Sex, Alexander the Great and a dog called Dora

For some strange reason, despite the fact that he has been dead for over 2300 years, Alexander the Great is bigger than ever; kind of like Elvis without the jumpsuit. In Skopje, Macedonia, they want to build a 100ft statue of Alexander. In Greece some actual historians are protesting a statue of Alexander in Athens on the basis that, despite the rabid Greek nationalist interpretation of Alexander, he was actually a foreign conqueror. There has been an increase in books on Alexander over the past few years, and I actually have more books on Alexander III than I care to admit. You could really make an argument that Alexander the Great has been overdone.

But overdone or not, Alexander sells and he gets attention. The great scholar, Peter Green´s latest work ´Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age´ actually has little to do with Alexander the Great and a lot more to do with the Hellenistic Age. Is it possible that people are tying anything they can to a very topical figure? I have communicated with Dr Green in Austin, Texas – but I was too polite to ask that question. Obviously having ´Alexander the Great´ on the cover of a history book in these political times is the history publishers equivalent of putting the word ´SEX´ on the front page of Cosmopolitan magazine. When I write my book, I will surely put ´Alexander the Great´ on the cover, even if the book is about cooking with lentils; maybe it would be called ´Sex with Alexander the Great and Lentils´. But we have to ask, why is Alexander so amazingly popular?

I am sure that part of it is the ´Macedonia/Greece´ debate being undertaken in the media and on the internet. Specifically the debate is ´Was Alexander Macedonian or Greek´, or ´Was he both Macedonian and Greek´. Within this greater debate there are a number of smaller debates – the ´ethnicity´ of the Ancient Macedonians, the language of the Ancient Macedonians, the genetics of the Ancient Macedonians. The goal of each side in the debate is to convince themselves and the rest of the world that Alexander and Ancient Macedonia belonged to ´them´.

It seems that many in modern Greece try to show that the Ancient Macedonians somehow ´belonged´ to them and therefore any association with those people and their history is ´Official Greek Property´. The reality is, nobody can ´own´ history that predated their nation – Alexander the Great never conceived of, and probably wouldn´t care much for modern Greece or Macedonia. History is a construct – it is a set of ideas in people´s heads, in their speech and in their writing. It is an interpretation of historic data done through the perspective of modern people. It may be misinterpreted by poor analysis, it may be biased by ideological motives – but it can´t be stolen – and it can´t be exclusively owned. Whatever Modern Greek nationalists think about Alexander – it is their opinion; Alexander would probably have never imagined that they, or their modern nation, exist. Alexander was more concerned with building a world empire, a union between the ´Macedonians and the Persians´ as mentioned by Arrian, incidentally, he didn´t mention the Greeks in that union. The Ancient Greek states were some of many that Alexander conquered; it is odd therefore that their self-proclaimed modern descendants claim to ´own´ Alexander – a foreign conqueror who actually ´owned´ the Ancient Greeks.

Could you imagine Norway claiming that they ´own´ the concept of ´Vikings´, despite the fact that there was no ´Norway´ during the times of the Vikings? The Vikings, like the Macedonians, left their mark on the world far away from their homelands. Viking settlements stretched from Canada to Sicily and the Black Sea – many people are descended from the Vikings – albeit mixed in with other bloodlines.

Many people within Sweden are descended from the Vikings and no doubt the rates of genetic descendants are high compared to other places. If Norway threw a fit and started putting embargoes on Sweden because Sweden decided to define itself as a nation descended from the Vikings, wouldn´t that seem ridiculous? Importantly, who would care if Sweden says they are descended from the Vikings, they are not stopping anybody claiming to have Viking ancestry. Many people in England have been traced back to Viking bloodlines – they don´t speak Old Norse or a Scandinavian language – but they have Viking heritage, whether they like it or not.

Many people in Macedonia, Bulgaria and Northern Greece are descended from the Ancient Macedonians. How do we know? How does paternity get decided? Using the same techniques that are used for testing relationships in court cases. Using the same level of certainty, or more, than what can get someone fried on the electric chair, we can know where our ancestors came from.

Around one-third of Modern Macedonians, myself included, had an ancestor who was an Ancient Macedonian – we have the same DNA markers in our genes. Yes we Macedonians now, and for the last 1,500 years, speak a Slavic language – but we are no less the children of our ancestors. We have an Ancient Macedonian heritage – whether we like it or not; and interestingly, whether Greece likes it or not!

When Greece starts throwing tantrums over Macedonia claiming historical symbolism of the people they descended from, it needs to be put in the proper context. Ancient Macedonia and its influences were much bigger than Greece ever was. The Vergina Sun, for example, that Greece fought over in the 1990s – it belonged to a nation that existed more than 2,000 years before the modern nation of Greece was even imagined by Philhellene Western Europeans. It was a kingdom that ruled over a land area that stretched from Greece to India. His kingdom measured 5.4 million square kilometers; in comparison the area of Greece – before it annexed 51% of Macedonia in 1913 – was only about 90 thousand square kilometers. Greece was only one sixtieth of Alexander´s land! Given the fact that all of the nations had a shared piece of history as conquerors or conquered, as soldiers or servants – how could one modern nation claim exclusive ownership? Especially if that nation was conquered by Alexander, and especially if that conquered people was only 1/60th of the kingdom? Exclusive ´ownership´ of Ancient Macedonian history by Greece is absurd. But while they may have been a minor part of Alexander´ empire, they do share a language with much of Alexander´s empire.

This brings us to the ´Did Ancient Macedonians speak Greek´ debate. The quick answer is, prior to the Atticisation of the Macedonians after Alexander, only the educated Macedonians spoke Greek. The majority of Macedonians spoke a language that was very difficult for the Greeks to understand. If the Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, how would that affect the right of the current inhabitants to call themselves Macedonians? Greeks try to argue that the Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek and that therefore as the modern Greeks speak Greek – they are the rightful inheritors of Macedonian history. Most modern Macedonians speak Macedonian – a Slavic language. Even if it were established beyond doubt that the Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek – which is not the case and is contrary to many ancient writers´ statements – that would not mean any more than mere trivia. Nobody loses any credibility.

The Ancient British spoke Celtic. How would that affect the right of the modern British to call themselves British? Modern British speak English – a Germanic language. Nobody else tries to argue that they are the rightful inheritors of Britain´s history, despite the fact that there are a number of Celtic speaking neighbors: Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Brittany. When did you ever hear the Irish say ´The British don´t exist – they are Anglophone Normans – the only Real British are Irish´?

The reality is, Macedonia and Britain have similar histories. Both have an ancient population that was assimilated by invaders so that the people living there in modern times are a mixture of bloodlines. In both cases the original language has been replaced by that of invaders. In both cases an ancient name is retained by a modern people. Both have had empires that have stretched from Europe to India. Macedonia had its invasions earlier, was subject to foreign domination by the Turks and was also a victim of its neighboring states in the 20th century. But none of these things really matter – they have no bearing on whether we can call ourselves Macedonians. The best reason is also the simplest, and is also the most beautiful. It stems from what we should all enjoy as human beings: freedom. Universal Human Rights allow us freedom of culture, language and identity.

Not far from my house is a mosque, the Holland Park Mosque. The local imam there has often referred to the Islamic people as the ´Chosen People of God´. Some people might be offended by him saying that; I don´t really care. I am happy that he is free to say that. He can call himself what he wants – and he can call his religion what he wants. He is free to say that he is the ´Chosen of God´. We, of course, don´t have to believe him. What is wonderful about freedom of belief and freedom of expression is that he can say what he wants so that he is happy – and I am free to believe that he is nuts. We are both happy and we can live in peace and shop in the same supermarket without fighting. He can believe in his moral supremacy, and I can believe in my freedom to be who I am.

Much of ´The West´ works like this – except Greece. You see in this case, the ´Greek Imam´ believes he is ´Chosen of History´ and believes that anything he says in relation to history is true, and because of his self-professed historical superiority, he can dictate what other people are. That is, he can dictate conditions for ´non-believers´.

Not in the West, buddy. No matter how ´blessed by history´ Greeks may believe they are, they cannot dictate other people´s identities anymore than an imam can dictate theirs.

Our nation has been calling itself Macedonia for a number of reasons. Our people have lived there for thousands of years and it is the only home many of us have had. Today millions of people call it their home and most countries on the planet (more than 125 including 4 out of 5 UNSC members) refer to us as Macedonia. Greece however wants to change this. One of the stated reasons is that it could cause confusion between the two lands. Well Macedonians have been writing books on Macedonia for more than 150 years – Greece didn´t even have any of Macedonia 100 years ago – and they didn´t rename the province to Macedonia until 20 years ago! It´s like if my neighbor´s wife was called Dora, and then I decided to buy a dog and called it Dora as well. Then imagine that I got my lawyer to threaten my neighbors until she changes her name. I want this to happen because I might confuse her with my synonymous dog and accidentally take his wife to the vet to have her desexed.

The idea that having a country called Macedonia and a neighboring province of Greece called Macedonia would ´cause confusion´ is ridiculous. There is a Luxembourg province in Belgium and a neighboring country called Luxembourg. They get along very well. There was a man in my office who spent a few years in Luxembourg (the nation) – he never mentioned having confused Belgians walking into his lounge room asking where their Guylian chocolates and Hoegaarden beer was.

Of course in the past there was no confusion either. Greek school atlases in the 1970s had no problem with a nation labeled ´Macedonia´ across the border from ´Northern Greece´. What has happened? Have Greek education standards slipped that far? After Tito´s death and the imminent break up of Yugoslavia, Greece started to become very wary of an independent Macedonia. Would they seek their land back? Would the existence of an independent Macedonian homeland cause problems with Greece´s own Macedonian population; after all, the civil war of the late 40s had a lot to do with Macedonian desires for independence. I guess they were afraid of the ghosts of past crimes. There are many complex issues and maybe for this reason, symbols like Alexander are easier to deal with than abstract ideas like human rights and international politics.

While Alexander is a figurehead for both people, he is really not much more than a symbol and he really isn´t that important in the overall scheme of things. I pray that they don´t put a giant 100 foot statue of him up – not because it upsets the Greeks – I do enough of that myself. I think sometimes we try too much to debate history, as if history 2500 years ago means something to modern identities – we have come too far and mixed too much – like anyone in the Balkans. What I don´t like about a 100ft Alexander is it takes away our focus from what Macedonia is. We already have the Ilinden monument – it means so much more to me than a giant 100ft comic book character in a leopard skin. Our great grandparents shed their blood there, so that one day we could be free.

We are a beautiful nation, of beautiful people, across the world there are many of us making great contributions to the societies we live in, living better lives than the Ancient Macedonians could have imagined. We are more educated than Alexander was and in the Diaspora our children are often more spoiled than Alexander was. With or without Alexander, Macedonia is a great nation. We have human rights and we should be confident in expressing them; they are ours. We have friends and there are many non-Macedonians that support us. We should focus on the rest of the world that supports us and not get involved with an ´arms race´ of symbols with Greece. Their denial of the existence of minorities, aggression towards neighbors, mismanaged high-debt and EU aid dependant economy, and abuse of process in international organizations is quickly lowering their regard in the eyes of the international community. We don´t need to join them there.