Is their anything more pointless than a fight between two countries because of their names. Sure I know the Macedonians were Hellenistic but the piece of land is still technically historically part of Macedon. Then to add an extra layer of confusion is that "Macedonians" are basically Bulgarians which makes it even more confusing. I know nationalistically the greeks have every right to the name but it still seems pointless to fight over a name in my eyes. It is quite clear that the current people inhabiting the region aren't greeks so they should just ignore it and keep to their own borders imo.
>should just ignore it and keep to their own borders
Why though. If they can command and deny, they will, so they did, until pushed by EU will. Who knows, maybe Germoney threatened to include Turkey into the EU, so the Greeks decided North Macedonia to be OK.
Historically the region was called Paeonia and settled by Thracians (pretty much Bulgarians before Slavicization), and never even included into the Macedonian empire anyway except for a fringe strip. But:
1. Paeonia was never known for anything as cool as Alex the Dude
2. All of mainland Greece was ruled by Slavs for couple centuries with very heavy Slavic immigration, like Modern Greeks have 25% Eastern European admixture due to all the Slavs moving around. Consequently the area around modern Thessaloniki was Slavdom Prime, with local Slavic dialect becoming the Church Slavonic common speech even. Bulgaria always wanted that land, as it was full of Bulgarians anyway, and Greeks, once nearly assimilated totally into Slavs, get understandably buttmad. Several Balkan wars later it still seems Slavic Macedonia to be a Bulgarian ruse to slowly creep on Thessaloniki and take it the first possible moment.
>>10968 So the people in modern macedon are the equivalent of the africans claiming egypt was a black empire. That makes sense now that I think about it. I still think its quite petty to be arguing over a name.
No. The people in modern Macedonia are the equivalent of Mexicans claiming California was Aztlan. They know perfectly well it is bullshit, but you should have a casus belli for the time US fails and you get ready to annex things.
The Republic of Macedonia's existence is a statement "Greeks are frauds, all of Macedonia is Slavic and will be so". Basically a pretext to chop away 1/3 of Greece away if NATO/EU are no longer a thing.
>>10978 He didn't even mention that the moment they would wage war on greece there would be instantly rebellion in albanian territories and they would also be very possibly attacked by albanians. The rebellion would be savage as albanians living in macedonia have mexicant-tier number of weapons.
They would lost like 1/4 or more of the country. Greek macedonia isn't even rich and has little to none industry but land. Why would they do that shit?
>>10981 also, if nato/eu stopped existing over night it would be split between albania/bulgaria
the greeks have no claim other than name but macedonians were some mixed hellenized thracians anyway so what the fuck
>>10984 I mean there would be a slight backlash from countries but overall nothing meaningful would be destroyed because of it. The balkans are a mess that really needs time to sort itself out.
>>10983 You need export-oriented industry or colonies to make use of somewhat isolated docks. They don't have any industry so they can't build ships, no infrsatructure to speak of and chinese already rented pireus if I remember well, so what would docks be good for macedonians? And, like I said, they will be annexed by bulgarians and albanians the moment hre stops existing, so it's pointless anyway. Greeks just play the muh nationalism note so they don't have to deal with problems.
>>10984 >macedonians were some mixed hellenized thracians
*macedonians were greeks mixed with hellenized persians and thracians, but still predominantly greek
but
for like 1000 years its slav land
>>10990 every state is essentialy that when state exists only to enforce laws which protect the feeders, ie capitalists and in turn themselves, the ruling class
Ancapism is pretty much the end-game.
>>10978 You think of Macedonia as something much different from Bulgaria. They aren't as much. It's a part of Bulgarian territory taken by Serbia, which lead to a certain Second Balkan war of "everyone and their cow against Bulgaria" when Bulgarians disagreed too strongly.
Naturally, the state of Macedonia is a very weak made-up statelet, hastily thrown together by Serbia to explain why a bunch of Bulgarians must stay in Serbia (prolly they too wanted their own Tri Moreta in the future, but who knows).
On its own it is worthless and highly unstable due to Albanian problem, which exists because the USA have a big fat military base in Kosovo to never allow anything alike to Yugoslavia to reappear. Yugoslavia had huge potential. It was all wasted, but the potential was there.
Thing is, without the US overseeing the Balkans via EU proxy and its Kosovo base, this shit will start rocking itself real quick. Macedonia will have to ally with either Serbia or Bulgaria to deal with the Albanian problem. So far, neither Serbia nor Yugoslavia was predatory to Greece, but Macedonians have a thing since the Yugoslav Wars. Bulgaria, on the other hand, has this Tri Moreta thing of Greater Bulgaria, that happens to include 1/3 of modern Greece. Will they use in case Europe goes to shit and the Balkans with it? Who knows.
So far the Balkans are Murrica's backyard that must stay separate and irrelevant under threat of NATO bombs and EU treats (EU itself is a control mechanism via a puppeted state of Germany). If the USA retreat overseas and Russia stays weak/disinterested, it will just turn into a shitshow, especially if Turkey decides to give a brotherly kiss to Greece out of spite. If Russia will want to project things through its newly acquired Crimea, well, whoever gets to ally with them will mop up the rest. Probably Serbs will go genocide Kosovo Albanians, but who knows, maybe Bulgaria will go Tri Moreta way.
>>
>>10991 Judging by the language and Ancient Macedonians' opinion, Ancient Macedonians were Greeks of North-Western Dialect zone, or closest relative to Greeks, certainly not Thracians. They rather quickly switched to Koine, which implies close relation already. Macedonian got synonymous with Greek language and culture in eyes of foreigners anyway.
But this is irrelevant now.
What is relevant is Bulgarian-Greek tugging on the Aegean sea access after 1500 years of Slavs Slaving around. So long as all three (Bulgaria, Greece, eventually "Northern" Macedonia) stay in NATO and EU, there is no problem, as both have access to the sea they might covet so much and NATO makes them sorta-allies.
If this fails, and USA-NATO-EU show signs of terminal decay, the Balkanites are gonna Balkan again.
>>10992 >>10975 never directly mentioned Bulgaria so I was assuming you were talking about the actual country annexing a 1/3 of Greece. Though the thought of Bulgaria directly overpowering the Greeks in warfare still seems out their considering the population gap between the two nations even adding Macedon to the equation. Unless I'm missing something from the demographics. Then again the Bulgarians may get support from Turkey and Russia. Then we would also have to ask would western Europe even let this happen in the event of a US complete destruction which is gonna happen eventually. It all depends on when the USA is toppled. Then we also have to factor in the Chinese and who they would side with. Serbia in general got the short end of the stick.
Serbia is the traditional Russian ally. One-upping Murrica in Pristina ~30 years later would be a national holiday from Smolensk to Vladivostok. But this opens a big fat barrel of Bosnia-Herzegovina being a non-entity to keep Serbs split, so re-Yugoslav Wars. The Bulgarians might precisely ally themselves with Turks and Slav Macedonians, they have quite some Turks already and being a part of NATO have dubious relations with Russia already. Plus the whole Cyprus things and constant bitching at Greek-Turkish sea border. Eh, the Balkans as usual for the last 200 years.
Is their anything more pointless than a fight between two countries because of their names. Sure I know the Macedonians were Hellenistic but the piece of land is still technically historically part of Macedon. Then to add an extra layer of confusion is that "Macedonians" are basically Bulgarians which makes it even more confusing. I know nationalistically the greeks have every right to the name but it still seems pointless to fight over a name in my eyes. It is quite clear that the current people inhabiting the region aren't greeks so they should just ignore it and keep to their own borders imo.