Talk:Legacy of the Indo-Greeks

On the internal link to ethnic "Macedonians"
PHG,

I strongly object to the internal link to ethnic Macedonians. The ethnogenesis of the ethnic group this refers to, the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), is a recent, 20th century phenomenon. There was simply no such thing as a "Macedonian ethnicity" prior to the 20th century. The internal link to them is therefore factually wrong, as they have nothing to do with the composition of Alexander's armies. The territory covered by the FYROM was in ancient times inhabited by the Paionians, who to my knowledge did not form part of Alexander's armies. Furthermore, as you can see here, the region comprising the ancient kingdom of Macedon corresponds almost exactly to the Greek region of Macedonia. It also is well known that the Ancient Macedonians were considered to be a Greek tribe, both by their Greek and non-Greek contemporaries, such as the the Persians, who referred to them as "Yauna Takabara" ("Greeks who wear hats"). While I understand that this is a scholarly quote and needs to left as it is, the internal link needs to be removed or changed, as it is can be misleading (the uninformed reader might assume that the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of FYROM are somehow the descendants of the ancient Macedonians). If you really insist on having an internal link, I propose that it be a link to here or here. I look forward to your response on this matter. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tsourkpk, I really have very little involvement with this issue, but I appreciate your respect for the original quote. I would agree that a different link is probably appropriate... your Macedonia (Greece) seems fine to me. Regards. PHG (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PHG, and thank you for your consideration of my point. I will go ahead and make the change you suggested. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to muscle in on any kind of dispute, but the text in the article comes from the pdf file of the external article. This article says 'Greeks and Macedonians'. Firstly, if the writers of the article had specifically meant Macedonian Greeks they would have said so. More likely they meant something like 'the people who today live within 200 miles of Salonica'. If we can accept the possibility that there is a genetic element of the modern population of Punjab that is Greek, it would appear reasonable to accept the possibility that an element of the modern Macedonian population is Greek, whether that is FYROM, Greek Macedonia or other areas, such as Bulgaria. Tsourkpk is right that the Macedonian Slavic nationality is a new one, but those people haven't dropped out of the sky recently, they would have ancient ancestors of some kind, and at least some would be local to the area (this is without me opening a political can of worms by saying Macedonians are not restricted to FYROM). Otherwise all people living in that area must have been made extinct and we arrive at the 100% ethnic cleansing idea of national irredenta. Also to argue that it is inappropriate to link to Macedonian ethnicity, when the only distinction between Greek and Macedonian is ethnic, is odd. It appears that in certain circles any mention of particular ethnic groups becomes the signal for conflict (this isn't restricted to any particular nationalities, I see it just about everywhere, and a lot closer to home). We could argue that the external source is wrong, but then why use it as a source at all? Consequently we make a desert and call it peace. Several people have reverted the link - we are not necessarily right to, and I personally won't do so again as life is too short. Ultimately we can attach what meaning we like to words we see. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't view the source document like I could earlier today - anyway IIRC the geneticists' article was in genetic terms. Indeed the Macedonian ethnicity is a Slavic one, but that is not a genetic identification. If there are genetic markers found amongst Greeks and Macedonians in common that is a genetic issue only, not an ethnic or national one. Presumably the geneticists meant Macedonian when they put it in their article. If there is a genetic marker that is a useful indicator and it is found amongst Macedonians and Greeks why exclude Macedonians from the analysis? Anyway, this is just my two-penneth. Nationality, ethnicity, culture, language and genetics are mostly independent variables among people. You cannot exclude people's genetics on the basis of their language or culture. Stevebritgimp (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I took a look at the Kivisild study as well and as far as I can tell, the info regarding the "Greeks and Macedonians" part comes from this Semino (et al.) study  which mentions "20 Macedonian (samples) from northern Greece" (one of the co-authors, according to the article, works at the "Department of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece" so perhaps she collected the samples). The frustrating part is whether they simply mean Greeks hailing from the Greek region of Macedonia or (people who identify as) ethnic Macedonians, plus "northern Greece" could even be referring to the Greek part of Thrace for all I (we) know. It'd be nice if the issue could be clarified but, in any case, it's a really minor and unimportant part of the whole article that's simply contested because of the political baggage it carries. At least since the current version links to a geographical region, it's not (too) POV. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AGAIGT.jpg
Image:AGAIGT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. El Greco(talk) 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Theories
As noted on the history page, this article primarily consists of fringe theories that are being presented as fact or in many cases even rejected by the propagators (i.e. Seleukia = Chalukya, Yavanas after Satavahanas, etc). Accordingly, the military role section does not describe any influence on battle strategy or discussion of critical events, but merely regurgitates the same questionable sources cited on the main page. Yavanas were used to describe many foreigners. Indeed, the Koshalan king Sagara was credited with annhilating the yavanas and forcing the remainder to shave their heads. Are we then to include that in the military role section as well? the fact remains that with a little pithy condensation, the bulk of this article could be relocated to the main page and the remaining chaff (i.e. WW Tarn's questionable linguistic contributions section) could be eliminated.

Devanampriya (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Title?
This article is about Indo-Greek influence and culture after the collapse of their political power, right? It is about their "legacy" in (on?) the Indian subcontinent, correct? Is there a better title we could use? One that sounds less like a book title. Perhaps Indo-Greek influence in India? 216.8.171.148 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * if you search for any ancient artifact, you will not find that word "greek" or "greece" written on any vase, coin, epitaph, temple, proclamation or whatsoever. those people comprized of many tribes used to refer to themselves as macedonians and the culture/empire as macedonian. there can be conversation about their adopting of hellenic(not greek) alphabet. maybe some hellenic peoples even participated in the empire. but it was never called "greek" up until european historians decided to name it that way out of the blue.89.205.59.148 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence: "Some Romani people groups, claimed to be descendants of the Athinganoi, who are said to be the remnants of the Indo-Greeks.[21] DNA studies of Romani people,[22][23][24]"
The sentence "Some Romani people groups, claimed to be descendants of the Athinganoi, who are said to be the remnants of the Indo-Greeks. DNA studies of Romani people," strikes me as very much unfinished. Is it a work in progress? R. Henrik Nilsson (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)