Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 3

removed modern concepts
All instances of the word Greece and Greek should be removed from this article. Greece and Greek are modern concepts that did not exist at the time. Although Ancient Macedonian culture may have been similar to what you would see in Athens or Sparta, or any other city-state it is by no means Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.16 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of what you mean with the concepts of "Greece" or "Greek" not existing at that time. Check the works at wikisource:Category:Works_originally_in_Greek. For example, on the preamble of the Laws of Plato it says "greeks" and "Greece" several times Laws_(Plato)/Preamble --Enric Naval (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another smart boy... the concepts of Hellenes and hellenic (translated as Greeks and Greek by the Romans and thus the Western world but this is another story) are ancient and given thousands of times in all historical documents of antiquity. For example, according to Herodot, a historian who lived before Alexander the Great, Philip II or even Plato, Alexander I king of Macedonia proclaimed himself "a Greek (Hellenas) viceroy". The meaning of these words is clear to whoever has read any ancient texts and of course they denote exactly what they denote today... a single nation divided in many tribes, cities, prefectures etc... And of course thousands of times you will find the word Hellenas (Greek) used in ancient texts. Why shoud anybody answer to these meaningless babblings? Because, unfortunately, not everybody knows about history and voices like that count on it...

GK1973 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

name of article
What is that "Macedon"????? I know about Macedonia. Like Trakia, Thessalia, Paphlagonia .... many other macedonian names.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.242.15 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) is reading the first line of the article so much to expect from someone... "Macedon or Macedonia" its the same place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.125 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, "macedon" is the person who comes from or lives in Macedonia. Does anybody know any ancient reference of "Macedon" as a geographical term?79.107.74.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

North of Greece
I understand Macedon definitions vary based on authors and sources, I added sources which state Macedon was North of Greece: Just a few sourcesMactruth (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC
 * 1) Hellenistic World by F.W.Walbank p. 91: '.... Macedonians were an essential bulwark to the north of Greece'
 * 2) ^ Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World By Pierre Jouguet p.179: 'After crossing the Spercheios and ravaging the territory of Heracleia, which he could not take, he marched on Thermopylae. The pass was defended. The peoples of Northern Greece -Locrians, Phocians, Megarians, Boeotians, Athenians- had sent their contingents, the largest being that of Aetolians. Antigonos Gonatas and Antiochos had furnished 500 hoplites each.'
 * 3) ^ Alexander the Great by Richard Stoneman p.1: 'Alexander the Great was born in summer 356 BC and died thirty-three years later in the month of Daisios (June) 323 BC. He was born the son of Philip, the King of Macedon, a fertile and predominantly pastoral region lying north of classical Greece'
 * 4) ^ The Greeks by Jean Pierre Vernant p.43: 'Athens also imported wood for shipbuilding, wood that for the most part came from northern Greece and from Macedonia.'

I have shown sources for my editing, which are valid and fair. Greek users are continuously reverting the edits, but with little reasoning. In fact, the only reason I got was from Δρακόλακκος, who stated, "this is completely lame, go mess up something else" which is an OPINION. This is POV pushing, and the page will be reverted back. Mactruth (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly you Greeks cant except the fact that your claim of "Macedonia being in northern Greece" isn't accepted by all historians? Instead of showing all the data to the people, you only show that which supports your claim, without discussion or argument. Good jobs guys. Mactruth (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is the differentiation between the geographic boundaries of classical "Greece" and the Greek-inhabited/influenced areas. Classical Greece proper has often been depicted as reaching north up to Thessaly, so that Macedon can be said to have been "north of Greece". But by the same token, the Ionian cities lay "east of Greece", and Magna Graecia "west of Greece", without anyone actually being able to dispute that they were Greek. But since Macedon was Greek or hellenized (Greekness being a cultural identity more than anything, it comes down to the same thing), it was indeed in the northern part of the Greek sphere, and, indeed, of modern Greece. Perhaps it is best to avoid the pointless arguments by substituting it with "in the northernmost part of the ancient Greek world" or something like that. Constantine  ✍  01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ancient Greece is NOT a place. So any such term used as a geographical determinant is not precise. Before anybody starts shouting, let me explain. Greece has been, and still is, a region. "Ancient Greece" has not. What is it? Is it the totality of the Greek world? Then Magna Graecia and Ionia should also be Greece... Is it the region called Greece by Strabo? Then Macedonia is clearly in the north of Greece, as perceived in the times of Strabo - NOT ancient Greece. Unfortunately, we do not exactly know where the boundaries of the region of Greece lay before Strabo. Aristoteles suggests that Macedonia was inside what was called Region of Greece, but then other sources seem to suggest that, although clearly inside the Greek world, it was not IN Greece. Many sources even seem to suggest that Thessalia was outside the region of Greece, since the pass of Thermopylae is many times called the gates into Greece. Of course, I know that Mactruth's agenda has nothing to do with that, he just strives to hint, suggest etc that the Macedonians were not Greeks, but in this case, I also find that "Ancient Greece" is a flawed geographical term. You have to understand that Greece as a pure geographical term had nothing to do with Greece as the home of Greek cities, kingdoms or tribes. There are those who wish to suggest that whatever lay outside the region of Greece was not Greek and this idiocy has unfortunately led to Greeks being very reluctant to admit what they already know, that is that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE MACEDONIANS WERE A GREEK TRIBE. GK1973 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that MACEDON initially was ONLY the kingdom of the Argead Macedonians. Their kingdom was fully within MODERN GREECE and at any time NORTH OF THESSALY. To make understood that the Argead Macedonians were not the only Macedonians, thus Macedon was NOT the full region of Macedonia at the time BEFORE the Argeads had subdued the rest of the Macedonian tribes I mention their later incorporation in the KINGDOM OF MACEDON. Then, I added Paeonia in the north (east was there, west was there, north was not...) and I added where these other region were in regard to MODERN GEOGRAPHY, since these can be the ONLY geographical determinants... I also changed this part about Alexander having conquered "most of the world known to Greeks". This is really awkward, since the Greeks knew much more in terms of geography than what this phrase gives them credit.... Alexander's exploits were huge, but this phrase is just plainly wrong. The Greeks perfectly well knew the lands all the way to the British Isles, as well as of the lands north of the Danube (Istros), Lybia (Africa) and of course the existence of India... GK1973 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, he is just using this to try to imply that the ancient Macedonians were "something other" than Greek. He's been trying for months now.  WP:DNFTT at this point.  "Northernmost part of ancient Greece" is fine.  It's sourced, and there's nothing wrong with it either in the geographical or cultural sense.  --Athenean (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually in the article Ancient Greece "refers to the period" (a time period), so in better English it should read just "in Ancient Greece" since geographical identifiers cannot be used for time periods without sounding awkward.
 * Brittanica, (here) has this wording early in the first paragraph: "in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula"... "achieved hegemony over Greece" ..."of ancient Greek civilization"
 * Should we change it to "in Ancient Greece" and add a seperate sentence for the geography? Shadowmorph (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past []. In my talk page [] you can find several references that give a different perspective to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids the terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains.
 * Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French [] and others that are not very informative []. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used: []. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece".Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE (ESPECIALLY FIRST PARAGRAPH NEEDS CLARIFICATION): Macedonia or Macedon was a kingdom which "By its geographical position ... forms the connecting link between the Balkans and the Greek peninsula." There we need a clarification. Yes, the land where the Kingdom was centered, connects Balkans with Greek Peninsula. But this term is not the best to clarify the land arround the kingdom itself: all the excavation sites I have visited (Vergina and Pella, (capitals), Philippoi, Dios (Religious place where they make ceremonies to the 12 Greek Deities), and some others just where points of high interest for the ancient Macedonians, are giving more emphasis on the land itself being part of the Greek Mainland, rather than to the Kingdom's location as a crossroad of a Greek Peninsula with Balkan Peninsula without further description. The term "Greek mainland" gives emphasis of being part of Greek world which extends further, up to north of Greek Peninsula's limits, instead of just a "connection of Greek World or Greek Peninsula with Balkans". I mean the Kingdom its forming a greek land. As we see the 5 major settlements of Ancient Macedonia, including its 2 capital cities, prove that the land has an "identity" itself which links it with the rest of the Greek World. Its not just a crossroad between Greece and Balkans: Macedonia is part of the world itself. However the article lacks to make a reference to this. It may let the visitors who come to read and gather more detailed informations about Macedonia, to find the article lacking some informations about the influence of the land to the kingdom itself. Yes, "connects Greek peninsula with Balkan", but what the kingdom itself is...? what describes it? Where belongs? Attica region of Athens, Laconian region of Sparta belong to Greek mainland, while Macedonia region of Pella where? of course needs further clarification where the term Mainland can be used better than the Peninsula does. Modern day people need a reference to its "identity" as when they read an article, they see it from a general view first. Just I am trying to give an example which term describes one of the most powerful states in the ancient world: as part of Mainland or a nonsense connection between just 2 areas?. When I am reading the article, after my visit (one and half months ago) in 1) Pella, 2) Vergina 3) Dios and 4) Philippoi, I see that while 4 settlements that the article needs more clarification of the Macedonian land itself, as we already to with Attican land and Laconian land.: The Kingdom is not a "layer" over the land, is part of a land which culturally, geologically and politically (location of capitals), religiously (Dios, the main Macedonian religious site, which is built on the roots the greek mountain Olympus and they had greek religion) and cultural part (columns in Pella, Mosaics in the ground, to God Dionysus), of the Greek mainland-I saw it with my eyes- etc), which all together form more than enough ''elementals that clarify the kingdom itself as part of the Ancient Greek mainland, rather than simply... North of Greece or a crossroad between Greek Peninsula with Balkans. Is part of the Greek Mainland. As a wiki, we have to give priority to which geopolitical/geological category Ancient Macedon is better clarified while at same time we give emphasis to the archeological excavation data: "North of X Peninsula which links it with Y Peninsula" or more simply "part of the X mainland, X world" as the data give us?. Because the term Greek Peninsula is a term which its borders have been not determinated yet, sometimes appears larger in scale, including more of King of Macedon's lands, while other times is much smaller, ending up to northern Thessalia, so we can't use it for Macedon which has already some portions of land within it. May the land where the Macedonians where centered, is not described as within the limits of the Greek Peninsula, or part of Magna Grecia, or Minor Asia, however its part of the Greek mainland world. (The Greek Mainland includes: Pelopponesus, Laecedemonia, Attica, Larissa, Macedonia). When we refer to greek mainland as general layout, which includes Macedonia, and is the region, which includes both Greek Peninsula (southern parts of Macedon) and some portions north of it (rest of Macedon). The excavations in the archeological sites themselves at least this confirms. And last, I should note that the archeological sites in Pella, Vergina, Dios confirm that at least, Macedonia, has strong geological/geopolotical connection with the rest of the Greek world rather than staying as a connection of it with Balkan Peninsula, so the term part of Greek Mainland or something like this fits better here and describes it better than the "North of Greece" for the antiquity.--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NO! Section "Involvement in the Greek world" concerns issues you discuss. intro properly begins more neutrally and objectively; part of Greek Mainland begs the question and would be misleading, since the complex relation of macedonia and 'greece' or greek culture was an issue in ancient times and still is. Wran (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is about the location. the state itself is not just a connection between X and Y area. This doesn't requires clarification about the land itself?--62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any term we can use to desrcibe the kingdom's land but keeping neutrality? for example to include at BOTH time the data from archeological sites of what land was, while at sime keep neutrality. --62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We have 3 priorities I guess: first is to upload all the critical about this information that have been for emerged, for years, from the excavation sites and have been not proved invalid all this period, even when more more Y informations emerge from new excavations in different places that have proved the X data as valid. (Vergina, Pella, Dios, Philippoi excavation sites, in connection, and keep on). Second, regional data about settlements's characteristics in comparision with nearby towns and the nearby regional groups: Does this X region/town shares the same characteristics/ fullfills the creteria to be included to the more general Y region which includes towns that share similar characteristics with it? third: because there are political disputes in the X age (today), the data of Y age (antiquity) as have been proved from region's excavations must be not halted. Data themselves are different fact. Giving direct links to the archeological sites' records and data. Co-operation with archeologists who work in the sites so the database of the site can get updated directly. This is the best. --62.1.220.137 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Empire of Alexander the III
Would it be to much to make it an article (considering it was only an empire from when he took the throne to his death at Ba-bi-lu)?It would make it easier to link Diadochi Articles together. The main reasoning I'm using is the fact that Alexanders empire, was so different from the kingdom ruled by his formers.(forgot I wasn't logged on) --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it might be useful to make the short Alexander the Great empire-part of Macedonia as its own article. However I also do understand the arguments against it (that it was in theory indeed the same kingdom as before and so on..). -GabaG (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Macedon?
Where does the name Macedon come from? Both ancient and modern Greeks called it Makedonia and in other languages it was refered to as Macedonia, Macedoine, Makedonya, etc... So why Macedon? Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do a google search 'Macedon', and eliminate all the adjoining terms such as county, ranges, etc you end up with: 362 hits and these still include items that have nothing to do with the Maceodnia of Philip and Alexander. "Results 1 - 10 of about 362 for macedon -town of -medicine -county of -ranges -club of -real estate -wine -and spa" Politis (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedon is a term used in English to only denote the kingdom of Macedon(ia), which usually was not the same with the region of Macedonia. In the early years, it only was the part ruled by the Argeads, thus a part only of Macedonia, later, it also comprised lands in Thrace and Epirus. GK1973 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this original research? (I'm refering to the theory only a part of Macedonia was ruled by the Argeads thus was different than the kingdom of Macedon(?)) Shadowmorph (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Macedonia" is the most common English usage, and accurately refers to the kingdom, the Macedonian Empire, and in all other times of its history mentioned here. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Brittanica, (here) says Macedonia (the ancient kingdom). It doesn't even mention Macedon (disambiguation) nowhere near the beginning. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * actually it doesn't use "Macedon" at all. "Macedon" can be used when referring to "Phillip II of Macedon" or the "rise of Macedon" but probably only to distinguish between pre-Alexander and the later eras. I've been bold and moved the page Shadowmorph (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "kingdom of Macedon" is not the most common use, but "Macedonia" is. If we had to use Macedon for the title it probably should be kingdom of Macedon like in kingdom of Israel. But contrary to the Israel case, kingdom of Macedon is rarely used for times other than the pre-Alexandrian. This article is about Macedonia in all time periods Shadowmorph (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The word ancient could be omitted because there never was a non ancient kingdom by itself. But it is better left there for clarity Shadowmorph (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Kingdom of Macedonia" is the most common term. Yet "Macedon" has the same meaning. As long as "Macedon" directs to this page and is mentioned as an alternative term, I got no problem GK1973 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the re-direct from Macedon (I think) simply because the term Macedon is so unusual.Politis (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. Any more suggestions, welcomed Shadowmorph (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always been under the inpression that the country's name was the 'Kingdom of Macedon' and I have used that name for all the articles, that have involved this kingdom. 'Macedonian' was the adjective for the noun 'Macedon(ia)'. Kyriakos (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well, you were mistaken. "Macedon" sees some use in dated sources, but the most common term is clearly "Macedonia". We long used to keep this article at Macedon just for disambiguation purposes. It is always helpful to consult the OED rather than wading though google hits. Macedon n. is listed, as "1. Ancient Macedonia. Now arch. and hist.", first attestation c. 1330, in use in the 19th century and into the 1960s, but at present mostly in the composition Philip of Macedon. I would advocate the title of Ancient Macedonia as most appropriate for this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that there are other Macedonias to disambiguate. Ancient Macedonia could be confused with Ancient "Macedonia" (region surrounding the location of the modern republic that uses that name) which would be Paeonia, I think. That problem only appeared when an admin decided to move the country article and omit the words "Republic of". And he didn't remove the move-protection either. If that wasn't done, there would be less need to disambiguate that, imho. I'd challenge your proposal on its basis also. It's not that bad but the word ancient is itself trivially omitted in all contexts that the correct Macedonia is inferred by other means. When the words Aristotle, Empire, Army etc pop up then "ancient" is not needed; it is not a part of the description. By Googling "empire of Macedonia" gives many results while "empire of ancient Macedonia" gives no results. Same for "Aristotle was born in Macedonia". You can check other sources. Thanks for your input, by the way. Oh and in case you don't know there is a current arbitration about the Macedonia naming dispute inside Wikipedia. Temporarily no Macedonia-related article (of the non-locked ones) should be moved until the ARBCOM finishes it's job. Check it here: Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * About the common use about "Macedonia" in antiquity

Shadowmorph (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the move to "Macedonia (qualifier)", just "ancient kingdom" doesn't strike me as a particularly good choice. I suggest "Macedonia (antiquity)" or "Macedonia (Classical Antiquity)". --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No.. this would be problematic because Macedonia (antiquity) could also mean Macedonia (region)(antiquity) and Macedonia (region) has very little to do with Macedonia in antiquity or even Macedonia (country)(antiquity), which is even less relevant. In antiquty there were actually 2 Macedonias, Macedonia (kingdom) and Macedonia (ancient region), the latter being the territory of the combined Macedonian tribes in addition to the Argeads we all know. Macedonia (classical antiquty) is also not a good solution, because Macedonia's history spans far back to the past and to the future of this relatively short period. Yes... unfortunately, wherever the word "Macedonia" is used there are issues with semantics...GK1973 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology -> "македнос", Solun, language etc??????
I'm sorry, is this an encyclopedia or a playground??? "The name of Macedonia (from [Macedonian], Makedonía), comes from the ancient Macedonian word македнос"!!!! Is this an ancient alphabet i'm missing? An ancient spoken language i'm missing??? Would you please get some serious... this is an encyclopedia, not a propagandistic forum!

There is an image that says "The statue of Alexander the Great in Solun sea front"... from the antiquity till nowdays the name of the city is Thessaloniki after Alexanders sister Thessalonike! Why are you people trying to twist the history?

After the ancient Macedonian language, there was the Slavic Macedonian language? The religion of the ancient Macedonian was the unknown Ancient Macedonian religion? Just a notice... 30km south from the Macedonian capital Aigai (inside the Macedonian kingdom) there is the Mount Olympus, i think you've heard about the Twelve Olympians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#The_King

''"The King

The king (Басилеус, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (Басиликос граматеус, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council."''

What the Cyrillic alphabet has to do with the ancient Macedonian kingdom???

I'm sure there are more since i read it very quickly. I don't know if i have to laugh or cry!!! Can someone please clean this mess? --xvvx (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relax, man. Just a silly piece of POV vandalism. It was reverted within three minutes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry man, i don't know what's wrong. Even though i can see from the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&action=history that you have reverted the article to the previous version, for some reason i can not understand, if i click on the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) i get the previous version --xvvx (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try refreshing your browser cache, perhaps. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's o.k now, without refreshing the cache. There might be some other problem. IE is an unknown word for me :p I use linux and tried 5 different browsers (Firefox, Opera, Epiphany, Arora, Konqueror) :p --xvvx (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric Macedonia
My concern is this material, whose accuracy I've not yet examined. It seems interesting but it is placed IMO in the wrong article (at least to that extent): Macedonia (Greece), where there should be only a summary of it per SS. So, my question is: where should this material mainly be?
 * 1) Here?
 * 2) To the history section of the Macedonia (region)?
 * 3) As it stands now?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two points (I cannot comment on its accuracy, although it looks good):
 * As phrased, it covers the area of the modern province, because its source does.
 * That's the only reason I can see for Macedonia (Greece) to have a history section at all, other than a summary of Macedonia (region). Its boundary is the Greek frontier as of 1913, and it is unlikely to be a natural division in the palaeolithic (or even in the nineteenth century).

I would put it in Macedonia (region); the connection of purely archaeological cultures to the kingdom of Macedon must be conjecture. But this would involve asking if the archaeology of the inland parts of the region differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hat link
The title is unambiguously referring to an ancient kingdom. However "ancient" might create some confusion about the roman province and the byzantine thema to the lay reader. Thus the inclusion of other places template. We could also change that part of the hat link to For other historical entities see Macedonia (disamgiguation). Shadow mor ph ^"^ 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Current hat link looks fine. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

the current article title is an abomination. I liked it rather better when this article resided at Macedon. But at least the title is now absolutely unambiguous, so no, no hatnote will be needed under this title. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Revision: Description of the territory
A long time has passed and the article continues at a low level. It's time to implement changes that will increase accuracy, neutrality and coherence. Starting with the territory:

The description of the territory is very polemical to say at least. This has been extensively discussed in the past []. In my talk page [] you can find several references that give a perspective different to what many have been saying here. They are sourced too! With this I pretend only to claim the polemic character of this subject. For that reason I propose a wording that avoids terminology such as "Ancient Greece" and that uses a more geological terminology with references to rivers and mountains. Also there is the problem with the maps, with some in French and others that are not very informative. Hxseek has a good alternative to the maps used:. This is better looking and its source is well established and respected: "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece". Maps with similar look can be prepared and used for the different stages of the 'Macedon'.Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, not again! You were denied last time by a solid consensus and I do not have the time or patience to re-hash the same old nonsensical debate again.   The maps are fine.  Hxseek's are inaccurate.  Your sourcing is worthless and misleading.  Forget it, not a chance.  --Athenean (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Last time the map changes were accepted but could no be implemented because of POV pushing and contributions loaded with dogmatic opinions and deprived of any objectiveness, just like yours. Why the sourcing is worthless and misleading? Why they are inaccurate? Why not use a neutral description of the territory?Ilidio Martins (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is a not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe[]? To make things worst the "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece". Because of the absence of a geological peninsula one borrows it a political meaning? This is what I call biased nonsense!

In summary the particular article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has severe problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment
Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadow mor ph ^"^ 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's reference
There is problems with the current reference for the territorial description which is based on the term "Greek peninsula". This is not an objective description since in proper geological terms the area attributed to the Greek peninsula is not a peninsula! Could anyone point where is its isthmus? Could anyone pick it from the list of peninsulas in Europe? Moreover "Greek peninsula" term is redirected to "Geography of Greece" which constitutes a quite daring suggestion.

The article from Britannica that is used as source for the current Wikipedia article has problems with objectiveness and accuracy of the terminology used. The reference should be removed as well as the wording based on it.Ilidio Martins (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

the peninsula is actually known as the Balkan peninsula. This should be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no such thing as "Greek peninsula" except locally in Greece, which is not official international entity of reference, I believe. MakedekaM (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, guys, look at a map. A peninsula is defined as a narrowing of land that extends into a body of water.  While we can debate whether or not there really is such a thing as a "Balkan Peninsula", the narrowing of land that characterizes a "Greek Peninsula" is south of ancient Macedonia.  The narrowing occurs in the region of ancient Epirus and Thessaly, not in the region of ancient Macedonia.  No matter how you slice it, the bulk of ancient Macedonia was north of the narrowing that defines the geographical Greek peninsula.  Politically, of course, the region of ancient Macedonia lies mostly within the modern country of Greece, but we don't define geographical features politically.  The narrowing of land that defines the "Greek peninsula" is south of Pella, not north of it.  (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

The Argead kingdom was mostly in what you yourself, taivo, define as the Greek peninsula. Aiges was the traditional capital up until Archelaus' times (that is for more than 4 centuries) and even Pella lies within the Greek peninsula, since the borders of a peninsua are not a stright line but mostly geographical elements of which the plains of Bottiaia are part of. Pydna, mt Olympus, generally the region of Pieria is the traditional area of Macedon, which later expanded. What you call Epirus an Thessaly are still Macedonia. Even Orestis and Eordaia are within the Greek peninsula. Almopi, Lynkestis and Pelagonia are outside the "Greek peninsula", but then these were not actually parts of Argead Macedonia GK1973 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment of what constitutes "ancient Macedonia is in Greek peninsula" or even with your attempt to draw the lines of the Greek peninsula to include the Pella region. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but it's just another Greek POV pushing to stretch the boundaries of "Greece" beyond the classical entity to encompass the modern entity.  Sorry, but that's how I interpret it.  The "Greek peninsula" neither encompasses all of modern Greece, nor all of the Greek-speaking areas of antiquity.  Look at the map at Macedonia and it's clear that core "ancient Macedonia" is outside the narrowing of the Balkan peninsula that extends no further north than Thessaly (which was not part of "core Macedonia").  (Taivo (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you are clearly wrong. Most of the ancient kingdom, even if you exclude Pella (also outside the initial Macedonian kingdom), Olympus and Pydna and the whole region of Pieria, which IS the historical Macedonian kingdom is clearly outside Thessaly and within the region you call Greek peninsula. So are many other non-Argead Macedonian kingdoms GK1973 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Macedonian kingdom lies within the Greek borders. Ionia was a Greek colony. The article says “is an ancient region of central coastal Anatolia in present-day Turkey”, the article about Magna Grecia, says “is the name of the coastal areas of Southern Italy on the Tarentine Gulf”. Is it or not the ancient kingdom of Macedonia in Greece? Why do we have to eliminate that word? The main image about the Macedonian kingdom area http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg clearly shows that it was within the Greek region. The ancient Macedonian kingdom is in Greece and that’s a fact. I still can't understand why do we have to change that. O.K the ancient Macedonia is in Balkans, the Peloponnese, Epirus, Thessaly etc are also in the Balkans, actually the whole Greece is in Balkans, do we have to change that? It seems to me irrational! --xvvx (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * xvvx, we're not talking about whether or not ancient Macedonia was Greek or not. We're only talking about whether the core of ancient Macedonia lay within some imaginary construct we're calling "the Greek Peninsula", so your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.  GK1973, if you're saying that most of Macedonia lay north of Thessaly, then that's what I'm also saying.  Thessaly is the northernmost part of Greece that can geographically be within the "Greek peninsula" because the narrowing of land required to call something a peninsula does not include modern Thessalonica and northwards.  Look at the map of the regions of Greece at the place you're linking this to.  You will clearly see that the narrower part of northern Greece is at the northern edge of Epirus and Thessaly.  The parts of Greece labelled "Macedonia" and "Thrace" are clearly and unambiguously north of the narrowing of land required in the definition of "peninsula".  (Taivo (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Since I was the editor who originally inserted that let me express my opinion here. Taivo, please support your argument with sources rather than with your own original research. You cannot redefine geography and there is no reason for you to try to find the meaning of the word peninsula. There are thin peninsulas, thick peninsulas and long peninsulas. As far as Wikipedia is concerned we can settle with what a reliable sources tells as that the Greek peninsula is. There is no reason for any of us to try to find the borders of it because he perceives the narrowing to be this or that. I am not the biggest fan of Britannica but they do say that Macedonia was "centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai". Even if you have another reliable authoritative source that refutes that, the fact that the Britannica citation exists means that it represents at least one accepted view of where Macedonia was defined geographically in respect to the Greek peninsula. Besides of your viewpoint that involves Macedonia not being "Greek" neither being "in ancient Greece" (you have well established that is what you believe), I beg you to reconsider whether this crusade to exclude Macedonia even from the geographic definition of the Greek peninsula is really adding anything to the article. Bear in mind that we could also use the modern well-defined geographic boundary of Greece for the purpose of orienting ourselves and the reader in the map. For instance we could say that it was originally centered around Aegai modern day Edessa, Greece and achieve the same result. I have the feeling that would not be acceptable (because of the "G" word) to some editors like MakedekaM who seems to believe that there is no such thing as a Greek peninsula. I take it that when you mentioned the "imaginary construct" you meant the "geographic definition" and don't share MakedekaM's view.  Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MakadekaM said something about: "official international entity of reference" which is equal to "geographic definition", but international one. Do NOT MISINTERPRET MY WORDS INTENTIONALLY SO YOU CAN BE PUSHING YOUR POV. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ancient Greek kingdom
That is a very common way of refering to Macedon and considering that Alexander, Phillip and the Macedonians themselves have allready been labelled Greek I don't see the point of removing the reference in this instance. Particularly as I took care to back it up with several citations from WP:RS.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you can back up an adjective with reliable sources doesn't mean it's a good idea to put it in. The addition of "Greek" to the first sentence doesn't add anything to the article and gives the impression of baiting our Macedonian editors (read WP:POINT).  As you say, the relation of the ancient kingdom of Macedon to the Greek city states is made clear in the rest of the article.  There's no confusion.  What's the point of baiting your neighbors to the north just because you can find three references that call Macedon a "Greek kingdom"?  Work on the content of the article and improve that.  Don't spend your time focusing on how to "prove" that ancient Macedon was Greek.  You don't need to prove that at all, it's relation is already in the article.  (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * You can find reliable sources all over the place for just about anything you want. But what is the point of focusing overmuch on "Greek"?  It is plain, as you say, and is sprinkled throughout the article, so putting the word "Greek" in every sentence of the article (especially the first one) is just baiting our Macedonian editors.  I suggest that you give careful attention to WP:POINT.  (Taivo (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * If it is a fact then it should be mentioned prominently. Check the entry for Sparta for instance. It says "ancient Greece" in the first line, even though it is also "sprinkled" Or Classical Athens. Or any of the other classical Greek states.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now please check out the entries for Sparta, Athens etc. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sparta, Athens, etc. don't matter. They have never been other than Greek and they form the very core of "Greece".  Macedon was peripheral.  Until Philip, they really weren't even Greek and the Greeks really didn't accept them (until post-Alexander).  So there is no reason to "prominently" mention it.  You are just baiting the Macedonian editors.  It's not necessary since Macedon was not part of the core of ancient Greece.  (Taivo (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * It is exactly because it was peripheral and may be considered to be outside of ancient Greece that it should be noted that it was part of ancient Greece. Also you are of course wrong in asserting that Macedonians were not Greeks before the time of Phillip. In fact they had allready been hellenized by the 5th c. BCE, that's even if you assume they weren't Greek to begin with. See the Britannica article.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that accusations of baiting should not be made and that you should assume good faith.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to judge your personal motives here, but "prominently" writing "Greek" in the first sentence of this article is baiting in its effect. This has been discussed several times in the last six months and the consensus is consistent--don't put too much "Greek" into initial statements about Macedon.  If the article completely ignored the Greek component of Macedon, then you would have a very valid point and the issue would have to be added throughout the article.  But the Greek element is already generously displayed in the article.  There's no need for baiting by "prominently" displaying it in the first sentence.  There's a radical difference between what you can do and what you should do.  I can drink and smoke if I want, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.  (Taivo (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Surely you mean drink and drive? There isn't anything wrong with drinking and smoking.--Anothroskon (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked "don't put too much "Greek" into initial statements about Macedon", can you be kind enough to explain what is "much" and what is not? And especially why? I mean the story about the drinking and the smoking is sound but not really illuminating about your opinion (and your revert). To me there is a more illuminating story saying "either she is pregnant or not", which I find it more relevant to the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Anothroskon here. The way I see it, the only argument advanced so far against his recent edit is that it would offend the sensibilities of Slav Macedonian users.  This argument is a) entirely subjective, b) irrelevant, and c) assumes motive (i.e. bad faith).  It is subjective because it based only on Taivo's says-so and not backed by much evidence.  From my experience, Slav Macedonian users are more preoccupied with modern history articles and have shown scant interest in this article.  To the extent that Slav Macedonian users show any interest in ancient history articles, it tends to be limited to the pages on ФНЛНП and mostly AЛЕКСАНДАР МAKEДOНСКИ, consisting mainly of naive POV-pushing by changing the names to their modern Slavic equivalents.  As evidenced by the talkpage history, most objections on this page come from northern European and American users.


 * The "baiting" argument is also irrelevant, because I was under the impression that wikipedia is supposed to be immune to national sensibilities. During a recent debate (spring of 2009) on whether RoM should be referred to as RoM or FYROM on the article on Greece, Taivo was one of the main proponents of the argument that wikipedia should be immune to national sensibilities.  It was argued that referring to the country as RoM was may be offensive to Greek users, but tough.  Sorry, but if wikipedia is supposed to be immune to Greek sensibilities, then it should be immune to Slav Macedonian sensibilities as well.  If Slav Macedonians are taught a bunch of unhistorical nonsense in their schools that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was not Greek, tough.  That's their problem, not wikipedia's problem.  At some point, too much political correctness turns into censorship.  This precisely what's going on here.  Taivo is not contesting the Greekness of the ancient Macedonian kingdom per se, but rather that we shouldn't call a spade a spade because one particular ethnic group might find it offensive.


 * Lastly, the argument that one can find reliable sources to back up anything is simply not true. One can find sources to back anything, but not reliable sources.  I can find dozens of reliable sources that the ancient Macedonian kingdom was Greek.  But I can't find a single reliable sources that the modern-day Slav Macedonians are the sole direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians because that is a bunch of nationalist BS.  --Athenean (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is an instance where an unnecessarily heavy pointy hand is being laid upon an article that is perfectly fine without it. What is the point to stating that Macedon was an ancient "Greek" kingdom?  The point is to bait Macedonian editors.  Macedon was only Greek peripherally.  Before adding "Greek" to the initial statement, how about listening to a wider variety of editors rather than just to the editors who are typically associated with a pro-Greek POV in other articles?  You write, Athenean, as if this were an article about saddle horses--uncontroversial and uncontentious.  But you know as well as I do how much the various editors struggle over these Macedonian-related articles.  The word "Greek" is totally unnecessary in that first sentence  especially since Macedon was always only peripherally Greek.  It's like referring to French Guiana as "France".  Technically it is, but it's not very enlightening and misleading in its implication.  "Arawak is spoken in France" may be technically true, but no one's going to find Arawak speakers in Paris, which is the first place a reader will turn to find them.  Let's get a couple of other (non-Greek) editors to weigh in here.  If they agree with you, then fine, I'll bow to consensus.  But until we have some more variety in the respondents, let the old consensus version remain.  The references are still in history.  (Taivo (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Remember the WP:BRD process here that is fundamental to Wikipedia--Be bold, Revert, Discuss. 1) Be bold and edit--Anothroskon did that.  2) If another editor objects then the edit is reverted--I did that.  3) Discuss until a consensus is reached--Anothroskon instead reinserted the contested material.  The discussion is only now beginning with the addition of Factuarius and Athenean.  But it should be remembered that the change is not incorporated until a consensus is reached.  That is the fundamental Wikipedia process.  We are not at consensus at this point.  We are just starting to discuss and I have submitted a request for comment so that other opinions can be gathered.  (Taivo (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually you will find that I didn't reinstate the addition. Please be more carefull in the future.Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, Anothroskon, my apologies. Factuarius did.  Thanks for the sharp eye.  (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Beyond my concern over baiting, there is the added concern over what "Greek" implies. Athens, Sparta, and even Syracuse were "Greek"--either by being part of the historical core or being settled by Greeks.  Macedon was neither.  It was not a part of the core and it did not have a history of "Greekness".  (It was also not Slavic, so don't think I'm pushing that POV.)  These were the boorish cousins who came to crash the party.  (Taivo (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi Taivo, you mentionned WP:POINT. Quoting the page: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it. Now, how is this related to Anothroskon's edit (which was backed up by 5 references and did not involve disruption - the core of WP:POINT)? Please, let's debate the real issue, without making such allegations, since this can go both ways and prevent meaningful discussion. Regards. Antipastor (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I think a slightly expanded lead (eg, one more sentence) could help with additional context, therefore avoiding such "black or white" choices.
 * Regarding the argument you mentionned about some previous consensus which states that "too much Greek" could bait editors of one nationality: I cannot find this with a quick search. But, regardless, I think Athenean convincingly argued that this is not a relevant argument for wikipedia.
 * To the point, it is is generally uncontested that the Macedonian aristocracy claimed Greek origins, spoke Greek, self-identified as Greek and was accepted as Greek (even in the Olympics). This makes Macedon a Greek kingdom. I am not discussing the references added by Anothroskon, which provide further independent support for his edit. Needless to say, this is not an article about the early ancient Macedonian language, about which too little is known for a decisive classification.
 * Re: Point. My memory failed me.  I was thinking about the admonition not to bait just to make a point, but I got the wrong guideline/policy reference.  My mistake.  (Taivo (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Re: "Too Much Greek". My comment is based on a long discussion on wording at Talk:Macedonia where the phrase "ancient Greek kingdom" became "in Greek antiquity" and finally settled on "in the time of Phillip and Alexander".  And if we were talking about removing references to "Greek" throughout the article then your point about Wikipedia not being tied to politics would be absolutely valid.  I'm not arguing for anything of the sort.  Macedon was clearly tied in certain ways to ancient Greece.  The problem is in the first sentence only.  What is the point in using "Greek" in the very first sentence where its effect appears to be baiting?  Thank you for your comments, Antipastor.  I'd still like to hear from a few more respondents.  (Taivo (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your clarifications, now I clearly understand the concern that you raise:
 * The previous discussion involves a disambiguation page. This disambiguation page explicitly mentions the Republic of Macedonia, is mainly about the modern use of the term Macedonia and was the subject of a long dispute. Moreover, as a disambiguation page, there are no references, no context and it must be kept brief. Those are the reasons a cautious approach was chosen, and what makes the "baiting" argument relevant there.
 * Here, we have a historical article which allows more extensive coverage, with content unrelated to the modern dispute. Therefore, careful sourced and informative additions (and I agree within the proper context) do not need such strict restrictions, and the baiting concern is weak. Antipastor (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Re to Taivo: I'm sorry, but I simply cannot buy the "baiting" argument.  How can you be so sure that Anothroskon's intention is to bait Slav Macedonian editors?  Can you get inside his/her head?  Especially when editors from that country have shown the scantest interest in this article.  Do read the discussion archive of this article, it's not that long.  There are hardly any editors from that country participating in it.  If someone did want to bait Slav Macedonian editors, there are far easier and more effective ways of doing it than in this relatively obscure history article (e.g. try adding the Albanian name of Skopje in that article's lead, just to name one of many).  I also think this debate here is only very loosely related to the Macedonia naming dispute, though it may appear otherwise initially.  No serious editor, as I recall, used the Greekness/non-Greekness of the ancient kingdom as an argument in that debate.  Debating the Greekness of the ancient Macedonian kingdom using the scholarly literature is one thing, and I can accept it.  Political-correctness type arguments to the effect of "we must not say X because group Y might be offended" are another, and I cannot accept them.  --Athenean (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Macedon was not peripherally Greek. It was more Greek than most other Greeks states. Of course theories exist, but the academic consensus supports the full Greekness of the Macedonian kingdoms regardless. Culturally and linguistically they were Greeks, they supported their Greekness, they were clearly identified as Greeks by the "barbarian" civilized (peoples who left us enough literary tradition to be able to draw academic conclusions)world (Romans, Persians, Hebrews), all archaeological evidence points to this conclusion. Acarnanians, Ambraciots, even most Hepirotan tribes were considered "less" Greek than the Macedonians, but since there is no contemporary state claiming their heritage there is no ongoing debate regarding their Greekness. The Athenians are more times called barbarians than the Macedonians in the collective Greek literary tradition. A simple trip or study of the findings at Pella, Vergina or Dion would once and forever disperse any such assumptions. Taking, though, into account that in history nothing nothing is an absolute certainty, alternative theories have been suggested as to the Macedonian Illyrian, Thracian, Brygian etc ancestry but these are just ALTERNATIVE theories that bear interest but are clearly less supported by the academic community. We have had this discussion na million times and the outcome is always the same...We agree that this is the prevalent academic position and then we abstain from using the word "Greek" to not offend our friends from the Republic of Macedonia. I move to clearly use the word Greece in the lead as is proper, as we have done for their country, regardless Greek protests.

It is not a simplistic attitude to call Macedonians Greeks. Scotland was not considered Greece, Macedonia was. Proponents of the non-Greekness theory choose not to give value to the bulk of Grecoroman literature and draw conclusions from singled out extracts. They rarely have any clue as to the archaeological and linguistical evidence and repeat old-fashioned arguments that can rarely be supported. Our job though is not to debate on the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians but to establish an academically sound lead. And academic consensus, regardless what sceptics might suggest is that the Macedonians were along with the Molossians, the Orestai, the Pelagonians etc Greek tribes GK1973 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Others are now commenting, so it is inappropriate to change the text until an agreement is reached. This sentence hasn't said "Greek" for a long time, so a day or two longer won't kill anyone while the discussion proceeds.  Please make your comments here rather than in an edit summary.)  (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * GK1973, I find your comment "it was more Greek than most other Greek states" to be rather overblown. Unless you mean something along the lines of "converts are often more radical than those born into the church", then you are wrong in that assessment.  When "Greek" is used as an adjective, then Americans (at least) don't think about those northerners, but immediately go to Athens and Sparta.  They know Alexander the Great, but he is identified as often with Macedon as with "Greece".  If you mean that "Greece" didn't exist as a unified entity before Philip and Alexander unified it, then I also think that's rather overblown.  The core Greek states came together at least once before to repel the Persians and they identified themselves as a unified ethnic group based on shared cultural and historical heritage to repel Xerxes during the Thermopylae/Salamis/Platea campaign.  And the Iliad clearly illustrates a notion of Greek unity prior to Macedon.  I still agree with Future Perfect (below), that it's a stretch to call this "Greek" with the implication that it was some kind of "Athens of the north".  The fact that there is never a debate in calling Athens, Sparta, and Thebes Greek, but that there is a problem with including Macedon in that group illustrates the complexity of the issue.  (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * The correct analogy would be neither with Scotland nor Athens but rather with Ionia and Magna Graecia. These were also on the periphery of the Greek world yet are unproblematically called Greek even though they played an even smaller part in the Persian Wars than did Macedon. Also please note that WP has a policy that content deeemed offensive by some special interest groups but which is nonetheless factual should be included. I will look for the exact wording in WP.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No Taivo, I stand by my statement that Macedonia was "more Greek than most other Greek states. The archaeological evidence we have excavated in Macedonia proper and directly attributed to the ancient Macedonians is by far superior and more detailed than anything we have about ancient Sparta (we are not even sure where the famous komes were), most of Attica, Epirus, Thessaly etc. The inscriptions we have directly attributed to Macedonians are second only to those found around Athens and only if only excavations in Macedonia proper are counted. The literary evidence we have amounts to thousands of pages and I can safely state that the Macedonians are less times referred to as barbarians as, for example, the Athenians. When "Greek" is used in America, the minds of the unaware commoners also do not go to the hundreds of Greek cities, within and without non-Strabonian Greece, they do not think of the people of Syracuse, Tarantas, Smyrna, Bosporus, Cyrenaica, nor of those in Epidamnus (Dyrrachium), Larissa, Helis, Amphissa, Chalcidike etc. Yet, Dion and Olympus are considered purely Greek by the unaware American, although they entirely lie within Macedonia. They identify Alexander as often with Macedon as with Greece as they do Pyrrhus with the Molossians and Greece. This has nothing to do with academic knowledge. Were the Minoans Greeks? There are theories that they were a non-Greek race, yet the consensus is that they should be counted among Greeks, which is exactly what we write there. Your arguments should be research more and sadly bear no academic value. The common fight against the Persians has nothing to do with Greekness, although Herodot clearly commends the Macedonians for their part both before and during the Persian Wars. He occupies himself more with the Greekness and antipersian struggle of Alexander I than he does with the other "medizontes" Greeks, which formed a larger army than the "free" Greeks in Marathon (where the Spartan absence is scolded), in Thermopylae, in Plataea and in Salamis. The Macedonians are among the Persian allies (as are all the Ionian Greeks, the Greeks of Thrace, Chalcidike and the rest of Greece north of Thermopylae) but they are the only ones who collaborate with the Greek army. Even the Syracusans are scolded for making excessive demands in order to help "Greece" Unless the Thessalian Greek cities, the Ionian cities, the cities of Magna Graecia etc are also not "Greek", this argument is clearly invalid. I urge you to at last browse through a book about Macedonian antiquities and examine the findings. Talking with shared arguments as they can be found on the internet is not the way to reach a conclusion. Get yourselves some copies or images of the Macedonian royal decrees found in Macedonian citadels, cities and temples. Look up the inscriptions of pre-Alexandrian tombstones and pottery excavated in Macedon. Even if someone could argue that Greek speech somehow magically replaced the ancient Indoeuropean language of the Macedonians sometime before (?) or after Alexander (?), we have hundreds of purely Greek inscriptions made by common Macedonian laymen and not by the aristocracy, which is believed (?) by the proponents of the non-Greekness hypothesis to, for some reason, have replaced their language with that of the Greeks. Are you even aware of how many famous Macedonian writers, sculptors and other artisans there are? The evidence Taivo and FP is truly overwhelming and should you go to Macedon and see it, if you had traveled around the excavation sites and marveled at the abundance of archaeological treasures clearly ascribed to Macedonians as I have, you would change your views. The only problem here is the pro (Ro)Macedonian feeling some people display. You have self appointed yourselves protectors of the weak and close your eyes to science. There was never a debate before the RoMacedonian claims to the heritage of the ancient Macedonians and this is perfectly clear all around the world in all major archaeological museums which do not distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians, no more than they do between Athenians and Greeks. Of course theories exist, but so is the case with every article of Wikipedia. It is general academic consensus we are supposed to look for and not cling to the writings of the 3 Bs, as if they represent the whole of the academic community. By the way, I have to apologize for the wording of some of my arguments. When I reread my text, I think that some could be perceived as offensive which is truly not my intention. I know that I have to do with studied editors and I mean no offense whatsoever. Please assume good faith. GK1973 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. and about the Iliad argument.. The Iliad was written at a time when Macedon was a new born kingdom and it talks about a time when Macedonia did not exist. The Macedonian invasion of the lands which would later be called Macedonia began some 4-5 centuries after the fall of Troy. Of course there was a sense of unity even back then even if it was not under the name of "Hellenes", which in the Iliad is only the people of Achilles in Phthia in Thessaly, coincidentally an ancestor of Alexander III. Even the poet (as Homer is called in Greek texts) calls the Greeks by other names (like Dannaoi) but this is another discussion. Actually this is an argument that can be used by the proponents of the Greekness theory, since the failure of Homer to provide any nation/tribe called Macedonians while he does name peoples of the area (like the Paeonians) among the Troyan lines, clearly supports the claim of the later Greeks that the Macedonians did not exist back then in the area and in fact were later invaders. GK1973 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth is that most international scholars do consider Macedon to be Greek. Here are just a few examples, if you people like I can post a lot more:
 * -"The Macedonians were Greeks." (George Cawkwell, Emeritus Fellow, University College, Oxford, "Philip of Macedon", Faber & Faber, London, 1978)
 * -"Macedonia as a whole was tended to remain in isolation from the rest of the Greeks..." (Peter Green, British classical scholar, "Alexander the Great", p. 20)
 * -“Where the Hellenic city-states had failed, the culturally backward Greek kingdom of Macedon came within an ace of success;…” (Arnold Joseph Toynbee, “Greeks and Their Heritages”, 1981)
 * -"We have now become accustomed to regarding Macedonians as northern Greeks and, in extreme cases, to hearing Alexander’s conquests described as in essence Greek conquests." (Ernst Badian, “Studies in the history of art Vol 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times”, 1982)
 * -“Since so little is known about the early Macedonians, it is hardly strange that in both ancient and modern times there has been much disagreement on their ethnic identity. The Greeks in general and Demosthenes in particular looked upon them as barbarians, that is, not Greek. Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognises them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and ‘NorthWest Greeks’ who, after long residence in the north Pindus region, migrated eastwards. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months, and the like suggest strongly that the language was a Greek dialect. Macedonian institutions, both secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics and legends identify or link the people with the Dorians.” (John V.A. Fine, ‘The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History’ Harvard University Press, 1985)
 * -“As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the Macedonians shared in the ability to initiate ideas and create political forms.” (N.G.L. Hammond, “The Miracle that was Macedonia”, 1992)
 * -“Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos form part of the Greek ethnos; hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world.” (: M. Opperman, “The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd ed.- Macedonia,Cults”, 1996)
 * -“In the cultural gulf between Greeks and Macedonians the question of Macedonian national origin was never more than of secondary importance in antiquity. For modern scholars the evidence from names – there is not a single sentence extant from the language of the Old Macedonians – tilts the scales in favour of the view that includes the Macedonians among the Greeks. The theory, therefore, advocated by the student of Indo-European linguistics, P.Kretschner, that the Macedonians were of Graeco-Illyrian hybrid stock, is not to be regarded as very probable. So the majority of modern historians, admittedly with the noteworthy exception of Julius Kaerst , have argued CORRECTLY for the Hellenic origin of the Macedonians. They should be included in the group of the North-West Greek tribes.” (Hermann Bengtson, “History of Greece”, University of Ottawa Press, 1997)
 * -“The idea of the city-state was first challenged by the ideal of pan-Hellenic unity supported by some writers and orators, among which the Athenian Isocrates became a leading proponent with his Panegyrics of 380 suggesting a Greek holy war against Persia. However, only the rise of Macedonia made the realization of pan-Hellenic unity possible.” (Vilho Harle, Finnish academic, “Ideas of Social Order in the Ancient World”, 1998)
 * -"When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." (Ulrich Wilcken, German historian, "Alexander the Great", p. 22)
 * -"This was Macedonia in the strict sense, the land where settled immigrants of Greek stock later to be called Macedonians." (W. J. Woodhouse, Australian historian, "The tutorial history of Greece, to 323 B.C.: from the earliest times to the death of Demosthenes", p.216, University Tutorial Press)
 * -“Philip had no illusions about the stability of the Common Peace, given the turbulent history of the Greek city-states, their competitiveness, and their general reluctance to sacrifice their freedom of action even for the common good. Moreover, he was a Macedonian, from the backwater of the Greek world.” (Martin Sicker, “The Pre-Islamic Middle East”, 2000)
 * -"Whereas the Athenians governed themselves as a democracy, Macedon was still ruled by a type of monarchy that had disappeared from other Greek city-states centuries before." Alexander the Great: Macedonian King and Conqueror (Bernard Randall, “Leaders of Ancient Greece”, 2003)
 * -“In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their language: the place-names, names of the months and many of the personal names, especially royal names, which are Greek in roots and form. This suggests that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives (though with a local accent which turned Philip into Bilip, for example).”( Richard Stoneman, “Alexander the Great», 2007)
 * -“The Macedonians were originally one of several Greek tribes living on the northern frontier of the Hellenic world”. (Kathryn A. Bard, “Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt”, p. 460, 1999)
 * -“It should be noted that there is no connection between the Macedonians of the time of Alexander the great who were related to other Hellenic tribes and the Macedonians of today, who are of Slavic Origin and related to the Bulgarians.” (David H. Levinson, “Encyclopaedia of World Cultures”, p. 239)
 * -"... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." (Ian Worthington, English historian and archaeologist, "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008)

Btw, do take a look here about ancient Macedonia, from Yale Courses: The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against making this a reference game. The internet is filled with references of individual scholars, would be scholars etc and would bring us nowhere, since there may be tens of thousands of references as to the Greekness of the Macedonians but the few hundreds at to the opposite would look many in a forum. If we are to seriously debate on this issue, we are supposed to be accustomed with much of the bibliography and the evidence. Those who are not should first research and then suggest an opinion anyways. On my part I would prefer arguments to references. GK1973 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GK1973, I agree that this shouldn't be a "my references trump your references" game. But I like Blueboar's suggestion of "Hellenic" (see below).  "Hellenic" is generally not so "Greek" as "Greek" is.  (I took no offense at your writing style.)  (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Taivo. As far as I am concerned I have no problem with the word "Hellenic". To my knowledge there is indeed no difference between "Greek" and "Hellenic". Hellenic is indeed no broader term in archaeology and is used to only describe Greek artifacts, traditions, inscriptions etc. Thracian artifacts for example are not called Hellenic no matter how Greek they look, nor are there any Hellenic kingdoms which are not purely Greek in any text I am familiar with. For me, it is as good a choice as "Greek" for these reasons. Should it mean "something like Greek but not Greek" I would strongly oppose to its use. Do you base your understanding of the meaning of this word on a certain text? I know that in linguistics it does form a broader group of languages than Greek proper, but have you ever come across a text which distinguishes between "Greeks" and "Hellenes", between "Greek" things and "Hellenic"? Such a differentiation I have not encountered even in museums of the East or Egypt, where one would expect to find "Greeklike" artifacts "Hellenistic" yes but "Hellenic" as opposed to Greek?. The same applies to artifacts found in the Western Mediterranean and especially in the Italian peninsula, which was very heavily influenced by Greek culture. GK1973 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)