Serious question. I mean, it's nearly a 1:1 correspondence with ancient Paeonia, except for one small strip that is part of Greece. It's exactly north of Macedonia in the Thraco-Illyrian contact zone, and it's even composed of Bulgarians (partly a Thracian-descended ethnos) and Albanians (partly an Illyrian-descended ethnos).
I mean, sure, there's certainly a Slavic component, and they do speak a Slavic language, but if they are so obsessed with the Classical / Hellenistic period, why not adopt an accurate name and ethnic identity derived from it?
I think it would be damn cool if that happened. I'm all for seeing a modern Paeonia developing and interacting with modern Macedonia.
Cameron Ross
it was Alexander of Macedonia not Alexander of Paeonia, why would they change the country name from that of their greatest citizen?
Jaxon Taylor
>Alexander was a slav meme
Nicholas Morgan
Nice meme, but Paeonia actually had some pretty based people throughout the years, like Ariston and Patraus.
James Ramirez
1) Because the political and cultural identity of FYROM has been formed atrificially around the notion of being descendent from ancient Macedonians. There is thus no political will to reverse course.
2) Because Albania has exact same bullshit problem but with Illyrians.
3) Bulgarians are not Thracians. Genetically some Bulgarians are descendent from Thracians but this is irrelevant. It would be like saying the English are actually Celts. Irrelevant and ignores over 1000 years of social, cultural, and linguistic history. Plus Thracians were mostly extinct as an ethnos (not ethnicity) before Bulgars or South-Slavic Bulgarians arrived.
3) Albanians are most likely the actual descendants of Paeonians.
4) It is disingenuous to claim descent from a historical group which you can not actually trace your civilization to. No such connection can be drawn between Bulgarians and Thracians or FYROM and Paeonia. Slavs are invaders, they brought their own culture and their own language and for a time even practised their own religion. Why ignore that and steal the identity of long dead and forgotten cultures?
Tyler Bailey
Pic related.
First historical mention of Albanians is at Arbanon, and they were called Arbanoi or Arbanites.
From Arbanoi comes the words for Italian Tosk Albanians, Arbereshe.
And also the word for Greek Tosk Albanians, Arvanites.
Albanopolis has no mentions of Albanians until almost 200 years later when they arrived at the site of the ancient city.
Then they become referred to as Albanians only after taking the city.
Arbanon is on the west-most outskirts of Paeonia.
Easton Edwards
1) I guess this is true. But the idea they are Macedonian is fairly recent. If a peoples can be made to believe a lie like that in such a short time, who's to say they they can't believe a relatively accurate statement over time? Though I agree it's less prestigious, I guess.
2) Well, Albanians are no doubt related to some Paleo-Balkan group. I'm not sure if that is Illyrians, Thracians or Paeonians, but linguistically speaking, the Illyrian and Albanian languages have many cognates.
3) You think Thracians were extinct? Some of them were Hellenized, and others were Romanized. Some of the Romanized ones survive as Aromanians/Vlachs, others were Slavicized by South Slavs, and later mixed with some Bulgars (not too many). Don't overestimate the number of South Slavs that arrived in the region. I'd estimate the main components of Bulgarians are roughly 50% South Slavic, 40% Thracian and 10% Bulgar.
3) It's possible there's some Paeonian and Thracian component in them, but I'm more in favour of the Illyrian theory due to the extent of cognates in their language. Besides, Paeonia wasn't exclusively settled by Paeonians. Illyrians and Thracians were also in the area.
4) That I can agree with, but frankly what can you do? There's little doubt they are the group of people most closely related to the Paeonians, even if other influences are stronger. Besides, it's not like they're stealing Paeonian legacy from someone else. It would be like choosing an ethnic identity from the classic era that is at least somewhat accurate.
Leo Phillips
1) sure they can believe it. But like I said, there's no will to change the narrative among the people who make that decision.
2) cognates don't mean a genetic (linguistic) connection. Albanian is closest to Thracians, Baltic and Slavic then to illyrian.
3) I said the ethnos was extinct. There was not really a Thracians identity or culture. Like you said, they were Romanized and hellenized. Even though there are many Bulgarians with Thracians genes, you can't call them Thracians. Cultural identity is a factor. They are slavs, not Thracians.
Thinking in terms of 'ethnicity' is limiting. Genetics don't determine identity, language, history and customs do.
3) why the focus on cognates? If the languages were related you'd see morphological and syntactic correspondences. You don't see it with illyrian but you see it with Thracian.
Albanian has more Latin and Greek cognates combined then it does illyrian,too,which sort of hurts that theory.
4) no talking to you if you're so stupid and close minded as to think that. Might as well say Turks are hittites.
Luis Miller
2) 3b) All right, perhaps you've looked into it more than I have. I was under the impression more similarities to Illyrian were attested.
3a) Completely agree, but what makes you say Bulgarian culture is entirely Slavic? It's a blend of many things, perfectly reflecting the genetic components of the Bulgarian identity. I'd say it's more "Balkan" than it is "Slavic". That's reflected in their music, cuisine and lifestyle. That transformation of the South Slavs' original culture to "Balkan" culture is a result of their mix with the indigenous populations.
The Slavic language was dominant, and gradually everyone adopted it. Language is not everything though. Native history, religion, lifestyle and genetics also define an identity.
4) Many Turkish culture is appropriated native Anatolian culture. The Turkic and Muslim identity often overshadows them, but yes, it is there. You can't say Turks are Hittite though, since they have about a hundred other components. I do think calling them "Anatolians" would be more accurate though. Culturally-speaking, they're barely Turkic.
Easton Robinson
You'd have to identify the Thracian components of Bulgarian culture in order to make that argument.
Even if you are correct (and I think you are at least partially correct about being a Balkan culture in general), why retroactively apply the term Thracian to them? They have called themselves Bulgarian for 1400 years, established two Bulgarian Empires (one bulgar, one slavic), and attained independence under a Bulgarian identity.
Thracian generic and cultural remnants aside, they have clearly had a separate identity since their arrival, and assimilated natives into it.
Macedonians from FROM should just accept that until this century they were Bulgarians. No point in reviving ancient names that modern cultures have no relationship to.
Only Greeks and Albanians have clear historical continuity (chronological, genetic, linguistic, cultural) in the balkans. The difficulty is pin pointing what Albania's heritage actually is. I think if the Albanian government stopped forcing the Illyrian connection the people might be open to a Thracian one, if more compelling evidence is brought forth.
Connor Richardson
Well, I'm not saying calling them Thracian is more accurate than calling them Slavic or Bulgar. Obviously, Thracian culture dates back to much older times, so it's not easy to identify specific elements of it now.
I'd say one argument in favour of it is similarity to Greek Thrace and Macedonia, and especially Romania (particularly in cuisine and music). Part of the similarity is due to mutual subsequent influences and triggers, but I don't think Bulgaria would not be so similar to its neighbours in some aspects if it the pre-migrations natives didn't also influence the inbound Slavs and Bulgars in many ways.
Are there better names for FYROM? The name 'Macedonia' they chose isn't even geographically accurate, in which case Paeonia would be better. They may be Bulgarians (and Albanians to the west), but if they have to remain a separate state, what else can they be called?
Nathan Sanders
Im not well versed in the origins of Balkan customs and traditions. I can identify several elements of Greek culture (some are lost to modernity now but existed in the 50s and 60s) that have roots in ancient Greece.
I was under the impression that the shared customs in Balkan nations and Romanians were a result of the byzantine and Ottoman empires and orthodoxy though.
As for what to call FRYOM... I would say that ideally, it should be merged with Bulgaria. Failing that, Skopje, after their capital.
Camden Hill
>what else can they be called blagoevgrad oblast
anyway, we more or less refer to them as "bulgarians from the macedonian region", but no one cares about calling them macedonians. (that being said, "bulgarians from the thracian region", are never called thracians, because that's associated with people who we don't identify with)
the only people who try to say we're somehow related to thracians are EU fags, who wants us to be associated with the land- europe, more so than slavs- russia or bulgars- central asia.
i don't think there's a point worrying about macedonia. the albanians will keep populating it and starting shit. likely, eventually parts of macedonia will gain independence, parts will join serbia, and even parts will join bulgaria. this country doesn't have much of a future.
Anthony Gonzalez
Because Tito was a nigger
""""""""""""""""""""""""ethnic"""""""""""""""""""""""" based """"""""""""""""""""""""republics"""""""""""""""""""""""" were what fucked Yugoslavia in the first place
Landon Scott
bosnia will collapse soon enough as well, and you'll annex like half of it, you'll likely get montenegro as well, and a large part of macedonia will likely join as well
Matthew Anderson
FYROM clay for everyone but Greece!
Xavier Cook
Greece, fyrom, and Bulgaria should unite and genocide albanians in their bunkers
Evan Morris
>I'd estimate the main components of Bulgarians are roughly 50% South Slavic, 40% Thracian and 10% Bulgar. As a Russian speaker, who can appreciate exactly how much the Bulgars have totally fucked up the grammar of their Slavonic language, I'd put the Slavonic element as lower, like maybe 30%.
Christopher Lopez
p much greeks should be more worried about holding on to n.cyprus and their islands, than about macedonia
Charles Sanders
bulgarians don't care about albanians, the average guy knows nothing about them i think you meant serbia
Dominic Hill
We're good. No ethnic Greeks there, and there's no point in spending resource to assimilate FYROMians. I'd rather we get Northern Epirus. :p
Michael Perry
Macedonia should go to Bulgaria this pretending they are not Bulgarians is really tiring
Connor Cook
No m8. Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia should work together to take FYROM and Albania.
Together they would be a match for turkey and represent an actual regional force in the balkans.
Xavier Ross
>should maybe. but i think it's more likely that most of them would rather join serbia
the only real reason to join bulgaria would be because you'd be in the EU, and could leave for western europe
Robert Bennett
there's the Craiova Group (bg, romania and serbia). we cooperate from time to time, and maybe the biggest thing we did was agree to close the balkan route for "refugees" there's a few other balkan groups but they involve albania, macedonia, even turkey sometimes, and are not as relevant
Joshua Powell
because Gruevski is a fucking cunt that would rather see his country wither outside the EU and NATO forever than be logical for once
Nicholas Rodriguez
you forgot Justinian
Landon Stewart
> >Shittiest emperor >Based
Oliver Diaz
Shittiest emperor was Constantine.
Ryder King
Nah, it was Justinian >Waste resources reconquering large parts of the Western Empire >Constantly shit on loyal and highly competent generals >Continue your invasions abroad even as you fight constant defensive wars against the Bulgarians and Persians Without Justinian it is probable that the Eastern Roman Empire would have lasted a few more centuries having not wasted its dwindling resources in Italy.