Were Ancient Macedonians different from Greeks
pavel
[some material for a thought]
from the book "Alexander the Great", Vol. 2, Sources and Studies,
by W. W. Tarn, Cambridge Universiy Press,
paperback edition 2002
ISBN 0 521 53137 3
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521531373
also in part in Internet in Google books
in p. 375,
[after the explanation for the deification of Alexander and who has
sent the embassies to Babilon]:
...
Phoenicians, and all the dwellers along the coast as long as the
pillars of Heracles; from Europe, the Greek cities and the Macedonians
(Makedones), the Illyrians and most of the dwellers along the
Adriatic, the Thracian tribes and the Galatae who dwelt near them
(plisioksopon) and whose race (or tribe, genos) then first became
known to the Greeks.
...
The Macedonians in 323 B. C. could not have sent an embassy to their
own king, even had they wished to, for they had no way of doing it;
they had no means of corporate expression except through Alexander
himself, who was the Macedonian state.
...
in p. 377
...
[see later the dealing of Alexander with the Greek embassies, which he
divided into five classes: those who came about the sacred things,
those who brought gifts, those who came about boundary disputes, those
who came about idiotika - which probably means special questions of
some kind, not internal affairs which would be dimosia, and those who
objected to the return of the exiles. ] [no Macedonians at all,
although a lot of Greeks]
[All shows that Macedonians have been different from the Greeks,
although Alexander has lead the Hellenization process. Of course, the
ancient Macedonians have nothing common with the inhabitants of the
Republic of Macedonia, which are Slavs. But we have to be strict to
the historical truth.]
gogu
news:f64bfab2-e7bc-49ec...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Were Ancient Macedonians different from Greeks
> [All shows that Macedonians have been different from the Greeks,
> although Alexander has lead the Hellenization process. Of course, the
> ancient Macedonians have nothing common with the inhabitants of the
> Republic of Macedonia, which are Slavs. But we have to be strict to
> the historical truth.]
You are a FANATIC IDIOT!
Of course Macedonians were Greek, there, educate yourself convict!
---------
Polybios 9.37.7-39.7
Speech of Lykiskos, the representative of Akarnania
to the Lakedaimonians (Spartans):
"In the past you rivalled the Achaians and the Macedonians, peoples of your
own race, and Philip, their commander, for the hegemony and glory, but now
that the freedom of the Hellenes is at stake at a war against an alien
people Romans, ...And does it worth to ally with the barbarians, to take the
field with them against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the
Boiotians, the Thessalians, in fact with almost all the Hellenes with the
exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation...
...So Lakedaimonians it is good to remember your ancestors,... be afraid of
the Romans... and DO ALLY yourselves with the Achaians and Macedonians. But
if some the most powerful citizens are opposed to this policy at least stay
neutral and do not side with the unjust."
And this:
"From: http://sersun1.essex.ac.uk/~jprodr/sancpol1.html
For fair use only
Polybios 38.1-3.8
The 38th book contains the completion of the disaster of the
Hellenes. For though both the whole of Hellas and her several parts
had often met with mischance, yet to none of her former defeats can
we more fittingly apply, the name of disaster with all it signifies than to
the events of my own time. ...In the time I am speaking of a common
misfortune befell the Peloponnesians, the Boiotians, the Fokians, the
[Eub]oians, the Lokrians, some of the cities on the Ionian Gulf, and finally
the Macedonians."
As you see above, folks, the Hellenes who had the 'common disaster' in
Polybios' 'own time' are listed as:
"the Peloponnesians,
the Boiotians,
the Fokians,
the [Eub]oians,
the Lokrians,
some of the cities on the Ionian Gulf,
and finally the Macedonians"
And as for the creation of Macedonia by Greeks you only have to read
these:
Herodotos:
For fair use only
From: http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html
"Afterwards he turned his thoughts to the alliance which he had been
recommended to contract, and sought to ascertain by inquiry which
was the most powerful of the Grecian states. His inquiries pointed
out to him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the
Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter
of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held from very, early
times the most distinguished place in Greece, the (latter) being a Pelasgic,
the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original
seats, while the other had been excessively migratory; for during the
reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt,
but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base
of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from
that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedni,
in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to
Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way,
they became known as Dorians."
Clearly, Herodotos states above that the HELLENIC tribe was the Macedonians
and (a group of them) went south and were known
there as Dorians (as you also saw from Polybios above)!
-----------------
Thucydides Histories 2.99.1 - 2.99.6
[2.99.1]
Assembling in Doberus, they (the Thracians) prepared for
descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia,
where the dominions of Perdiccas lay;
[2.99.2]
for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland,
though Macedonians by blood and allies and, dependents of
their kindred, still have their own separate governments.
[2.99.3]
The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia,
was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas,
and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.
This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians,
who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places
under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon
(indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea
is still called the Pierian gulf)
of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians,
from Bottia,
[2.99.4]
and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along
the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea;
the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon,
being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians.
[2.99.5]
From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of
whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca,
and the Almopians from Almopia.
[2.99.6]
These Macedonians also conquered places belonging
to the other tribes, which are still theirs--Anthemus, Crestonia,
Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now
called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces,
Perdiccas, Alexander's son, was the reigning king.
----------------------
Arrian
The Campaigns of Alexander.
Alexander talking to the troops before the battle.
Book 2-7
Penguin Classics.
Page 112.
Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt.
" ...............There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service --
but how different is theirs cause from ours ! They will be fighting for
pay--- and not much of it at that; we on the contrary shall fight for
Greece, and our hearts will be in it.
As for our foreign troops ---Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,
Agrianes --- they are the best and stoudest soldiers of Europe, and
they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes
of Asia."
-----------------
"Alexander (died B.C.E.) By Plutarch
Written A.C.E.
Translated by John Dryden
It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended
from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the
mother's side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite
young, fell in love there with Olympias, in company with whom he was
initiated in the religious ceremonies of the country, and her father and
mother being both dead, soon after, with the consent of her brother,
Arymbas, he married her.
While he was thus deliberating what to do, it happened that a spring of
water near the city of Xanthus in Lycia, of its own accord, swelled over
its banks, and threw up a copper plate, upon the margin of which was
engraven in ancient characters, that the time would come when the
Persian empire should be destroyed by the Grecians. Encouraged by
this accident, he proceeded
Having passed through the wilderness, they came to the place where
the high priest, at the first salutation, bade Alexander welcome from his
father Ammon. And being asked by him whether any of his father's
murderers had escaped punishment, he charged him to speak with more respect,
since his was not a mortal father. Then Alexander, changing his expression,
desired to know of him if any of those who murdered Philip
were yet unpunished, and further concerning dominion, whether the
empire of the world was reserved for him? This, the god answered,
he should obtain, and that Philip's death was fully revenged, which
gave him so much satisfaction that he made splendid offerings to
Jupiter, and gave the priests very rich presents. This is what most
authors write concerning the oracles. But Alexander, in a letter to
his mother, tells her there were some secret answers, which at his
return he would communicate to her only. Others say that the priest,
desirous as a piece of courtesy to address him in Greek, "O Paidion,
" by a slip in pronunciation ended with the s instead of the n, and
said "O Paidios," which mistake Alexander was well enough pleased
with, and it went for current that the oracle had called him so.
He made the longest address that day to the Thessalians and other Greeks,
who answered him with loud shouts, desiring him to lead them on against the
barbarians, upon which he shifted his javelin into his left hand, and with
his right lifted up towards heaven, besought the gods, as Callisthenes tells
us, that if he was of a truth the son of Jupiter, they would be pleased to
assist and strengthen the Grecians.
Amongst other things he happened to observe a large statue of Xerxes thrown
carelessly down to the ground in the confusion made by the multitude of
soldiers pressing into the palace. He stood still, and accosting it as if it
had been alive, "Shall we," said he, "neglectfully pass thee by, now thou
art prostrate on the ground because thou once invadedst Greece, or shall we
erect thee again in consideration of the greatness of thy mind and thy other
virtues?" But at last, after he had paused some time, and silently
considered with himself, he went on without taking any further notice of it.
In this place he took up his winter quarters, and stayed four months to
refresh his soldiers. It is related that the first time he sat on the royal
throne of Persia under the canopy of gold, Demaratus the Corinthian,
who was much attached to him and had been one of his father's friends,
wept, in an old man's manner, and deplored the misfortune of those
Greeks whom death had deprived of the satisfaction of seeing Alexander
seated on the throne of Darius.
The most celebrated of them was Thais, an Athenian, mistress of Ptolemy, who
was afterwards King of Egypt. She, partly as a sort of well-turned
compliment to Alexander, partly out of sport, as the drinking went on, at
last was carried so far as to utter a saying, not misbecoming her native
country's character, though somewhat too lofty for her own condition. She
said it was indeed some recompense for the toils she had undergone in
following the camp all over Asia, that she was that day treated in, and
could insult over, the stately palace of the Persian monarches. But, she
added, it would please her much better if, while the king looked on, she
might in sport, with her own hands, set fire to the court of that Xerxes who
reduced the city of Athens to ashes, that it might be recorded to posterity
that the women who followed Alexander had taken a severer revenge on the
Persians for the suffering, and affronts of Greece, than all the famed
commanders had been able to do by sea or land. What she said was received
with such universal liking and murmurs of applause, and so seconded by the
encouragement and eagerness of the company, that the king himself, persuaded
to be of the party, started from his seat, and with a chaplet
of flowers on his head and a lighted torch in his hand, led them the way,
while they went after him in a riotous manner, dancing and making loud
cries about the place; which when the rest of the Macedonians perceived,
they also in great delight ran thither with torches; for they hoped the
burning and destruction of the royal palace was an argument that he looked
homeward, and had no design to reside among the barbarians. Thus
some writers give their account of this action, while others say it was
done deliberately; however, all agree that he soon repented of it, and
gave order to put out the fire.
Now, also, he more and more accommodated himself in his way of living to
that of the natives, and tried to bring them also as near as he could to the
Macedonian customs, wisely considering that whilst he was engaged in an
expedition which would carry him far from thence, it would be wiser to
depend upon the good-will which might arise from intermixture and
association as a means of maintaining tranquillity, than upon force and
compulsion. In order to this, he chose out thirty thousand boys, whom he put
under masters to teach them the Greek tongue, and to train them up to arms
in the Macedonian discipline.
For to go on in order, Demaratus of Corinth, now quite an old man, had made
a great effort, about this time, to pay Alexander a visit; and when he had
seen him, said he pitied the misfortune of those Grecians, who were so
unhappy as to die before they had beheld Alexander seated on the throne of
Darius. But he did not long enjoy the benefit of the king's kindness for
him, any otherwise than that soon after falling sick and dying, he had a
magnificent funeral, and the army raised him a monument of earth fourscore
cubits high, and of a vast circumference. His ashes were conveyed in a very
rich chariot, drawn by four horses, to the seaside.''
So, Schneider, there is not much one can say for the quality of your
arguments besides the following:
P Gevgeliev wrote in "Skopje revives macedonian spectre", Free
Bulgaria,pp229-230,
It is true that we have given up the teaching of "Macedonian history", a
high falutin term for the ravings of a handful of maniacs in Skopje who are
so far gone in their nationalistic dementia and mental aberration as to
claim that the present "Macedonian" people are descendants of
Alexander the Great.
These "historians" seem to overlook the fact that the Slav tribes came to
this territory fully a thousand years after the death of Alexander the
Macedon."
-------------
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
gogu
news:f64bfab2-e7bc-49ec...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> [some material for a thought]
> divided into five classes: those who came about the sacred things,
> those who brought gifts, those who came about boundary disputes, those
> who came about idiotika - which probably means special questions of
> some kind, not internal affairs which would be dimosia, and those who
> objected to the return of the exiles. ] [no Macedonians at all,
> although a lot of Greeks]
>
> [All shows that Macedonians have been different from the Greeks,
> although Alexander has lead the Hellenization process. Of course, the
> ancient Macedonians have nothing common with the inhabitants of the
> Republic of Macedonia, which are Slavs. But we have to be strict to
> the historical truth.]
CONVICT, below, you may read historians' statements showing that the
ancient Macedonians were indeed Greek.
But of couse, all these historins know nothing and we must believe the
ultimate historian authority, Pavel the extremist slav;-)))
--------------
For fair use only:
The inhabitants of this area (Macedonians) were one of the most ancient
Greek tribes. Their closest relatives were the Thessalians and particularly
the Magnesians, with whom they shared Aeolian ancestry. The language they
spoke was among the oldest forms of Greek, and it had affinities
with the Aeolian, Arcado-Cypriot and Mycenean dialects. The religion
of the Madeconians was that of the other Greeks, and their myths and
traditions were those found throughout the Greek world
(Wells, The Outline of History, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of
World History).
"The Macedonian people and their kings were of Greek stock, as their
traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify."
John Bagnell Bury, "A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the
Great", The Modern Library, New Uork, 1913
"It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe
related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant
north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the
Greek people that migrated southward...".
Ul. Wilcken, Alexandre le Grand, op. cit., p. 33:
"A strong Illyrian and Thracian influence can thus be recognized in
Macedonian speech and manners. These however are only trifles compared
with the Greek character of the Macedonian nationality; for example the
names of the true full blooded Macedonians, especially of the princes
and nobles, are purely Greek in their formation and sounds."
Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", Norton & Company, 1967
"And yet when we take into account the political conditions, religion and
morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a
Greek race akin to the Dorians."
Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", Norton publications, 1967.
"the majority of the new generation of historians ......
agree, and rightly so, that the Macedonians were Greeks".
Herman Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte4, Muenchen 1969, p. 305:
"That the Macedonians were of Greek stock seems certain. The claim
made by the Argead dynasty to be of Argive descent may be no more
than a generally accepted myth, but Macedonian proper names, such as
Ptolemaios or Philippos, are good Greek names, and the names of the
Macedonian months, although differed from those of Athens or Sparta,
were also Greek. The language spoken by the Macedonians, which
Greeks of the classical period found intelligible, appears to have been
a primitive north-west Greek dialect,
much influenced by the languages of the neighboring barbarians."
J.R. Hamilton, "Alexander the Great", London, 1973
"These plains would be the envy of any Greek visitor who crossed their
southern border by the narrow vale of Tempe and the foot of Mount Olympus.
He would pass the frontier post of Heraclion, town of Heracles, and stop at
the harbour town of Dion, named after the Greek god Zeus, ancestor of the
Macedonian kings, and site of a yearly nine-day festival of the arts in
honour of Zeus and the nine Greek Muses. There he would walk through city
gates in a wall of brick, down the paved length of a sacred way, between the
theatre, gymnasiums and a temple with Doric pillars: suitably, the nearby
villages were linked with the myth of Orpheus, the famous bard of Greek
legend. He was still in a world of Greek gods and sacrifices, of Greek plays
and Greek language, though the natives might speak Greek with a northern
accent which hardened 'ch' into 'g'. 'th' into 'd' and pronounced King
Philip as 'Bilip'. Bearing on up the coast, he would find the plain no less
abundant and the towns more defiantly Greek."
Robin Lane Fox, "Alexander the Great", The Dial Press Publications, 1974
"In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their
language: the place-names, names of the months and personal names,
which are without exception Greek in roots and form. This suggests that
they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives
(though with a local accent which turns Philip into Bilip, for example).
The Macedonians' own traditions derived their royal house from one
Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty,
the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos
in Greece, the first of these kings was Perdiccas. This tradition became
a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon. It enabled
Alexander I to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes
were allowed to do).... The Macedonians, then, were racially Greek."
Richard Stoneman, "Alexander the Great", Routiledge, London and
New York, 1977
"Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost
unanimously recognizes them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and
"Northwest Greeks" who, after long residence in the north Pindus region,
migrated eastward. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written
text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months and the like
suggest strongly that it was a Greek dialect. Macedonians institutes, both
secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics, and legends
identify or link the people with the Dorians."
John V.A. Fine, "The Ancient Greeks a Critical History", Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts, 1983
Taken from N. G. L. Hammond's "The Macedonian State:
The Origins, Institution and History," Calrendon Press, Oxford,
1989, pp. 413.pp. 12-14:"
4. The Language of the Macedonians.
What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself
is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means
'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such
as 'Orestai' amd 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly
earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,'
as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun mekos.'
The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod
recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek
speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes;
as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic
dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to
suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect.
Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins
of Hellen's three sons -- Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus -- who
were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely
Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored this
relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh
century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the
sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples
of their province in Europe, and one of them was the
'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.'
[27] There were Greeks in Greek city-states here
and there in the province, but they were of various origins
and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.'
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to
be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth
century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and
modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking
family.
[28] Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making
a false statement about the language of the Macedonians,
who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars.
They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited,
[29] and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names,
or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words
which have been cited as 'Macedonian' in ancient lexica and
glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for
some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not
Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the
Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples
who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they
certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors
of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a
verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.' [30]
The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are
the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea,
Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae,
Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon,
Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus.
The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek;
Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded,
and its river Ascordus were Phrygian. [31]
The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names
which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek,
and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings.
To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the
Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way
of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and
not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can
see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes
'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively
that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek
and used names which were Greek. [32]
In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive
terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people.[33]
In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander
the Great and the early successors there are mentions of
a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the
original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander
'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'),
as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that
there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers
spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians
who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the
order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in
the 'koine.' [34] it is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad
dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a particular
purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who
usually spoke the King's English.The use of this dialect among
themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers
(rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made
clear in the report -- not in itself dependable -- of the trial of
a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in
which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect. [35]
In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted
to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen,
he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect,
in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the
other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they
expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian dialect
('Makedonisti'). [36] He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius
observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part
with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one
way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the
world of the Greek city-states. [27] See J. M. Balcer in 'Historia' 37
(1988) 7.[28] FGrH 4 F 74 [29] Most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar 33-51 disregards the evidence as set out
in e.g. HM 2.39-54, when it goes against his view that the
Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other
than Greek. [30] The matter is dicussed at some length
in HM 2. 39-54 with reference especially to O. Hoffmann,
'Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihre Volkstun' (Goettingen, 1906)
and J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens I (Athens, 1954);
see also Kalleris II and R. A. Crossland in the CAH 3.1.843ff.
[31] For Edessa see HM 1.165 and for the Phrygians
in Macedonia 407-14. Olympus occurs as a Phrygian personal
name. [32] See Hammond, 'Epirus' 419ff. and 525ff.
[33] As Badian, loc. cit. 42, rightly observes: 'this, of course,
is simple abuse.'[34] Plu. 'Alex.'51.6[35] Curtius 6.8.34-6.
[36] PSI XII 2(1951) no. 1284, Plu. Eun.14.11.
Badian, loc. cit. 41 and 50 n.66, discusses the former
and not the latter, which hardly bears out his theory that
Eumenes 'could not directly communicate with Macedonian
soldiers,' and presumably they with him. Badian says in his
note that he is not concerned with the argument as to whether
Macedonian was a 'dialect' or 'a language.' Such an argument
seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. We have a
similar problem in regard to Epirus, where some had thought
the language of the people was Illyrian. In Plu.'Pyrrh.'1.3
reference was made to 'the local 'phone,'' which to me means
'dialect' of Greek; it is so in this instance because Plutarch
is saying that Achilles was called 'in the local 'phone' Aspestos.'
The word 'Aspestos' elsewhere was peculiar to Greek epic,
but it survived in Epirus in normal speech. It is of course
a Greek and not an Illyrian word. See Hammond, 'Epirus' 525ff.,
for the Greek being the language of central Epirus
in the fifth century B.C. "
"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact
speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names
may be regarded nowadays as certain."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia",
Univ. of California Press, LA, 1990 Pg 3
Who Are The Macedonians 1995
Pgs 15/16
"Also, following Alexander's death, the rapid spread of Koine
based on Attic Greek made any distinction between Greek
and the language of 'the Macedonians' an academic one which
opposing camps continue to fight over. That Greek so easily
subsumed the local Macedonian dialect would indicate that
the dialect in Philip's time was not far removed from Greek
after all."
A.B. Boworth, "Conquest and Empire", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998,
Canto Edition
"Alexander ruled the world as his father had ruled Macedon, concentrating
power in his own hands and office to his Companions. In nationality the
Companions remained overwhemingly Hellenic."
---From Cambridge, Ancient Histories.
The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed
and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all
contending that it was a dialect of Greek. The increasing volume of
surviving public and private inscriptions makes it quite clear that there
was no written language but Greek. There may be room for argument
over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy,
but it is hard to imagine what kind of authority might sustain that. There
is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be
as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent.
"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greeks all had their
origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now,
political struggle created the prejudice. The orator Aischines once even
found it necessary, in order to counteract the prejudice vigorously fomented
by his opponents, to defend Philip on this issue and describe him at a
meeting of the Athenian Popular Assembly as being 'Entirely Greek'.
Demosthenes' allegations were lent on appearance of credibility by the fact,
apparent to every observer, that the life-style of the Macedonians, being
determined by specific geographical and historical conditions, was different
from that of a Greek city-state. This alien way of life was, however, common
to western Greeks of Epeiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the
Macedonians, and their fundamental Greek nationality was never doubted.
Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was
the issue raised at all."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", Univ. of California Press,
LA, 1990
"The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most
easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia
but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their
monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia,
suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in
principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle
the Illyrian problem at its roots."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press,
1990.
"A new force began to make itself felt on the northern fringe of Hellas,
the kingdom of Macedon. Some people -Macedonians for the most
part- claimed it to be a Greek state and part of the Greek world. The
Macedonians spoke Greek and attended Hellenic festivals; their kings claimed
to be descented from Greek families- from Achilles, the great Achaean hero
of the Iliad, no less."
J.M. Roberts, "A Short History of the World", Oxford University Press,
New York, 1993
"Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine,
descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as
Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian...The Macedonians
over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member
of the Greek-speaking peoples."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth & Co. Ltd.,
London, 1994
"As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the
same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for
service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At
one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were
doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were
speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was
Greek-speaking throughout."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London,
1994
MACEDON
"Outlying Greek kingdom north of Thessaly, inland from the Thermaic Gulf,
on the northwest Aegean coast...Its name came from an ancient Greek
word meaning highlanders...Macedon was inhabited by various peoples
of Dorian-Greek, Illyrian, and Thracian descent, who spoke a Greek dialect
and worshipped Greek gods...Unification and modernization came gradually,
at the hands of kings of Dorian descent."
David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World.", Oxford, 1995
"Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers,
but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis
and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians
spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into
their territory, they were essentially Greeks."
Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece",
Penguin Publ., 1996
Hope this all helps;-)
pavel
> ? "pavel" <pavelmakedon...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:f64bfab2-e7bc-49ec...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Were Ancient Macedonians different from Greeks
>
> > [some material for a thought]
> > [see later the dealing of Alexander with the Greek embassies, which he
> > divided into five classes: those who came about the sacred things,
> > those who brought gifts, those who came about boundary disputes, those
> > who came about idiotika - which probably means special questions of
> > some kind, not internal affairs which would be dimosia, and those who
> > objected to the return of the exiles. ] [no Macedonians at all,
> > although a lot of Greeks]
>
> > [All shows that Macedonians have been different from the Greeks,
> > although Alexander has lead the Hellenization process. Of course, the
> > ancient Macedonians have nothing common with the inhabitants of the
> > Republic of Macedonia, which are Slavs. But we have to be strict to
> > the historical truth.]
>
> CONVICT, below, you may read historians' statements showing that the
> ancient Macedonians were indeed Greek.
> But of couse, all these historins know nothing and we must believe the
> ultimate historian authority, Pavel the extremist slav;-)))
--------------
explained the discussed by
W. W. Tarn writings of the ancient writers Diodorus - XVII - 4,5, and
Arrian VII - 23,2 . See
what has been written for the book of tarn by the Cambridge University
Press:
Tarn’s Alexander the Great, first published in 1948, has become a
classic and its importance for subsequent Alexander studies can hardly
be exaggerated. Based on a lifetime’s work and elegantly and
persuasively written, both volumes evoked immediate admiration - and
very soon sharp reaction. Little has in fact appeared on Alexander
over the last thirty years that has not been directly related to
Tarn’s book. Especially Volume II, with its detailed analysis of the
sources and discussion of the main historical cruces - such as
Cleitarchus’ date, the status of the Greek cities, Alexander’s
deification, his supposed plans for a world-kingdom and the famous
thesis that he sought to realise the ‘brotherhood of mankind’ - has
itself inspired scores of books and articles. For the scholar both
volumes are indispensable and their re-appearance is to be warmly
welcomed.
gogu
news:5e567c70-40b0-4b0b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 21 ???, 12:35, "gogu" <Ruminii_Sug_Pul@la_Greci.com> wrote:
--------------
>There are different opinions.
Nope (or better said, just an insignificant minority)!
There is only the well known slav revisionism and your inferiority complex
toward Greeks;-)
> You have poured a lot but you have not
>explained the discussed by
>W. W. Tarn writings of the ancient writers Diodorus - XVII - 4,5, and
>Arrian VII - 23,2 . See
>what has been written for the book of tarn by the Cambridge University
>Press:
You are avoiding the obvious but hey, that's hardly a surprise with
anti-Hellenic slavs like you;-)
So, what makes Tarn a "classic" and not N. G. L. Hammond, Wells, John
Bagnell Bury, Ul. Wilcken, Herman Bengtson, J.R. Hamilton, Robin Lane Fox,
Richard Stoneman, John V.A. Fine, Malcolm Errington, A.B. Boworth, J.M.
Roberts, David Sacks, Robert Morkot and so on...and so on...and so on...?!
Penguin Publ, Oxford, Gerald Duckword & Ltd, Oxford University Press,
California University Press, Cambridge, The Dial Press Publications, Norton
publications, Harvard University Press and so on...and so on...and so on...!
So here we have a plethora of historians against...one single historian and
you expect us to accept that one historian saying Macedonians were not
Greek, against 10ths of historians who say that Macedonians were Greeks!
So when you will "explain" the discussed with all the abovementioned
gentlemen, then I'll also explain the discussed by W. W. Tarn!!!
There!
As for the rest, amazing slav extremism!
Thank G-d by now the whole world knows you, your aim and your "classical"
revisionism!
You are the sad remnants of the Balkan history and the laughing stock of the
whole world!
PS
And of course you have no comment on the classical sources I have
provided in my other posting!
Why I am not surprised?;-)))
SteN
Well, here the key phrase is "Greek cities" - as long as Philip's and
Alexander's efforts were directed towards involvement into local policy
and ultimately subordinating these cities, no doubt, they were seen as
foreigners by AT LEAST a sound part from the local elites. And , of
course, we have the opposite trend - the Macedonian rulers tried to
prove their "Greekness" since this would serve their policy.
In a similar way should be considered the deification of Alexander -
when adopting the divinity as son of Amon he elisted himself into the
Egyption political, religious and cultural tradition. So, you have many
levels of identities related to power, politics and educational
background.
So, after the conquest of Greece and the emergence of the Hellenisctic
states in Asia, the notion of "Greek" changed dramatically, because now
the Greek oikomene consisted areas that had never been considered
"Greek" before. No wonder that the new Greek communities in the east saw
the "Greekness" of the Macedonians - they came to existence because of
the Macedonians.
Similar change of notions and attitudes occured in the old Greece itself
(if we can speak of "Greece" as a unity"), but that new sense of
community there coexisted with the old memories notions of the
city-state-nation. These memories and notions were readily evoked when
the political situation demanded it. So, the Romans, for instance took
advantage of them when came to "liberate Greece from the Macedonians".
Nevertheless, the same Romans took into account the sense of community
between the same "Macedonian occupiers" and the Greek cities in Italy .
ADR
Stef,
I agree with most of what you say. However, the point here is not how
the southern Greeks perceived the Macedonians or vice versa. The
point is if the Macedonians were actually Greeks. Perception is one
thing, reality is another.
Not only in my mind, but it is now fully accepted, that the
Macedonians were indeed Greek. They lived, however, in a world in
which Greekness had a specific definition much more parochial than
what we would accept or utilize today. In fact, the "Greekness" of
the Aetolians and Acarnanians, who got into the Greek world later than
the Macedonians was also questioned. It is not peculiar for a club to
be exclusive. It is apparent that the Macedonian kingdom only became
known in southern Greece during the Persian wars and even then -and
for a long time- its interaction with Greek cities south of Thessaly
were minor if any. Even so, Macedonia, from Alexander I to Philip II
tried very hard to prove its "Hellenicity" -the efforts of Archaelaos
are well known- even when it did not stand to gain much from the
effort in anything else than public relations. Thus, when the kingdom
inserted itself into Greek politics in more assertive manner (Philip
in the "Holy War"), it raffled some feathers. Dismantling the
Athenian nexus of dependencies in the north, the Theban hegemony and
the Spartan dominance of Peloponnese ruffled some more. Alexander's
support for the repatriation of exiles also rubbed southern cities the
wrong way. So, perceptions are important in many ways but the reality
is that we have absolutely no data to suggest that the Macedonians
were anything else but Greek from the onomastics (their names), their
religion, their language (and many findings exist today), and other
pieces of evidence which are by now voluminous and present in hundreds
of museums and archaeological sites.
And yes, as far as perceptions go, these were fully eradicated as the
3rd century BCE rolled on to the degree that Polybius, in his
histories, wrote an anti-Demosthenes essay damning Demosthenes
opposition to Philip (if one reads this, it is a strong allusion to
the fact that Greece, failing to unite, fell under the Romans -
although it does not appear so overtly).
SteN
Well, here is the corner stone of our principal disagreement - the way
we perceive ethnic and national. You take a more primordial stand when
discussing the Greek people while for me ethnic and national communities
are rather imagined communities. From my prospective, one would become
Greek when getting into the Greek word. And the cases of Alexander I ,
etc., quoted by you seem to support my thesis - the Hellenicity of
Alexander was not taken as granted, but it had to be proved. Have
thought, however, that by applying the criteria used at the time by
Alexander I, that is the Argive connection, the Lydians, for instance,
could also enlist as Greeks because they were ruled by the Heraclid
dynasty. So, the Greeks were a community and belonging to this community
depended on two factors - willingness to join in and acceptance.
Lyngos
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not go one step farther, or for the better two.
Who were the Hellenes (the ONLY) during Homer's times?
Who were the Hellenes before their descent into Pindus and later to
Peloponnesos?
We "forget" to place the *time* factor to the equarion and that
changes everything.
The Argives were NOT considered as Hellenes during Homer's times, and
yet,about1000 years later
they are asking others to prove their Hellenism.
Alexander the third was one of the most PURE Hellenes by BLOOD,and
yetmgistory books are talking of
Demosthenes'"Hellenism".
If the Macedonians were NOT Hellenes, and since the term was coined
after their occupation of Egypt,
WHY should such term had been coined? Why not instead of
Hellenism,have Macedonism?
Is exaxtly the same thing with all the Vlachs and Arvanites that
fought in 1821.
If they were NOT Hellenes, why not name the new state Vlachia or
Arvanitia instead of ELLAS ?
L.
ADR
> Well, here is the corner stone of our principal disagreement - the way
> we perceive ethnic and national. You take a more primordial stand when
> discussing the Greek people while for me ethnic and national communities
> are rather imagined communities.
I would agree that our modern perception is of nations as "imagined
communities". In the case of Macedon, it is difficult to say what was
applicable. They themselves were quite convinced about their
Hellenicity and wished that this to be recognized without any
arguments and you have certain persons in the southern Greek world
that were less willing to go with this proposition. Certainly, the
Macedonians did whatever possible to make sure that their claim of
Hellenicity was recognized. Certain rulers, like Archelaus, went to
extremes on this.
> From my prospective, one would become
> Greek when getting into the Greek word. And the cases of Alexander I ,
> etc., quoted by you seem to support my thesis - the Hellenicity of
> Alexander was not taken as granted, but it had to be proved. Have
> thought, however, that by applying the criteria used at the time by
> Alexander I, that is the Argive connection, the Lydians, for instance,
> could also enlist as Greeks because they were ruled by the Heraclid
> dynasty. So, the Greeks were a community and belonging to this community
> depended on two factors - willingness to join in and acceptance.
Well, as I discussed above, the willingness to join was a given from
Alexander I onwards. The willingness to accept is a more difficult
proposition. It is not as if in the ancient world mass media were
able to provide lots of information for a given subject. It is highly
unlikely that any Peloponnesian ever met a Macedonian when the issue
of Alexander's participation in the Olympic games came up for
discussion. It is also unlikely that any of them have ever heard of
Macedon. The only ones with some connection to Macedonia were traders
probably in Corinth and Athens. And there view of the Macedonians
were extremely limited, of a bucolic kingdom beyond the walls of their
colonies.
However, Herodotus who visited the area did not have any problems with
"acceptance" as well as a variety of Greeks who settled in cities of
Macedonia under under invitation from the kings of Macedon or for
commercial opportunities and this includes luminaries such as
Euripides who even wrote and produced plays in Pella. Nor did the
Thessalians had any problem with the Macedonians, with Macedonian
kings assuming the leadership position there "by election" (as in the
case of Philip II). Nor were there any problems in the Amphictyony
with the participation of Macedonia in the Holy war. There were at
that time even strong proponents of Macedonia in the leadership of a
crusade against Persia (Isocrates, Philippic). When you started
getting some feathers ruffled is when Philip decided to dismantle the
Athenian Empire in the North (justifiably so) and play hardball in
southern Greek politics.
In any case, my belief is that the "willingness to join and
acceptance" were already achieved midway the reign of Alexander III.
Following this death, the powerbrokers of the period do not assume
anything else but fight for primacy within a homogeneous world. It is
instructive that Perdiccas actually funded the Athenian attack against
Macedonia and Ptolemy the Peloponnesian attack against Macedonia in
the early decades of the 3rd century BCE. And Macedonia was actually
occupied twice by non-Macedonian armies in that period without anybody
really making any particular case out of it.
SteN
......
>
> In any case, my belief is that the "willingness to join and
> acceptance" were already achieved midway the reign of Alexander III.
> Following this death, the powerbrokers of the period do not assume
> anything else but fight for primacy within a homogeneous world.
Here I do disagree. In moments of disagreement lines between "Greeks"
and "Macedonians" were drawn, similar to those between Athenians and
Spartans in the past. As I said the struggle between local "ethnic" and
common "nationals" was alive. It was not a homogeneous world. There
might have been sense of cultural community between Alexandrians and
Athenians , yet local identities remained strong - especially in the
case with Athens.
ADR
> ADR wrote:
>
> ......
>
>
>
> > In any case, my belief is that the "willingness to join and
> > acceptance" were already achieved midway the reign of Alexander III.
> > Following this death, the powerbrokers of the period do not assume
> > anything else but fight for primacy within a homogeneous world.
>
> Here I do disagree. In moments of disagreement lines between "Greeks"
> and "Macedonians" were drawn, similar to those between Athenians and
> Spartans in the past. As I said the struggle between local "ethnic" and
> common "nationals" was alive. It was not a homogeneous world. There
> might have been sense of cultural community between Alexandrians and
> Athenians , yet local identities remained strong - especially in the
> case with Athens.
Local identities remained strong for a long time and even in modern
Greece. Nothing new here. You should not assume that modern Greece
is devoid of serious regional conflicts. In fact, it is these
conflicts that, in many ways, have shaped a lot of modern Greek
politics although they may not be that apparent from the outside.
Now, returning to the period in question: I just do not see such lines
between "Greeks" and "Macedonians" into the 3rd century. It is true
that Athens attacked Macedonia with the ostensible aim of "freedom of
Greece" in the faction that supported the war, but many southern Greek
cities sided with Macedonia and the Athenian effort was mostly
financed by Perdikkas and Harpalus.
When the differentiation of "Macedonia" and "Greece" surfaced, this
was mostly among specific groups that wanted the maintenance or
restoration of specific states (in the case of Athens, the restoration
of the Athenian empire). We well know from court cases (the affair of
the golden crown) that this was a position shared by a vocal
minority. Occassionally, this minority may have prevailed, but their
position should be counterbalanced by that of the opposing faction.
Nor should we overlook the fact that southern Greek states retain
parochial interests (such as Sparta) and pursued them against all
realities well into the 3rd century BCE.
These regional antagonism should not be taken as evidence of
"difference in nationality". This was never the issue. If this is
the case, then we can conclude that Tuscans are not Italians (etc,
etc). I am sure that you agree that if you look at the Italian
peninsula in the 15th century (and later), despite a common language
and many other similarities, Italian city states fought viciously
against each other to the degree that their own infighting open the
door to outside conquest (they replicated the ancient Greek experience
in the advent of Rome).
SteN
why they are called "ethnic" by most scholars. The polis shaped the
perception of society, group, community and the world. The Hellenistic
kingdoms, on the other hand, were despotic kingdoms where the power
structure reminded that of the destroyed Persian empire.
This was the chief marker when the line of difference between the Greek
cities and the Macedonian Hellenistic states was drawn. "Barbarian" did
not have only linguistic characteristics.
Remember Demostenes?
ADR
> The polis organization was the very bone of local identities.
Of course it was up to the 4th century. But later on, they
progressively lost their significance. Let's not forget that even
southern Greek cities combined themselves into Leagues to be able to
respond more effectively to outside challenges. In addition, the
polis was the essential structural unit of the hellenistic kingdoms
> That is
> why they are called "ethnic" by most scholars. The polis shaped the
> perception of society, group, community and the world. The Hellenistic
> kingdoms, on the other hand, were despotic kingdoms where the power
> structure reminded that of the destroyed Persian empire.
Now, we disagree sharply. This is not true. There was a despotic
element in hellenistic kingdoms but this was mostly directed towards
the oriental populations. The backbone of the hellenistic kingdoms
were the colonies that dotted the landscape and which were organized
very much along the lines of a typical polis, containing, all of them,
a local assembly (voulefterion). In fact, you would find this
organization in all cities in the kingdom of Macedonia in the 3rd
century BCE onwards. The move to the polis organization in Macedonia
(and other hellenistic kingdoms) is clearly illustrated by the fact
that the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaea were organized as
leagues of cities (unique in this manner in the Roman Principate).
The Antigonid kingdom of Macedonia even adapted a polis term for the
kingdom. At the time of Antigonos Doson, the state was renamed as
"The Macedonian Common" in accordance with polis institutions.
Despite the monarchical base of hellenistic kingdoms (including
Macedonia), the fact remains that the citizen backbone (those living
in the Greek colonies) felt that there was a mutual recognition of the
power of the citizenry and that of the king. The "constitutional"
arrangements of hellenistic monarchies did not resemble that of
monarchical western Europe. It is instructive that the local
assemblies in the Hellenistic east were retained throughout the period
of the principate although governance as a League of cities was
retained only in the provinces of Achaea and Macedonia (see Momsen)
> This was the chief marker when the line of difference between the Greek
> cities and the Macedonian Hellenistic states was drawn. "Barbarian" did
> not have only linguistic characteristics.
> Remember Demostenes?
What does Demosthenes have to do with hellenistic kingdoms? I agree
that the term "barbarian" did not have strictly linguist
characteristics, far from it, but I am not aware of how this has any
importance in the mid-3rd century BCE.