Hardly Strictly Astrology: The Ugly Side of the Age of Aquarius

Humanitarian

Well-known member
Not everything in my post was direct response to your statements. My point was that Mycenaean and Minoan cultures were not Greek and we agree on that.

Concerning Alexander,

surname "Karanović" is not connected with the place Karanovo but with the word "Karan". Karan was a title among ancient southern Slavs (Serbs) meaning "ruler" or denoting high social status. Since Greeks were unable to pronounce "ć" sound they always substituted surname endings "ić" with "ides".
So Alexansander's surname was written Karanides by the Greeks, his mother's surname Eakides (actually Eakić).
And also Alexander (Alexandros) is hellenized version of ancient Slavic name Lesandar. "Les" or "lesna" is Slavic word for forest, still in use in some Slavic languages. "Dar" means gift, still today. So, translation of the name is "gift from the forest". It is not unusual for Slavic names to end with "dar" (gift), for example name Božidar (translation, gift from god).

True, Macedonia was under Greek cultural influence and quite hellenized but Macedonians were not ethnic Greeks. Also, Macedonia was a kingdom while at the same time Greeks had only city-states. Historically, river Pineios on the southern side of Mount Olympus was the north border of Greek territories in ancient times. Modern Greek state claims on Macedonia are purely geopolitical and started with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, since Macedonia is now weak and not part of powerful country.
When Filip II, Macedonian king, defeated Greek cities, most notably in the battle of Chaeronea, where he defeated city-states of Athens and Thebes, his idea was to unify small Greek city-states who were constantly in quarrel with each other and add Greeks to his military might in order to attempt the conquest of Persia. This was accepted by the Greeks and they decided to cooperate. But Filip died and it was up to his son Alexander to carry out these plans.

According to Quintus Rufus, Alexander was eager to repeat great feat of god Bacchus (Nino Belov) whom he considered his kinsman, whose conquest happened around 2000 BC. Rufus adds that in India Alexander learned about another conquest that also started from the Balkans, conquest of Serbo Makeridov (called Heracles by the Greeks) that happened around 1330 BC. According to Quintus Rufus, Alexander learned this from his kinsmen who were descendants of sick and wounded from Serbo Makeridov's army and were left behind to stay in India. When he came to town called Naissus (Niš) in India he was greated as the third to come from their country after Bacchus and Serbon.
Note that Greeks reffered to Nino Belov aka Bacchus, aka Nimrod, aka. Nebrod (he was from the tribe of Nebroda) as Dyonissus (meaning god - dio from Nissus - Niš). For them this was stuff of legends and became part of their mythology.
Droysen also says that Alexander believed to be Bacchus successor.
Plutarch says that Alexander originates from Heracles (Serbo Makeridov) who was the founder of Karan dynasty.
Paulus Orosius says that Alexander encountered Serbs in the Indus valley who declared their loyalty to him and accepted him as their rightful emperor and fellow kinsman.
It would be impossible for Alexander to be a Greek and at the same time kinsman of Bacchus (Nino Belov) and Serbon (Serbo Makeridov), especially because first 2 conquests happened way before Greeks established their state. More over, Greeks deny that these conquests ever happened or they simply don't know about them.
On top of that, we have Demostenes, who was very much against Filip II, who claimed Filip II was not Greek but "barbarian" and who was the fighter against Macedonian expansion. After Filip II's death, Demostenes played a key role in Greek uprising against Macedonians, although he was not successful.
I think that's why Alexander the Great's (Lesander Karanides's) facial features are way different from other Greeks...
 

Cap

Well-known member
I think that's why Alexander the Great's (Lesander Karanides's) facial features are way different from other Greeks...
Ultimately, it won't matter in a few years. All human knowledge will be lost (again).

To return back to our original subject, while I admire @david starling optimism, his predictions are way too optimistic. (y)
This is not how this reality operates, IMO. While modern Yuga theories are fun, I don't think they correspond to reality well.
Most likely we are 5000 years into Kali Yuga and it will continue for another 427,000 years.
This can be observed by the trends. Things tend to get worse, not better.
I think ancients were well aware of the time unit they used. Also, their estimate of Earth's age is quite good (4.3 billion years) and this is by using the same time units ("divine years") they used for Yuga cycles.
For such large periods of time, as original Yuga cycles, Earth's precession cycle is too small unit.
Original Yuga cycle may more depend on Solar system's position in the galaxy during revolution around the galactic center.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Ultimately, it won't matter in a few years. All human knowledge will be lost (again).

To return back to our original subject, while I admire @david starling optimism, his predictions are way too optimistic. (y)
This is not how this reality operates, IMO. While modern Yuga theories are fun, I don't think they correspond to reality well.
Most likely we are 5000 years into Kali Yuga and it will continue for another 427,000 years.
This can be observed by the trends. Things tend to get worse, not better.
I think ancients were well aware of the time unit they used. Also, their estimate of Earth's age is quite good (4.3 billion years) and this is by using the same time units ("divine years") they used for Yuga cycles.
For such large periods of time, as original Yuga cycles, Earth's precession cycle is too small unit.
Original Yuga cycle may more depend on Solar system's position in the galaxy during revolution around the galactic center.

Ultimately, it won't matter in a few years. All human knowledge will be lost (again).

To return back to our original subject, while I admire @david starling optimism, his predictions are way too optimistic. (y)
This is not how this reality operates, IMO. While modern Yuga theories are fun, I don't think they correspond to reality well.
Most likely we are 5000 years into Kali Yuga and it will continue for another 427,000 years.
This can be observed by the trends. Things tend to get worse, not better.
I think ancients were well aware of the time unit they used. Also, their estimate of Earth's age is quite good (4.3 billion years) and this is by using the same time units ("divine years") they used for Yuga cycles.
For such large periods of time, as original Yuga cycles, Earth's precession cycle is too small unit.
Original Yuga cycle may more depend on Solar system's position in the galaxy during revolution around the galactic center.
It will be a "deeper" level of Reality compared to our current capacity
for awareness. My optimism is about that level. I can say it requires moving beyond Saturnian restraints. I was obsessed with trying to do just that when I experienced the stroke.
 
Last edited:

Cap

Well-known member
It will be a "deeper" level of Reality compared to our current capacity
for awareness. My optimism is about that level. I can say it requires moving beyond Saturnian restraints. I was obsessed with trying to do just that when I experienced the stroke.
I'm just saying, there's no "safety mechanism" in this reality to protect humanity from extinction.
Western mind always thinks in terms of purpose, grand plan of things, grand finale etc.
In the east, reality is viewed more as playful purposelessness. There is no beginning, no end, no end goal.
As Nisargadatta Maharaj once said: "Every second countless universes are being destroyed. Am I to cry over them?"
Not one race on one random planet in one random galaxy in one of the countless universes, but whole universes are gone every second.
 

Edrek

Active member
I think that's why Alexander the Great's (Lesander Karanides's) facial features are way different from other Greeks...

What we expect to see often overrides what others see. 1712376983007.jpeg Anorexics also see a "way different" image of themselves in the mirror from what everyone else sees. I have examined many ancient sculptures of Alexander, but I have found no salient differences between his features and those of the typical Doric Greek. Any differences from the classic Greek appearance only seem to appear in pieces of **** like this mosaic on the right, found in the ruins of Pompeii (and created more than two centuries after Alexander had died), in which Alexander is depicted with a more Roman (not Slavic) appearance, having what was once called a "Roman nose" (i.e., "aquiline nose"):

Archaeological and linguistic research has also found NO traces of any Slavic language being used in Hellenic Macedonia. But it HAS found fragments of ancient text written in a Greek dialect in Macedonia.

To demonstrate that it is quite possible that Alexander and kin were quite Dorian genetically (as well as linguistically), I selected early busts of Alexander and the god Hermes (for whom the model would certainly have been a living Dorian youth) and juxtaposed them, labeling important features of Doric Greeks - and just for fun, included the AI reconstructions of their natural appearance (though AI gives me the creeps while fascinating me at the same time). Note: (1) prominent outer brow bone; (2) nose with a broad bridge but not aquiline; and (3) small mouth:

Alexander the Great and Hermes of Praxiteles.jpg


































Edrek
 

Humanitarian

Well-known member
What we expect to see often overrides what others see. View attachment 110966 Anorexics also see a "way different" image of themselves in the mirror from what everyone else sees. I have examined many ancient sculptures of Alexander, but I have found no salient differences between his features and those of the typical Doric Greek. Any differences from the classic Greek appearance only seem to appear in pieces of **** like this mosaic on the right, found in the ruins of Pompeii (and created more than two centuries after Alexander had died), in which Alexander is depicted with a more Roman (not Slavic) appearance, having what was once called a "Roman nose" (i.e., "aquiline nose"):

Archaeological and linguistic research has also found NO traces of any Slavic language being used in Hellenic Macedonia. But it HAS found fragments of ancient text written in a Greek dialect in Macedonia.

To demonstrate that it is quite possible that Alexander and kin were quite Dorian genetically (as well as linguistically), I selected early busts of Alexander and the god Hermes (for whom the model would certainly have been a living Dorian youth) and juxtaposed them, labeling important features of Doric Greeks - and just for fun, included the AI reconstructions of their natural appearance (though AI gives me the creeps while fascinating me at the same time). Note: (1) prominent outer brow bone; (2) nose with a broad bridge but not aquiline; and (3) small mouth:

View attachment 110967

































Edrek
Thanks Edrek! I agree with you more than with Cap, but maybe because I have to twist the truth just to please a person. Conclusion: Alexander is NOT Slavic, and Greek wasn't Slavicized at all, but North Macedonian was Hellenized!
 

Cap

Well-known member
What we expect to see often overrides what others see. View attachment 110966 Anorexics also see a "way different" image of themselves in the mirror from what everyone else sees. I have examined many ancient sculptures of Alexander, but I have found no salient differences between his features and those of the typical Doric Greek. Any differences from the classic Greek appearance only seem to appear in pieces of **** like this mosaic on the right, found in the ruins of Pompeii (and created more than two centuries after Alexander had died), in which Alexander is depicted with a more Roman (not Slavic) appearance, having what was once called a "Roman nose" (i.e., "aquiline nose"):

Archaeological and linguistic research has also found NO traces of any Slavic language being used in Hellenic Macedonia. But it HAS found fragments of ancient text written in a Greek dialect in Macedonia.

To demonstrate that it is quite possible that Alexander and kin were quite Dorian genetically (as well as linguistically), I selected early busts of Alexander and the god Hermes (for whom the model would certainly have been a living Dorian youth) and juxtaposed them, labeling important features of Doric Greeks - and just for fun, included the AI reconstructions of their natural appearance (though AI gives me the creeps while fascinating me at the same time). Note: (1) prominent outer brow bone; (2) nose with a broad bridge but not aquiline; and (3) small mouth:

View attachment 110967

































Edrek
Thanks Edrek! I agree with you more than with Cap, but maybe because I have to twist the truth just to please a person. Conclusion: Alexander is NOT Slavic, and Greek wasn't Slavicized at all, but North Macedonian was Hellenized!

Culture and language is not the same as ethnicity. They spoke Greek language on Macedonian court as well as their native language.
Greek claims on Alexander as their own are fairly new development, starting from 19th century. Not a single Greek historian before 19th century viewed Macedonians as Greeks, quite the opposite, they viewed them as barbarian conquerors. That includes all ancient Greek historians.
Greek rebellions against Macedonians were sponsored and paid for by Persians, Alexander's direct adversaries.
At some point, Alexander discharged all Greeks from his army, because he did not trust them (after news of rebellion in Greece)
There is even one anecdote (I'll have to look up the source, I forgot where I read this), when Alexander executed one of his generals for speaking Greek language, after he warned him not to use Greek language when addressing the troops.
The problem with Greek writings in general is that all names and places are hellenized, not just that but Greeks had a tendency to change names in some stories and present them as their own. (War of Troy is such example, we know today with 100% certainty that Greeks had nothing to do with Troy). This is because in their arrogance Greeks considered themselves as the only civilized people, all others in the whole world were "barbarians" to them.
Speaking of Troy, Alexander's mother was from Troy by lineage.
It is also worth noting, that many who we nowadays consider as Greeks were in fact not Greeks by ethnicity. Ethnic Greeks were minority on Peloponnese peninsula. After ethnic Greeks grew stronger and took control of some Peloponnese cities, they conducted hellenization of other native inhabitants, this was reported by ancient Greek historians. So they were all Greeks in a sense of belonging to a Greek state, similar how Americans today are Americans in a sense of belonging to a country while they may be Irish, Italian etc. by ethnicity.

Wikipedia is not a good source for anything, nowadays it is controlled by big corporations and often used for propaganda of all sorts.
 
Last edited:

Humanitarian

Well-known member
From y'all's perspectives on how Greek are either real Greeks or not even Greek at all, my self, which loves the Aquarian Age is in doubt...
 

Cap

Well-known member
From y'all's perspectives on how Greek are either real Greeks or not even Greek at all, my self, which loves the Aquarian Age is in doubt...
Hellenization, as described by ancient Greek historians, meant that use of Greek language was mandated in cities under Greek control. At first, majority of population on Peloponnese peninsula were not Greek language speakers but they had to learn and use Greek language.

Forgot to add in my previous post, almost all Roman historians talk about Roman liberation of Greek people from the Macedonian occupation.
These would be ridiculous statements if Macedonians were Greeks - how can you liberate Greeks from Greeks?
 
Last edited:

Cap

Well-known member
There is even one anecdote (I'll have to look up the source, I forgot where I read this), when Alexander executed one of his generals for speaking Greek language, after he warned him not to use Greek language when addressing the troops.

The source for this is Quintus Curtius Rufus, the author of only history of Alexander that survived complete to our days.

The plot is, Philotas was accused of conspiracy against Alexander. Alexander gave him a chance to defend himself "patrio sermone" (in native language) on which Philotas replied that he prefers to speak in Greek language. Philotas was a Macedonian, but he was born and raised in Greece and he didn't know Macedonian language very well. On that Alexander replied: "Philotas equally loathes our customs and our language". Philotas was executed, even though he was the commander of Alexander's cavalry.
 
Last edited:

Edrek

Active member
"In the middle of the 5th century CE [=AD], a political vacuum affected the entire region of the Balkans as a result of the fall of the Hunnic Empire. Attila's campaigns left large areas south of the Danube unsuitable for living and therefore empty. The borders of the Roman Empire bordering the Balkans were kept with difficulty, as new groups were moving within the devastated region. Among these new groups were the Slavs."
--World History Encyclopedia: Slavs

"The original habitat of the Slavs is still a matter of controversy, but scholars believe they populated parts of eastern Europe. They entered the historical record about the 6th century CE, when they expanded westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line, southward into Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and the Balkans,"
--Encyclopaedia Britannica: Slav People

"Slavs were raiding and plundering Roman lands from their territories north of the Danube river located in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s [CE], but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans “proper”) only since around 545 [CE]. First settlements from ca. 545 – 550 [CE] were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia – including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina..." Around the same time (ca. 550)." --Slavic Chronicles: Slavic expansion to the Balkans: Part 1

"Quintus Curtius [Rufus = red-haired] was apparently a rhetorician who lived in the first century of the Roman empire and, early in the reign of Claudius (AD 41–54), wrote a history of Alexander the Great in ten books in clear and picturesque style for Latin readers. The first two books have not survived—our narrative begins with events in 333 BC—and there is material missing from books 5, 6, and 10. One of his main sources is Cleitarchus who, about 300 BC, had made Alexander’s career a matter of marvelous adventure." --Harvard University Press. "History of Alexander"

Thus, Quintus was a tertiary source, who was writing, around 350 years after the fact, about what Cleitarchus had written as semi-historical entertainment.


1712442838362.png

Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
By Victor Davis Hanson, Knopf Doubleday, 2007​

The plot is, Philotas was accused of conspiracy against Alexander. Alexander gave him a chance to defend himself "patrio sermone" (in native language) on which Philotas replied that he prefers to speak in Greek language. Philotas was a Macedonian, but he was born and raised in Greece and he didn't know Macedonian language very well. On that Alexander replied: "Philotas equally loathes our customs and our language". Philotas was executed, even though he was the commander of Alexander's cavalry.
If we believe Quintus' remake of Cleitarchus' then 350-year-old "marvelous adventure", Philotas was hopelessly doomed from the start, as soon as Alexander accused him of conspiracy. He was given a mock trial that could only end with a death sentence. Philotas' unwise decision to defend himself in Attic Greek simply gave Alexander another weak excuse to brutally murder him.

Philotas' behavior would have been like a 17th-century Scot defending himself to a Scottish "kangaroo court" in posh "royal" English instead of the Scottish dialect: "I am dismayed! I know nothing of what thou art referring to!" instead of "I'm pure scunnered! I dinnae ken what yer talkin' aboot!" As you can see from the three non-Wikipedia sources above, Slavs were nowhere near Greece in the 4th-century BCE. The theory that Alexander's Macedonia spoke Slavic is at least 800 years off the mark. Alexander the Great's real name actually being "Lesandar Karanović" is simply an absurd historical impossibility.

If Alexander was actually opposed to the use of the Classical Greek language, why did he mandate its exclusive use in government and education throughout his empire, from Egypt to the Indus River in India?

With this post, I withdraw from this once fine old thread, now collapsing into spurious histories and unsubstantiated theories - but no more astrology (I'm as much to blame for this last as anyone). It has moved too far away from astrology and now from even feasibility. I have posted enough leads for people to find their own proof. Μακάρι να επικρατήσει η αλήθεια. Αποχαιρετισμός.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
"In the middle of the 5th century CE [=AD], a political vacuum affected the entire region of the Balkans as a result of the fall of the Hunnic Empire. Attila's campaigns left large areas south of the Danube unsuitable for living and therefore empty. The borders of the Roman Empire bordering the Balkans were kept with difficulty, as new groups were moving within the devastated region. Among these new groups were the Slavs."
--World History Encyclopedia: Slavs

"The original habitat of the Slavs is still a matter of controversy, but scholars believe they populated parts of eastern Europe. They entered the historical record about the 6th century CE, when they expanded westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line, southward into Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and the Balkans,"
--Encyclopaedia Britannica: Slav People

"Slavs were raiding and plundering Roman lands from their territories north of the Danube river located in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s [CE], but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans “proper”) only since around 545 [CE]. First settlements from ca. 545 – 550 [CE] were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia – including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina..." Around the same time (ca. 550)." --Slavic Chronicles: Slavic expansion to the Balkans: Part 1

"Quintus Curtius [Rufus = red-haired] was apparently a rhetorician who lived in the first century of the Roman empire and, early in the reign of Claudius (AD 41–54), wrote a history of Alexander the Great in ten books in clear and picturesque style for Latin readers. The first two books have not survived—our narrative begins with events in 333 BC—and there is material missing from books 5, 6, and 10. One of his main sources is Cleitarchus who, about 300 BC, had made Alexander’s career a matter of marvelous adventure." --Harvard University Press. "History of Alexander"

Thus, Quintus was a tertiary source, who was writing, around 350 years after the fact, about what Cleitarchus had written as semi-historical entertainment.


View attachment 110987
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
By Victor Davis Hanson, Knopf Doubleday, 2007​


If we believe Quintus' remake of Cleitarchus' then 350-year-old "marvelous adventure", Philotas was hopelessly doomed from the start, as soon as Alexander accused him of conspiracy. He was given a mock trial that could only end with a death sentence. Philotas' unwise decision to defend himself in Attic Greek simply gave Alexander another weak excuse to brutally murder him.

Philotas' behavior would have been like a 17th-century Scot defending himself to a Scottish "kangaroo court" in posh "royal" English instead of the Scottish dialect: "I am dismayed! I know nothing of what thou art referring to!" instead of "I'm pure scunnered! I dinnae ken what yer talkin' aboot!" As you can see from the three non-Wikipedia sources above, Slavs were nowhere near Greece in the 4th-century BCE. The theory that Alexander's Macedonia spoke Slavic is at least 800 years off the mark. Alexander the Great's real name actually being "Lesandar Karanović" is simply an absurd historical impossibility.

If Alexander was actually opposed to the use of the Classical Greek language, why did he mandate its exclusive use in government and education throughout his empire, from Egypt to the Indus River in India?

With this post, I withdraw from this once fine old thread, now collapsing into spurious histories and unsubstantiated theories - but no more astrology (I'm as much to blame for this last as anyone). It has moved too far away from astrology and now from even feasibility. I have posted enough leads for people to find their own proof. Μακάρι να επικρατήσει η αλήθεια. Αποχαιρετισμός.
I'm convinced this is still the forefront Age of tropical Capricorn, in its culminating phase. The transition into the forefront tropical Age of Aquarius is underway, but the tropical Aquarian Age is not yet "in effect". The tropical background Age of Sagittarius is interesting, even fascinating, but not the real issue.
 
Last edited:

Cap

Well-known member
"In the middle of the 5th century CE [=AD], a political vacuum affected the entire region of the Balkans as a result of the fall of the Hunnic Empire. Attila's campaigns left large areas south of the Danube unsuitable for living and therefore empty. The borders of the Roman Empire bordering the Balkans were kept with difficulty, as new groups were moving within the devastated region. Among these new groups were the Slavs."
--World History Encyclopedia: Slavs

"The original habitat of the Slavs is still a matter of controversy, but scholars believe they populated parts of eastern Europe. They entered the historical record about the 6th century CE, when they expanded westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line, southward into Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and the Balkans,"
--Encyclopaedia Britannica: Slav People

"Slavs were raiding and plundering Roman lands from their territories north of the Danube river located in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s [CE], but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans “proper”) only since around 545 [CE]. First settlements from ca. 545 – 550 [CE] were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia – including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina..." Around the same time (ca. 550)." --Slavic Chronicles: Slavic expansion to the Balkans: Part 1

"Quintus Curtius [Rufus = red-haired] was apparently a rhetorician who lived in the first century of the Roman empire and, early in the reign of Claudius (AD 41–54), wrote a history of Alexander the Great in ten books in clear and picturesque style for Latin readers. The first two books have not survived—our narrative begins with events in 333 BC—and there is material missing from books 5, 6, and 10. One of his main sources is Cleitarchus who, about 300 BC, had made Alexander’s career a matter of marvelous adventure." --Harvard University Press. "History of Alexander"

Thus, Quintus was a tertiary source, who was writing, around 350 years after the fact, about what Cleitarchus had written as semi-historical entertainment.


View attachment 110987
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
By Victor Davis Hanson, Knopf Doubleday, 2007​


If we believe Quintus' remake of Cleitarchus' then 350-year-old "marvelous adventure", Philotas was hopelessly doomed from the start, as soon as Alexander accused him of conspiracy. He was given a mock trial that could only end with a death sentence. Philotas' unwise decision to defend himself in Attic Greek simply gave Alexander another weak excuse to brutally murder him.

Philotas' behavior would have been like a 17th-century Scot defending himself to a Scottish "kangaroo court" in posh "royal" English instead of the Scottish dialect: "I am dismayed! I know nothing of what thou art referring to!" instead of "I'm pure scunnered! I dinnae ken what yer talkin' aboot!" As you can see from the three non-Wikipedia sources above, Slavs were nowhere near Greece in the 4th-century BCE. The theory that Alexander's Macedonia spoke Slavic is at least 800 years off the mark. Alexander the Great's real name actually being "Lesandar Karanović" is simply an absurd historical impossibility.

If Alexander was actually opposed to the use of the Classical Greek language, why did he mandate its exclusive use in government and education throughout his empire, from Egypt to the Indus River in India?

With this post, I withdraw from this once fine old thread, now collapsing into spurious histories and unsubstantiated theories - but no more astrology (I'm as much to blame for this last as anyone). It has moved too far away from astrology and now from even feasibility. I have posted enough leads for people to find their own proof. Μακάρι να επικρατήσει η αλήθεια. Αποχαιρετισμός.
I agree that we went far from the original topic and this will be my last post as well on the matter of Macedonians. However, I disagree that this discussion is unsubstantiated. Everything I've said so far is supported by ancient historians.

Even if we disregard Quintus Rufus as unreliable (although he is certainly more reliable than modern Greek claims) there are at least 50+ other ancient sources that all present the same fact - Macedonia and Greece were two separate historical entities. If you can find just one source that says something like Macedonian Greeks I am eager to hear about it. It is always Macedonians AND Greeks, as clearly separate.

But we don't have to go through all 50+ sources, IMO just Arrian of Nicomedia, who wrote biography of Alexander, is enough to clear all doubts.
It is clear that Greeks fought against Alexander on the Persian side with substantial forces, just as they fought on the Roman side against Macedonians later, unfortunately for them, only to replace one occupation (Macedonian) with another occupation (Roman).

"Here an embassy reached Alexander from the Athenians, beseeching him to release to them Athenian prisoners who had been captured at the river Granicus, serving in the army of the Persians, and were then in Macedonia, serving in chains, with the 2,000 others captured in the battle." (Arrian, "Anabasis", Book 1, 29)

"But as soon as Darius was certified of Alexander's approach for battle, he conveyed about 30,000 of his cavalry and with them 20,000 of light-armed infantry across the river Pinarus. Of the heavy armed infantry, he placed first 30,000 Greek mercenaries to oppose the phalanx of Macedonians..." (Arrian, "Anabasis", Book 2a, 8)

"There was a violent struggle, Darius' Greeks fought to thrust Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing already in retreat... The fight was further embittered by OLD RACIAL RIVALRY of Greeks and Macedonians" (Arrian, "The Campaigns of Alexander". Penguin Books, USA, 1987, p. 119)

And how bitter was this "old racial rivalry", we can hear from Demosthenes.

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave." [Third Philippic, 31]


As for the Slavs, the currently accepted western theory has roots in Austro-Hungary and German historical schools from 19th century and was clearly motivated with geopolitical interests. Thankfully, German Academy of Sciences has already publicly denounced all their 19th century historical claims as geopolitical propaganda of the time.

Just think about it rationally. We have the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe, holding the largest landmass of any ethno-linguistic groups anywhere in the world and they just materialized out of nowhere and acquired all this territory without a single battle recorded in history, while supposedly people whose lands were taken just disappeared without any trace and not putting up any fight.
This is ridiculous theory.

Slavs are today on the same territories where they had always been (only their ancient territories extended more to the west in the past). We know for certain that ancient Balkan cultures Vinča and Lepenski Vir were people of I2a haplogroup. American scientist Kenneth Nordtvedt, who specialized in I haplogroup research, has proven that current Slavic people on the Balkans are direct descendants of Vinča culture (6000 years ago). Not just that, but we can genetically trace their ancestry to 12,000 years ago in the regions near Danube river. Excavations of Troy confirmed the same I2a people, as well as findings on Crete.

So Slavs did not come out of nowhere, they were already there. Illyrs, Thracians, Macedonians and others in the region were all Slavs. Pelasgians is Greek name for indigenous people of the Balkans (Slavs). Slavs in history go by more than hundred names given to them by various peoples who bordered them.

Back to astrology.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
I agree that we went far from the original topic and this will be my last post as well on the matter of Macedonians. However, I disagree that this discussion is unsubstantiated. Everything I said so far is supported by ancient historians.

Even if we disregard Quintus Rufus as unreliable (although he is certainly more reliable than modern Greek claims) there are at least 50+ other ancient sources that all present the same fact - Macedonia and Greece were two separate historical entities. If you can find just one source that says something like Macedonian Greeks I am eager to hear about it. It is always Macedonians AND Greeks, as clearly separate.

But we don't have to go through all 50+ sources, IMO just Arrian of Nicomedia, who wrote biography of Alexander, is enough to clear all doubts.
It is clear that Greeks fought against Alexander on the Persian side with substantial forces, just as they fought on the Roman side against Macedonians later, unfortunately for them, only to replace one occupation (Macedonian) with another occupation (Roman).

"Here an embassy reached Alexander from the Athenians, beseeching him to release to them Athenian prisoners who had been captured at the river Granicus, serving in the army of the Persians, and were then in Macedonia, serving in chains, with the 2,000 others captured in the battle." (Arrian, "Anabasis", Book 1, 29)

"But as soon as Darius was certified of Alexander's approach for battle, he conveyed about 30,000 of his cavalry and with them 20,000 of light-armed infantry across the river Pinarus. Of the heavy armed infantry, he placed first 30,000 Greek mercenaries to oppose the phalanx of Macedonians..." (Arrian, "Anabasis", Book 2a, 8)

"There was a violent struggle, Darius' Greeks fought to thrust Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing already in retreat... The fight was further embittered by OLD RACIAL RIVALRY of Greeks and Macedonians" (Arrian, "The Campaigns of Alexander". Penguin Books, USA, 1987, p. 119)

And how bitter was this "old racial rivalry", we can hear from Demosthenes.

"... not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave." [Third Philippic, 31]


As for the Slavs, the currently accepted western theory has roots in Austro-Hungary and German historical schools from 19th century and was clearly motivated with geopolitical interests. Thankfully, German Academy of Sciences has already publicly denounced all their 19th century historical claims as geopolitical propaganda of the time.

Just think about it rationally. We have the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe, holding the largest landmass of any ethno-linguistic groups anywhere in the world and they just materialized out of nowhere and acquired all this territory without a single battle recorded in history, while supposedly people whose lands where taken just disappeared without any trace and not putting up any fight.
This is ridiculous theory.

Slavs are today on the same territories where they had always been (only their ancient territories extended more to the west in the past). We know for certain that ancient Balkan cultures Vinča and Lepenski Vir were people of I2a haplogroup. American scientist Kenneth Nordtvedt, who specialized in I haplogroup research, has proven that current Slavic people on the Balkans are direct descendants of Vinča culture (6000 years ago). Not just that, but we can genetically trace their ancestry to 12,000 years ago in the regions near Danube river. Excavations of Troy confirmed the same I2a people, as well as findings on Crete.

So Slavs did not come out of nowhere, they were already there. Illyrs, Trachians, Macedonians and others in the region were all Slavs. Pelasgians is Greek name for indigenous people of the Balkans (Slavs). Slavs in history go by more than hundred names given to them by various peoples who bordered them.

Back to astrology.
Was. there a distinctly Slavic contribution to the ancient body of knowledge we call "astrology"?
 

Cap

Well-known member
Was. there a distinctly Slavic contribution to the ancient body of knowledge we call "astrology"?
I've read somewhere that Vinča culture people were "star watchers" and there are many ancient stone circles all over the Balkans that probably served for tracking of Sun's movement during various periods of the year. Ancient Slavic pantheon of gods was closely related to nature and natural phenomena including the sky. So no, not contribution to astrology as we know it today, but they were aware of changes in the sky.
 

Edrek

Active member
To give more perspective to the theme of this old thread about the ugly collapse of one Age and the bloody birth of a new Age, which includes both the astrological Age of Pisces transitioning to that of Aquarius and the Kali Yuga transitioning to the Dwapara, I would like to quote a few scholars who suspect, as some of you have, that human beings just didn't suddenly, accidentally "evolve" into a superior intellect - a pathological intellect that is rapidly becoming humanity's own undoing.

It has been hypothesized that there was some kind of selective "intelligent design" (and not one of Universal Goodness) actively responsible. Many paleontological and mythological clues strongly suggest that our species was given an artificial boost in specific ways for specific purposes a long time ago and the rest our evolutionary qualities have never caught up - in fact, they are even now being outstripped by these "select ways" at such an alarming rate that we seem doomed to destroy ourselves or at the very least our entire present civilization. The end of the Age.

I quote from a favorite (and tragically undervalued) writer/philosopher, Arthur Koestler:

Ghost in the Machine: Chapter 16: "A Tumorous Overgrowth"
"Before congratulating ourselves on having such a superior brain...we ought to pause and examine the possibility that man, too [like other types of animals limited in certain higher brain capacities by fundamental anatomical limitations] might carry a constructional fault inside his own skull...which potentially threatens his extinction....

"The first reason for this suspicion is the extraordinary rapidity of the evolutionary growth of the human brain - a feat, as we know, unique in evolutionary history. To quote Professor Le Gros Clark: 'It now appears from the fossil record that the hominid brain did not begin to enlarge significantly before the beginning of the Pleistocene. But from the middle of the Pleistocene onwards, it expanded at a most remarkable speed - greatly exceeding the rate of evolutionary change which had so far been recorded in any anatomical character in lower animals...The rapidity of the evolutionary expansion of the brain during the Pleistocene is an example of what has been termed "explosive evolution".'

"To quote from Judson Herrick's The Evolution of Human Nature:
The history of civilization is a record of slow but dramatic enrichment of human life interspersed with episodes of wanton destruction of all the accumulated rights of property and spiritual values. These episodic reversions to bestiality seem to be increasing in virulence, and in the magnitude of the resulting disasters until now, we are threatened with the loss of everything that has been won in our strugggle for the better life.
In the view of this record, it has been suggested that the enlargement of the human brain has gone so fast and so far that the result is actually pathological. Normal behaviour depends on the preservation of a balanced interplay between integrating and disintegrating factors and between the total pattern and local partial patterns. So...the human cortex is a sort of tumorous overgrowth that has got so big that its functions are out of normal control and 'race' erratically like a steam engine that has lost its governor."

In other words, our cold intelligence has evolved exponentially faster than any other part of our sentient nature (e.g., ethics, empathy, love, concern for others, concern for survival of life). It is all out of proportion to the rest of our evolution, unseen in any other kind of evolution. What triggered this "tumorous growth" -this dooming self-destructive imbalance happen? (Which no rational person could attribute to mere chance!) There are logical hypotheses with growing evidence, most of which the mainstream keep marginalized, along with how in the world the Great Pyramids were built.

Arthur Koestler stated: "Only three species regularly murder en masse members of their own species: Ants, rats, and humans." Not too flattering a group to be part of. But we're proving it to be true every single day now. The striking distinction of humans vs. ants and rats is that, due to their "tumorous" amoral intelligence, humans have continued inventing - at an ever-increasing rate - new and more horrible ways to totally destroy masses of their own species, and collaterally most other life on earth.
 

Cap

Well-known member
To give more perspective to the theme of this old thread about the ugly collapse of one Age and the bloody birth of a new Age, which includes both the astrological Age of Pisces transitioning to that of Aquarius and the Kali Yuga transitioning to the Dwapara, I would like to quote a few scholars who suspect, as some of you have, that human beings just didn't suddenly, accidentally "evolve" into a superior intellect - a pathological intellect that is rapidly becoming humanity's own undoing.

It has been hypothesized that there was some kind of selective "intelligent design" (and not one of Universal Goodness) actively responsible. Many paleontological and mythological clues strongly suggest that our species was given an artificial boost in specific ways for specific purposes a long time ago and the rest our evolutionary qualities have never caught up - in fact, they are even now being outstripped by these "select ways" at such an alarming rate that we seem doomed to destroy ourselves or at the very least our entire present civilization. The end of the Age.

I quote from a favorite (and tragically undervalued) writer/philosopher, Arthur Koestler:

Ghost in the Machine: Chapter 16: "A Tumorous Overgrowth"
"Before congratulating ourselves on having such a superior brain...we ought to pause and examine the possibility that man, too [like other types of animals limited in certain higher brain capacities by fundamental anatomical limitations] might carry a constructional fault inside his own skull...which potentially threatens his extinction....

"The first reason for this suspicion is the extraordinary rapidity of the evolutionary growth of the human brain - a feat, as we know, unique in evolutionary history. To quote Professor Le Gros Clark: 'It now appears from the fossil record that the hominid brain did not begin to enlarge significantly before the beginning of the Pleistocene. But from the middle of the Pleistocene onwards, it expanded at a most remarkable speed - greatly exceeding the rate of evolutionary change which had so far been recorded in any anatomical character in lower animals...The rapidity of the evolutionary expansion of the brain during the Pleistocene is an example of what has been termed "explosive evolution".'

"To quote from Judson Herrick's The Evolution of Human Nature:
The history of civilization is a record of slow but dramatic enrichment of human life interspersed with episodes of wanton destruction of all the accumulated rights of property and spiritual values. These episodic reversions to bestiality seem to be increasing in virulence, and in the magnitude of the resulting disasters until now, we are threatened with the loss of everything that has been won in our strugggle for the better life.
In the view of this record, it has been suggested that the enlargement of the human brain has gone so fast and so far that the result is actually pathological. Normal behaviour depends on the preservation of a balanced interplay between integrating and disintegrating factors and between the total pattern and local partial patterns. So...the human cortex is a sort of tumorous overgrowth that has got so big that its functions are out of normal control and 'race' erratically like a steam engine that has lost its governor."

In other words, our cold intelligence has evolved exponentially faster than any other part of our sentient nature (e.g., ethics, empathy, love, concern for others, concern for survival of life). It is all out of proportion to the rest of our evolution, unseen in any other kind of evolution. What triggered this "tumorous growth" -this dooming self-destructive imbalance happen? (Which no rational person could attribute to mere chance!) There are logical hypotheses with growing evidence, most of which the mainstream keep marginalized, along with how in the world the Great Pyramids were built.

Arthur Koestler stated: "Only three species regularly murder en masse members of their own species: Ants, rats, and humans." Not too flattering a group to be part of. But we're proving it to be true every single day now. The striking distinction of humans vs. ants and rats is that, due to their "tumorous" amoral intelligence, humans have continued inventing - at an ever-increasing rate - new and more horrible ways to totally destroy masses of their own species, and collaterally most other life on earth.

Great post!

I would like to add, the problem is not just rapid development of human intelligence but also the lack of intelligence. We humans like to think about ourselves that we are "the absolute masters of Earth", "the only intelligent species". This is far from true. Whoever designed humans, designed them to be just intelligent enough to perform certain tasks but not intelligent enough to challenge the designers. Humans were designed to be the race of primitive slaves.

Our intelligence is not much greater than intelligence of other animals, probably we are not even the most intelligent species on the planet.

For example, orangutan Sandy scored 75 on IQ test live on TV, beating some of human competitors. Gorilla Koko scored between 70-90 on IQ tests. It is believed that elephants maintain 3D map of all places they ever visited in their life in their memory. This map is even updated with new information obtained through communication with other elephants. Chimps beat humans regularly in computer memory games. Dolphins, who are the most intelligent species on the planet IMO, can understand human language but we cannot understand theirs. And so on....

For all we know, the lowest threshold of what is called intelligence elsewhere in the universe could be IQ 1000 or IQ 2000. And we humans, with our average IQ 100 love to brag how intelligent we are. If we ever encounter some really intelligent species, with say IQ 2000, we would be nothing more than exotic animal to them, a ZOO specimen (but they probably don't have such barbaric concept as ZOO).

Considering that we are not that intelligent as we believe we are, our current situation is not much different than bunch of chimps sitting in front of red nuclear button and pondering whether to press it.

Frankly, I wouldn't rate humanity's chances too high.
 
Last edited:
Top