Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:03, 26 June 2007

History

Macedonian Empire seems to be a text on the history of the Macedonian empire only, needs lots of work and more information on the empire itself, also after Alexander the Great, it jumps to the conclusion and ends the empire, it needs serious formatting, is copied/pasted from here (http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/macedon.html) although it could be written by the user himself. -- Leandros, 18:33, 20 Jul 2004

If it's a copyright violation, then it needs to be removed. In any case, it might be duplicate with Macedon. --Shallot 17:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact I believe that Macedon and Macedonian Empire really ought to exist as separate articles, and they are not duplicate, and not copied from the same webpage. I do suspect though that this page was written by the same user who wrote the Macedonian Empire article. Would this still count as copyvio? Anyway, someone really into the subject has better rewrite the article. --leandros 10:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Empire

Do not insert "Macedonian Empire". This is a view held my a minority of historians in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia and it is otherwise given Misplaced Pages:Undue weight. Mr. Neutron 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So? The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present all views about the subject, so I do see valid reason for your censorship here. Besides, I would not say that it is view of "minority of historians" because it is view of all historians from former Yugoslavia while opposite view that it was Bulgarian Empire is just a view of historians in Bulgaria. Who is majority and who is minority here is the question for long discussion. PANONIAN 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and I corrected it this way. Btw this is not Former Yugoslavia vs. Bulgaria, it is Former Yugoslavia vs Western scholarship, and it is very evident that the former Yugoslav historians are in minority on this matter. It will also be nice if you can provide some source for this usage. Mr. Neutron 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And interesting question - are Asparukh of Bulgaria and Krum of Bulgaria, who were leaders of the First Bulgarian empire considered "Macedonians" in Yugoslavia? Mr. Neutron 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with western scholarship is that Bulgarians were simply more aggresive to impose their own view to western scholarship which does not mean that this view is 100% correct (it is just more aggresively presented). Regarding sources for usage of this name, here are some: , , (You can find more by google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&btnG=Search ). Regarding Asparuh and Krum, no they were not considered Macedonians (no matter that their names were simply Asparuh and Krum without "of Bulgaria" sufix). In Yugoslavia, Macedonians were Slavic inhabitants of Slavic empire centered in Macedonia during rule of Samuil - linguistics proved that Macedonian language is unic language different from both, Bulgarian and Serbian and fact is that Slavic inhabitants that lived in that area in that time also spoke that same language, which confirm that they were different from Bulgarians. PANONIAN 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing but pseudohistory. Mr. Neutron 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"In Yugoslavia, Macedonians were Slavic inhabitants of Slavic empire centered in Macedonia during rule of Samuil - linguistics proved that Macedonian language is unic language different from both, Bulgarian and Serbian and fact is that Slavic inhabitants that lived in that area in that time also spoke that same language, which confirm that they were different from Bulgarians." - Wow, and what a surprise it was Yugoslavian authors who "discovered" this. As I have said before read the Samuil of Bulgaria article before imposing such non-sense. --Laveol 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To add and conclude, history (at least Bulgarian and Western) is not built on "aggresiveness" and "imposition of views", it is built on facts and evidence. In this case the Yugoslav side has very little of both. Mr. Neutron 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He was always knows as Tsar Samuil. Not “Samuil of Bulgaria”Alexander the great1 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just like Peter I of Serbia was known as Tsar Peter and King Zog of Albania was known as King Zog. Should I add Napoleon I of France? Mr. Neutron 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So Mr.Neutron then you agree that Alexander of Macedonia was Macedonian, following what you have said that would mean that he was indeed Macedonian and not Greek. Like you said "Peter I of Serbia", "King Zog of Albania" all follow the same concept, then “Alexander of Macedonia” is the same. Following what you have said there should be no reason for there to be a conflict over his ethnicity as it is clear that he was Macedonian. Alexander the great1 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There there son, try this one Alexander of Macedon. Mr. Neutron 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great(Alexander III) the one everyone knows about, the one that is known throughout the world as Alexander of Macedonia.Alexander the great1 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: Macedon ≠ Macedonia (country) and Macedonians (ethnic group) ≠ Ancient Macedonians. Period. NikoSilver 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3352286Alexander the great1 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)