By J.S.G. Gandeto
One of the steps in the Scientific Method of Investigation is the publication of your obtained results so that others may independently, by repeating the same experiment derive to the same conclusion, and verify whether it is true or not what you have stated that you have accomplished with your hypothesis. When many independent laboratories-through their scientific research-arrive to same conclusions as yours, then, the hypothesis that you have proposed becomes accepted and your findings acknowledged.
I have said before, and I stand by my assertions, that Macedonia was never a part of any ancient Greek city-state, nor were the ancient Macedonians ever considered, by the ancient Greeks or by themselves, to be Greek. Macedonia was never a member of any Hellenic League. Macedonia was not a member of the Greek Amphictyonic League.
These leagues were reserved for Hellenes only. The boundary between Macedonia and Greece was the river…… Peneus and mount Olympus; to the south were the Greek tribes and to the north was Macedonia.
I challenge all of you, including Professor Stephan Miller and his like-minded historians, to prove me wrong. When you loudly proclaim “Macedonia was always Greek”, I dare you to find one shred of evidence and bring it forward. Find other like-minded authors from antiquity who will agree with your own assertion. Please, show the evidence and discredit my person in front of this sophisticated readership. I will state the following once more: Anyone who claims that ancient Macedonia was a Greek land and that ancient Macedonians were Greeks or that Macedonians are stealing Greek heritage, is nothing less and nothing more than a corrupt, deceitful fabricator of history whose scientific thinking is based on personal beliefs and mythology. Facts are not derived through beliefs and mythology. Scientific knowledge does not rest on feelings, nor is it supported by bed-time stories and la-la-byes. Science needs concrete proofs, and that is what you do not have.
I stand on the shoulders of others;
I stand convinced that (1) you will be unable to prove Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius wrong. These biographers have stated that Greece commences at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminates at the river Peneus.
I am convinced that (2) you will be unable to prove Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias wrong, for not including Macedonia on their list of the Amphictyonic people of Greece.
I stand convinced that (3) you will have no answer as to why Thucydides found no room for Macedonia on his list of states on either side of the warring parties in the Peloponnesian War; Macedonia is found neither on the Athenian, nor on the Lacedaemonian side.
These are hard facts that cannot be dismissed with lame excuses and manipulation of text. One cannot disregard evidence of this magnitude and bring forward a pitiful assertion like ‘Macedonians spread Hellenic culture in the East’, instead. You cannot substitute and equate the words of a king (Philip V) “My ancestors Philip II and Alexander the Great conquered Greece”, with “but Macedonians had same names as Greeks” nonsense. You can saturate the media with slogans and cry “thieves” as long as you want but you will not be able to subvert and change the evidence left from the ancient authors. Fact is that you have bought some professors to put their shoulder on your “Greek” wheel, but fact is also that you are stuck in the mud of lies up to you knees and cannot move.
The following piece of evidence reaffirms my position and demonstrates, once again, that truth cannot be suppressed for long.
As one of the powers which had guaranteed the independence of the Greek Kingdom in 1828, Great Britain held the position that the Greek claims to extension of their territories were greater (as of 1880) than the boundaries which the Greek city-states held in antiquity. This position was brought forward by Major J.C. Ardagh, (later became Sir Major-General). He was part of the British delegation that was attached to the Special Embassy during the Congress at Berlin on June 3rd, 1878. He was also appointed as her Majesty’s Commissioner for the delineation of the frontier of Bulgaria (September 7th, 1878); and was employed during the conference at Constantinople in 1881. Sir J.C. Ardagh was born on August 9, 1840, and died on September 30th, 1907.
Before the Conference at Constantinople, Major Ardagh communicated with the British Foreign Office on the issue of the new Greek frontier with his “Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece”, which was received at the Foreign Office on February 24th, 1881. The information which Major Ardagh presented in his memorandum (quoting sources from antiquity) reaffirms claims made by Macedonians today that, Macedonia was never part of any Greek (Hellenic) state during ancient times. If ancient Greek sources did not see Macedonia as part of the “Ancient Greek World”, how can the modern Greek state see Macedonia and its people as Greek?
What Major Ardagh’s memorandum does raise is questions not only to the issue of the true Greek frontier, but also to the true identity of the people of Macedonia. Since 1913, the end of the Second Balkan War when Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia and Montenegro divided up Macedonia amongst themselves, Greece has been claiming that Macedonia was always Greek. Major Ardagh discredits this claims by quoting ancient Greeks themselves and shows that not only was Macedonia not Greek or part of ancient Greece and neither was Epirus or Thessaly.
Doc. 41 Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece
By Major J.C. Ardagh, C.B., R.E.
(Received at the Foreign Office, February 24th, 1881)
The Ancient Boundaries of Greece
As the claims of the Greeks to an extension of territories are in some degree based upon the limits of the ancient Greece, I conceived that an examination of the early Greek geographers would throw some light upon them, and I have been able to procure, and annex extracts from them in Greek with translations.
Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus.
The catalogue of the ships in the Iliad, the various lists of the Amphictyonic tribes, the states engaged in the Peloponnesian war, the travels of Anacharsis I the description of Greece by Pausanias, and the natural history of Pliny - all give proof of the same fact, by positive or negative evidence; nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirus was Greek, except that Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of Aeacidae. When Epirus first became powerful, 280 B.C., Greece had long been under the complete ascendancy of the Macedonians, and after the fall of the Empire at the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., it became a Roman province in 148 B.C. The establishment of Greek independence in 1832 was exactly 2,000 years after the battle of Pydna.
Strabo:
1 .The tribes extending beyond the Ambracian Gulf to the eastward, and contiguous with the Peloponnesus, are Greek.
2. The tribes from the Strymon to the Pontic passes and Haemus are all Thracian, except on the coast which is inhabited by Greeks.
3. On the right of the entrance (of the Ambracian Gulf) dwell the Acarnanians, a Greek tribe. On the left is Nicopolis and the Kassopaeans, an Epirote tribe.
4. The Peneus divides Lower and Maritime Macedonia from Thessaly and Magnesia, and Haliacmon Upper Macedonia.
5. But the Peneus bounds Macedonia towards the north, and Thessaly towards the south.
Scylax: Periplus:—
1. From Ambracia Greece is continuous (along the coast) as far as the river Peneus.
2. Up to this point (the country of the Magnesians) Greece is continuous from Ambracia.
Dicaearchus:
1. I therefore draw the limits of Hellas at the country of the Magnesians, i.e., to the Vale of Tempe.
Scymnus:
1. Above Tempe towards Olympus is the region of the Macedonians. (The writer describes the Thesprotians, Chaonians, Molossians and the inhabitants of the interior of Epirus, as barbarian. 430-460.)
2. Greece is continuous from Ambracia to the Peneus.
Homer:
In the catalogue of the ships in the second book of the Iliad, Acarnania, Aetolia and Thessaly are the most northern districts mentioned. The others are Boetia, Phocis, Locris, Euboea, Athens, Salamis, Argos, Mycinae, Laconia, Messenia, Arcadia, Crete, Rhodes, and Isles.
The Amphictyonic people. The names are given by Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias:
Aeschines:
Thessalians, Boeotians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Locrians, Aeteans, Phthiotes, Maleans, Phocians.
Theopompus:
Ionians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Achaeans, Maleans, Dolopes, Aeneans, Delghians, Phocians, Phthiotes.
Pausanias:
Ionians, Diopes, Thessalians, Magnetes, Maleans, Phthiotes, Dorians,
Of these, none belong to Epirus; indeed there are neither Aetolians nor Acarnanians.
Thermopylae:
The next catalogue which throws light on the subject is that of forces under the command of Leonidas at Thermopylae. They are enumerated by Herodotus, Pausanias, and Deodorus as follows:
Peloponnesians, Thespians, Thebans, Phocians, and Locrians (or Milesians).
Forming in fact, something less than the present limits of Greece.
Thucydides:
In book II of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides gives a catalogue of the states ranged on either side as follows:
With the Lacedaemonians:
All the Peloponnesians except the Argives and Achaeans, the Megareans, Locrians, Boeotians, Phocians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactoreans
With the Athenians:
Chians, Lesbians, Plataeans, Messenians of Neopactus, most of the Acarnanians, the Corcyraeans, Zacynthians, with certain islands and colonies.
Anacharsis:
Travels in Greece, 357 B.C. There are 14 other nations in Epirus.
Pausanias does not even mention Epirus
Pliny:
Natural History, book IV: He places mount Olympus in Thessaly, but does not precisely define the boundary of Macedonia, which he describes as extending to the Adriatic.
With this illustration by Ardagh, the Greek cries of “Macedonia is Greece” is shown once again to be nothing more than a fabrication; the ancient boundaries of Greece do not coincide with the modern Greek borders. These ancient frontiers of Greece are the basis which the present Greek state is using for the claims on Macedonia.
This is certainly another piece of evidence that reaffirms the inadmissibility of the Greeks’ claims that “Macedonia was always Greek”. Time and again, this blatant lie is being exposed for what it really represents - a flagrant and shamelessly executed subversion of historical truth - heist of unparallel historical proportions never before seen in the history of mankind. What is so arrogantly flaunted as Greek heritage is nothing but a stolen property from the Macedonians. Between these rampant Greek lies and deceptions and the silence of the European academicians, who, certainly, know the truth, runs the menacing current of the biased and the hypocritical attitude of Europe itself. Human rights are at issues in Greece and Europe stands silent.
By not timely addressing these, obviously gross, violations of its own constitution, Europe undermines its own reputation. By not attending to these flames of hatred and racism exhibited by the Greek government, Europe diminishes its own stature and weakens its own institutions. Europe must find courage to tell Greece, simply, to “grow up” as our former us Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger in the interview for the Macedonian Television, pointed out.
In the words of the former German ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia Hans Lothar Schteppan, “Greece’s strong objection to the name was laid on a foundation of lies”.
A memorable encounter:
Spartan response to Alexander’s request for a meeting of the Hellenic League at Corinth:
“The tradition of their country, they informed the king, did not allow them to serve under a foreign leader.” (So much to Macedonia’s pretensions to Hellenism - writes Peter Green. (Alexander of Macedon 356 -323 B.C. A Historical Biography p. 121)
The Theft of a King – Who Stole Alexander
ISBN: 978-1-4327-6856-0
Publisher: Outskirts Press, Inc.
By Gandeto, J.S.G.
1. What is the book about?
The book centers on Alexander the Great and the Ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity. It elaborates topics related to the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks and attempts to dispel the modern notion – one originating in the 19th century and thereafter propagated by some western authors – that ancient Macedonians “were” Greeks. Also, in the book the reader will find glimpses of today’s dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia, in essence, what lies hidden behind this carefully orchestrated Greek problem with the name. Readers will have a chance to get acquainted with modern-day Balkan politics where deep-rooted historical intrigues, stereotyping and ingrained prejudices do justice for tolerance and rational thought.
The book offers glimpses into our continuous struggle to return Alexander to his rightful place - among his Macedonian kinsmen. Yes, it is a feeble voice in the dark, but a voice nevertheless, that isn’t going to die any time soon. Through the topics discussed in the book, the reader will have a chance to see and understand the other side of the story. In the words of Marquez Garcia, “Our enemies have crushed many roses before but they haven’t succeeded in stopping the spring from coming.”
Compelling questions:
..If Alexander the Great was a Greek king, why would he dismiss his own “Greek” troops in the middle of his Asian campaign in 330 B.C.? (Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17).
Why would Greeks in the mainland, supposedly his own people, rebel against him?
Why would the Greeks call the Lamian War a “Hellenic War” if they were fighting the Macedonians?
2. Why did you decide to write it?
My main objective was twofold: to bring to the forefront the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks and to shed some light on much overlooked and, by some authors largely ignored, facts about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians.
I could no longer stay silent in lieu of such incontrovertible evidence left to us from the ancient chronographers that clearly distinguished and separated the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. I felt compelled to respond to the blatant and dishonest manipulation of historical evidence in order to circumvent and subvert the universally declared human rights covenants and obligations.
3. How did you get your book published?
A friend of mine suggested Outskirts Press as a reputable vehicle to reach my audience; I’m glad I did.
4. What types of readers will be interested in your book?
I would be happy if today’s younger generation gets a “whiff” of the twisted political winds in the Balkan and understand how distortions and manipulations of historical facts can be used for political gains.
5. What is special about your book? What differentiates it from other books in the same category?
What separates this book from other books in the same category is the blunt straight forward – no gloves – attitude. There is no glossing over, no need to look for clues hidden in between the lines or sugar-coating politically correct terms. If I have perceived historical distortions being sold as fact, I have described them as lies; if unsupported of evidence claims are propagated as truths, I called them fabrications; if historical injustice has been committed, I find no acceptable reason to remain silent regardless of socio-political consequences. Conscience compels me to act and stand against all social injustices.
If modern day Greeks succeed in their diplomatic offensive to convince the world that Alexander the Great and his Macedonians were actually Greeks, then such a verdict may accomplish two things: (a) prove that historical evidence can be ignored (and in this case it would be), that records can be manipulated and subverted, and (b) inflict irreparable damage to the confidence and the faith entrusted in the hands of scholars and academic institutions world wide. Such a verdict will amount to nothing less than the theft of a king. On the other hand, if justice prevails, as it should, then we may safely conclude that Alexander and his legacy would continue to rest among his Macedonians whom he considered his natural kinsmen and with whom he shared his troubles, setbacks, sufferings and pain as well as jubilation in his victories.
6. Have you published any other books? Do you plan to publish more?
Yes, I have. In 2002 I published The Ancient Macedonians – Differences between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks, One Golden Ray upon the Rock, a novel in 2005 and The Wolves of Trapper’s Bluff in 2007.
I most certainly will continue to write.
The book is available through most of the book stores;
http://www.outskirtspress.com/thetheftofaking
J.S.G. Gandeto was born in Lubojno, Macedonia. Educated at Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. He immigrated to United States and continued his studies at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan and Nova South-Eastern University in Fourth Lauderdale, Florida where he received his post graduate degrees. He recently completed his 29th year as an educator and has since retired and is continuing to pursue his passion in writing. In 2002 he published his first book Ancient Macedonians - Differences between Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. In 2005 he published the romantic novels One Golden Ray upon the Rock and in 2007, The Wolves of Trappers Bluff.
In the Macedonian Language he has published the following novels: Spasa’s Light in 2004, Saraf in 2009 and Rosamarina’s Grave in 2010. Book of poems Muabeti in 2003, poemata Ko Jagne in 2005 and Majka -Egejka in 2009. Currently, he is preparing for publication his latest novel Folded Impressions.
