Search Results

Democratization in Macedonia appears to have established a “machocracy”, rule by men. This chapter examines how machocracy has contributed to the low supply and demand for female candidates in Macedonia. It is argued that organized pressure to recruit more women can increase the supply of female candidates and the demand of party leaders for them. The experience with the mixed electoral system implemented in 1998 shows that the wider introduction of proportional representation can improve women’s representation.

Examines past obstacles and presents opportunities for the development of regional cooperation, which, in the long run, remains a necessary precondition for peace and stability in south‐eastern Europe. Three dimensions of regional destabilization are addressed: the final disintegration of Yugoslavia (Serbia, Montenegro, Vojvodina), the direct destabilization of Kosovo's immediate neighbours (Macedonia and Albania) and the negative impact on other regional actors (Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, etc.). The chapter also summarizes the economic impact of the NATO intervention and the mixed record of the Stability Pact designed to foster post‐conflict regional cooperation. It argues that the real test for the moral issues that legitimized the intervention in Kosovo will be the European Union's (EU) ability to sustain a long‐term commitment to help establish a European future for the Balkans.

The main hypothesis of the chapter is that historically both Bulgaria and Macedonia have tended to adapt to an externally determined environment by opting for self‐limiting behaviour. This kind of ‘voluntary dependence’ arises where a subordinate ruling elite chooses not to exercise all the opportunities for sovereign decision‐making but instead accepts special favours from the hegemonic power. The chapter shows that such ‘survival techniques’ have defined the post‐communist positioning of Bulgaria and Macedonia. An examination of the specific patterns of democratization in Bulgaria and Macedonia is followed by an analysis of the international factors that have been the most influential in shaping events in both countries. The focus is on two factors: (1) the impact of the general international environment of Bulgaria and Macedonia; and (2) the actions of external power to influence events in these countries. The way in which these factors have impinged on specific developments is explored through several case studies. The chapter also points out to similarities between Macedonia and Bulgaria in the process of democratization and international influences. Both of them are considered as ‘islands of stability’ with experience of peaceful and negotiated transitions, and willingness to subordinate their national interests to Western strategic concerns despite the feeling of neglect and discrimination against the West.

The provinces of Epirus and Macedonia, although divided into distinct regions by their mountains, were important for the Roman Empire, particularly because they were crossed by the via Egnatia which snaked its way eastwards, serving as the vital link between Rome and Constantinople at a time when insecurity was increasing along the Danubian frontier. From the middle of the third century, cities in this part of the Empire were under threat and their fortifications were reinforced in the fifth (Thessalonika) and sixth centuries (Byllis under Justininian). There was prosperity in the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. During the fifth century, the houses of Philippi were partly transformed into workshops. The sixth century was difficult and the second half was especially bleak. However, contacts between east and west were still maintained, along with local production. From 540–550, however, barbarian invasions and plague worsened the general situation. Graves appeared inside the city walls. Archaeology (Slav pottery and fibulae) and texts (Miracula Sancti Demetrii) all demonstrate how hard times were from the 580s to the 630s.

A break between these two verses is fundamental to all partition theories of 2 Cor. In fact there is a smooth and natural connection, once it is recognized that Paul's mention of his success at Troas triggered a memory of the apostolic impact of the Macedonian churches (1 Thess 1:6‐8; Phil 2:14‐16), which evolved into a development on the nature of authentic apostolate.

This chapter focuses on four main chronological periods: the era prior to the arrival of the Huns, when the Goths were settled beyond the Danube; a first major phase of Gothic intrusion into the Balkans from 376 to the definitive departure of Alaric's Goths for Italy (407–408); the Hunnic era down to the late 460s; and, finally, from the arrival of the Amal-led Goths in Macedonia (473) until the departure of Theoderic the Amal for Italy (488–489). In each of these periods, the rhythm of relations between the Goths and the institutions of the Roman Empire as well as the population of the Balkans varied substantially, although some common themes and threads of development emerge. In each of them, it is also important to make a conceptual distinction between the Romanness generated by and for the central Roman state, and the Romanness of the provincial Roman populations of the Balkans.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of how the First World War brought about the disintegration of autocratic regimes in Europe and paved the way for the establishment of constitutional governments and the consolidation of nationalism. It then discusses the focus of this book, which is the settlement of refugees in rural areas of Greek Macedonia and on the role of the Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC), which, under the auspices of the League of Nations, supervised the project of refugee resettlement.

This chapter begins with a discussion of Macedonia — its regional boundaries, economy, and population — and the ‘Macedonian Question’. It then considers the factors that made Macedonia a politically sensitive region. Among these were the imminent political and social disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of nationalism among the Balkan peoples, the irredentist claims of the newly established Balkan states on territories outside their borders (and particularly on Macedonian lands inhabited by their unredeemed brethren), and finally Great Power rivalries in the area.

This chapter focuses on the establishment of the Greek Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC) in 1923, tasked with not only monitoring and administering the resettlement of the refugees but also to function in a similar capacity as regards the financial reconstruction of the Greek national state, at a time when Greece was in a dire state of emergency. Topics covered include the structure of the RSC, categories of refugees, and reasons for resettlement in rural Macedonia.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the forms of land tenure in different parts of Macedonia in order to provide a better understanding of the practices of the rural resettlement of refugees and the dynamics of the receiving society. It then discusses land reform and categories of land assigned to the Greek Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC).

This chapter begins with a discussion of differences in emigration patterns and the underlying factors that contributed to people leaving Macedonia among various ethnic groups. It then considers the question of the number of Slav-speakers remaining in Greek Macedonia. The figures proposed by Greek, Bulgarian, and Yugoslav historians to date show great differences between them as the purported ‘number’ of Slav Macedonians in Greek Macedonia has been and continues to be the basic argument used by concerned parties in promoting irredentist claims.

This chapter considers the geographical distribution of the refugees within Greece, and in particular in Macedonia, after their settlement. It also looks at the degree to which the refugees were successful in reconstituting their communities in their new lands.

The period after the reign of Alexander the Great is generally regarded as a depressing anticlimax. It was characterized by destabilisation and virtual anarchy, as the great king's marshals fought for the empire which he had allegedly left to the strongest of them. The army which he had led into Asia was dissipated in a sequence of futile civil wars, and the elite Macedonian troops were progressively reduced by combat, much of it against fellow Macedonians. Out of the conflict emerged a number of kingdoms, created by the ambitions of individual satraps, which gradually coalesced into hereditary dynasties.

No previous event in Macedonian history was anything like as turbulant as the Babylon Settlement. There had been succession crises aplenty, but all had been significantly different. Reigning kings left living sons. They may have been immature boys (like Archelaus' son, Orestes), but at least they were there — there was a plethora of males of the Argead house. So problems arose from an oversupply of potential kings. What is more, the succession to the throne was played out within the boundaries of Macedon, in the traditional heartland of the kingdom. Alexander himself came to power in the old capital of Aegae, with the entire nobility around him and the armed forces united in Macedonia. His accession may have been bloody, but the circumstances did not favour a protracted crisis. Rivals and potential rivals who were close at hand were quickly eliminated, and he was able to achieve recognition in Macedon and stamp his authority on the League of Corinth within a matter of weeks.

Few events are as important and contentious as the demographic effect resulting from Alexander's conquests. It is accepted that Macedonia was far weaker by the end of the 3rd century than had been the case under Philip and Alexander, but what caused the debilitation has been intensely disputed. One theory is that Alexander's demands for reinforcements, in particular the demands he made between 334 BC and 330 BC, drained the military resources of Macedonia and were ultimately responsible for her decline over the following century. This chapter explores the question concerning the strength of Alexander's army at the time of his death, along with the military situation between 323 BC and 319 BC, when Macedonian reserves were stretched to the full. The impact of the campaigns of those years, which were arguably more destructive — for Macedon — than the entire reign of Alexander, is discussed.

The Hellenistic period could be said to have arrived in a big bang. In 306 BC, four years after the sordid death of the last Argead king, Antigonus the One-Eyed declared himself and his son Demetrius kings, and assumed the diadem as the regalia of royalty. His example was followed almost immediately by Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander, not to mention Agathocles in Sicily. There was now a plethora of Macedonian kings who (with the exception of Cassander) held sway outside Macedon. Traditional scholarship has concentrated on the supposed contrast between Antigonus and the other kings; Antigonus was attempting to recreate the universal monarchy of Alexander, while the other dynasts had strictly regional bases of power. This chapter examines the nature of Hellenistic monarchy and the mutual expectations of ruler and subject.