Archive for April 2007

Macedonia – The History

April 29, 2007

Letter from the Greek embassy in Thessaloniki 1876

April 27, 2007

An extract from a report sent on the 30-10-1876 from Konstantin Vatikiotis, Greek ambassador in the Ottoman occupied Thessaloniki, to the ministry of foreign affairs [protocol number 1.480/30-10-1876]. The report is about the ethnic background of Slavic speakers in Macedonia.


Αλλ’ οι Βουλγαρόφωνοι κάτοικοι της Μακεδονίας δεν είναι δια τούτο και Βούλγαροι. Τουναντίον πολλά εισί τα ενδεικνύοντα ότι εισί Μακεδόνες απομαθόντες την γλώσσαν των δια των βουλγαρικών επιδρομών και εποικίσεων. Αλλ’ οτιδήποτε και ήνε, οι Βουλγαρόφωνοι ούτοι ελληνίζουσιν επί τοσούτον ώστε και εν τη εκκλησία και εν τω σχολείο και ως γραφομένην γλώσσαν έχουσι την ελληνικήν και πιστά ενέμειναν εις το πατριαρχείον και τον ελληνισμόν μεθ’ου έχουσι κοινά τα ήθη και τα εξωτερικά γνωρίσματα και κρατερώς απέκρουσαν την εξαρχίαν. Οι βουλγαρόφωνοι λοιπόν κάτοικοι της Μακεδονίας εύλογον είναι να διασταλώσιν από των άλλων βουλγαροφώνων της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας οίτινες χρώμενοι πανταχού τη βουλγαρική γλώσσα και άσχετοι προς τον ελληνισμόν απεσκίρτησαν διά τούτο ευκολώτερον από της Μεγάλης εκκλησίας και ησπάσθησαν την Βουλγαρικήν εξαρχίαν. Και οι μεν πρώτοι δέον να συνταχθώσι μετά της ελληνικής φυλής ως βουλγαρόφωνοι μακεδόνες, οι δε δεύτεροι μετά της βουλγαρικής φυλής ως βούλγαροι.

Κ. Βατικιώτης



But the Bulgarophone inhabitants of Macedonia are not all Bulgarian. Contrary there is much evidence showing that they are Macedonians who learned Bulgarian due to the Bulgarian immigrations. Those bulgarophones are Hellenes, belonging to the same church, attend hellenic school, have hellenic as primary written language, stay loyal to the hellenic patriarchy and the Hellenism, following hellenic customs, have the same look (as the rest of the hellenes in the area) and strongly deny the Bulgarian exarchy.

So, it makes sense that the bulgarophone inhabitants of Macedonia [meaning Aegian, Pelagonia] do not feel affiliation to the northern inhabitants, who happen to speak only the bulgarian language, have nothing to do with Hellenism and left the community of the big church by accepting the Bulgarian exarchate. While the first have joined the Hellenic nation as bulgarophone macedonians, the second joined the Bulgarian nation as Bulgarians.

K. Vatikiotis

By Flipper

Bolsaya Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia about ancient Macedonian ethnicity

April 26, 2007

Bolsaya Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, Moscow 1980
from the Greek Edition, Athens 1980

“Macedonians”: Ancient Greek tribe

THE QUESTION OF THE GREEKNESS. The Greekness of the Macedonians has been extensively discussed, but in these debates the objectives have been not only scientific but also political . There are three different opinions:

1.The Macedonians were Greeks

2.They were not Greeks, but either Thracians or Illyrians or a seperate people.

3.Macedonians and Greeks came from the same original people.

The data regarding the solution of this problem are of three different types:

1. Ancient testimonies (…)
2. Linguistic material (…)
3. Religion, feasts, traditions, constitutions (…)

We know some names of Gods and Heroes worshiped by the Macedonians. Among them,  39 are either pan-hellenic or worshiped by other Greek tribes, either purely macedonian, but with a Greek etymology [root].  2 come from names of cities with a non-hellenic root but with a greek termination syllabe  3 are Thracian  1 is Egyptian All of the names of Macedonian Feasts that we know are Greek. Regarding the names of the months, 6 are common with other Greek
calendars, and at least two more are also purely Greek. The idea that the Macedonians took the names of the months during their ‘hellenisation’ is out of the question, as in that case they would have taken an integral Greek calendar instead of creating an amalgam of different greek calendars and, more important, they would never invent themselves two Greek names of months. The Macedonian human names we know today [1980, now we know a lot more] are many hundreds and regard thousands of individuals. Very few are of non-Greek origin….

In 200 names born from Macedonians born before the ascent of Philip II (359b.C.), hardly 5% are of non-greek origin. Non Greek names in small numbers can also be found in other Greek tribes.

3. Religion, feasts, traditions, constitutions: Everything we know on these issues lead effortlessly to the conclusion that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe. Here are some illustrative details.

Relations of the Macedonians with other Greek tribes.

Many elements show us the relations of the Macedonians with other Greek tribes. Very close relations of blood are both testified and sustained, by various indications, between the Macedonians, the Dorians and the Magnites. Herodotos saves for us us a Dorian tradition, according to which the Dorians came from the “Makednoi” of the Pindos mountains. A
combination of other traditions and proof confirms this tradition. The conclusion is that the Dorians came from a group of “Makednoi” (Macedonians} who migrated from Pindos in central Greece and mixed up with other Greek groups.
 This also explains other common elements between the macedonian and the dorian space: the Timenides house and its head Timenos ( macedonian and dorian Argos), various ceremonial acts (Macedonia and Sparta), the Godess Pasikrata (Macedonia and Selinous, dorian colony of Megara in Sicily). Other cultural elements between Macedonians and Dorians are even wider spread, as they were also common to the Lokroi, The Phokeis, the Aetolians and generally the western Greek tribes. Here are some of them: the feast Apellaia and the names of three months: Apellaios, Artemisios, Panamos. Three other months, Dios, Daisios or Theodaisios and Loos or Omoloos, are also common, except for the Macedonians and the Dorians, to the Aeolians. The Macedonian god Thaul(l)os is related to the Dorian feast Thaulia but also with Zeus Thaulios of the Thessalians and Zeus Thaulonas of the Athenians. The relationship with the Magnites was also known, as in a genealogy of Hesiodos Makedonas and Magnitas were brothers. But modern scientific research also proves it,  with proof
as the common root of the tribes’ names { mak= long, tall, big}, a common feast, the Hetaireidia, and a dance, the Karpiaia. This dance was also common to the Ainianes, who lived in the border of Macedonia and Thessaly before moving south to the valley of Spercheios river.

The Athamanes were also former neighbors of the Macedonians: that explains their common elements. One of the names of the Vachoi in Macedonia, Lafystiai, is related to the Lafystion mountain and Lafystios Zeus of the Athamanes. The word dramis and dramix in the athamanian and the macedonian dialect meant a special type of bread.
The word zerethron(=varathron, pit) is common in macedonian and in arcadian . It is not strange if we also consider other elements that suggest that the Arcadians came from south-western Macedonia.

Alcetas I of Epirus

April 25, 2007

ALCETAS I. (Greek: Αλκέτας), king of Epirus. He was the son of Tharypus. For some reason or other, which we are not informed of, he was expelled from his kingdom, and took refuge with the elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, by whom he was reinstated. After his restoration we find him the ally of the Athenians, and of Ja’son, the Tagus of Thessaly. In b. c. 373, he appeared at Athens with Jason, for the purpose of defending Timotheus, who, through their influence, was acquitted. On his death the kingdom, which till then had been governed by one king, was divided between his two sons, Neoptolemus and Arybbas or Arym- bas. Diodorus (xix. 88) calls him Arybilus. (Paus. i. 11. § 3; Dem. Timoth. pp. 1187, 1190 ; Diod. xv. 13. 36.)

“Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology” by William Smith – 1851

Treaty between Philip II of Macedon and Chalcideans

April 25, 2007

Bottom right-hand corner of a block of local limestone, found in 1934 at Myriophyto, about three-quarters of a mile W. of Olynthus. Careless and irregular script with incised horizontal guide-lines; 0 0 X fl are smaller than the other letters. In 1. I11 (1~ has a triangle in place of an oval. Facs. Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. lxv. 104, phot. ibid. P1. I. D. M. Robinson, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. lxv. 103 ff. Cf. M. Segre, Riv. Fit. lxiii. 49 7ff.

Philip II treaty with Chalcideans 

The extant portion of this treaty, if rightly restored, opens with the formula of the oath of alliance (11. 2, 3) and ordains that the federal magistrates and the envoys of the Chalcidians shall take the oath to Philip, and Philip himself, and any others whom the Chalcidians demand, that to the Chalcidians (11. 3-5), swearing in solemn form and in all sincerity by Zeus, Ge, Helios and Posidon (11. 5-7).

This document, together with the Delphian oracle relative to o the alliance, shall be inscribed by the Chalcidians in the Temple of Artemis at Olynthus, by Philip in that of Zeus Olympius at Dium, by both at Delphi (11. 7-10). Any modifications approved by both parties may be made by common consent (11. 10, 11). The text of the oracle follows, as is prescribed, approving the making of friendship and alliance on the agreed terms (11. 12, 13), and directing the performance of sacrifices to Zeus, Apollo, Artemis and Hermes, the offering of prayers for the success of the alliance and the dispatch to Apollo at Delphi of suitable offerings (11. 13-16; LvacL8cLopeEv is restored from Dem. xxi. 52, [Dem.] xliii. 66). The document, in form strongly reminiscent of Nos. 111, 127, was set up in the temple of Artemis at Olynthus (1. 8/9) to record the alliance concluded between the Olynthians and Philip II of Macedon late in 357 or early in 356 B.C. The circumstances are thus summarized by Robinson (op. cit. 106):

‘After consolidating his position on the throne of Macedon in 359, Philip proceeded to extend and strengthen his influence in the North, and in 357 took firm possession of Amphipolis while lulling the Athenians into inactivity by promises to turn the city over to them. The Olynthians, who were in closer touch with conditions than the Athenians, were not deceived in regard to Philip’s true intentions and, realizing the danger of their own position, probably in the same year sought an alliance with Athens; but the Athenians, still blinded by Philip’s promises, refused their offer and thus gave them no recourse other than to seek alliance with Philip. The present treaty was the result.’ But though Philip gave the Olynthians Potidaea and Anthemus, their suspicions of his good faith were aroused and they again sought the alliance of Athens; the lukewarmness of the Athenian support, however, despite Demosthenes’ appeals and warnings, led to the destruction of Olynthus and the dissolution of the Chalcidic League in August, 348 (No. 166).

See further for these events A. B. West, History of the Chalcidic League, 115 ff., Beloch, G.G. iii (1). 228 ff., A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, C.A.H. vi. 200 ff., A. Momigliano, Filippo il Macedone, 47 f., M. Gude, A History of Olynthus, 32 if., D. M. Robinson and P. A. Clement, Excavations at Olynthus, ix. 154 ff. The treaty is mentioned or suggested in various passages in ancient authors (collected by Scala, Staatsvertrdge, 185 f., No. 185), especially in Dem. i Arg. 2, xxiii. 108, Diod. xvi. 8. 3, but in none of these is any allusion found to the intervention of the Delphic oracle (11. 7 f., 12 ff.), which proved so useful to Philip later in his reign (Plut. Demosth. xx. 1, Cic. Div. ii. 118), and to Apollo’s approval of the treaty already agreed upon (1. 13). This oracle strikingly resembles those preserved in Dem. xxi. 52, [Dem.] xliii. 66. The dialect of the earlier part of our inscription (11. 1-11) is the Euboic Ionian, used at Chalcis and her colonies (cf. Nos. 111, 150), while the oracle itself (11. 12-16) is in the ‘Northwestern Greek’ current in Delphi and Phocis (cf. Nos. 140, 169, 172 A). For oavijLaXwaco (1. 2) at the opening of an oath of alliance cf. S.I.G. 366. 9, Michel, 29. 15, 21.

The phrase ras dpXas Ta-&s vvas (1. 3) refers to the federal magistrates of the Chalcidian League, and disproves F. Hampl’s contention (Hermes, lxx. 177 ff.) that Olynthians and Chalcidians are the same and that there was never a federation of Chalcidian cities, but only the roAcs of Olynthus. The Ionian word vvod is here used, though in 1. 10 KOLVOS takes its place; for a similar use of KOLVOS with reference to magistrates see I.G. ix (1). 98. 9 f., ix (2). 412. 7, 1101. 4 f., PX. ‘Eqb. 1910, 334, 1. 20. For the taking of oaths by envoys (1. 4) cf. Thuc. v. 38. 1, Xen. Hell. v. 3. 26, S.I.G. 588. 77 ff. The phrase ovs av tAAovs Kit. (1. 4) probably refers primarily to Philip’s Ecrapot (cf. No. 165, 11. 10 if., S.E.G. iii. 14. 16 ff.). The four Oeol OpKLoL (1. 5), by whom both Philip and the Olynthians swear, occur frequently in this role, e.g. in No. 157, 1. 38, S.I.G. 366. 7, 434. 87, O.G.I. 266. 23 f.; for rdauveLv (Ionic for rTELVEWv) oPpKLa (1. 6/7) cf. S.I.G. 4. 10, 45. 44. The alliance and the oracle shall, it is agreed (11. 7-10), be published by the Chalcidians at their capital Olynthus, by Philip at Dium, where the Macedonian kings celebrated games and offered sacrifices in honour of Zeus, and by both jointly at Delphi; for a similar arrangement see Thuc. v. 18. 10, 47. 11,S.I.G. 366. 2 ff. In 1. 10/11 provision is made for the modification of this alliance by common consent of the contracting parties (cf.S.E.G. iii. 14.15 ff.,Thuc. v. 18. 11, 47.12, Nos. 101, 11. llff., 102,11. 9 ff., 103, 11.8 ff.); according to Robinson (op. cit. 117 f.), this may be done ‘in course of time’ (Xpovov TrpofalivovTos), according to Segre’s tentative suggestion ‘after the lapse of three months’ (XpovwcoL T-pV vqrIv6ov), but despite Robinson’s assurance that the final o of 1. 10 is certain, I hanker after KOLVWLt Aoycol XpW [tJvoLs dIoOLS EpoLs LeracOelval] or some similar phrase (cf. Hdt. i. 166, v. 63. 3, Thuc. iv. 64. 3, v. 18. 11). For the opening phrase of the oracle (1. 12) cf. S.1.G. 735.24, 1044.5, 1158. 2 ff. In encouraging the Chalcidians to enter into alliance with Philip the oracle was advocating a policy opposed to Athenian interests, but this is hardly surprising in view of the strained relations between Athens and the Delphic Amphictiony at this time suggested by S.I.G. 175

Bibliography: A Selection of Greek historical inscriptions / edited by Marcus N. Tod

The terms “Greeks” and “Hellenes”

April 23, 2007

“Though the words ‘Hellenism’, ‘Hellenic’, ‘Hellenes’, ‘Hellas’ are less familiar than the words ‘Greece’ and ‘Greek’ to the English-speaking public, they have two advantages. They are not misleading; and they are the words which, in the Greek language, the Hellenes themselves used to designate their civilization, their world, and themselves. ‘Hellas’ seems originally to have been the name of the region round the head of the Maliac Gulf, on the border between Central and Northern Greece, which contained the shrine of Earth and Apollo at Delphi and the shrine of Artemis at Anthela near Thermopylae (the narrow passage between sea and mountain that has been the highway from Central Greece to Northern Greece and thence to the great Eurasian Continent into which Northern Greece merges). ‘Hellenes’, signifying ‘inhabitants of Hellas’, presumably acquired its broader meaning, signifying ‘members of the Hellenic society’, through being used as a corporate name for the association of local peoples, the Amphictyones (‘neighbours’), which administered the shrines at Delphi and Thermopylae and organized the Pythian Festival that was connected with them.” [Arnold J. Toynbee: Hellenism, The History of a Civilization; Oxford University Press, 1959]

Scholars agree that the majority of the ancient Greeks found difficult to see beyond the horizon of the city-state or to overcome the limitations that slavery and other facts of their life imposed upon their sight. That is to say, the ancient Greeks did not reach the picture of a world-society in which not only those who enjoy Hellenic culture, not only the wise, but all peoples, or at any rate all civilized peoples, have a place. These research findings explain why many ancient Greeks called the ancient Macedonians uncivilized barbarians .

According Thucydides, Andriotis, Hatzidakis and Wilkes, in the eyes of many ancient Greeks, the Macedonians, the Epirotes, as well as the Boeotians and the Thessalians were barbarian, uncivilized Greek tribes. Thus, Andriotis also argues that the designation barbarian was attributed by ancient writers to other uncivilized Greek tribes, as well, such as the Epirote tribe of Chaones (Thuc. 2.80) . Chatzidakis agrees on this asserting that as was the case with Macedonians, some included Macedonia and Epirus in Greece, while others did not. Thucydides speaks of the barbarian Chaones in B.80, while in 81 it is mentioned that the Thesprotians and the Molossi were also barbarians, according to Thucydides .

Hatzidakis affirms that the term barbarian Macedonian is not used in an ethnological sense, but with a derogatory cultural meaning. Admitting that, for some ancient Greeks, the Macedonians were an uncivilized Greek tribe, Hatzidakis says that for that reason many excluded certain tribes from the national community, for they were considered to be inferior compared with the general national civilization .

Hatzidakis, Andriotis , Hammond also attempted to prove and defend the greekness of the ancient Macedonians. On the contrary, some scholars (Georgiev ,O. Muller) supported that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeksand some others(Borza,Green) that ancient Macedonians hellennized. However, the archaeological findings of the Greek archaeologist Andronikos in Vergina put an end to the scientific disagreement about the origin of the ancient Macedonians. Therefore, now it is certain that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks despite the fact that, in the eyes of many ancient Greeks, the Macedonians were a barbarian, uncivilized Greek tribe.

For nationalists like the Afroeccentrists (Bernal) or FYROMian(Stefou) , the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, since they were barbarians, a fact which to their view makes the Greek Macedonia theirs.

But what is Greek and what is Hellene.

What is the derivation of the Hellene(Hellinas) ? During the era of the Trojan War, the Hellenes were a relatively small but vigorous tribe settled in Thessalic Phthia, centralized along the settlements of Alos, Alope, Trehine, and Pelasgian Argos. Various etymologies have been proposed for the word Hellene, but none are widely accepted. These include Sal (to pray), ell (mountainous) and sel (illuminate). A more recent study traces the name to a city named Hellas next to the river Spercheus, still named that today. Hellenes in the wider meaning of the word appears in writing for the first time in an inscription by Echembrotus, dedicated to Heracles for his victory in the Amphictyonic Games,and refers to the 48th Olympiad (584 BC).

The modern English word Greek is derived from Latin Graecus, which in turn comes from Greek Γραικός (Graikos), the name of a Boeotian tribe that migrated to Italy in the 8th century BC, and it is by that name the Hellenes were known in the West. Homer, while reciting the Boeotian forces in the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships, provides the first known reference to a Boeotian city named Graea, and Pausanias mentions that Graea was the name of the ancient city of Tanagra.

There is and the term Hellenistic .Some say that the Hellenistic is not mean Greek or Hellenic!!!. The deriviyion came from the Greek word Έλλην Héllēn and was established by the German historian Johann Gustav Droysen to refer to the spreading of Greek culture over the non-Greek peoples that were conquered by Alexander the Great. According to Droysen, the Hellenistic civilization was a fusion of Greek and Middle-Eastern culture that eventually gave Christianity the opportunity to flourish.

The term Hellenistic mentioned first in the book of Droysen Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen that published at 1833.Modern historians see the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC as the beginning of the Hellenistic period.

The Hellenistic period of the Greek history was the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the annexation of the Greek peninsula and islands by Rome at 146 BC. Although the establishment of Roman rule did not break the continuity of Hellenistic society and culture, which remained essentially unchanged until the advent of Christianity, it did mark the end of Greek political independence.

During the Hellenistic period the importance of “Hellenic proper” (that is, the territory of modern Hellas) within the Greek-speaking world declined sharply. The great centres of Hellenistic culture were Alexandria and Antioch, capitals of Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria respectively

So any other explainations such that the term Hellenistic is not mean Hellenic is un-accurate and of course propagandistic.The founder of this term was clear.

But Back in the definition of the modern Nation.
According to the current international thinking as Mr Michael Vakaoukas said there are two main models of nation:

(a) the territorial and civic model and
(b) the ethnic-genealogical model.

The theory of Renan belongs to the western civic model, as per which a historic territory, legal-political community, legal-political equality, and common civic culture and ideology are required for the formation of a nation. According to the alternative ethnic model, which is supported by one of the most prominent modern theorists of nationalism, Anthony Smith, nation as a community is based on the common predecessors, the common descent of the different ethnic groups and their native culture.

The question now is which model is the most appropriate for the Greek historical reality: the civic model of Renan, Gellner and Anderson or the ethnic model of Smith. In other words, which of the two types of nationalism (emanating from the two models) applies to the Greek nation: the civic model or the ethnic model?

The nations with an ethnic or genealogical basis seek to expand so as to include the ethnically kin populations that are beyond the current borders of the ethnic nation, along with the territories where they live, or aim for the creation of a much larger ethic-national state, merging into other culturally and ethnically kin states. This is the case of the pan-nationalism of the unredeemed and all other kinds of pan-nationalisms .The characteristics of the genealogical nationalism of the unredeemed fit the Greek nation almost perfectly. Greeks will still talk about the “The Great Idea” and the unredeemed Hellenism (e.g. that of northern Epirus), even though these ideas have fortunately faded after the Asia Minor Catastrophe. However, what is happening today and what happened in the 19th cent, when the Greek nation was built on the basis of the unredeemed-ethnic-genealogical nationalism and much less on the vision of Renan , are two completely different things.A nation is defined by its ethno-culturalism, not by its geographical borders. Common Language and Heritage are what unite a people

In other words, the example of the Greek nation substantiates Smith’s theory. That is to say, the modern Hellenic nation is not an entirely modern formation, for it is based on much older cultural groups (ethnies). Greek ethnies (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present “permanent cultural attributes” such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms.

Hellenic ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium. For example, all Greek cultural groups believe in the myth of “Gorgona” who seeks to find Alexander the Great. That is to say, the modern Hellenic nation (in the beginning) was not “a community of citizens” but a “cultural” group. Thus, as Smith points out, “the challenge for scholars is to represent more accurately and convincingly the relationship of ethnic, cultural (Greek) past to modern Hellenic nation.

When the Greeks, in answer to the apparently plausible but entirely misleading ethnographical statistics of their rivals, contended that educational figures were a better indication of `nationality’ within Macedonia, their contention was not at all ridiculous: far from it. The position of Greek education corresponded exactly to both the strength and the weakness of Hellenism in Macedonia.

Many in Western Europe doubted whether Hellenism existed at all in Macedonia, and regarded it solely as the invention of the Greek press. Such people were proved to be wrong. Hellenism, although nearly defeated by force and revolutionary upheaval, managed to survive as Dakin mentioned.

Greeks or Hellenes ? Ancient Or Moderns ? The answer is one Hellenism

1-N. Andriotis, On the language and the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians
2-Wilkes, The Illyrians, Odysseus, trs. in Greek
3-Hatzidakis, Macedonians
4-Michael Vakaoulas,Modern Greek Identity
5-Douglas Dakin,The Greek Struggle in Macedonia


By Akritas

Symbols used by the slavs of FYROM – An overview

April 22, 2007

Overview of the various symbols adopted by the Slavs of FYROM over time Skopjian Symbols – Overview of the various symbols adopted by the Slavs of FYROM over time

–>The inhabitants of FYROM have had various flags and symbols both adopted by them and imposed on them beginning in the 19th century. A brief explanation is provided for them here.


if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = “show”; var tocHideText = “hide”; showTocToggle(); }

The flag of Krushevo, Ilinden and the VMRO


-The proposed national flag from 1903, during the Republic of Krushevo and Ilinden uprisings. It became a symbol used by both pro-Bulgarian Slavs in Macedonia and Vardar and also the minority of Macedonists who favoured an independent Macedonia. It was the flag of the IMRO (VMRO), the organisation which orchestrated the failed Illinden uprising and which consisted of both Slavs with a Bulgarian consciouness and also Macedonists in the left wing of the group.

-Interestingly the Bulgarian VMRO (a modern right-wing Bulgarian political party) Flag is identical. The colours Black and Red were the colours representing Bulgarian aspirations in Macedonia and are now prevelent colours for the Skopjians. It is important that prior to 1991 and FYROM’s independence and the adoption of a red and yellow national flag, red and black were considered the colours of the Skopjians while still part of Yugoslavia. This can be seen through the fact that A Skopjian soccer club, Preston Lions, had red and black as its colours until 1991 when it changed them to yellow and red.

The Socialist Republic of Macedonia


-The flag of the ‘Socialist Republic of Macedonia’, adopted on 31 December 1946. It was replaced with the red Vergina sun flag in 1991 when FYROM ceded from Yugoslavia.

‘Vergina Sun Flag’

Mk 1992.gif

-When independence was obtained in 1992, the flag of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia was retained until it was replaced with the flag with the so-called sun of Vergina. The flag was eventually scraped because of pressure from Greece on the grounds that it violated the rights of Greek Macedonians and falsely lay claim to the Hellenic legacy of Macedonia.

-A note about the Vergina sun and why the Greeks objected:

Vergina is a region of Greece. The Vergina Sun was found on a gold larnax in the main burial chamber of Philip, located at Vergina, Pieria, Greece. The larnax (gold casket) was discovered by Professor Manolis Andronikos in 1977 identified as containing the remains of Philip II had a symbol of a sun or star on its lid, and this Vergina Sun has been adopted as a symbol of Greek Macedonia.

Current Flag of F.Y.R.O.M

-The current flag of F.Y.R.O.M was proposed after the banning of the previous Vergina flag which was found to be violating the rights of Greek Macedonia on 5 October 1995.

-The flag current flag is considered to be a combination of the Vergina Sun and the sun rays found on the communist coat of Arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia shown below:

Coat of Arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia

-The coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia since 1945. The coat of arms is still retained by F.Y.R.O.M and was not changed in 1991 when the flag was changed.

The Skopjian Lion – Adaptation of the Bulgarian Lion

Skopjian Lion

Skopjian Lion


Czech coat of Arms

-A prevailent symbol adopted by the Skopjians is the crowned (and sometimes not crowned) Lion. It is both commonly used by Skopjians and also representative of Bulgaria’s historic aspirations in Macedonia and Vardar. It is falsely claimed by Skopjian revisionists to be a “Macedonian” symbol and the same symbol as the lion of Hercules and Alexander in antiquity. The claim can only be regarded as romantic revisionism for reasons explained below:

-The Lion standing on its hind legs is a common symbol throughout Europe, for example it is almost identical to the lion used in the Czech coat of arms and also the logo used by Holden car company and it is also the same symbol used in Bulgaria for centuries before the emergence of first ‘Macedonists’ who used the term ‘macedonian’ in an ethnic rather than geographic in the 19th century. It is also still a commonly used symbol in Bulgaria today.

-The purpose of this section is not to debate the very first origins of a symbol so commonly found throughout Europe as pinpointing the exact origins and the first “owners” of the symbol would be a difficult task for exactly the reason that its so common. The purpose is to present the fact that all evidence however points to the fact that the Skopjians use the symbol because of their ethnic Bulgarian origins.

-Logically, as Encyclopedia Brittanica cited in 1899 that ‘“Almost all independent authorities, however, agree that the bulk of the Slavonic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian”‘, the lion is considered to have been adopted by the Skopjian Macedonists because of their Bulgarian origin. The Lion was representative of Bulgarian Slavs in Macedonia and the yearn for a Bulgarian Macedonia.

-The symbol became representative of Bulgarian interests Macedonia and was often accompanied by the word ‘Makedonija’ in cyrillic to represent the claim of a ‘Bulgarian Macedonia'(See thumbnails below)

-The Lion is also the symbol of two seperate modern political parties, one being the VMRO of Bulgaria, and the other being the VMRO-DPMNE, a party in modern FYROM. Neither party have a continuity with the original VMRO of the early 20th century, while both laying claim to its legacy. For more information about the VMRO see the page: Skopjian historical revisionism – Rejected by World academia.

Modern political party in FYROM, the VMRO-DPMNE, their website:

Modern political party in FYROM, the VMRO-DPMNE, their website:

Modern political party in Bulgaria, the VMRO, their website:

Modern political party in Bulgaria, the VMRO, their website:

A graphic showing four different symbols representing the Bulgarian nationalist dream of uniting the four regions, Thrace, Moesia, Moravia and as well as the bottom left crowned lion representing Bulgarian Macedonia

A graphic showing four different symbols representing the Bulgarian nationalist dream of uniting the four regions, Thrace, Moesia, Moravia and as well as the bottom left crowned lion representing Bulgarian Macedonia

Historical Bulgarian coat of arms compared with modern Skopjian organisation

Historical Bulgarian coat of arms compared with modern Skopjian organisation

%d bloggers like this: