Neoclassical Romania

Because they changed it and purged it of all Turkish and Italian loanwords. A Greek speaker in 1800 would not have been able to understand Ancient Greek, unless they had a classical education.
That's a ridiculous standard to measure by. An English person today wouldn't be able to understand an English person from the middle ages, either, but that doesn't mean there isn't a continuity in the culture and language.
 
Nationalism doesn't need to make sense. United-statians took their proud name from an Italian navigator in the service of the Spanish crown who never really set foot on their land and probably didn't even know about a land that would be later colonized by the British. By the way, the navigations are much more celebrated there than in the areas that actually took part in the events because Spanish America just happened to have a better national legend with ancient civilizations and stuff.

National narratives are not supposed to be true, not even plausible, only "glorious".
Americans don't believe Amerigo Vespucci was the founder of the USA, or that he had anything but a tangential role in its creation or its national myth. Americans call themselves Americans because that's what the continent was called by the time they got there, not out of any loyalty to a long-dead explorer.
 
That's a ridiculous standard to measure by. An English person today wouldn't be able to understand an English person from the middle ages, either, but that doesn't mean there isn't a continuity in the culture and language.

By 1800, English was entirely understandable in relation to the modern equivalent. On the other hand, the Greek state took efforts in purging the Greek language of Turkish and Italian loanwords in order to prove that they were the descendants of the ancients. They did the same to Turkish and Italian cultural elements. All in all, Greece took special efforts in making itself seem more ancient and disconnecting itself from its Roman and Ottoman history. Without this, modern Greek culture is linked to Ancient Greek history in the same sense that French culture is linked to ancient Roman history. Sure, some elements have been passed on, but so much has changed that it would be absurd to really call themselves Greeks in the ancient sense.

My point is that the Greek national identity is as much a product of much more recent nationalism as the Macedonian national identity.
 
By 1800, English was entirely understandable in relation to the modern equivalent. On the other hand, the Greek state took efforts in purging the Greek language of Turkish and Italian loanwords in order to prove that they were the descendants of the ancients. They did the same to Turkish and Italian cultural elements. All in all, Greece took special efforts in making itself seem more ancient and disconnecting itself from its Roman and Ottoman history. Without this, modern Greek culture is linked to Ancient Greek history in the same sense that French culture is linked to ancient Roman history. Sure, some elements have been passed on, but so much has changed that it would be absurd to really call themselves Greeks in the ancient sense.

My point is that the Greek national identity is as much a product of much more recent nationalism as the Macedonian national identity.

All cultures experience all sorts of transformations throughout time, spontaneous and semi-guided. I'm not sure why this one should be particularly singled out. It's no more invalidating then, say, Romania's adoption of the Latin alphabet - arguably, it's even less of a break.

Also, more than a few Macedonians think the recent focus on antiquity is pointless, tasteless, and tacky; and would prefer the country return to promoting a more grounded, Slavic-based identity for itself. And honestly, I sympathize with this view 100%.
 

Deleted member 97083

Isn't Romania neoclassical already? I mean, it was founded by reuniting the Romance speaking peoples of the Balkans, the name of the country means "land of the Romans", and the Romanian national anthem references Roman blood and the Emperor Trajan.
 
Americans don't believe Amerigo Vespucci was the founder of the USA, or that he had anything but a tangential role in its creation or its national myth.

Isn't this nation's capital the District of Columbia? Americans did use some of the great navigations heritage in order to create some national symbols.

Americans don't believe Amerigo Vespucci was the founder of the USA, or that he had anything but a tangential role in its creation or its national myth. Americans call themselves Americans because that's what the continent was called by the time they got there, not out of any loyalty to a long-dead explorer.

And why is it any different from the Macedonian situation?

I do not claim to be an expert on Balkanic Nationalisms, but I never heard anything about a Macedonian claiming that his country was founded by Alexander the Great.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this nation's capital the District of Columbia? Americans did use some of the great navigations heritage in order to create some national symbols.

Yes, but in an homage - nobody claims that Columbus was American/"One of us". (Or if they do, they deserve a scowl).

And why is it any different from the Macedonian situation?

I do not claim to be an expert on Balkanic Nationalisms, but I never heard anything about a Macedonian claiming that his country was founded by Alexander the Great.

They literally rename airports and build statues of Alexander and his father, claiming to be their descendants. Pella Square (after the old capital of the Kingdom of Macedonia in Greece).

However, Americans have a pretty well documented timeline of heritage from English settlers, alongside slaves, Germans, Italians, etc. They don't claim to be Italian, or German, but American (Of X stock perhaps).

Meanwhile... Macedonia isn't in the right place, it doesn't speak a language that could even be said to be descended from or related to Macedonian or a language in the same family.

PLUS - There is already a group of people who claim that legacy - with more backing them up in that regard.

My understanding now is that the Greek position is basically "Look, you ain't descended from Ancient Macedon, you're slavs, you came and invaded hundreds of years ago - sure, name yourselves after the region you're in NORTHERN Macedonia. But don't go and claim our heritage thank you, it isn't yours. Be Hellenophiles as much as you like, but you are the people who live in Northern Macedonia. Not Macedonians."

By and large - that sounds reasonable to me, and unless there is some evidence of Macedonian ancestry that I haven't seen, it sounds like the argument that wins.

---

Meanwhile, back to the threads OP - I am intrigued as to whether a Neoclassical Romania (in a more obvious way than IOTL) could set itself up early enough to set up a whole mess of Neoclassical Myths, or a wishful thought of unifying together in a federation based on territory and recognising individual differences, but collective defensive needs. (nicely circumventing the FYROM issues, and Yugoslavia) in favour of a Federation of Haemus (the old term for the region). If they could set that up based on a shared Neoclassical+ narrative, it could be pretty awesome. (Essentially a way for them to 'erase' their recent history of misfortune and subjugation).
 
They literally rename airports and build statues of Alexander and his father, claiming to be their descendants. Pella Square (after the old capital of the Kingdom of Macedonia in Greece).

Fair enough. Never heard about about it. But, as I said earlier, it isn't -much- more nonsensical than the other nationalisms we see everywhere in the planet.


Meanwhile... Macedonia isn't in the right place, it doesn't speak a language that could even be said to be descended from or related to Macedonian or a language in the same family.

PLUS - There is already a group of people who claim that legacy - with more backing them up in that regard.

French claim to both Gaullish ("nos ancêtres les Gaullois") and Frankish heritage and diminish their Latin ancestry - interestingly enough Roman heritage sites in France gain the weird label Gallo-Roman, as if it was a different civilization outside the Roman continuum. Also, as someone said earlier, both German and French people have a reasonable claim to Charlemagne's heritage.

The "They don't even speak related languages!" argument doesn't sounds reasonable to me if we compare to other well-established national fables everywhere.

PLUS - There is already a group of people who claim that legacy - with more backing them up in that regard.

My understanding now is that the Greek position is basically "Look, you ain't descended from Ancient Macedon, you're slavs, you came and invaded hundreds of years ago - sure, name yourselves after the region you're in NORTHERN Macedonia. But don't go and claim our heritage thank you, it isn't yours. Be Hellenophiles as much as you like, but you are the people who live in Northern Macedonia. Not Macedonians."

IMHO Greeks -only- fear irredentism. They both have a rightful claim to the geographical name of the area. To discuss which country has the best claim, IMHO, is pointless as all nationalisms are based on heroic fables without any commitment with historical truth.

By the way, I'm sorry if it seems like that I've derailed the topic. Now, going back to it, in my opinion OTL has shown that "everything goes" to create a national myth, remember how Germans used Indian symbols and renamed their race using the name of a nation in the Middle East...
 
Fair enough. Never heard about about it. But, as I said earlier, it isn't -much- more nonsensical than the other nationalisms we see everywhere in the planet.

I generally think Nationalism is stupid. So go team. But I do understand people like it. For some reason.

French claim to both Gaullish ("nos ancêtres les Gaullois") and Frankish heritage and diminish their Latin ancestry - interestingly enough Roman heritage sites in France gain the weird label Gallo-Roman, as if it was a different civilization outside the Roman continuum. Also, as someone said earlier, both German and French people have a reasonable claim to Charlemagne's heritage.

That isn't quite the same - nobody disputes that they have Latin, Gallic, and Germanic ancestries (Romans, Gauls, Franks respectively). Some might argue that the Charlemagne heritage point could be due to division - but I don't see why it can't be both, because... he conquered both, and is pretty much responsible for how both regions developed from there.

The "They don't even speak related languages!" argument doesn't sounds reasonable to me if we compare to other well-established national fables everywhere.

I'm less a fan of fables, I tend to think that fables don't actually contribute to whether you should or should not recognise someone as part of a group - but language is a big indicator. Sure you can have former Englishmen raised to speak Turkish, but as shown even in just a generation or two in the UK (and most diaspora communities), the generation born and raised in the UK, but with Indian parents - is a lot more British than Indian, and part of that is through integration, and assimilation - where language can be key.

IMHO Greeks -only- fear irredentism. They both have a rightful claim to the geographical name of the area. To discuss which country has the best claim, IMHO, is pointless as all nationalisms are based on heroic fables without any commitment with historical truth.

It is probably the only thing they fear, but I can imagine that Greek Macedonians have a measure of pride and don't take kindly to someone else taking their myths as their own - especially if they don't recognise their right to them (back to the central point).

By the way, I'm sorry if it seems like that I've derailed the topic. Now, going back to it, in my opinion OTL has shown that "everything goes" to create a national myth, remember how Germans used Indian symbols and renamed their race using the name of a nation in the Middle East...

I think there is a difference between cherry-picked adoption (in that case), and a justification for a nation. I don't think adopting the swastika and calling yourself Aryan really stopped anyone considering themselves German.

However, yes, this thread has taken the topic - flown over about 3 countries, settled, built a house, sold it, bought a boat and sailed around the world and back again. (I'll take as much blame for that as anyone else).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just because I finally have enough caffeine in my system to use full sentences I'm going to cut one and all here a big break.

THIS IS NOT CHAT!

Any, ANY further current political debate, arguments related to the break-up of Yugoslavia, and anything else that strays from the actual subject as posed by the OP that may be reported will NOT be looked upon in a good light.

We have an entire Forum dedicated to letting everyone go political. This isn't it.
 
Just because I finally have enough caffeine in my system to use full sentences I'm going to cut one and all here a big break.

THIS IS NOT CHAT!

Any, ANY further current political debate, arguments related to the break-up of Yugoslavia, and anything else that strays from the actual subject as posed by the OP that may be reported will NOT be looked upon in a good light.

We have an entire Forum dedicated to letting everyone go political. This isn't it.

With all due respect, the OP talks about "going neoclassical" and using anachronistic names for regions and countries. Therefore, a discussion about how national symbols were formed everywhere in a mostly arbitrary fashion in order to create a fantastic and glorious past to a given nation is important to the OP's question IMHO. That said, I may have used examples from "here, there and everywhere" as well, which might have derailed the core question of topic. However, I do think that understanding the concepts behind the question is just as important as the question itself.
 
Top