Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia/Archive 3

Comments and answers

The edits of Miskin:

• 1. (in Roman Empire): The upper courses of the Axios, Nestos and Strymon are part of Macedonia, whether you like it or not.
• 2. Name: Your name is first misleading - half the population of present-day Macedonia is Macedonian Slav and Bulgarian, the settlement of Slavs and Bulgars is far from "a temporary invasion" as you call it. Secondly, the section talks about many other ethnic groups which have nothing to do with Bulgars or Slavs.
• 3. Erased paragraph: You ask "What are these Turkic Christians doing in this article?" I'll ask you: "What are the Greek refugees from Asia Minor in the 1920s doing in the article?" Both groups settled in Macedonia, that's their right to be in the article. You are applying consistently double standards.
• 4. Yet another erased paragraph. I expect to get an explanation as to why you erased the paragraph, you've given none.
• 5. Rest except statistics. Practically everyone outside Greece admitted that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Slavic - Wilkinson's review of the Ethnographic Carthography of Macedonia is a must on that matter. I can quote around 20 books about Macedonia supporting this, this was the information in all encyclopaedias, on all maps and in all books of maps. Some of the sources are in the source list, others I can give here. If you can't provide any, besides very strong references in favour of what you say, I'll consider further changes as vandalism.
• 6. Statistics. The Statistics which I included is the most widely used statistics of the time - present in Britannica, the French Larousse, the American Encyclopaedia, the maps of Leon Dominian. I expect and demand an explanation as to why you deleted it...? Certainly, there were also other statistics - which said that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Turkish, Greek, Serbian or Romanian, this is, however, the most widely accepted one, which is easily demonstrated by the around 10 sources with similar data listed by VMORO.
• 7. Your statistics. The statistics of Hilmi Pasha will be a good addition to the article although it is still nothing more than a statistics of religious denomination. The same regards the statistics of Amadore Virgile, he, for example, does not recognize any Albanians in his maps or statistics as the Christian ones are classified as Greeks and the Muslim ones as Turks. The statistics of Virgile and Kun which you quoted can easily be put together with the ones provided by VMORO in a table after the statistics of Britannica and the religious denomination of Hilmi Pasha

Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

1. (in Roman Empire): The upper courses of the Axios, Nestos and Strymon are part of Macedonia, whether you like it or not.

You probably haven't been through all my posts, and this is exactly what I've already brought up. The region of Macedonia has varied throughout time. The Roman province of Macedon included Epirus, Thessaly, parts of Thrace and Illyria. Therefore we shouldn't be using the term 'Macedonia' in such an abstract way. It would be like mixing the history of the USA with the native american civilizations under a term "American history". Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th century Macedonia was the name of Thrace and had its centre at Adrianople (Basil II was often named the Macedonian because he came from Adrinople although he was actually Armenian). Does it mean that in the 10th and the 11th century we should review the history of Thrace instead of of Macedonia just because the region was called Macedonia for several centuries? No, this would be extremely confusing. The borders of Macedonia are as defined by the Macedonia article but I think VMORO said that already to you. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

No you don't necessarily have to review the history of Thrace (althought that would be an option). But unless you expect your readers to be checking two articles at the same time, you should be stating for which "version" of Macedonia you're talking about in this one. Otherwise you'll be offending someone that's certain. Miskin

2. Name: Your name is first misleading - half the population of present-day Macedonia is Macedonian Slav and Bulgarian, the settlement of Slavs and Bulgars is far from "a temporary invasion" as you call it. Secondly, the section talks about many other ethnic groups which have nothing to do with Bulgars or Slavs.

Again, it has to do with what you consider to be the borders of Macedonia at the given time. The region that is currently called "Republic of Macedonia", was only baptised as "Macedonia" under Tito in the late '40s. If Poland baptises itself Bavaria, I don't think anyone in 50 years time will be talking about a greater Bavaria with a mixed Germano-Polish population. The invasions of Slavs, Avars and Bulgars that took place during the middle ages, has nothing to do with the later history of the region that contain more ethnic groups and nationalities. The former is called by Byzantine scholars The Slavic and Bulgaris Invasions because that's what it was, it's not a term I'm making up. I never said that the invasion was temporary, what I said was that the Slavic peoples had always been a minority in the area until their final migrations. A minority can't claim the history of a region and its people, especially one which found itself there as an invader. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Look at the answer to 1. Greece does not have a monolopoly over the name of Macedonia. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

On the geographical region that Greece inteprets as Macedonia, it does, as it has been founded and overpopulated by Greeks since antiquity. It all comes down to borders again. Besides, the name MAKEDONIA speaks for itself. I wonder why its etymology was not included in the initial version of this article. Did you never come across it in one of those Wagon-books you have read? Hard to believe... Miskin

3. Erased paragraph: You ask "What are these Turkic Christians doing in this article?" I'll ask you: "What are the Greek refugees from Asia Minor in the 1920s doing in the article?" Both groups settled in Macedonia, that's their right to be in the article. You are applying consistently double standards.

Besides the fact that we're talking about a ratio of 10/1, the Turkic Christians were not just an ethnic group which once upon a time settled in Macedonia. They were missionaries who fought in the borders of Byzantium against Slavs and Bulgars and have no special connection to the region as they were later assimilated to the Ottoman Empire. I agree that some things do seem as double standards to people who are not familiar with them. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

You are wrong - they assimilated with the Greeks or possibly with the Bulgarians (Macedonian Slavs). You admit you are using double standards? This is not an answer, Miskin, I know better than you because I am Greek, thing of something better. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

No I didn't admit using double standards, read it again please, and I don't think I know better than you only because I'm Greek. They were not assimilated in the Greek population because the majority of them converted to Islam during the Ottoman occupation of the area. But even if they did assimilate, there's absolutely no reason to prove it, let alone to mention it. Miskin

4. Yet another erased paragraph. I expect to get an explanation as to why you erased the paragraph, you've given none.

Which one? I remember removing something because it was completely false. Imagine that you saw a section "Chaters" in the hypothetical article Euro 2004, which would state clearly how Denmark and Sweden cheated to draw 3-3 and qualify over Italy. Would you edit it or would you remove it? Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

This is again not an answer. You are refusing to accept that the Slavic, Albanian and Vlach intelligence of Macedonia was strongly Hellenofile at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 20th century (for some strange unexplicable reasons), something which is well confirmed by Weigand and Poulton (in the list), as well as all other ethnographic books about Macedonia from the 19th century. And you provide no source for the deletion. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

The reasons are neither strange nor unexplicable. First of all you should have made a distinction between Albanian and Arvanite, unless you also consider that Dutch means German. The majority of the Slavic masses who supported Greek independence were characterised as Slavophones, because they considered themselves Romans (Greeks) who had lost their language (and I can back this up with sources). For the Vlachs you're probably right. What I oppose is your personal description of events, which is one-sided and biased. The way you have written it, it's as if the so-called Greek population of Macedonia was nothing but Hellenised foreigners (a view supported by propagandists). Miskin

5. Rest except statistics. Practically everyone outside Greece admitted that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Slavic - Wilkinson's review of the Ethnographic Carthography of Macedonia is a must on that matter. I can quote around 20 books about Macedonia supporting this, this was the information in all encyclopaedias, on all maps and in all books of maps. Some of the sources are in the source list, others I can give here. If you can't provide any, besides very strong references in favour of what you say, I'll consider further changes as vandalism.

What Slavic crowd calls "central Macedonia" was undoublty predominantly Slavic. However the real central Macedonia (Northern Greece) as I specify in the article, had always been predominantly Ottoman and Greek. If you want to generalise Macedonia the way Tito did, then we should change the name of the article in to "Demography of Modern Macedonia" and state in the biginning that we're talking about a post-Roman era. As long as this article begins with the history of ancient Macedon, you have to respect its borders. It's pretty straight forward. By the way I can also quote modern demographies of the region of Greek Macedonia and compare them to the modern demographies of Bulgaria and FYROM. Let's try to find a pattern on who's been lying on the subject. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

The borders of Macedonia are as defined by the Macedonia article. The ancient Macedon comprised only one part of the region of Macedonia and the article starts with a general description of all the ethnicities who lived in this region of Macedonia (not Macedon), some of them were the ancient Macedonians (in Macedon) but some were not: Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

I've replied that in the beginning. Unless we remove the links to ancient Macedon, and specify the borders of Macedonia for each section, that we can't do unbiased business. Miskin

6. Statistics. The Statistics which I included is the most widely used statistics of the time - present in Britannica, the French Larousse, the American Encyclopaedia, the maps of Leon Dominian. I expect and demand an explanation as to why you deleted it...? Certainly, there were also other statistics - which said that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Turkish, Greek, Serbian or Romanian, this is, however, the most widely accepted one, which is easily demonstrated by the around 10 sources with similar data listed by VMORO.

Britannica in the mid-40's (I think) published another demography which found some 60% of Macedonian minority in Greek Macedonia. Careful, Macedonian, not Bulgarian nor Slavic like your data says. I don't think I need to even try to convince you that this data is false. All I have to do is to find the original source and prove that Britannica is talking out of its behind. They couldn't even decide what the names of the ethnic groups were. Why are the statistics that you choose the most accepted ones? Because you study Slavic history and favour their culture? I don't think you realise how thin this subject is, it's not enough to just quote sources. During the time of those demographies, there was not a clear distinction between Slavs (could be bulgar, serb etc), there was no clear disctinction between ethnicity and religions, there was no fixed border of the region, and there was no fixed criterion on the ethnic categorisation (for some it was religion, for some it was language, and for others were the testimonies). So stop trying to pose as an experts in topics that you obviously don't have a personal experience with. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you. If personal experience means hatred, prejudice and staunch belief that only the Greeks are right and everyone else is wrong, then I don't have this personal experience - and neither do I need it. You need to convince that the data is false as pretty much everyone agreed that the data is authentic - and everyone agreed that the Slavic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian until the 1920 when this was reverted and they started viewing it as Macedonian Slav. But that's all in the article anyway.

Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you.

And yet this paragraph was the best answer you could come up with to everything I said? And I'm the president of the USA. Knowledge is not a substitute to wits. Miskin 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

If personal experience means hatred, prejudice and staunch belief that only the Greeks are right and everyone else is wrong, then I don't have this personal experience - and neither do I need it.

Does anyone else spot the oxymoron? Anyway I don't hate anybody, the fact that you can such assumptions with such ease tells us alot about your "neutral" point of view. I've already spotted and corrected many biasm on this article, especially on the section 'ancient Macedonians', I don't think that anyone can refuse that. The previous childish version said something like 'Macedonians viewed themselves seperately from Greeks, they hated Greeks and thought they smelled blah blah blah'. Find the original and compare it with the quotations I provided. I never told you not to add the data which you consider valid, but be aware that I'll provide some explanations on the borders of Macedonia perceived by Bulgarian people. Besides the demographics section has nothing to do with all my other edits that you've been reverting. Anyway I have a proposal to make to end this edit war. The term Macedonia which links to ancient times is by definition part of Greek history, not Balkan. In order to make it part of Balkan history, we should remove any connection to Antiquity. If it's not too late we can add the term "modern Macedonia" in the title's article, or to make things simpler, we can add a paragraph which states that this article talks about the history and demographics the region of Macedonia from the middle ages until today with no connection to the ancient Greek state of Macedon whatsoever. In this manner Bulgarians and the rest of the Slavic crowd will make "Macedonia" their business, because right now it's not. They just speak of the wider term 'Macedonia' and its history as if it was Jerusalem, without paying any attention to what Macedonia and Macedonians originally mean. For example I think we all agree that Slavs set foot on the region in the 7th century BC or so. When you know this and start an article on Macedonians and Macedonia, and make an introdution to its ancient inhabitans as if they were the same people, then you're making it on purpose in order to fool the reader into believing that they are. This my friend, is known as propaganda, and as long as it's there, I'll keep reverting. Miskin 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

What you say is preposterous and unacceptable. Macedonia is part of Balkan history and Macedonia was, is and will be inhabited by different peoples, not only by the Greeks. No one has the right to monopolize the history of the region for themselves. Considering the attitude which you have, it is not wonder that a multitude of people is complaining about your behaviour in several articles. The only way we can proceed with the statistics is to lay them all out, not - as you suggest - to try to figure out which one is wrong and which one is right. Certainly, the right ones will be the ones supporting the Greek view, everything else will be wrong. Birkemaal 5 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Excuse me but it's your attitude Birkemaal that is unacceptable. I've just read the whole talk page and I was amazed by your neutrality. My friend, before accusing the Greeks of nationalism and generally those that have a different opinion than yours, just try and make a discussion with yourself. You so widely declare that you are neutral,etc,etc,etc but it was YOU who was not bothered at all that this article contains biased informations. It was YOU, who was not bothered at all that this article presents the Greeks as murderers of children and very,very suitable for you suppresses crimes made by other nations.

You so arrogantly said above:I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you. Dear friend, you are not in position to discredit the knowledge of other editors, first of all because you DON'T know them and then because the characterisations that you so easily make, others can equally.

Bottomline, altering your claims: if three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history means that you consider neutral only those informations that match your criteria you must tear your degrees- if you have any at all.

Next time, when univercity library opens I will edit those historians that , you know, you forgot to mention. Odysseas 5 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

three wagonloads of books in front I agree, that was hilarious. How can you take seriously a person who speaks of books as if they were sacks of potatoes? Anyway, Birkemaal, you obviously didn't understand what I said. The region of Macedonia is independent to the people historically known as Macedonians, this is why the article was moved. Macedonians is not an ethnic group, despite what Macedonian Slavs like to think. The geographical borders of Macedonia have been varying since the occupation of Macedon by the Roman Empire, therefore it's simply innacurrate to speak so abstractly about Macedonia as if it was some village. The region interpreted by Greeks as Macedonia, is the area corresponding to ancient Macedon, whereas the region interpreted as Macedonia by Bulgarians (and Slavs in general) corresponds to the reforms of Tito. We're not talking about a region of fixed geographical borders, therefore we're not talking about a region of fixed population. In that respect, any demography that uses the term Macedonia is biased, unless it doesn't state which "version" of Macedonia it's talking about. The best thing to do in order to be neutral, is to cut off this article's connection to antiquity, because that's where its borders stop being fixed. In that respect, we should remove the "ancient Macedonia" section and add a paragraph in Italics which would say something like this: This article is about the geographical region of Macedonia of the middle Ages. For information on ancient Macedonia see main article Macedon. If we don't do this and talk about Macedonia as an abstract term, then the article will always be biased. I'm expecting opinions on this proposal. Miskin

Actually, before Rome conquered Macedon, as you know, Macedon expanded from its nucleus in Greek Macedonia to include practically all if not all the territory included in Macedonia (the geographical region of Macedonia). This article deals with the demographic history of that region (Macedon in its post-Phillip/pre-Roman conquest era, in other words, Macedonia). Decius 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

And it's not the same as when Macedon conquered Persia, etc., because those Balkan regions forming Macedonia, as far as I can tell, were incorporated into Macedon's core territory: Paionia, Pelagonia, Mygdonia, Bottiaea, Crestonia, Bisaltia, et cetera. Decius 7 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

It didn't include the entire region of FYROM, it went as North as modern Bitola (Monastiri). The region of FYROM was generalised into Macedonia by Tito. Ancient Macedon also expanded to Illyria, Thrace and then Egypt, Persia and India. Obviously that's not regarded as an geographical expansion of the Macedonian region. According to this logic, we'd have to include in this article the entire history of Illyrians and Thracians (as we're almost doing with Bulgarians). I think my suggestion is fair and reasonable. The constant reference to an abstract region of Macedonia of varying borders, is what causes the ethnic debate. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying that they were incorporated into Macedon's core territory? I don't think there's any historical source that can support that. Those Northern regions became part of the Antigonid Empire and the Hellenistic world, they had no more special fate than Thrace did. But I don't see us including the history of Thrace in the article. Basically if we include the history of ancient Macedon in the article, we should also include the history of ancient Paeonia, and maybe Illyria and Thrace. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

I anticipated your comparison to Persia, Egypt, etc., so I pointed out that it was a different situation. I will try to find references that prove it was different (incorporated directly, rather than administered). By the way, the entire demographic history of Paionia is going to be covered in this article, since it was all in the geographical region of Macedonia (except for temporary expansions of Paionian territory towards Perinthus, etc., which doesn't concern the article). Decius 7 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

In other words, what I'm claiming is that regions like Paionia, Mygdonia, and so on, were completely and utterly incorporated directly into Macedonian territory, so that they were soon obliterated. Thus, the name of Macedonia was established for the entire region, because all those older, specific names for small portions of the region went out of usage. Anyway, Macedonia is agreed upon to be a geographical region as defined in that Wiki article. I have an encyclopedia that echoes the Wiki article's demarcation of the area (World Book Encyclopedia, etc.). Decius 7 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

If you are disputing the demarcation of the region of Macedonia, you should go here first: Talk:Macedonia. Decius 7 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

I'm planning to go there next. I'm trying to sort things out here first because this is where the biasm lies (ChrisO, VMORO, the wagonbook guy etc). Everyone agrees that Slavic occupied territories were not geographically on the region of ancient Macedon, so it's not a lie to at least point that out. This will prevent many ethnic debates. Miskin 7 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

I can tell you it will be a waste of your time to dispute the demarcation of Macedonia, aside from maybe small details. The issue here should be specifically what you disagree with in the Demographic history of Macedonia (Macedonia is established usage for this geographical region, and the article attempts to give a history of the demographics of that region). Decius 7 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

You know that the Macedonian Slavs and their supporters are trying to force a connection between their artificial name "Macedonians" and the "Ancient Macedonians". If we talk about a region that was once inhabited by ancient Macedonians, and then about a modern different region which is inhabited by Slavs, without stating that's it's not the same place and refer to it abstractly as Macedonia, then we're supporting a propaganda. The thing is, that prior to the Slavic invasions, the Slavic people have no connection to the region. Therefore the pre-Slavic history of the area is pointless to be mentioned in theree, as it is mentioned . And if you think it's that necessary to include it, then we should mention the history of Paeonians and all other peoples of the region. Miskin 7 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

I'm not a Slavophiliac or a Slavophobe, but the fact that Slavs now live in this region does not change the fact that this region is known as Macedonia, and was once incorporated directly into Macedon (I found the references I was talking about, and I was right: see Errington, John Wilkes, etc., I might quote them later). 10,000 years from now, octopus-headed crustaceans might form the majority population, but it would still be the region of Macedonia. I agree that the article must detail more about Paionians, and I'll add more about them. Decius 7 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe. What do your references say exactly? Miskin 7 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not talking about 10,000 years from now, I'm talking about FYROM being incorporated into Serbia, Albania, or Bulgaria. When that happens, the myth of the Macedonian nation will cease to exist, and the region of Macedonia will re-acquire its original size. Miskin 7 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Errington, History of Macedonia pg. 58, about the new Thracian additions to Macedon (Crestonia, Bisaltia, Mygdonia, etc.):

"The region up to the Nestos was fully integrated into the Macedonian state territory; the Odrysian monarchy was abolished and replaced by Macedonian military governors; towns were founded at strategic points, and a Macedonian population, perhaps including criminals from the prisons, were settled in them."

---Paionia I'll discuss next. Decius 7 July 2005 14:27 (UTC) 7 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

The Paionia account I take from Wilkes, but he's at the library, so I'll summarize as best I remember: Paionia was reduced to a semi-autonomous province of Macedon in Phillip's time, (if I remember right). But later (perhaps over a century later), the Paionians rebelled and joined the Dardanians who lived just outside of Macedonian territory to the north. This outraged the Macedonians and caused them to pretty much obliterate the Paionian power; they slaughtered or resettled the Paionians and replaced them with Macedonians and Thracians. So, Paionia was eventually wiped out, and fully became part of Macedon. This is according to memory so sorry that I don't have the exact quotes. Paionia (which was made part of Macedon) corresponds largely to RepOfM. Decius 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

I can find more references, but probably not today. Decius 7 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

But anyway, use logic: what's the best way to consolidate territories in your own backyard? To fully integrate them. That's what the Macedonians did in Macedonia, pretty much. Decius 7 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

The Wiki article correctly defines Macedonia, as accepted in geography, so there's not much "dispute" that can be done about that. Decius 7 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

The first account doesn't talk about a full integration, Macedonian soldiers were settled all over the world. Either way, it doesn't imply a change in the borders of the region. The Roman province of Macedonia however it does. These are all factors that need to be specified. Dardania which you defined as a territory just in the North of Macedonia, it's geographically in today's FYROM, which strengthens my position over yours. Skopje itself is a name inherited after a Dardanian city. The settlements you keep repeating, took place also in Pakistan and Persia, you can't just say so abstractly that Paionia was wiped out and assimilated into Macedon. It was you who last directing me to Paeonian coinage of the Hellenistic Era, this is contradictory to what you say now. If the area had been completely assimilated by Macedon prior to the Hellenistic era, then how would a separate Paeonian coinage appear at a later stage? Basically FYROM is largerly composed by the old regions of Paeonia, Dardania, Illyria, Thracia and Macedon. And I don't see how that enforces the view of monopolising the name Macedonia (which wasn't even there). Miskin 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

No, Dardania corresponds to Kosovo (though Dardania extended more to the north, less to the south). Bylazora, the Paionian capital, is now the center of RepOfM. Paionia corresponds basically to RepOfM. And Paionia was integrated into Macedon. I'm not saying any of this "justifies" the nation being called "Republic of Macedonia", I'm just telling the facts. I don't think they should monopolize the name either, since RepOfM only represents a small part of Macedon. But it's no use imagining that the integration of Macedonia can be compared to that in Persia---now you're being silly and in denial. Decius 7 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

The Paionian coins are from the semi-autonomous period it seems. I don't remember when the rebellion occured that Wilkes wrote of. Decius 7 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

And until you remember, your theory is unsupported and refuted by achaeology alone. Miskin 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Actually Miskin, see below. It seems that Paionia was a semi-autonomous province of Macedon for a long time, with frequent power struggles with the Dardani. That explains the Paionian coinage. Decius 8 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to change the definition of the wiki article. I was only suggesting to specify how the geographical area has varied. Hiding such crucial information is like sweeping things under the rug. Miskin 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

The article Macedonia specifies that, but this one can to a bit. Decius 7 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

And we need to specify it here as well, since we're talking about the demography of a 2500 year old region of varying borders. Miskin 7 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Update on Paionia: I was right about its semi-autonomy, and it lasted for a long time it seems, and there were times when the Macedonians lost control of parts of Paionia to the Dardani (nevertheless, Dardania was mosty north of RepOfM, but borders shifted). So, I would assume that not until the Paionian rebellion that Wilkes mentions was Paionia fully integrated, which was probably a century or more after Philip the II's reign. Nevertheless, I think it became incorporated into Macedon before Roman times. I'll look for references. By the way, you do realize that this is irrelevant to the fact that Macedonia is accepted as a geographical region as defined in that article. Decius 8 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Basically your update supports my theory against Paeonia's assimilation. I remind you that the coinage date in the 3rd century BC. It's literally impossible to force a complete assimilation during this period of time. Besides I think you're abit confused on what your sources mean. The "assimilation" of Paeonia was not into the Macedonian state, it was in the Macedonian province of the Roman Empire. This proves that Paionia was never integrated in the Macedon. Take a look at this source: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/I63.html

The Agrianians had already abandoned the Skopje region, which allowed the Dardanians and others to fill the voids. Eventually, Philip V of Macedonia annexed it in 217 AD, installing Didas as his viceroy and recolonizing the old Paionian settlements as a bulkwark against the Dardanians in Skopje. Eventually, in 148 B.C., Paeonia was incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia (along with Thessaly, Thrace, Northern Epirus, and Southern Illyria). Miskin 8 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention the Paionian rebellion that my source mentioned, but I think they refer to the same period. I was beginning to suspect that the event I referred to occured in the Roman period---however, I can quote Errington, where he states that Pelagonia, a region immediately west of Paionia, was integrated in Philip the II's time. So it's not clear cut, either way. Paionia was integrated, but not fully till the Roman period it seems. Macedonians also founded cities in pre-Roman Paionia however (at least one, I have the reference). Decius 8 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can so easily define it as an assimilation. All evidence point towards a usual Macedonian conquest. Definitely not a reason to expand the geographical borders of ancient Macedon. It all points to an assimilation under the Roman province of Macedonia. Modern FYROM and Bulgaria are still primarily on non-ancient Macedonian territory, which is something that I'm planning to point out in the article. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Historians have used the term assimilation or integration (I have the quotes) when describing a number of these regions that were added, so don't expect me to take your objection seriously. The evidence points to conquest as well as much integration before the Roman conquest. Yet, your whole point is hardly relevant because the article does not claim that the entire region was fully integrated before the Roman period. Are you sure you are reading the same article (or as VMORO asked, are you sure you can read)? Seriously now. Decius 8 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

No it doesn't say that (yet), but for some reason I'm under the strong impression that you're planning to write something along those lines, so I'm reducing the chance of an edit war. Btw, keep quoting VMORO, that's brilliant. Miskin 8 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

Even I never claimed that every squarefoot was integrated into Macedon before the Roman period---but eventually, the name of Macedonia wiped out most of the other local ancient names for particular regions, as well as wiping out many ethnic groups who are now quite forgotten (Paionians, Agrianians, Maedans, etc.). We only hear about Macedonia and Macedonians now. There is a reason for that (the Macedonian conquests and integrations, as well as the Roman province). Decius 8 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Well despite what your sources say, since we have references on Paionian independent rule (supported by coinage) until Philip V, it's impossible to talk about assimilation. If not my objection, then take logic seriously. Such implications won't be considered neutral in the article. Miskin 8 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Paionia or only to Paionia: I have in mind Pelagonia (which was well north of Greek Macedonia), Mygdonia, Crestonike, Bisaltia, Almopia, etc. etc. Decius 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

I don't know how long this abnormal discussion can last. Miskin, you heard it from VMORO, you heard it from me, and now you here it from Decius. The borders of Macedonia are not subject to debate (otherwise you can turn, as Decius proposed, to the talk page of the article Macedonia). It is not the "Slavs" who think otherwise, it is the Greeks who think otherwise from the rest of the world considering Macedonia to be only the ancient Macedon. Secondly, we cannot describe a region with borders which shift all the time. The region of Macedon has different borders from the classical region of Macedonia (the Roman province), which has different borders from the Byzantine province of Macedonia (located in Thrace), which has different borders from the modern region of Macedonia. As far as any history of the region is concerned, it should cover the history of the region as delimited in the article Macedonia. Birkemaal Birkemaal 9 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Decius never said that Macedonia had fixed borders, nobody with basic knowledge on the subject would ever say that except you and the fanatics (chances are that you're one of them in disguise). Ancient Macedon prior to the Hellenistic age (where it expanded in Asia) was within the borders of the modern Greek state, even the article Macedonia states that. Decius argues that during the late Hellenistic Age those Northern barbaric nations were assimilated by Macedon, something which is not true since we have records of independent Paionian Kings until 148 BC, where Roman Macedonia changed its borders completely. VMORO is a nationalist who has no neutral historical knowledge on the subject, you are probably one of the same (I know there is a Slavo-Macedonian minority in Sweden), and Decius is just a person who wants to debate against me and any Greek claim on Macedonia. Therefore until you prove something, you can't have your ways with this article. I'm willing to take this matter as far as the wiki-mailing list. Miskin 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim that the geographical region of Macedonia corresponds completely to ancient Macedonia, but contrary to what Miskin believes, works such as Errington's History of Macedonia state that southern Thrace was assimilated up to the Nestus (most of that land is in Greece), and that Pelagonia (outside of Greece) underwent much assimilation, as did much of Paionia, even though it retained semi-independence. We can debate the finer details back & forth, but at the end of the day, heavy Macedonian settlement extended outside of Greek Macedonia. Decius 20:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Also Miskin, I am not against "any Greek claim on Macedonia", and I would rather have Greeks claim Macedonia rather than Slavic-speakers, if some sort of "one-or-the-other" choice had to be made. What I'm against is Miskinites such as you who think Macedonia (Greece) defines completely the area of ancient Macedonian settlement. Decius 21:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That's because it does. I'm looking at some maps of Ancient Macedon right now (which I will only bring up as evidence if it becomes necessary), it has the region's borders prior to Philip's conquests and its borders afterwards, and it's completely different to what Bulgarians think as "Macedonia". There's absolutely no implication of assimilation of Pelagonia and Peionia (which both lie exactly in FYROM) in the way you want to propagade, I will prove this shortly by bringing up sources on the Paionian nation's existence up until Roman occupation. Miskin 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Since we agree that the diversity in ethnic groups starts with the invasion of the Slavs, I don't see a reason to include the demographic history of the region prior to the middle ages. After all, everyone agrees that from the Hellenistic age to the Slavic and Bulgar invasions in the 7th c. AD, the population of the region was almost purely Greek (or Hellenised). Therefore the article should have the Bulgar and Slavic invasion as a starting point, and link the reader to Macedon and Macedonia for its ancient demography. That's the only way it won't be repetitive. What do you think? Miskin 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

We do not agree that the ethnic diversity in Macedonia as defined in that article begins with the Slavic incursions, so what are you talking about? Decius 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if we do assume that there was an ethnic diversity in antiquity, that would have absolutely no connection to the later Greco-Slavic diversity, as by the time of the Slavic invasions the entire region was Hellenised. How's your knowledge on Byzantine history? Miskin 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is no real connection between the ancient diversity (Macedonians, Greeks, Paionians, Thracians, Illyrians) and the modern (etc., etc., etc.). But this article is not concocting any connections. My knowledge of Byzantine history is here & there & not that bad, but I don't feel like discussing the Byzantine era now, but you can go ahead. Decius 22:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss anything, just point out the fact that the region was being Hellenised by Macedonians, Romans and Byzantines until the Slavs arrived. Funny how the authors of this article constantly avoid mentioning the ethnic character of Macedonia prior to the Slavic invasion. Funny how they also hesitate to use the word "invasion" as a section title. Miskin 11:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)