone even tries to understand the situation Macedonians were (I think that is a result of the terittorial pretensions of Bg. and Greece towards Mc.). Noone tries to realize that - since Bulgaria was a free country after Ottoman rule, Macedonia still was a battlefield for all her neighbours - it was a struggle who to grab it first. Even in the Ottoman rule, there were examples of Macedonian self-consciesness - the example with the teachers who tried to make a short grammar of the Macedonian language, from Voden, Aegean Macedonia, whose attempt was ruined by the Turks. And other example - the Macedonian school-book "Abecedar", printed in Greece (caus of the critics of foreigners for the poor treatment of minorities in Greece) written in Latin script (to differ from Serbian and Bulgarian language), which was confiscated by Serbia and Bulgaria because of the Macedonian speech in it (Bitola-Lerin dialect). Bulgaria was always pretensious towards Macedonia, and still is.


 * And about the films - I shall mention again - think of the circumstances, and it doesn't means that if they spoked a similar language to today's Bulgarian that they are de facto Bulgarians. Bomac 12:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bomac, I realize what the circumstanses were, but I also have watched such movies, and the language they spoke in my opinion was pure Bulgarian, with Bulgarian grammar and with Bulgarian pronounciation/accent. That was about 50 years ago, things have changed nowadays. Macedonia is not Bulgaria or better say Bulgarian. If you have noticed the official Macedonian statistics in Macedonia there are about 10 000 Romanians, though Macedonia and Romania do not have common border and are about 300 km away from one another. Bulgarians are the most compact minority if it is mentioned at all. I have a lot of friends whose grandfathers and grandmothers live in Macedonia. Their grandparents have Bulgarian consciousness, but more of them have been threatened by the local authorities. I mean, not very long ago (about 50 years), in Macedonia lived many people who had Bulgarian consciousness. These people exist today, as exist their children and grandchildren. Just have a look at the educational system in Macedonia during the Yugoslavia period!?! More of your famous people or even heroes are claimed to be killed or tortured by Bulgarians. Now comes the problem with the politics that existed - a whole generation knows that Bulgarians are the bad guys...and etc. I want in these discussion people from neighbouring countries to think and not to blame anybody, because we (people from neighbouring countries) are the only ones to be blamed, not the others, because everyone pretends to be right not knowing the other point of view. If a Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Turkey had, by any chance, ruled these lands (Balkans) or different parts of it, doesn't mean people living that part of land/area are the same as their souvereign.


 * ...(cont.)Different nations mixed each other and our grandparents or better say forefathers spoke more than one language - at least two. Who can say what they were thinking they are.


 * My grandgrandfather spoke Bulgarian, Greek, Turkish, Esperanto, Gypsian, but he told me that such nation as Macedonian never had existed. I know things had changed, but I also know what some old people told me. I see that for 50 years there is something like Macedonian nation, though a lot of things still remain unclear. Bregmatorie 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Slavs that today use the name of Macedonia as their own, came to the region on the 7th Century After Christ. Kingdom of Macedonia existed from 4th Century Before Christ. So it is clear that the name of the article should be "History of Macedonia" or "History of Kingdom of Macedonia" and not "History of Republic of Macedonia", though that name is new. Except the greatest event that shows that Slavs who came at that region had no History before the 7th Century is Cyril and Methodius, Greeks Monchs from Thessaloniki who made Slavic language. Macedonians had many ancient scripts which you can find in Museums in Greece and have the same roots with ancient Greek language and no connection with Alphabet of Fyrom's language. In the end there is still many questions if today's country name will be FYROM or something else and of course for the moment not all the countries have accepted the name of Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia as the name of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.244.53 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1912-1944
After the First Balkan War of 1912-13, Vardar Macedonia was made part of Serbia as Vardarska banovina ("Province of Vardar") and subsequently the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, whose 1929 constitution also called the area Vardarska banovina.

Vardar Macedonia became part of Serbia after the Second Balkan War – not after the first one.

We all agree that Turks occupied Vardar Macedonia after Battle of Marica River (1371) or later, but before the fall of Constantinople (1453). Also, there is an historic fact that before occupation, Vardar Macedonia was part of medieval Serbian Kingdom. At the very end, it was the King Vukasin of Serbia who died in Battle of Marica River. He was a legal king of Serbia, approved by Serbian Emperor Uros who ruled together with him. It was also the true that, after the death of Emperor Uros (1371), King Marko of Serbia (Vukasin’s son) was the only legitimate king in Serbia - until he died in Battle in Rovine (1395). Note that title “of Serbia” has nothing to do with their ethnic background.

So, based on this, we may say that, from legal point of view, Serbia returned Vardar Macedonia. That has nothing to do with feelings of local population.

During the short period between the Second Balkan War (1913) and Austrian occupation of Serbia in World War 1 (1915), Vardar Macedonia was known as Južna Srbija ("Southern Serbia") or Stara Srbija (‘Old Serbia”). The same name was used between WW1 and WW2.

Vardarska Banovina never existed until January 6, 1929. Vardarska Banovina included some other territories, not just a territory of modern Republic of Macedonia.

There is no explanation what happened after April 6, 1941. Somebody should write that.

This period is much better explained in the article about Republic of Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.69.85 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?
I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia.

I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction.

My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts.

Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia.

This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia?

Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs.

Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia?

If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!!

Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess.

But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it?

Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians.

Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family.

How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there?

Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito.

Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country.

Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians).

Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled).

Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors).

Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians.

If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed.

Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims.

Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web.

There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia.

The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski - Skopje, Macedonia - is@on.net.mk —Preceding unsigned comment added by I sterbinski (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Macedonian neighbour. I am Bulgarian. I do know you are Macedonian, and I do know Macedonia is not Bugarian. But... as I already wrote: Have ever watched Macedonian movies from 1950s? Have you ever heard the language they speak - it is just pure Bulgarian (now called "Old Macedonian"). And now Macedonians have to use subtitles to understand some of the words in their "New Macedonian"!?! It is more than weird :)))) Bregmatorie 12:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now i think there is somebody that has to kill himself. You really shouldn't play with the devil. And By the way Гоце Делчев is Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.172.129 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that your grandfather must have been a separatist, because i have never heard of an army who would kill their own brothers and sisters! And I would say that you misunderstand what the Miladinovi Brothers and Goce Delcev really mean when they reffer to Macedonians - they meant Bulgarians living in the Macedonian region! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.199.193.217 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

You're writing hundreds of lines without actually saying anything. A Grandfather which says A and B doesn't mean anything here. I don't want to go into a dispute, because the History of Bulgaria and Greece don't need all those 'evidences' that Macedonian history needs. And before writing all those things, have you ever asked yourself - why you only know the truth and the rest of the world doesn't ??? Why only Macedonia knows the whole world history and ALL other states are blind? Why is Macedonia the only country in the Blakans which fights with its neighbours over history and names ??? That is why your statements are beeing deleted, because you have no idea how science works! And you're talking about books printed in Croatia, I recommend reading the books instead ! By the way, that original Book printed in Zagreb in 1801 you're talking about, I've seen it - it says with big letters "Bulgarian National Songs" on the front page! That's why your views shouldn't be published, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. (DerVlad, 30.Nov.07)

My advice to all of you - try avoiding sources from parties involved in this dispute: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Greek, Albanian and Turkish. btw comparing the ancient Macedonian to the Macedonian nowadays is ridiculous. It's like comparing the Bulgars, who occupied part of Ukraine for a while, and the Bulgarians today considering an evolution of more than 1000 years (mixture of Slavs, Bulgars, Getae, Dacians, Huns, Goths, Celts, Turks and God knows what else). Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the ancient thing but it's just insane to say that. Since we are going to use only Macedonian sources here (otherwise I might get shot or something) Macedonians today are considered to be (by some renowned Macedonian historians) "the most Slavic nation of all Slavic nations", which is totally the opposite of saying that "Macedonians today are descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (who are considered to be Greek, who - oh, miracle! - lived on the Greek peninsula). All these discussions sound more like a speech by the "beloved" Hitler and the purity of a nation and a race. I hope most people here agree with me that such things are nonsense because they are in reality impossible to achieve (without death and/or sever genetic deformations because of a very limited gene pool). Rbaleksandar (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Some clarification please
I added a map, because maps are helpful to people who don't know much about the area. I think a much better map is needed. I.E. one that outlines where FYROM, 'Macedonia region', 'Vardar Macedonia'. Aslo if the map could include all of Serbia and Greece, since they play a significant role in this history, that would be great. I would make up the map myself if I knew where to put the lines.

I also have a question, is Vardar Macedonia another name for Macedonia, or is it a region of Macedonia. If it is a region, it says under 1912-1944 that "Vardar Macedonia was made part of Serbia" but doesn't explain what happened with the rest of it. Thanks for any clarification. Matt 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Clarification of "Scientific Paper"


 * As a Ph.D, there was never any DNA work that demonstrated that Ancient Macedonians are of Skopjian origin. The often referenced paper "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" published by Arnaiz-Villena et al., is not a paper to be referenced as it is published first by an author who does shady science Arnaiz-Villena shady science rejected by nature and it was mainly done by biased "scientists" in Skopje.  For example from 3 top geneticists in the field "Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.


 * The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.


 * We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
 * KG Sidiropoulos MSc PhD - University of Toronto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.127.165 (talk) 03:53-03:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

ABOUT THE NAME AND THE ORIGINS OF MACEDONIA
I do not believe that wikipedia should mess up with politican issues as it does in particular with the section about 'The Republic of Macedonia'.What should this article have as material should be the undisputable historic facts dating back since the ancient times.

Therefore,this balkan pepublic should be named FUROM,since this is the name that most countries of the world and the UN accept.

About the history and the origins of the people of that country,my fellow friends who edeit statements about it,should do some studying in advance.

I am Greek,and i will try to give some historical points about the greek view of this issue(which 'surprisendly' is the view of the most historians in the world).

The current state that wants to be called Macedonia and its people Macedonians,cannot claim this name because:

1.The ancient Macedonian Kingdom was expanding only till the southernmost city of that state,Monastir(Vitola).Only in roman times the whole area from almost dunabe to the aedean sea was named Macedonia,as an administrative division of the roman times,and not as historic region.so,FYROM's territory covers only a small area of ancient Macedonia.

2.The ancient historians say that the Macedonians are descendants of the Argeans from the Peloponnese,and so far noone has even thought to deny the greek origins of the argeans.also,according to the ancient writers,the macedonians were speaking the dorian dialect http://www.macedonia.com/english/origin.html

3.If Alexander the Great was not greek,as they state,he would not have been able to participate in the olympic games.his father,Phillip,had also participated.

4.Both the names Alexander and Phillip have a meaning in the greek language,a meaning easily identified by greek speakers.whereas,these names have no meaning in the 'macedonian language'.Alexander=the defender of men/the one who keeps other men away,and in the modern greek language there are hundrends of words that consist of the 2 words of this name: alex=keeps away,ander(andras)=man.it is ridiculous for anyone to say that these names are not greek!

5.There has never been a macedonian language,but only a greek dialect in macedonia.noone has the right to say that such a separate language existed,without having a single evidence about that.the fact that there are no monuments in this 'language' does not mean that someone destroyed probable monuments,but simply that such monuments did never exist...cause the language of the Macedonians was the greek language.

6.Perhaps the strongest evidence that these people are not descended from the ancient Macedonians is that they are slavs,and as everyone knows,the slavs came in the balkans in the 6th century,9 centuries after the death of Alexander!Furthermore,they have always been called either Serbs or Bulgarians,and only during the time of Tito's regime they were named Macedonians.

7.Their language is so similar to the Bulgarian language,that it could easily been stated that it is a dialect of the Bulgarian.

8.The tribes that still exist in Pakistan and Afganistan and claim to be descendants of Alexander's army,say that their ancestors were Greeks(Yunans)and not Macedonians as a separate nation.

I hope that the comments i have edited,will make some people search for more evidence,and that this will lead to the creation of a more accurate article about FYROM.

Perhaps the best solution would be not to remove all the words that are used in the FYROM article and are offensive for the greeks,but to be under the label that these are the things that they claim,and not appear,misleading,that this is the most widely accepted theory.

Before ending this comment,i would like to apologise to the people of FYROM(and to anyone else)who may find this offensive,but i would also like to tell them to search in historic records,before posting...cause no matter what someone says and no matter how many people may believe it,history does not change:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.98.147 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great. All we got is nationalistic claims and a link to a completely pro-Greek web site. Very useful. Macedonian(talk)Flag of Macedonia.svg 00:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really cannot understand people sometimes...How can someone say that the ideas that i posted above are nationalistic?these are just historic facts,written and stated centuries ago!if someone will give pure evidence that what i wrote above is false and misleading,i will be the first among the greeks who will say that FYROM deserves to be named macedonia'!i am pretty sure that most of our fellows will agree with me:without evidence,nothing can be added or changed in any article.so,i will welcome any evidence opposing what is written above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.168.110 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * by a Bulgarian... Dear Greek, I've never heard of the theory with the Olympic games, but would say, that it seems realistic :) I don't think that Ancient Macedonians were 100% Greek, but would say, that they really were closely connected with Greeks. But this does not mean that i'm so naive to think that those peoples there are still the same. I would say that the modern inhabbitants of the Macedonian region are everything but Ancient Macedonians :D There are sure facts that in the 7th century the local inhabittants were such a small number. The slavs who came killed or asimilated them all!!! They united and consolidated with Kuber's Bulgars, Asparuh's Bulgars and Thracians and therefore noone should consider himself an inteligent person if he says that Ancient and Modern Macedonians have anything genetic in common :) From then on I would say that everythink was easy to explain. Those local inhabbitants who talked Greek and considered themselves Greeks should really be considered Greeks, those Macedonian Slavs, who united with Bulgars /bulgars united with slavs, they did not conquere them!!!/ became part of the Bulgarian country /a country with a nation, formed by the unition of slavs, bulgars and local inhabbitants(thracians)/. Those, who did not want to join Bulgars in the Bulgarian country were the other slavs, or i would say Serbs :) NO ANCIENT MACEDONIANS HERE... Just peoples living in the region called "Macedonia" with known origins, who are from the main ethnic groups on the Balkans. Nowadays it is really naive to say that modern Macedonians that live in the borders of FYROM are Greeks, because they do not speak their language, do not have their traditions...and i would say a Greek would never abandon his culture; neither you can consider them to be Serbians, because if they were, they would have joined the country of Serbia and not be separate part of Yougoslavia and now a separate country! Then ... if you don't think that people in FYROM /not concerning albanians/ are Bulgarians, what are they?! Just slavs??? If they really considered themselves separate there would have been revolutions and uprisings from the 7th century untill the 20th century!!! I've never heard of an anti-bulgarian uprising in Macedonia during the First and the Second Bulgarian State. Why would those people allow to be conquered and would never want to be liberated... And why would Samoil proclaim Ohrid a Bulgarian Capital (Macedonians believe that a king, who called HIMSELF "BULGARIAN" was a Macedonian :D :D :D) - a city in the heart of Macedonia, and why would he struggle to regain the power of Bulgaria, but not just enlarge your "Macedonian empire"... and would the Emperor Bazyl be proclaimed Bulgar-slayer after capturing the last independent Bulgarian territories /today's Macedonia/ but not even Slav-slayer ??? No, he wouldn't! This is because there weren't any other slavs there, but Bulgarians... And those people are still the same there! (82.199.193.217 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)yavor)

Documents as a proof of the separate ethnicity of the Macedonians since the 15th century
1) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 15th-18th century].

Adding: "And there are .... many Christians who perforce serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavoni, Razici, Serbians..." - Bertradon de la Broquier, The 15th century travel-writer


 * Bertrand de la Brocuiere noticed not only Serbians, but also Rasians and Esclavinians. Do you think that there is (was) Rasians ethnicity? :) --AKeckarov 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding: "...it is very high, and here are to be found many monasteries of Christian monks, of whom some are Greeks, others Macedonians, Vlachs and even Italians, as well other nations, who live the lives of saints" - Angiolelo about Mt. Athos

2) [| Several Russian documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 18th century]. No wonder they were one of the first that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name.


 * What an argument? Do you know which was the first country that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name? Do you know which was the country that defended United Bulgaria in 1878 (becouse of ethnic reasons too)? Regards, --AKeckarov 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

3) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 19th century].


 * If we refuse to look in our history against a light of all documents, we will stay a victim of propaganda. Here and further there are two kinds of documents - 1. The little part is documents that claims that there are separate nation. 2. The documents out of context. Everywhere that used the term Macedonian in regional sense you interpret this like a ethnic term. --AKeckarov 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

4) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the first 19 years of the 20th century].

5) [| From La Macédoine et les Macédoniens, by Edmond Bouchié de Belle [E.B.de Belle, published in Paris (Librairie Armand Colin), 1922, completed in 1918]].

6) [| Letters to "Rizospastis" (Journal of the Greek Communist Party), 1932nd-1935th]. So, not all the Greek sources were denying the existance of a Macedonian ethicity.

At the end, here is what the French Consul in Salonica (end of 18th century) Felix de Beaujour tought of Macedonia: "If one regards Macedonia from the point of view of its natural advantages, one comes to the conclusion that there exists no land in Europe where the people have more prospects of prosperity. But if it is viewed from the aspect of its political forms, one comes to the conclusion that all the misfortunes of the barbarian administration have been assembled here in order to paralyze one of the most beautiful regions of the world in all its richness and variety of products".

The Macedonian question is a clear example why many people use the phrase "the asshole of the whole world" to reffer to the Balkan. And, I don't blame them at all... Macedonian(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

By the smae Bulgarian... Why do you think, that when someone says "Macedonians" he means a different nation?!!! Do you think yankees are not Amerikans!!! Have you heard of the term "Shopi". Bulgrians call this way the people who live in Central Western(where Sofia is) and Northwestern Bulgaria. Their dialect is a bit different form the officialy recognized and their genetic code is a bit different /more people with blue eyes for example :)/ People who live in Pirin Macedonia, who consider themselves Macedonians/people who live in the region of Macedonia, but not part of an unreal nation/ are very close to them and have little differences with them to and even bigger with eastern Bulgarians. What I want to say is that the "Shopi" would neeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrr, I repeat: NEVER, consider themselves not being Bulgarians! They really think that they are part of our nation and not a different one, even if they have differences with eastern and central Bulgarians! ... And finally... Sth interesting. My grandmother's family comes from the region of Kukush /nowadays Greek Macedonia/! They all moved to Pomorie /a town on the coast of the Black sea/. She would aways consider herself a Macedonian. She really has the spirit, the character of a Macedonian. But considering herself a Macedonian does not mean that she thinks that she is part of a nation different from the Bulgarian! She really feels that she is Bulgarian, that all Macedonians are Bulgarians! (82.199.193.217 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)yavor)

Bertrand de la Brocuiere
I am very grateful for the quotation of Bertrand de la Brocuiere the above. I spent some time to verify this sourse, but it was useful for me, because I found one more confirmation for my personal oppinion for Macedonistic (non Macedonian, because I am Macedonian too) theory. So, under the term "Macedonia" Bertrand de la Brocuiere didn't ment some part ot the present region of Macedonia (Vardar, Pirin or Aegean). Like many other authors he was influenced from some medieval ideas for Macedonia (the other authors was influenced from earliest antique's ideas for Balkan geography) and he clearly defined Macedonia in present day Thrace, in Maritsa valley. He wrote that the capital of Macedonia was Filipopolis (Plovdiv) in present Bulgaria. And when he talk about Macedonians he didn't ment the inhabitants of present Macedonia.

Please, let do not forget thet the border between propaganda and science is very thin. Regards, --AKeckarov 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes ,but also the border between seeing things black and white and science is thin too. Cheers, Bomac 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I am acquainted, the period 1018-1187 that territory was ruled by Byzantium. And that territory was divided into areas called "themas" (Тема;-и); there were different "themas" and some of them were Bulgaria, Paristria, Macedonia. But old administrative area called "thema" Macedonia and geografical Macedonia we understand today (Republic of Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Greek Macedonia.. etc.)have almost nothing in common Bregmatorie 12:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

prior to 1912
why isnt there no info about events prior to 1912? (im a moderate and peaceful greek, i dont want to offend anybody, pls dont offend me neither)--Greece666 07:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's not the history of the Republic of Macedonia. It's the history of the wider Macedonian region and it is all covered there. Covering it here as well would be harmful by it constituting a fork. Telex 12:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * telex: fair enough, but history of france is not the history of the french state. besides if its the history of the republic of macedonia it should start from the 1990s. anyway, i understand theres another article and im not going to cover here pre-1912 events.--Greece666 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it is bad idea to start history from 1912. Republic of Macedonia was formed in 1944, not in 1912, by the way. I suppose that this article starting from the year when Macedonia region was divided between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia describing the history of the part that was included into Serbia and later became RM. However, this view might not be correct. Macedonia region already was divided before 1912 (it belonged to 3 Ottoman vilayets), not to mention its division in medieval times. There are things that are very relevant for the history of the Republic of Macedonia prior to 1912, like mention that Skopje was capital of the Kosovo Vilayet or mention of the medieval local rulers, Kralj Marko, Konstantin Dragaš, etc. Not to mention the historical importance of the town of Ohrid, or that capitals of both, Serbian and Bulgarian Empires were here, etc. There are much things that could be written about pre-1912 period which will speak only about territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia and will not interfere with the history of Greek part of Macedonia region. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And here is my proposal about compromise solution: to avoid revert wars about history of ancient Macedon, history in this article should start from the time when Slavs settled in the Balkans describing the history of the Slavs from the territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia through the centuries. Opinions? PANONIAN   (talk)  03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the article and the scope of the republic's history
This article needs to be completely rewritten, as it only throws bits of information scattered accross a century. I do agree however that the history of the state with a constitutional name of "Republic of Macedonia" should beging about the end of the Balkan Wars. The previous history of the region Macedonia already has it's own article.

Also, can everybody that writes anything in this article please quote their sources unless it is a recent information that can be verified by googling it. Also phrases like 'the greek government said ...' or 'the bulgarian government disliked ...' are weasel phrases, please quote your sources, and when possible, try to show all the sides of the argument. -- Capricornis 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you; there is no point in including information about the history of older time periods (particularly those relating to ancient Macedon) as this is an article about the republic calling itself "Republic of Macedonia", not the general region of Macedonia (region). If anyone wants to argue that these older time periods should constitute part of the history of the republic, then they should definitely support this with citations from well-established peer-reviewed journals, as this is not a view that is shared by the mainstream of the scholarly community. --Radjenef (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to be bold about this and remove the part about the ancient period. I am open to discuss this in a civilized manner in case someone has any objections. As far as I can see, Jingiby added this section last May without discussing this in the talk page, despite the general consensus at the time (see section "9. prior to 1912" of the talk page). Essentially, since this concerns the history of the ancient region of Macedonia, not the self-proclaimed modern day republic, it is already covered in Macedonia (region). Repeating these things here constitutes a fork with unfortunate implications. One could easily be confused into believing that the modern day republic has a legitimate claim to the history of Macedon. Beltenebros also explains this whole argument quite eloquently in section "1. Changes needed" (=Ancient Period=). --Radjenef (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, people have been editing this page a lot since I last logged in. Why was the "Ancient Period" section restored again without even discussing it in the talk page? This is highly irregular and certainly does not result from consensus! Is there a person moderating alterations in this page? If yes, then this would probably be the time to step in! --Radjenef (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Ancient Period" section was added again yesterday by Jingiby. On his edit summary he indicated:


 * "The history of the RoM has begun in 1944, however there are mentions about every perion since the region was populated. The text is also referenced."


 * I disagree with that and I have repeatedly explained that this constitutes a fork, since these things are already covered in Macedonia (region). It could confuse people into believing that the modern day republic has a legitimate claim to the history of Macedon. Personally, I don't care about the other periods being referenced; the article could start at 1944, 1912 or even the Medieval period, but that is for others to decide. The general consensus so far has been to start the article from the period when Slavs settled in the Balkans. I would be open to discuss this with anyone who is willing to provide rational arguments in support of his view. Please, however, do not override what seems to be a general consensus in the talk page without prior discussion. The last thing we want is people starting another revert war.--Radjenef (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I now understand Jingiby's rationale. He added some information to the "Medieval Period" section, which explains the origins of the people populating the area at that time. Essentially, he wants to explain how the Thracian and Illyrian populations were phased out and how the population turned predominantly Slavic. This is fine with me, as it emphasizes the ethnocultural discontinuity between the present day republic and the ancient kingdom of Macedon. Keeping things clear and preventing people from being confused was my intention all along, so I think that the current way of presenting things is a wonderful conclusion/compromise to our earlier disagreement.--Radjenef (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned comments
All of you that call yourself macedonians are brainwashed by serbian propaganda mashine during the communism. You all forgot the language your grandparents spoke BULGARIAN. Historicaly this land belongs to Bulgaria and was populated by bulgarians for a 1000 years. The serbians twisted your mind and you forgot who you are. That is OK as far as you don't try to steal the history and culture of Bulgaria. If you don't recognise your identidy you will be lost forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.91.100 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The bulgarians and greeks should make up their mind once and for all. Their either a Greeks or Bulgarians or there are Macedonians. I don’t understand their claims to the right to take the name "Macedonia ", the Macedonian language and culture as their own. In my country there is a saying: One person can’t seat on two chairs or two horses, because sooner or later that person will fall. So please stop you’re bullshit and declare your selves as a greek or as a Macedonian, as a bulgarian or as a Macedonian!!!  You simple do not know what you want with this claims!!!   Aminta - MKD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminta (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The Macedonian issue today can only be understood if the history of its development is kept clearly in mind
The Macedonian issue was reactivated when Marshal Tito set up in 1945 the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”. It was a political move fitting the Yugoslav leader’s hegemonistic plans at the time. The Skopje federative republic was seen as the nucleus – or Piedmont – for the annexation of the adjoining Macedonian provinces of Greece and Bulgaria. I am sure you are well aware that Tito, with Stalin’s help, succeeded in forcing the Bulgarian Government of G. Dimitrov to agree to cede Bulgarian Macedonia to Yugoslavia (1947). At the same time, Tito extended his support to the Communist forces in Greece during the Greek civil war, in anticipation of acquiring control of Greek Macedonian provinces. Both plans failed. When Stalin evicted Yugoslavia from the Cominform (1948), Bulgaria stepped back from the Tito-Dimitrov agreement and assumed for a number of years an aggressive role on the Macedonian issue, spear-heading Soviet expansionism. As for Greece, with the termination of the Greek civil war (1949), the immediate annexation of Greek Macedonia to Yugoslavia was avoided.

Subsequently, and despise the normalization of Greek-Yugoslav relations (1951), Skopje continued for 40 years to undermine Greek sovereignty over Greek Macedonia. The Macedonian provinces of Greece and Bulgaria were viewed “as not yet liberated”, while the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”, projected itself as the only “free part” of Macedonia, and the “Piedmont” for the unification of all Macedonian regions.

During the same 40-year period and in order to best serve its expansionist plans, Skopje attempted to appropriate and monopolize the Macedonian name. To achieve this goal, Skopje found necessary to usurp Greek historical and cultural heritage in Macedonia from antiquity to the present. Thus, Alexander the Great and Aristotle have been added to the Skopjan pantheon! So have the Greek apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, simply because they were born in Thessaloniki! Even the victories of the Greek army during the 1940-41 war were attributed to the so-called “Macedonians” of Skopje, only because a Greek army division was named Macedonia after the name of the Greek province! Thessaloniki, whose culture, language and traditions have been Greek for 2300 years, is projected as the capital of the future “united Macedonian state”.

Evidently, by manipulating a geographical term (Macedonia), Skopje expansionists sought to convert this term into an ethnic name for a Slav nation. In the process, they obviously attempted to deny the Greek people their legitimate right to a major part of their cultural identity.

Thus, for 45 years, the Macedonian name became the major vehicle for territorial and cultural expansionism encroaching upon Greek and Bulgarian territory. Because of the continued use and abuse by Skopje of the hellenic civilization and traditions in order to promote expansionist aims, any further use of the Macedonian name by an independent state would ipso facto imply territorial expansion against Greece.

=== 2. In view of the historic implication and the nationalist forces behind this issue, the recognition of a Yugoslav Republic as an independent “Republic of Macedonia” would be a constant threat to peace and security in South Eastern Europe now and for many years to come===

As I have explained, Bulgaria claims historical and kin ties with the Skopje region and its slavonic part of the population and has already proceeded to recognize the independence of the Republic. Moreover, very recently, recriminations between Bulgaria and Serbia were exchanged and mutual accusations for important troop movements were also hurled at each other. We all, of course, know that the area of the Republic of Skopje has historically always been the target of conflicting interests, due to its mosaic to different nationalities (Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks, Greeks, Roma, etc). Unfortunately, 19th century images of “Greater Bulgaria”, “Greater Serbia” “Greater Albania” are still haunting today the region of Skopje, awaiting the signal of its “independence” to stake their claims…

More onimous for the future is the prospect of a national revival among Skopje’s Slav population. For 45 years Bulgarian ethnicity has been outlawed and its supporters persecuted. A clash between “Macedonists” and pro-Bulgarians will become inevitable, particularly if Sofia emerges in the role of a “big brother” for the young Republic. Allow, for instance, to refer to the VMRO parties that operate under the same name in both Skopje and Sofia. In fact, the VMRO is presently the majority party in the Skopje parliament, while their active Bulgarian counterpart presently operates as a nationalist Bulgaro-“Macedonian” movement. Both VMROs are committed to extremist nationalist goals; goals aiming to territorial expansionism. May I also remind you that in a very recent NATO document the VMRO Skopje party was qualified as a “terrorist” organization.

A more serious and immediate complication could develop as a result of inter-ethnic conflicts. Already, the ethnic Albanians, comprising almost a third of the total population of the Republic, have registered their opposition to the Skopje Government demanding self-rule. Their recent plebiscite, although conducted against Government objections and arbitrary police interventions, was a clear sign of troubles to come.

It is obvious that in the long run Skopje, an economically non-viable and ethnically antagonistic entity, surrounded by competing “suitors” and “protectors”, could be open to manipulations by stronger powers. The possibility of opening a Pandora’s box of Balkan intrigues, guerrilla warfare and armed conflicts involving neighboring states, in addition to inter-ethnic strifes in Skopje itself, could simply ignite the whole Balkan area and become a major destabilization factor for the whole Europe.

Greece will be directly affected by such developments. On the one hand, the economic and social reverberations of a possible armed conflict will be immediately felt, particularly in northern Greece (tourism, trade, movement of people, political and economic refugees). On the other hand, attempts at changing the external borders of the Skopje Republic will upset balances. The “domino effect” we are experiencing in the case of Yugoslav Republics, will contaminate neighbouring states, including Greece. Let me remind you that almost 60% of the total Greek exports are exported from northern Greece via Yugoslavia to Central and Western Europe. The consequences would thus be devastating for the Greek economy.

It goes without saying that the problems briefly enumerated above are not new. However, they now acquire a particularly acute character after Skopje’s request to become an independent state. If in the past, Skopje’s rush actions and propaganda activities have been undertaken within the framework of Yugoslavia, one can imagine the kind of dangerous adventures it will embark upon were it to become an independent state.

=== 3. In the interest of avoiding past destabilizing experiences and promoting permanent peace and security for the future, the prerequisites for the recognition of the independence of Skopje, as endorsed by the Twelve in the “Declaration on Yugoslavia”, must be fully respected=== Unfortunately, to this date, the authorities of Skopje have failed to implement these conditions.

Indeed:

— They have not offered sufficient guarantees, constitutional or other, to ensure that they will have no territorial claims.

— They continue carrying hostile propaganda, even at this critical moment, prior to their recognition.

— They have made no attempt to find a suitable denomination for their future independent Republic.

— Greece has spared so far no effect to find fair and equitable solutions. But, despite Greek observations and suggestions concerning various provisions in the constitution raised directly with the Skopje delegation which visited Athens for talks on the implementation of the E. C. decision on 3 January, there has so far been no constructive response.

As you know, the preamble of Skopje’s constitution states that the new Republic rests upon “the statehood-legal traditions of the Krushevo Republic” (1903) and the “historical decisions of the Antifascist Assembly of the People’s Liberation of Macedonia” (ASNOM), passed in 1944. Let me explain:

The events of 1903 and 1944 highlighted the attempt by the Slavs of Macedonia to establish respectively an autonomous or an independent Macedonian state. A state which would absorb the whole of Macedonia, including the Macedonian provinces of Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Indeed, the Krushevo Manifesto, of 2 August 1903, was an appeal to the people to “come beneath the flag of autonomous Macedonia”, while the ASNOM Communist-Titoist Manifesto of 1944, issued also on the 2nd of August for symbolic purposes, proclaimed the “just and unique demand for uniting all the Macedonian people with the right to self-determination”. It further stated: “let the struggle of the Macedonian Piedmont inspire you… it alone leads to freedom and union of all Macedonian people… Let the artificial boundaries which separate brother from brother… be swept away”.

These references in the preamble make it obvious that territorial irredentism and future expansionism are very much part and parcel of the new Constitution. Such a political model is obviously incompatible with the CSCE sprit and fundamental principles.

This is why we consider that the amendments to articles 3 and 49 of the Constitution are simply meaningless and in any way, not of nature to alter its main philosophy and its basic thrust.

— The Gligorov Government, has been engaged in a worldwide “good-will campaign” to impress on world leaders and public opinion the image of a new Republic dedicated to peace and friendly neighbourly relations. The letters sent by Skopje officials to the Arbitration Commission served a similar purpose. Yet, in practice, hostile propaganda against Greece continues unabated.

— For example, Skopje leaders during recent months have publicly spoken about territorial claims against Greece. Allow me to cite just two of them:

-- Vasil Tupurkovski, the Skopje representative to the Yugoslav Presidency, has repeatedly spoken about the unification of all the Macedonian lands. Thus, on 20 January 1991, while on the “Macedonian Heritage” TV program in Toronto, he was asked “if Macedonians should struggle for cultural and spiritual unity rather than territorial unity”. Tupurkovski replied: “I think that our national ideal cannot be limited; the territorial unity is also a part of it”. Also, in December 1990, in a radio interview at Perth (Australia), he said that the “new Macedonian state will have as its primary target, the liberation of the enslaved Macedonians and the unification of the wider Macedonian region”.

-- President Kiro Gligorov in an interview to NIN magazine, (Belgrade 1 Feb. 1991) spoke of “segments of the Macedonian people in Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria which were divided and subjugated after the Balkan Wars” and revealed that the leading “Macedonian” nationalist parties aim at a “Great Macedonia” and do not hide their intention that “the Macedonian power will redraw the borders of Greece and Serbia”!

Skopje has not ceased referring to Greek Macedonia as “Egejska (Aegean) Makedonija”, a term used to imply that the whole of northern Greece is part of a wider Slav territory. Only a few days ago, a conference was organized in Skopje dealing with linguistics questions of “Egejska Makedonija”. In fact, “hate literature” continues to appear in publications both in the Republic and abroad. A recent typical example is provided on a 1992 calendar with maps on which Greek along with Bulgarian and Albanian Macedonia are shown as part of “Great Macedonia”. Those calendars were mailed in thousands of copies throughout Greece; a clear sign of what one should expect after the recognition of independence.

— As for the denomination, Greece has had the opportunity to analyze in detail to the Skopje delegation why the term “Macedonia”, if used in the denomination of the Skopje Republic, is unacceptable as it contains by itself an expansionist notion. Indeed, as I have earlier explained, in order to best serve its expansionist plans, Skopje usurped the Macedonian name and purportedly converted it into an ethnic name for its Slav nation. This becomes all the more brazen, when one takes into account that the geographical region of Macedonia extends across four borders: in Greece (51%), Bulgaria (9,5%), Albania (0,5%) and Yugoslavia (39%). Thus, the adoption of the Macedonian name for the Republic carries the clear message that the Republic’s jurisdiction extends over the Macedonian provinces of all neighbouring states.

It should not be forgotten, dear Colleague, that the Macedonian name was granted by Tito at a time when Moscow was seeking an exit to the Aegean. It will be an irony if, years after the termination of the Cold War, the community would offer, a posteriori, a historical legitimacy to such claims.

4. Despite all the dangers there is still time to find an equitable solution; one that may open the prospects for regional security and cooperation
Greece is the only neighbouring country which harbours no claims against Skopje. If an understanding is reached on the basis of the E. C. terms for recognition, Greece is prepared to help create a regional arrangement to meet the security needs of Skopje, as well as those of its neighbours. Thus, mutual suspicions between Skopje and individual neighbours, as well as between neighbouring countries competing for influence or dominance on Skopje would steadily evaporate.

In addition, Greece could extend to the new Republic special economic privileges, open prospects for an all round economic cooperation, and set in motion the process for a solution to all bilateral issues.

In choosing a name for the new Republic, former administrative denominations of the region could probably provide a logical and acceptable solution. It should be noted that prior to Tito’s decision to assign to Skopje the Macedonian name, no such denomination had ever been used in the past, either as a state or as an administrative denomination for that region. It is a denomination that was artificially introduced to advance territorial claims and has no historical or cultural validity.

It is more than obvious that the establishment of good relations between Skopje and Greece, is of paramount importance for both the new Republic and the whole Balkan region. First, it will allow the Skopjan Republic to survive. Secondly, it will deflate to aspirations of other powers at its own expense and will thus create the necessary conditions for peace in this highly sensitive area.

In this light, it is a matter of urgency that partners impress upon the authorities of Skopje the need to implement fully, by deeds rather than meaningless declarations, the E. C. ministerial decision of 16 December and to desist from any initiatives that may inflame the region.

If and when Skopje decides to abide by the E. C. terms for the recognition of its independence, I suggest that, at that time, an agreement be concluded between the E. C. and Skopje providing guarantees for the proper implementation of the terms specified by the Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.69.12 (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article
Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

San Stefano
"The valley of the river Vardar, which was later to become the central area of the Republic of Macedonia, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire prior to the First Balkan War of 1912, with the exception of the brief period in 1878 when it was liberated from ottoman rule after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78"

well, initially it was decided that it would be part of Bulgaria, but this decision changed in the Treaty of Berlin. From what i remember, the provisions of San Stefano never materialized and so i think it is misleading to talk about liberation after the russo-turkish war.--Greece666 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Misleading from the perspective of the history of Republic of Macedonia? Probably. San Stefano Bulgaria was as a matter of fact realized (approximately) for about 6 years during the two World Wars.  /FunkyFly.talk _   04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * in the article it reads: "the brief period in 1878"--Greece666 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

www.historyofmacedonia.com
Specifically lets take a look at this address. We read:

'' Why the Macedonians are not "Slavs"?

1. First of all, Gligorov and Veselinov are not historians, but politicians. History should not be written by politicians but should be left to the historians.
 * So far so good.

2. The Macedonian historians do not support the claim that today's Macedonians are "Slavs" who came in the 6th century. The latest book "THE DESCENDANTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT OF MACEDON - The arguments and evidence that today's Macedonians are descendants of the ancient Macedonians", puts an end to the "Slav" claim.
 * The book is by Alexander Donski who as of 2006, and certainly by the time he wrote it, does not have a degree in history.

3. This "Slav" claim was an old communistic propaganda influenced by Russia and Yugoslavia during the period while Macedonia was part of communist Yugoslavia (1945-1991) and both Gligorov and Veselinov were tough this line of the official then history, dictated by Slav Russia and Serbia (Yugoslavia). As stated this "political history" is outdated and is ongoing replacement.
 * How come the majority of the people in the region identified as Bulgarian only 100 years ago?

4. The roots of the Macedonians are in ancient Macedonia in Europe since 8th century BC. This is the reason why they call themselves Macedonians and not "Slavs" ever since that 8th century BC, including today.
 * This is just repeating the same statement.

5. Historical evidence (avoided by Gligorov and Veselinov of the communist school) shows that  the Macedonians have called themselves "Macedonians" in every century since Alexander, both before and after the coming of the Slavs in Macedonia in the 6th century. It is the Slavs that assimilated into the Macedonians, not wise-versa, and the Macedonians continued to call themselves what they are - Macedonians.
 * This is just plain wrong.

6. And most convincing of all the fact that the genetic research had proven that the Macedonians are not Slavs but have a direct descent from the ancient Macedonians.
 * Yes, genetics is the most convincing historical tool in existence. Also disagrees with the majority of independent genetic studies.

7. The Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia, and Macedonian minorities in Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania, continue to proudly call themselves "Macedonians" and consider the "Slav" label an insult and racial slur. The western press was literary bombarded by mails, faxes, and emails from outraged Macedonians who despised being called "Slavs" during the Albanian aggression on Macedonia.
 * How is that in any way a historical proof?

8. Much greater detail on the direct descent of today's Macedonians from the ancient Macedonians is found in "THE DESCENDANTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT OF MACEDON - The arguments and evidence that today's Macedonians are descendants of the ancient Macedonians"
 * This is repeating claim 2. The same book.

''   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

www.historyofmacedonia.com 2
i guess you didn't bother to click on this link or you read the contents of the page and didn't have enough arguments to post? which one is it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mast3r (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

A list of questions to the Macedonised Bulgarians
РАННА ИСТОРИЯ НА МАКЕДОНИЯ СПОРЕД ПРОФ. ИВАН МИКУЛЧИК,

(Средновековни градови и тврдини во Македонија" издаден во 1997 г. во Скопје, от истакнатиот македонски археолог и професор во универзитетот Св. Кирил и Методи - Микулчиќ. )

Книгата, голема и на убава хартија со многу илустрации за информација е издадена не со пари од Софија, туку со средства на Македонското министерство за образование и култура и на Македонското представништво на фондацијата „Сорос". Истата книга не е издадена по време на „бугарската" влада на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ, туку по време на чистата „македонска" влада на Бранко Црвенковски. Што утврдил проф. Микулиќ? Сумирајќи ги резултатите од разкопините и сондажите во сите 538 стари градови и тврдини во Македонија тој соопштува, дека очигледно словенските завојувачи уште во почетокот на VI- век го принудиле преживеаното античко население масовно да ја напушти Македонија и истото се населило во денешна турска Тракија. Но словените не се населуваат во Вардарска Македонија, истакнува проф. Микулчиќ. Невините хумусни слоеви врз античките урнатини сочат на тоа дека високите македонски планини на Вардарска Македонија не биле „атрактивни" како што пишува проф. Микулчиќ за дојденците од север. Затоа тие продолжиле на југ и се населиле покрај денешните грчки крајморски рамнини.

Двеста години според Микулчиќ, Македонија останала без население. Првите новонаселеници биле прабугарите под водство на кан Кубер, син на основачот на Дунавска Бугарија кан Кубрат. Околу 680-та година со околу 600 семејства тој ги напуштил земјите на денешна Унгарија и по патот Белград - Ниш - Скопје се установил засекогаш на така наречените Керамисијсќи полиња - тоа се Битолско, Прилепско, Ресенско, Охридско и Корчанското поле. Византиските хронисти и некои бугарски камени натписи околу Мадарскиот коњак во денешна Североисточна Бугарија покажува дека и кан Кубер, основал во денешна Јужна Македонија држава наречена Бугарија, која во сојуз со Дунавска Бугарија превземала во 7-ми, почетокот на 8-ми век заеднички дејствија против Византија. Нејзините дејствија против Солун биле одбиени, но затоа пак територијалното проширување на државата на запад во рамките на Денешна Албанија било повеќе од успешно - во околината на селото Врап е пронајдена голема прабугарска ризница, која сведочи за самиот факт.

Вториот броj преселници според проф. Микулчиќ во останатите ненаселени земји на Вардарска Македонија бил пак од... прабугари. Тие дошле и се населиле во Источна и Северна Македонија после победоносната војна на бугарскиот кан Крум во Тракија против Византија во 811 година. Проф. Микулчиќ покажува, дека во тврдините покрај Крива Паланќа, Куманово, Скопје, Тетово, Гостивар, Штип се појавува грнчарија, бронзени предмети како и токи на ремени потполно идентични со откриените во бугарскатаа престолнина Плиска. А во рамнините покрај нив Микулчиќ ги одбележува посебните прабугарски населби зацврстени со земјен насип, наречени аули. Така за народот кој што живеел од Јадранското до Црното Море и од Дунав до Егеј се наметнало името бугари, заклучил Микулчиќ.

Така е, бидејќи тоа е историсќата вистина. Појасно и поточно не можат да го напишат дори бугарските историчари."

ЗАДАВАМ НЕКОЛКУ ПРОСТИ ПРАШАНЬА НА Т.Н. МАКЕДОНЦИ:

1. Кој од преродбениците кои денес и официјалната македонска историографија ги смета за духовен темел на современиот македонски идентитет, се чувствувал нешто друго освен Бугарин?

2. Чии учители биле основачите и најистакнатите членови на ВМРО? Во која институција предавале и кои предмети?

3. Членовите на Врховниот комитет основан во Софија можеле да бидат само офицери родени во Македонија, за разлика од ВМРО, каде што најистакнатите членови биле егзархиски учители, но без услов да се родени во Македонија. Во вашите книги наведувате дека Врховниот комитет е бугарски, а ВМРО е македонско, во смисла на етничка различност!?

4. Како го објаснувате фактот дека иницијативата за формирање на Бугарската Егзархија доаѓа од Македонија, како и првиот импулс за прогласување на бугарска национална и духовна самосвест, најпрво презентиран од отец Паисиј Хилендарски, роден во Банско, Пиринска Македонија, во неговата книга “Историја Славјаноб'лгарска” напишана во 1762 година?

5. Во официјалните документи за востанието од 1903 година се наведува дека е Илинденско-Преображенско востание, кое било кренато само во два од десетте окрузи на ВМРО. Зошто Вие и официјалната македонска историографија не го споменувате Преображенското востание во Одринско, област каде што живеат Бугари, за разлика од Македонија, каде според Вашите изјави живеат етнички Македонци, различни од Бугарите?

6. Документите со кои што сум запознат, во однос на водачите на ВМРО што Вие ги споменувате во книгата, секаде посочуваат на нивниот етнички бугарски идентитет?

7. Зошто Бугарија по Кресненското, Илинденското и другите востанија и по Балканските и големите светски војни, прима толку големо количество “етнички Македонци”, дозволувајќи да се смени етничката структура со прилив на “туѓо” население? Тоа ја прави единствена таква држава во светот. Зошто, пак, “етничките Македонци” бегале токму во Бугарија? Денес секој четврти граѓанин на Бугарија е по потекло од Македонија!

8. Тематската концентрација во вашите книги е генерално македонизмот како феномен. Што мислите за интерпратецијата на македонизмот, на некогашниот српски министер на просветата, Стојан Новаковиќ?

9. Познатиот славист, лингвист и историчар од германското јазично подрачје - Австриецот Ото Кронштајнер - веројатно не би се согласил со многу од Вашите тврдења. Сепак, тој е светски научен авторитет!?

На краjoт, прашањето од отец Паисиј Хилендарски, роден во Банско, Пиринска Македонија, во неговата книга “История Славянобългарска” напишана во 1762 година:

"Поради что, о неразумний юроде, се срамуваш да се назовеш българин?"

--Lantonov 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

fyrom history?????
Do FYROM has history??????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.92.112 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Community of Macedonia..
..was never a particularly large community, and thanks to the Bulgarians, is now practically extinct. But it is one of Europe's oldest Jewish communities (the ruins of an ancient synagogue found around Skopje physically testify to this fact). The Macedonian and Jewish people have a long history of mutual respect. According to Orthodox Jewish rabbinic tradition, Alexander who was met by Jerusalem's chief rabbi at the gates of the city upon his seizure of it, accepted the rabbi's request that he allow the Jews to retain their religion and customs - comparable to the Roman habit of burning the cities they occupied, Alexander's attitude was appreciated. To this day he is referred to as Alexander Makedon in the Hebrew language, and many Jewish boys are named Alexander. Furthermore, unlike the long-standing tradition of violent antisemitism elsewhere in Europe (which neither began nor stopped with the Germans), Macedonia had no such history. The Macedonian Jews were Macedonians, and they fought together with the ethnic Macedonian partisans. The Macedonian government has acknowledged the Jewish fighters accordingly with all honors. The people of Bitola wrote heartfelt poetry upon seeing their Jewish neighbors sent off to their deaths during WWII. A Holocaust museum is being built in Skopje. It will be the only such monument in the Balkans. Nowadays, Macedonia and Israel enjoy a very positive, special relationship.

So how does a comprehensive article on the history of Macedonia not even mention that the Bulgarian Axis forces assembled and deported over 7000 Macedonian Jews (most of the community) to Treblinka in cattle trains?! Killing thousands of years of Jewish culture in Macedonia in a few days?! Many of these people died in the trains on their long and crowded journey to Poland, the rest would die in Treblinka. Only a handful survived. The Bulgarians would like to forget this fact, the Germans and the Jews never will, and we the Macedonians shouldn't either. The world shouldn't forget, and we need to remind them. We owe it to our friends and ourselves.

I will be very grateful if someone mentions the deportation of the Macedonian Jews to the concentration camp in Poland, and maybe a bit of the rich history of the Macedonian Jewish community. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.0.118 (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

image


I have put this image in the article already, but someones replace it. The Kingdom of Prilep is very important for Macedonian history, so it should stay.

Removed this map, the Kindom of Prilep is not even mentioned in the official R.Macedonian school manual 'Istorija za Vtora Godina', Skopje 2006. The reference might even be a mistake or a forgery. Politis (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why this?
Why is the 1919 map of Yugoslavia Map by the London Geogrphical Institute shown with borders that never existed? Surely there is map of Yugoslavia post the treaties of Neuilly, etc. Politis (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701210204/http://phron.org/Reference/Books/Balkans%20-%20post%20communist%20history.pdf to http://phron.org/Reference/Books/Balkans%20-%20post%20communist%20history.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120630064900/http://www.pf.ukim.edu.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=213 to http://www.pf.ukim.edu.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=213
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430124047/http://www.president.gov.mk/gligorov.asp to http://www.president.gov.mk/gligorov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019161316/http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg to http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

North Macedonia was never under Persian rule
The citations mentioned in this part of the article mentions only the Ancient Macedonia, which is clearly not the same of the North Macedonia (country), if anybody check the Persian map it shows clearly that the current region of the North Macedonia is not under their domains, so please, stop to mistake North Macedonia with Macedonia (ancient region) history! Skyuruka (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)