THE DECEITFUL GREEK PROPAGANDA FOR ALEXANDER THE GREAT, MACEDONIA AND EPIR! (PART III)
PART III</p>
THE DECEITFUL GREEK PROPAGANDA FOR ALEXANDER THE GREAT, MACEDONIA AND EPIRI!</p>
This is response to: http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2007/04/12/albanian-propaganda-alexander-the-albanian-part-ii/</p>
___________________________________________________</p>
Greeks seem to disappoint everyone that has thought of them as benignant of knowledge, civilizations and science. Naturally the ancient Greeks hold it these virtues with a lot of dignity, until the Pseudo-Greeks of today who are totally different from the ancients. In lack of proves, Greeks dont have the spunk to get engaged directly with citations of the above mentioned authors, but come with prejudgments and low classification of kind: ‘ This is not a historian, this does not have any connection with history‘ and same like this.</p>
</p>
Let’s remind to the Greeks that: History to give a full and better look of the ancient past needs collaboration with other sciences. Only with interdisciplinary collaboration can enable to arrive in more certain conclusions. Therefore, History needs constantly the help of other sciences like Linguistic, Anthropology, Archeology, Ethnology, Geography, etc.</p>
Is clear what prevents Greeks Linguistics, Anthropology, Archeology, Ethnology and Geography: for the reasons that this hurts them, in other words these contribute in excretion of the truth, different from the Greeks that hide these true facts. Greek ignorance has no boundaries. Is worse that this. That is not an ignorance but…The Greatest enemy of Acknowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowing‘ says S. Hopkings. Greeks seem to have the second: they have the illusion of knowledge! Here is a sample how far the Greek ignorance can go:</p>
“Mary Edith Durham isn’t related with History but she is a traveler. Her books are good only for coffee table discussions but not history. Still no credible historical source that points out an Albanian origin of Alexander“</p>
</p>
Greeks not having any arguments to counter reply Edith Durham, start with insults that her books are conversations for coffee shops! These show clearly that the brilliance of the English scientist Edith Durham as anthropologists dont recognize it. Let’s remind the Greeks that Edith Durham as evidential anthropologist and ethnologist spent over 20 years among the people of the Balkans where she wrote unrepeatable books, because she is known very close with the psychology, character and the history of Balkans. Unfortunately, in Greece she is known as an enemy!</p>
Or another case:</p>
“Lou Giaffo, an Albanian himself isn’t considered anything related to unbiased neutral source as also his desperate attempts show, therefore his input is totally worthless.”</p>
</p>
It is clear that Greeks start everything from prejudgments. They none of the above mentioned authors that defend the idea that Alexander was Albanian dont acknowledge. Always they start from prejudgments that this does not have connection with history, or this is not a historian. If we come from this kind of logic, then Greeks themselves need to reappraise their prophet Nicolas Hammond. Do you know what Hammond was in his youth? Well, he was…</p>
“… an operative for the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in occupied Greece during World War II”.</p>
</p>
More detailed: Hammond was a British spy that has worked in SOE. If we start from your logic, then you have to rest citing your prophet for the reason that he has no connection with history. He once was a spy, can you deny it?!</p>
The Greek ignorance and cynicism has many chapters, heres one of them:</p>
“On the contrary Tarn isn’t regarded as having written the definitive work on Alexander the Great. W.W Tarn wrote his book in 1948. Until then, Alexanders biographies were only a few. Since then lots more better documented biographies about Alexander have been written, we have huge archaeological discoveries (Vergina tombs, Pella Katadesmos, molossian decrees etc) which certainly change perspectives about Alexander and ancient Macedonian history in general. Hence, Tarns claims are considered from modern historians outdated and non-valid“</p>
</p>
Tarn’s work in writings is one of the best and written in his time. Tarn is known as one of the best Britannic academics for antiquity studies. In any case today we know many new things that historians many years ago didnt know. However, the essence of the ascertainment of Tarn continues to stay, even to be enforced from discovery and progress of science. Tarn is cited often in other modern biographer authors for Alexander the Great, and this shows that Tarn is not considered ‘outdated’ or ‘non-valid’, but is considered as a quality source of knowledge of Alexander the Great. By the way:</p>
</p>
For which archaeological discovery are you talking that have changed the perspectives for Alexander the Great? For archaeological findings in Vergina? This is where you are asking? Discoveries of Vergina only have enforced even furthermore the ascertainment of Tarn for the reason that the discovered civilization in Vergina indicated vigorously for a irrefutable presence of Illyrians, something that all archaeologists comply with.</p>
The discovered graveyard in Vergina is considered as ‘tuma’. Do you know what ‘tumas’ are? Tumulus were the Illyrian burial ground and of the other peoples close ethnicity with them. Thus, precisely ‘Tumuli’ of Vergina is another plus that reconfirms that Macedonia was Illyrian. Pella, Aigiai, Eddesa were cities founded and established by Illyrians. Can you find a scholar or scientist that can challenge them?</p>
With regard to the Greek inscriptions in Pella these dont say anything that Macedonia was Greek. If we start from this kind of logic, then Macedonia is Roman for the reason that exists a big number of inscriptions exclusively Roman. Even according to one study of University of Minnesota, Latin inscriptions in Macedonia come up to 650 as such. But American scholars and researchers of Minnesota are not idiots as you to say: Macedonia is Latin, because there are Latin inscription!!!</p>
In regard of Molossians, freshly these are not talking for the Helen element in Epir for the reason that if we believe the modern archeology, Epir makes part in the archaeological complex that is the same with that of Illyirans. In the end all of onomastic materials are in our favor, since Epir has been Illyrian.</p>
Thus, all the possible facts in Epir but also in Macedonia talk for a Pelasgian-Illyrian character. Therefore, Alexander the Great may be Greek only in the dreams of delirium of Greeks. In the end we thank cordially the Greeks for continuing to deny that Alexan
Ky artikull eshte marre nga: http://albpelasgian.blog.al/?p=75. Per me shume artikuj te ngjashem vizitoni: http://albpelasgian.blog.al/?p=75
PART III</p>
THE DECEITFUL GREEK PROPAGANDA FOR ALEXANDER THE GREAT, MACEDONIA AND EPIRI!</p>
This is response to: http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2007/04/12/albanian-propaganda-alexander-the-albanian-part-ii/</p>
___________________________________________________</p>
Greeks seem to disappoint everyone that has thought of them as benignant of knowledge, civilizations and science. Naturally the ancient Greeks hold it these virtues with a lot of dignity, until the Pseudo-Greeks of today who are totally different from the ancients. In lack of proves, Greeks dont have the spunk to get engaged directly with citations of the above mentioned authors, but come with prejudgments and low classification of kind: ‘ This is not a historian, this does not have any connection with history‘ and same like this.</p>
</p>
Let’s remind to the Greeks that: History to give a full and better look of the ancient past needs collaboration with other sciences. Only with interdisciplinary collaboration can enable to arrive in more certain conclusions. Therefore, History needs constantly the help of other sciences like Linguistic, Anthropology, Archeology, Ethnology, Geography, etc.</p>
Is clear what prevents Greeks Linguistics, Anthropology, Archeology, Ethnology and Geography: for the reasons that this hurts them, in other words these contribute in excretion of the truth, different from the Greeks that hide these true facts. Greek ignorance has no boundaries. Is worse that this. That is not an ignorance but…The Greatest enemy of Acknowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowing‘ says S. Hopkings. Greeks seem to have the second: they have the illusion of knowledge! Here is a sample how far the Greek ignorance can go:</p>
“Mary Edith Durham isn’t related with History but she is a traveler. Her books are good only for coffee table discussions but not history. Still no credible historical source that points out an Albanian origin of Alexander“</p>
</p>
Greeks not having any arguments to counter reply Edith Durham, start with insults that her books are conversations for coffee shops! These show clearly that the brilliance of the English scientist Edith Durham as anthropologists dont recognize it. Let’s remind the Greeks that Edith Durham as evidential anthropologist and ethnologist spent over 20 years among the people of the Balkans where she wrote unrepeatable books, because she is known very close with the psychology, character and the history of Balkans. Unfortunately, in Greece she is known as an enemy!</p>
Or another case:</p>
“Lou Giaffo, an Albanian himself isn’t considered anything related to unbiased neutral source as also his desperate attempts show, therefore his input is totally worthless.”</p>
</p>
It is clear that Greeks start everything from prejudgments. They none of the above mentioned authors that defend the idea that Alexander was Albanian dont acknowledge. Always they start from prejudgments that this does not have connection with history, or this is not a historian. If we come from this kind of logic, then Greeks themselves need to reappraise their prophet Nicolas Hammond. Do you know what Hammond was in his youth? Well, he was…</p>
“… an operative for the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in occupied Greece during World War II”.</p>
</p>
More detailed: Hammond was a British spy that has worked in SOE. If we start from your logic, then you have to rest citing your prophet for the reason that he has no connection with history. He once was a spy, can you deny it?!</p>
The Greek ignorance and cynicism has many chapters, heres one of them:</p>
“On the contrary Tarn isn’t regarded as having written the definitive work on Alexander the Great. W.W Tarn wrote his book in 1948. Until then, Alexanders biographies were only a few. Since then lots more better documented biographies about Alexander have been written, we have huge archaeological discoveries (Vergina tombs, Pella Katadesmos, molossian decrees etc) which certainly change perspectives about Alexander and ancient Macedonian history in general. Hence, Tarns claims are considered from modern historians outdated and non-valid“</p>
</p>
Tarn’s work in writings is one of the best and written in his time. Tarn is known as one of the best Britannic academics for antiquity studies. In any case today we know many new things that historians many years ago didnt know. However, the essence of the ascertainment of Tarn continues to stay, even to be enforced from discovery and progress of science. Tarn is cited often in other modern biographer authors for Alexander the Great, and this shows that Tarn is not considered ‘outdated’ or ‘non-valid’, but is considered as a quality source of knowledge of Alexander the Great. By the way:</p>
</p>
For which archaeological discovery are you talking that have changed the perspectives for Alexander the Great? For archaeological findings in Vergina? This is where you are asking? Discoveries of Vergina only have enforced even furthermore the ascertainment of Tarn for the reason that the discovered civilization in Vergina indicated vigorously for a irrefutable presence of Illyrians, something that all archaeologists comply with.</p>
The discovered graveyard in Vergina is considered as ‘tuma’. Do you know what ‘tumas’ are? Tumulus were the Illyrian burial ground and of the other peoples close ethnicity with them. Thus, precisely ‘Tumuli’ of Vergina is another plus that reconfirms that Macedonia was Illyrian. Pella, Aigiai, Eddesa were cities founded and established by Illyrians. Can you find a scholar or scientist that can challenge them?</p>
With regard to the Greek inscriptions in Pella these dont say anything that Macedonia was Greek. If we start from this kind of logic, then Macedonia is Roman for the reason that exists a big number of inscriptions exclusively Roman. Even according to one study of University of Minnesota, Latin inscriptions in Macedonia come up to 650 as such. But American scholars and researchers of Minnesota are not idiots as you to say: Macedonia is Latin, because there are Latin inscription!!!</p>
In regard of Molossians, freshly these are not talking for the Helen element in Epir for the reason that if we believe the modern archeology, Epir makes part in the archaeological complex that is the same with that of Illyirans. In the end all of onomastic materials are in our favor, since Epir has been Illyrian.</p>
Thus, all the possible facts in Epir but also in Macedonia talk for a Pelasgian-Illyrian character. Therefore, Alexander the Great may be Greek only in the dreams of delirium of Greeks. In the end we thank cordially the Greeks for continuing to deny that Alexan
Ky artikull eshte marre nga: http://albpelasgian.blog.al/?p=75. Per me shume artikuj te ngjashem vizitoni: http://albpelasgian.blog.al/?p=75