In another thread, in response to the statement "... [the Greeks] conquered the world under Alexander the Great"

DorianGreyed responded:

"Despite what the Greeks claim, Alexander was a Macedonian, not Greek. The Greeks at that time regarded Macedonians as barbarians and not Greek. Alexander incorporated his defeated foes into his own army, but its strength came from the Macedonian heavy cavalry and the revolutionary Macedonian phalanx."

This is a very political issue – in ancient times, and now in new form in the past century or so.

In the Bronze Age, there were peoples who had inhabited what is now called the Greek peninsula, writing a primitive Greek. They spread east to Syria and west to Sicily. After 1200 B.C. more of these people, including those who spoke “northwest Greek”, including Doric, moved south from the Danube area into Macedonia (in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula) and down the peninsula, until by 1,000 B.C. only Arcadia and Attica were independent.

Naturally the Attic (Athenian) Greeks called these Dorians and their like ‘barbarians’. Not only were they warlike, but they were less cultivated. Also, they were not ‘pure’; some Illyrians and Thracians also lived in Macedonia. Let’s face it, the Ionic-speaking Athenians were snobs. (Much later five Dorian settlements united to form the polis (city-state) called Sparta.)

Sort of like the British, after the Americans broke away. For another century or more, the British made a big point of their cultural superiority, and of the barbaric nature of U.S. society. Some of them still do.

But that doesn’t mean the Macedonians weren’t ‘Greek’. They were just as “Greek” as the Corinthians or the Spartans. The Macedonian royal family (cf. Philip and Alexander the Great) claimed they were Greek. The court culture was Greek.

There was no Greek nation then. There were only alliances, like the Peloponnesian League, the Delian League, and so forth. When we speak of “the Greeks” of the time, we mean the Greek peoples, not the persons who were citizens of Greece.

When many of the Greek city-states formed an alliance against Persia about 475 B.C., they called themselves ‘the Hellenes’. After Persia was defeated by the league, it broke up into city-states again: Athens, Sparta, etc.

It was then that Philip of Macedon, by a series of brilliant negotiations and military manoeuvers, arose to such a position of power that he convinced the Greek mainland states (except Sparta), along with many island states, to form the League of Corinth in 337 B.C., and to elect him as “commander of its armed forces” and chairman of the council during the anticipated war against Persia. This lasted until Philip was assassinated in 336 B.C.

The league then elected Alexander (the Great) as his successor. It was under him that the empire of the Greeks defeated Persia, and extended it far beyond. He died in 323 B.C.

Greece became a nation in the 19th century.

Now the second part of the story behind the claim that it was the Macedonians who ruled the world.

Since Alexander’s death, Macedonia was ruled by Rome, then by the Ottoman empire. Slavic and Turkish peoples moved into the area in large numbers. By the end of the 19th century there was a passionate independence movement in Macedonia, whose slogan was ‘Macedonia for the Macedonians.’ The movement resumed after WWI, WWII, and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Part of their propaganda was to claim that Philip of Macedon had first conquered the Greek states, then his son conquered the world.

http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/nepobedliva-e.htm

But the facts are not that simple.

Response?

Historians continue to refer to Alexander's conquests as the Hellenization of the known world. Alexander's tutor, for what he was worth, was Aristotle. The process continued under the Ptolomies and the Seleucids. Koiné Greek was the lingua franca of many countries, even after the Roman conquest, and was the language of both the Septuagint and all of the New Testament. Call Alexander Macedonian or call him Greek, it seems to me simply a question of semantics.

That site has done a good job of revising history. Alexander was always regarded as a Macedonian, a separate ethnic group that Greeks, until about 100 years ago. Now, it seems, he wasn't. This, of course, comes as a surprise to the couple million Macedonians living in what is left of what was once Macedonia. (Greece and bulgaria got most of it.) In th epart of Macedonia that became Greece, th eGreek government forbade the Macedonian language, closed Macedonian schools, and re-settled tens of thousands of Macedonians, replacing them with Greeks. (This is the same thing that Romania did to the part of Romania that had been Hungary for a thousand years.) Bulgaria did it the easy way. In the early 1970s, it leegally changed the ethnicity of thousands of Macedonians living where their ancestors did for a couple thousand years, the part of Macedonia that Bulgaria got in the Treaty of San Stefano. I know these things because I have spoken to Macedoninas who were there when these events took place.

The pertinent treaties - Treaty of San Stefanom, Treaty of Berlin of 1881, the series of agreements befoe and after the First Balkan War, reaty of Versailles.

It is worth noting that the name "Macedonia" is the oldest surviving name of a country on the continent of Europe. My grandfather fought in the Ilinden Uprising of August 1903. He was captured after eliminating two Turkish soliders, and was scheduled for execution. He escaped and came to America, changing his name.

A couple of more Macedonia that most people are unaware were Macedonian:

Aristotle - Yep, THAT Aristotle. His father was refered to as the "Macedonian physician, and Aristotle himself was born in Macedonia.

Cleoparta - yep THAT Cleopatra. She was Cleopatra VII of Egypt, a decendant on her father's side of Ptolemy I, the Macedonian general that Alexander left in charge of Egypt when he went east, and from Seleucus I, founder of the Seleucid Dynasty in Asia Minor. who was a Macedonian, the son of Antiochus, one of Philips generals.

When yugoslavia broke up, the Greeks tried to get the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I remember seeing a minister of Greece on CNN, saying that the proof that Macedonia was Greece was that the Macedonians competed in the Ancient Olympics, and only Greeks could do that. He didn't explain how Nero competed (Yep, THAT Nero) nor did he explain how a King of Armenia competed.* The interviewer didn't point of that when Macedonians competed, Macedonians also ruled Greece. It would have been a bit difficult to refuse them, wouldn't it? "uh...Alexander, my king, my emperor...your people are not allowed in our Games."

*King Trdat of Arshakouni, who became the winner of the 265th Olympic Games in wrestling in 281 A.D. and King Varazdat, who was the champion of 291st Olympic Games in fighting (what we call boxing) Source: The Committee of European Olympics

Are you referring to the URL I cited in my post when you say it did a good job of revising history, DG? Did you check it out?

No, I didn't. I just assumed that what you said about Macedonians being Greek was from the site.

But that doesn’t mean the Macedonians weren’t ‘Greek’. They were just as “Greek” as the Corinthians or the Spartans. The Macedonian royal family (cf. Philip and Alexander the Great) claimed they were Greek. The court culture was Greek.

That, of course, isn't true. as further evidence, I point outthat the Greek culture was called Hellenic, but the culture Alexander spread was called Hellenistic. If Alexander was a greek, why wasn't that culture he spread called Helenic?

Several of the Byzantine Emperors were from Macedonia Justinian was born near modern day Skopja), and the Empire was under the Macedonian dynasty for almost 200 years. Since the Byzantine Empire was primarily Greek, it seems odd to call one dynasty the Macedonian dynasty unless it was accepted that Macedonians were not Greek, but another ethnic group entirely.

"Call Alexander Macedonian or call him Greek, it seems to me simply a question of semantics."

Please let Macedonians have what little history is actually theirs. Isn't it bad enough that other countries divided up most of their land? Taking away their history, their language, and their land is just a more civilized form of genocide.

Dorian, it is not my intention to discredit your views. But I must tell you the following.

In the course of responding to your original post in another thread, I relied on my memory of my history studies of forty years ago, and my readings and studies since. I re-checked sources mainly for dates etc.

But I also checked not one thread, but a lot of sources, both on the internet and in books in my posession, such as the 1960 edition of the E. Brit.

There is really no rational basis to believe that the term 'Greeks" did not include the Macedonians. There is archaelogical evidence, linguistic evidence, and the evidence of historical accounts. (I place that last for a reason.)

There is no reason to believe that the Macedonians united the various Greek groups by conquest.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the League of Corinth was formed in order to prepare to deal with the Persians. There is plenty of reason to believe that the defeat of the Persians was due to the naval skills of the Greek forces, and not to the the 'invincible Macedonian phalynx'. (This military strategy was no doubt a big factor in later land conquests, after the Persians had been defeated, and in the process of expanding the empire of the Greek peoples.)

There is no mystery about the use of the terms 'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic'.

Hellenic refers to the people who were culturally Greek before the conquests of Philip. Their culture was relatively isolated and their civilization was termed classic because it was not heavily influenced by outside forces.

Hellenistic refers to Greeks and others who lived during the period after Alexander the Great's conquests.

An analogy would be:

England refers to a nation, England, that existed independently from 1066 until 1603. Later it joined (or formed) a coalition called Great Britain] which became a nation under James I, and it exists until the present.

But we in North America speak English. That is because we are part of the linguistic and cultural tradition that we call something-or-other: Anglo-Saxon, British, English. Our legal system is not Napoleonic, or Judaic, or Islamic, or tribal. It is based on Anglo-Saxon common law, which later became English common law. English common law is the basis of the legal systems of Canada, the U.S., Australia, etc. We are definiely not British, in the naionalistic sense. Nor are we English. We are "Englishistic" -- strongly influenced by the English tradition.

Believe me, Dorian, I know where you are coming from. You come from a Macedonian (cultural) background. I come from a Hebridean (Scottish Celtic) cultural background.

I was taught that our problems (which caused us to leave the Homeland) were caused by the oppressive English, or the Presbyterian Scots, or even the corruption of the clan system, which was caused by English oppression.

But I went there in 2004. I saw the tiny island, mountainous, wet, boggy, subject to prevailing rainy westerlies. I learned the population there was 500 people in the time my people emigrated. The current population is 63, and no one is rich, even given modern agricultural technology.

The truth dawned on me. It was nothing to do with "Bonnie Prince Charlie", or Protestant aggression, or English expansion. All those aspects were opportunistic and accidental. The fact was, we were overpopulated. The smartest thing any of my ancestors ever did was to emigrate. And so is true of your ancestors, very likely.

If they had not left their homeland, your ancestors very likely would have not survived, as might mine not have survived.

The question of just exactly who caused them to leave it, and why they had to become emigrants, is answered by biological analogy.

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise."

When an ecological niche becomes overpopulated, either fight each other until enough have been eradicated so that the survivors may make a living

or

leave and find lebensraum.

Whichever choice you make, don't spend centuries and a lot of emotional energy trying to blame others for the terrible choice your ancestors had to make.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: babthrower,

"There is really no rational basis to believe that the term 'Greeks" did not include the Macedonians. There is archaelogical evidence, linguistic evidence, and the evidence of historical accounts. (I place that last for a reason.)"

That is most definitely wrong. For every site, archaelogical evidence, linguistic evidence, and historical account, I could offer more that indicate what I say is correct. I have spent much more than just an evening or so devoted to reading about this subject.

I know very little about the Hebridean background you speak of. That small knowledge, coupled with what you say about it, indicates that the two situations have very little in common. However, since it is apparent that you, aftr a short period of reading about the "Macedonian Question", have decided that you know more about it than someone who has spent years studying it, I won't waste your time with what you see as a biased view.

I will pass on what you say to the man I know who lived in Greece when the Greeks closed the Macedonians schools, forbade the use of the Macedonian language, and re-settled Greeks into the area, forcibly moving some Macedonians. If he wants to join AP and give an eyewitness account of that history, he can certainly do so. If he does, be warned that along with his sense of humor, he is also very sarcastic. Some would call that a national trait.

"If they had not left their homeland, your ancestors very likely would have not survived..."

You got this part right, although not for the reason you give. Lebensraum had nothing to do with the Turkish occupation of Macedonia, nor was poverty a reason for my grandfather escaping execution and leaving Macedonia. His brothers and sister stayed, the Turks finally left, and the family had a good life in Yugoslavia, especially under Tito, who allowed Macedonia a great deal of autonomy as one of the Yugoslav republics.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

DG, my reference to my own people's history was intended not to show a perfect parallelism, but merely to show what one might call the 'emigrant's plaint'.

No one pulls up stakes, leaves their childhood home, goes to a new land where they will lack the support of kin, and will need to learn a whole new set of survival skills, unless the move is forced upon them (or unless they are both emotionally detatched and very adventurous!)

Nor was - and I'm sure in fairness you will admit this -- anything I said a denial of the sufferings that displaced people have. The ancient kingdom Macedonia was oppressed by a series of empires, and partitioned among Greece, Serbia and other nations, and flooded with immigrants of non-Macedonian ancestry - Slavs and Turks, particularly.

But that is human history. We in turn, you and I, and our people, displaced whole nations of North American aborigines, and changed their lives forever, when we came to North America. Our landing and our subsequent oppression almost exterminated them. You as a late emigrant may deny any responsibility. I too was born long after the land was stolen from them. But the fact remains, we benefit from their decimation. And that's the story of human history.

The Hebridean kingdom of the Western Isles, the kingdom of Macedonia, were made extinct because our ancesters were too powerless to hold them. North America was stolen from the natives because they were stone age people facing a European force of people with very powerful technology.

And my whole point of bringing up my people was to show that the myths we are told as children about the cruel oppressors who stole away our ancestral lands are just that - myths. For every rewritten history, there are n more -- one for every people who ever had a toehold in that area. The Balkans particularly are famous for such ancestral claims.

I hope you will invite your sarcastic friend to post - it will broaden the debate. As for myself, I think I've made my point. I am no longer bitter about the tales I was told as a child because although I'm sure all the villians that have been named are guilty of something - greed, brutality, whatever - the real villian was overpopulation. And all the efforts at ethnic cleansing in the Balkans (including the expulsion of Slavs that ethnically Greek people have done in Macedonia, when they had the power) will not right those wrongs.

Their is no god-given right to any land on earth. People must hold on to it, and if they cannot, they must make their way as best they can in whatever land they can intrude into - or die trying. We see what has happened in the middle east, when Israel was created based on a sense of ancient entitlement. Both the Middle East and the Balkans are notorious for that kind of ancient, endless fighting and claiming and blaming. And the ancient hatreds.

When the international committes were working on the Balkan problem after World War I, each nation in the area put forward its claims to the entire area.

Each nation pointed to that point in history when its precedents had owned the maximum territory. Then it claimed that the entire area which they may (or may not) have once dominated was theirs by right of conquest. Later conquerors were depicted as usurpers -- but not they, themselves.

Trouble was, even if all claims were true, the same land cannot be uniquely owned by all the claimants.

Even North American claims by native nations are problematical. The Six Nations were in the process of expanding their territory by extinguishing the Hurons when the French arrived. And don't get me started on Central America.

A little more information on how the Greeks treat Macedonians (Note when some of this happened; it is not ancient history.) -

THE ONLY EUROPEAN COUNTRY WHICH STILL HAS POLITICAL REFUGEES as of October 2000?

GREECE - THE ONLY EUROPEAN COUNTRY
WHICH STILL HAS POLITICAL REFUGEES
October 2000
The policy of discrimination is also implemented against Macedonian political refugees. These individuals are not permitted to return to Greece to visit their places of birth. Many such people currently reside in Eastern European countries as well as in the United States, Australia and Canada.

During the Greek Civil War (1946-1949) thousands of Greeks and about 60,000 ethnic Macedonians (of which 30,000 were children) were forced to leave Greece. The Greek State stripped all of them of their Greek citizenship. Until 1981 Greek policy prohibited political refugees from returning or even visiting Greece.

In 1981, according to the so-called policy of National Reconciliation, the Greek government permitted refugees who left Greece during the Greek Civil War to return Greece. The joint decision (106841 / 29.12.1982 - L. 1266/1982) of the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Public Order states:

"...all Greeks by genus* who left Greece as a result of the Civil War 1946-1949 and went abroad as political refugees may return to Greece even if they have lost their Greek citizenship..."

* The meaning of the word "genus" (genos) is synonymous with race or ethnicity.

The [Karadza] document [English translation] shows how Greece uses a list of "undesirables" to target members of the Macedonian national minority who left Greece as political refugees.

Mr. Karadza left Greece in 1949, during the Greek Civil War. Macedonians who left Greece at that time were stripped of their citizenship. Many have subsequently been placed on a list of undesirables as persona non grata and cannot even visit their relatives and birthplaces in Greece.

Compare this treatment with that afforded those political refugees who declare themselves as ethnically Greek (in conjunction with decision of 1981). The ethnically Greek group of political refugees is allowed to return to Greece, is repatriated and has their Greek citizenship reinstated. Furthermore, political refugees who declare as ethnically Greek receive special employment benefits for themselves and their families. In practice, the Greek government decision of 1981 is used to discriminate against those political refugees who are not (or will not falsely declare themselves as) ethnically Greek.

Why does Greece exclude ethnic Macedonians from the right to repatriation?

Why does Greece prohibit its former citizens from visiting their family homes and places of birth merely because their ethnic identity is politically undesirable to the Greek government?

Why is such a policy of Apartheid still in practice to this day in a European country and member of the European Union?

The identity of modern Macedonians is a hotely dabated issue. Claiming that Macedonians were not Greek is as ambiguous as saying they were. Modern Balkan politics and the issue of communist defectors (who flee to their allies abolishing their Greek citizenship)only complicates things. The fact that the site administrator supports these views is clear from his background and identity.

I will like to add that also the identity of modern Greek is also debated. I do not believe in seeing things as black and white. It looks like views in US are like this by the reply of DorianGreyed.

"I do not believe in seeing things as black and white."

Yet some things are black, and some things are white. I believe in seeing the truth, whatever color it is. Just because an issue is being debated does not mean that the truth has not been established. It may mean that some are unwilling to accept the truth. I am sure that, centuries from now, people will still be debating the existence of God. I am also sure that the question was resolved a very long time ago. If God exists, atheists winning the argument will not put an end to his existence. If God does not exist, theists winning the argument will not bring God into existence. He either exists or doesn't exist; debating the issue cannot change that. Like I said, sometimes, things are black or white.

Hellenic? Hellenistic?

Classicists describe Greek culture and influence and anything relating to Ancient Greeks of the classical period viz. up to 323BC, the deathof Alexander the Great, as Hellenic. From 323BC it is described as Hellenistic.

Not sure what DG's point is, but whilst Alexander, the Macedonian, was alive , what he ruled was Hellenic not Hellenistic From the Classicists' viewpoint, the 'culture he spread' as DG describes it, was not Hellenistic but Hellenic. It only became Hellenistic after he was gone.(We think of the Hellenistic period as ending in 30BC, with the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra)

Did we ever call what Alexander ruled Macedonian ? Do we talk of its Macedonian civilization or its Macedonian culture?

Some modern Welsh might have some empathy with DG and his modern Macedonians. Wales is part of Britain and was de facto treated as part of England from the C14. The use of their language was usually forbidden as much as possible. There are people alive now who remember being punished at school in Wales because they used Welsh. There are Welsh Nationalists but they have been a modern creation.Henry Tudor, later Henry VII was, in fact, Welsh,but saw no career prospects in staying in Wales,seeing himself as being from part of a greater realm, England, and not from some place where the unfortunate natives spoke a different language from the English.

Like Welsh nationalism and its history, it may be that Macedonian ardour belongs more to modern political times and history than it does to the classical period. Incidentally, Welsh nationalism seems to have disappeared, now that Wales has been given the sop of a meaningless national assembly in Cardiff (sorry Caerdydd ) and the language ranks equally with English on official notices, documents and roadsigns and in the courts.

Things are never black and white and there is never a single truth. Your process of thinking is elementary. My biased belief is that the Macedonians were a Greek group of people. However, this is irrelevant from caliming absolute truths. How you can be sure when it is obvious the modern populations of the Balkans have very little in common to what was happening 3000 BP. What you call Macedonian now has little resemblance to what Ancient Macedon was. The same of course applies to most populations. However, providing a direct link of 300BC with 1900's politics it is at least naive. Modern politics hijack arcaeology and history for their own purposes. So do not go down the road claiming the supressed poor Macedonians. Modern states have very little in common with ancient kingdoms.

"Things are never black and white and there is never a single truth."

We disagree.

By the way, do you think God, should He exist, is interested in who wins the debate, the theists or the atheists? By your reasoning, He should be, since until that time, He may or may not exist. If the atheists win, does He just disappear or what? Ride off into the sunset? Commit hara-kiri?
--------
Fred, I don't disagree with what you say. My only point was that Macedonians were and are Macedonians, not Greeks. The Greeks must have thought so, since they called them barbarians, and spoke of the crudeness of the Macedonian language. The fact, as Babs points out above, that some Illyrians and Thracians also lived in Macedonia, has no bearing on the subject.* There are tens of thousands of Turks living in Sweden, and I don't think anyone will mistake a Turk for a Swede, nor do those Turks change what is an ethnic Swede.

My response to Leopold was merely to point out that debating an issue, challenging accepted or not-accepted "facts" does not always change those facts. In a thread some time back, I made the statement that a particular position could be argued in an appeals court. Fred, it was you that said that, while it could be argued, that wouldn't change the previous ruling. (I have forgotten the subject, but not your point; it was well taken.) That is what I am telling Leopold: that a position is undergoing debate doesn't automatically mean that the facts are not in. People can debate about whether or not Oswald alone killed Kennedy, but that doesn't change what happened, and doesn't changed the fact that both are dead. Some things really are clear-cut.


*Babs also offered as proof the fact that Alexander called himself a Greek. If that makes him Greek, what does his calling himself a god make him? (Will we have to wait for the theist/atheist debate to finish before we can answer that?)

Before I continue I have to say that this a good surprise, the fact we do not end up insulting each other. I believe however that there is no middle ground since both sides have been systematically fed their lines with no room for compromise.

Furthermore, finding analogies on the existence of God or not is becoming tiring. Not all examples are the same. State propaganda is not the same as belief of faith.

Finally the so called fact that the Macedonians were not Greek is not a fact but a mere opinion of some scholars and the Former Yugoslavic newy formed state. A long tradition exists simultaneuoulsy claming the opposite.
What I want to argue is that the same pieces of information are interpreted accordingly.

The reason I entered archaeology was exaclty to understand what on earth is going on that region. Believe me in terms of that distant past nothing is black or white. 12 years in archaeology and researching the region has revealled the only fact. The past is manipulated by modern political systems and becomes more complex with the addition of recent wars, events and movement of peoples.

We can argue this forever, however the following two facts are the only ones that I am confident to believe:

First, since the early Bronze Age (circa 2300 BC) the way of living of the people in that region was not typicall of that of central Greece. People had a slight diffrent ways of habitation and possibly remembering their ancestors. Mycenaean material culture was strong but local pottery and materials were important and central in their way of life.

Second, the "myceneanisation" of that region resulted in the adoption or already use of a branch of early Greek in the region. The existence of a typical Macedonian language outside the Greek language sphere is non existent.

What remains are processes of state formation (a phenomenon only recenlty appearing, since the formation of ethnic states was a construct of the 18th century) that in order to justify their existence they cherry pick events and "facts" from the past.

"First, since the early Bronze Age (circa 2300 BC) the way of living of the people in that region was not typicall of that of central Greece."

People who live in the same general area tend to live in somewhat similar ways, but still have local variations all over the globe. This doesn't mean that they are related. Today, the Finns and the Swedes live next to each other and in very similar ways, yet they are two different people.

"The existence of a typical Macedonian language outside the Greek language sphere is non existent."

Up until 1492, the existence of Spanish outside the former Roman (Latin) area of influence was non-existent. By your reasoning, this makes the Spanish Romans, does it not? I think most scholars would disagree with that line of reasoning.

I would also like to point out that Greek claims of Macedonians being Greeks is fairly recent, too. Until the nationalist movement in Greece took hold, and, in fact, to this day, judging by their treatment of Macedonians, Greeks looked down on Macedonians, even at the time of Phillip and Alexander. That Alexander took on the trappings of Greek culture by no means indicates that he was Greek. People of the Middle East took on many aspects of the Greek culture, yet you wouldn't say that they were Greek because of that. It is entirely possible that Alexander simply felt the Greek culture superior to what he came from. There is also the possibility that Alexander did this with the intent of making ruling the Greeks a bit easier. That would fit the pattern he followed in Asia Minor, too, going to far as to order his men to take wives from the conquered lands. It simply makes life easier if the locals have a connection with the conquerers.

I am not arguing that the Macedonians of today are pure descendants of the Macedonians of Alexander's day. The Slavic "invasion" infused a great deal of Slavic ethnicity into Macedonia. But the Danes and the French forever changed the ethnicity of the population of England, too. Are the English not English now?

We will simply have to disagree with the interpretation of what facts are known.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

Up until 1492, the existence of Spanish outside the former Roman (Latin) area of influence was non-existent. By your reasoning, this makes the Spanish Romans, does it not?

Well, I don't follow.How does the fact that the Spanish language emerged, primarily as a derived language of Latin, have anything to do with whether the people living in what is now Spain ever considered themselves Romans in the days of the Roman Empire? As it happens, at least one Emperor, Trajan, was of Spanish origin and there were many important people who were 'Romans' like him but who came from places other than tiny Latium or modern Italy. My old history teacher, discussing nationalism, used to ask 'what is a nation?' and answer his own question by 'a nation is a lot of people who think they're a nation'.The mindset of Macedonians in classical times may have been like the mindset of Cornishmen, Yorkshiremen, or Texans now.They can be of their own county or state, and think of themselves that way, but nonetheless still think of themselves as British (or English) and Americans. (The Cornish had their own language, some say Yorkshiremen still have